April 17, 2014, 03:05:49 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 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23 ... 30
301
Lighting / Re: TTL + remote simultaneously?
« on: September 05, 2012, 10:07:58 PM »
the pockect wizard's can do this, but it gets pricey, quickly.

302
Lenses / Re: Post your 24-70 II Experiences Here
« on: September 05, 2012, 10:06:43 PM »
first of all 30 years ago pro photographer did not use crap lenses. they used good primes because 30 years ago zooms sucked. plus they used something at least as large as 6x6, and that is pretty large stuff(compared to the little sissy things used now) giving it a big mechanical advantage.    today zooms are very good, and some are great. you are also wrong about that 35l and 50l being sharper than the 24-70mm v1. look it up, from brain's site at the digital picture, photozone, or some of the sites where they look at the 35l -vs- the 24-70 and others for astro work. the sometimes unloved 24-70 is pretty darn good.  from looking at the charts and what canon is asking and saying about this lens, it'll probably be everything we can hope for. (other than IS !) BTW- i've never seen any 50l chart or photo that was very sharp. if it was, i'd own one . but my 50mm1.8 stopped down a stop is much better in sharpness and it's a 100$ lens made or plastic with a plastic mount! the 35mm was very good at it's release , now a cheap korean 35mm 1.4 is sharper. now i said sharper, not better. i don't want to fool with it's other limitations for everyday use.   BTW- what happened to this thread?  and i'm only making it worse, sigh...

303
doesn't look like anything i've seen from a lens/filter/sun issue. looks like digital hijinks to me. I hate to say it, but if i was you i'd get in touch with whoever i bought that camera from and talk about getting a replacement.

304
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III Main Dial problem
« on: September 02, 2012, 10:57:53 PM »
actually, i think i know what it is, and i think it just needs to be disabled in the menu system. you just have to disable the "rubber band dispenser" feature.  damn, that was not cool, but i just couldn't help myself. i still stand by my first reply.

305
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1D X Structural Weakness
« on: September 02, 2012, 10:53:28 PM »
hope it's an easy, inexpensive fix. i'm a bit surprised how thin that casting looks. i don't know how thin they where in the past, or the techniques used to make them. from the complex shape and thin walls i would guess one of the high tech rotation methods. maybe one of the vacuum methods. anyway, hope it turns out to be no big deal.

306
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III Main Dial problem
« on: September 02, 2012, 08:37:13 PM »
sorry, i came here thinking you were going to rag on the lock button in the center of the left side dial. what a piece of crap that is.  what you have here is general weirdness. My 5d is from the first batch also and i haven't had any problems at all. of course now that i wrote that it'll lock up on me the next time i touch it. i think you need to place a call into canon HQ and get that resolved.

307
while i understand that there is more to something than set of numbers from a lone test. that is the empirical data that they use to test lenses, and they don't jive. you left out that TDP had to get his lens replaced due to it not operating properly, and that while i love ken, he is careful of exactly what words he uses. when he says it's the highest performing 21mm slr lens, he mean JUST that. not 24mm not 25mm, not 22. not zoom, not any other of thing.  I don't disagree of it's performance. I've never used one, but clearly it's awesome. I'm just telling you what i've read and seen. does it not have complex distortion? bye the numbers at photo zone, isn't it beaten by the canon? Doesn't it have high corner shading?  i think so.

308
Lenses / Re: Samyang 24mm f/1.4 Review
« on: August 30, 2012, 08:34:16 PM »
i'm not so sure i'm feeling that hyperfocal stuff. for my exp, focus does matter, even at 24mm. Does the samyang operate in 1/3 stops, 1/2? whole stops or some weird mix? very often setting my aperture precisely is of great importance, and i'm not talking about for DOF's sake. I for one don't care to screw around with anything but 1/3 stop increments everywhere. it's the only real complaint i have with my fuji MF rangefinder. 1/2 stop aperture, full stop shutter speed, what BS. then again running with no batteries and having as fast as 1/500th synch speed is sweet.

309
i'm sure there are variable at play here that have to be considered but since we are talking about the ziess 21mm f2.8 i for one would look pretty hard at the canon 24mm 1.4. is photozone biased? look at the resolution charts for the ziess and canon next to each other. they are full of praise for the ziess, and call the canon's performance a rollercoaster. well, i don't know what numbers they are looking at because their numbers show canon is better than the ziess everywhere, then drops off as the aperture is opened to amounts the ziess can't even reach. perhaps canon shouldn't have permitted this lens to open wider than f2.8, then it would have gotten better press. add autofocus, weather seals, and a 77mm filter size and it's really looking good. 

310
the other thing about the ziess is that is has a bit of complex distortion, and heavy corner shading at 2.8. also I noticed you didn't mention that it's manual focus only as a "con".  probably very nice working manual focus ring, but for me that's still a con.

311
Lenses / Re: 85mm f/1.2 ii or 135mm f/2
« on: August 27, 2012, 12:57:40 PM »
maybe you are just taking the photos from to close a range. i really doubt a lens's distortion would noticeably distort a face at all. unless you run it up on them, but that's not from the lens. but that's why i like my 70-200 at 200mm or break out the 300mm for tight shots.

312
Lenses / Re: When are Canon going to revise the aged 20mm F2.8 ?
« on: August 27, 2012, 12:39:46 PM »
with the recent updates of the 24mm and 28mm with no word on the 20mm i bet it's either not going to happen anytime soon, or never. i'd be interested in a wider than 24mm 1.4, but i don't see how they "need it". nobody else has it, and people seem to be doing just fine. it'd be cool just to throw one out there, maybe an 18mm 1.4. sure it'll cost $3,000, but it'll be a cool watermark. i just doubt it, esp with the economy in the crapper. besides, from what i've seen the 16-35mm has that 20mm spot at f2.8 covered and does it better, and if you can live with f4 you'd have to say the 17-40mm has it covered as well. but, what about the existence of the new 24 and 28? they have IS, and i bet that signals no IS wide on the horizon. otherwise at some $800 each what's the point?

313
EOS Bodies / Re: 5d Mk III dilemma
« on: August 27, 2012, 08:15:06 AM »
what Random Orbits said, and since i'm a minimalist(not that you could tell from looking at all the junk i have around) i'd sell the crop camera and ef-s lenses as well. unless of course you just want to keep the second camera for operational reasons. otherwise with the 5dmk3 and 24-105f4 i'm sure i'd never reach for the 60d 18-200 combo again. looks like you have a nice kit, have fun.

314
EOS Bodies / Re: I love Primes.
« on: August 24, 2012, 02:21:37 PM »
the research wasn't to intensive. it maybe took 2 hrs with google's help, but then i think i got a handle on it. it's just weird. 

315
Lenses / Re: Why pick 16-35 f2.8 over 17-40 f4
« on: August 24, 2012, 02:14:00 PM »
i had the 17-40, bought a 16-35, and then sold the 17-40. i find the 16-35 to have somewhat better IQ, but the main reason i bought it was that i do a lot of shooting in dimly lit areas and the extra stop is a big help. It's handy also because at these wide focal lengths i can actually use 2.8 and not have nearly everything out of focus due to the larger depth of field. i figured i wouldn't notice the difference between 16mm and 17mm but i did. not huge, but i did notice it. last thing, i felt that a lens for (around) 2x the price for 2x the light gathering ability was a pretty good deal actually, as most of the time the jump from f4 to f2.8 on a top lens costs 4-5x as much. i've never heard anyone look at that that way, but that's the way i see it. i really had no complaints with the 17-40, it was fine, the 16-35 is just better.

Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23 ... 30