October 01, 2014, 02:19:13 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - risc32

Pages: 1 ... 16 17 [18] 19 20 ... 33
256
Lenses / lowlight lens Af action resource?
« on: November 12, 2012, 08:24:49 AM »
I'm looking for some info on how well different lenses Af in low light conditions. I haven't been able to find much of anything on the net thus far. I know much depends on the camera body, but i'd still like to get any info i possibly can. Anyone got any thing? I'm even thinking about getting my gear out and running it threw a bit of testing in my kids playroom while slowly dimming the lights to see what can be learned. but i have only a small lens collection, and most of the lenses I'm curious about I don't own. Thanks

257
I'm in the same boat you guys are in. It's a sad site to see me at a wedding reception holding a pose for so long to get a shot, while someone with a P&S can walk up and grab it much faster. Honestly, between this and the black AF points, i'm not sure that the initial reviews of this camera, the ones that were written up before the camera was released to the public, were at all legit. A few of those guys where wedding photographers, and i can say that they are 100% BS. 95% of wedding receptions are dark, and they are all lit to roughly the same level(cave!) and the 5dmk3 is lost. now it's not as lost as my 1dmk2 was, it was so lost it never found itself..
    hmmm, we now have a 1d level AF, do we get crap 1d level low light AF? I assumed that most of the 1dmk2's bad lowlight AF was due to it's design age, but maybe not. I think my 5d is about the same age, and it was much better.... hmmm, maybe it's something inherent in the 1d class AF, hence they will be no fix.  damn.

you guys tried using the spot focus setting?

258
Lenses / Re: 16-35 II vs. 24-70 II
« on: November 10, 2012, 02:56:02 PM »
I haven't, but as a happy owner of a 16-35mmv2 i'd eat my hat if the 24-70 didn't give it a sound beating. I consider a 24-70mm f2.8 a much less extreme design, coupled with the much higher price point and a handful or years newer design, i can't imagine anything less.

259
Lenses / Re: do image stabilisers decrease image quality?
« on: November 08, 2012, 08:24:50 PM »
so the lens elements, most of them you say, are "correcting" the image not improving it... hmmm. where i come from correcting problems IS improving the image. Maybe you are trying to say that all those silly elements are fouling things up, and that leads to more elements to fix these new problems, and so on, and so on. hmmm again, but i don't think so. i guess a billion dollar company with the better part of 100yrs making lenses can learn some stuff from us here.
  note to Canon HQ- use much fewer lens elements from now on cause companies like leica make do with only a handful.
  I've watched a few Canon lens production videos on youtube, namely the 500mmf4, and to me at least it looks like they have things well under control.
  as am typing and rereading your last post i've decided i don't even know what you're trying to say.

260
Lenses / Re: 24-70 F/4L IS - Why I will Buy/Not Buy this lens.
« on: November 06, 2012, 06:32:38 PM »
800 + 800 = 2300  ?

 At 1000 US yes, any higher, no. I like my recently purchased 24-105.

261
i missed a fair bit of shots for this very reason at a wedding shoot a week or two back. I only tried it with my 580. maybe i should have swapped that out for another model? i wouldn't have thought so, but between this and the black AF points, i'm about ready to try anything. I still can't believe that owners of the 7d were never bothered by the black AF points. that's just silly.

262
that's a very funny comparo, i nearly thought i was reading the onion.(reason to buy the 5d, 1/8000th shutter...) the 5d is a very good camera, but the mk2 is better in a number of ways, and you'll have to weight it's advantages -vs- cost for what sort of things you are looking accomplish. I have a 5d for a few years now and use it regularly, despite having a mk3. i think i've cleaned the sensor once.... maybe. the LCD isn't so bad, but clearly not current tech.

263
Lenses / Re: 35mm f1.4 -vs- 50mm 1.2
« on: November 02, 2012, 01:57:41 PM »
 Again, i know most everything about these lenses, except i have no first hand knowledge, and many of you do. Barring it all doesn't fall apart at smaller apertures(and i know it doesn't), i'm really only interested in stuff wide open to f2.8 or so. if i could get away with narrower i'd just use a zoom. how about if i ask this, is the IQ at f2 and below on both lenses crap, decent, good, or great? and that's without cutting any slack. i know f1.2 at 50mm and f1.4 at 35mm is tough, but i don't care. thanks

264
How about Crumpler? I've got one that would do what you need, it's nice. I forget what size, but they make many sizes.

265
Lighting / Re: Phottix Odin: Inaccuate high-ISO metering problem
« on: October 31, 2012, 08:55:52 PM »
couldn't agree more. nice shots, you have a good handle on all that chrome and your shots always have a certain look to them that i think is just awesome. Plus i see you in the center of that wheel.

266
Lenses / 35mm f1.4 -vs- 50mm 1.2
« on: October 31, 2012, 08:51:45 PM »
I've read all the reviews, I know all the stats, but i'd like to ask the collective.
                35mm f 1.4 -vs- 50mm f1.2 
 wide open to f5.6 or so, who's the sharpest in the center, and corners on FF.
  Is the 35mm sharper at f1.4 and f2 than the 50 at the same f-stops?

267
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Rokinon 14mm f/2.8
« on: October 31, 2012, 08:45:21 PM »
I'm almost in the same boat as the OP, so i'd also like to hear what you guys have to say. I read a review somewhere, "lenstip?" that showed very little coma wide open. well below what my personal threshold would be for coma.  the other option is to get an "astrotrac", for a bit more money, then shoot away at nearly any f stop i want, but then it changes things once you start having your camera moving on even longer exposures.. ay well....

268
Lighting / Re: Phottix Odin: Inaccuate high-ISO metering problem
« on: October 30, 2012, 08:25:52 PM »
Glad to hear there isn't a bug, and that you figured it out. My first real outing last saturday at a wedding shoot went well. At first it didn't fire and i was thinking about going to plan b. the wedding party was very ready to get to the reception, but i did another once over the settings and noticed that i must have bumped a slider on the receiver while mounting it on a light stand. i either knocked it to the wrong group, or channel, can't recall, but once corrected it worked perfectly. all formals after the ceremony done and in my car in about 20mins. yeah, i'm not to pleased with the lack of time. that and the fact i had two photographer friends of the bride/groom there as guests over my shoulder at times, but that's another story...

269
Lenses / Re: 24-105L vs 24-70 Tamron VC
« on: October 30, 2012, 08:14:02 PM »
to me warrantees don't mean much. I've never laid a finger on their 24-70 VC so i don't know, but my 24-105 is pretty tough. It's been tested for years, and has a great track record. If the tamron felt up to the task physically, focused well, and had good IQ my only problem with it would be the reverse focusing/zooming in relation to canon equipment. To me that's pretty much a deal breaker. That and the negative stuff roger at lens rentals has said about tamron service... i can't have that.

270
i'm on the eastern shore of maryland. frankly, i'm not impressed(with the storm, not your shots) lots of rain, some decent wind, but really not so great. we probably had 2 storms this last summer with more powerful wind, and while a lot of rain has fallen, it's never been hard. hell, just when my wife was saying it's unsafe for me to go out and get some shots of flooding(we are close to sea level, even a hard rain will cause flooding in spots), the mailman rolls up like it's just any other day.

Pages: 1 ... 16 17 [18] 19 20 ... 33