December 17, 2014, 03:18:51 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 - Ryan708

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 16
Lenses / Re: Nifty 50 or Shorty 40?
« on: June 29, 2013, 10:49:33 AM »
I would go with the 50 f1/4 or even 1.8 over the 40mm in my opinion. alot of my favorite shots have been on my 50mm@1.8, and a very high percentage of my favorite shots out of my 17-70 are at 31mm and 34mm (very colse to 50mm on a full frame). the 50 1/8 @f2.8-5.6 is VERY sharp. and I have never had any issues with it focusing badly on my 60D. The 50 1.8 actually focuses well in low light too. I use an extension tube with it for a very sharp macro lens

Lenses / Re: 17-55mm... should I keep it or sell it???
« on: June 29, 2013, 10:34:35 AM »
I sold my 17-55 a few months after selling my 40D and going to FF totally, so when I bought a refurb 7D a year later, I bought a 15-85.  Now that I have a 16-35 which works on my FF and on crop, I'm well covered. 
I'm not sure why I'm keeping the 15-85, I just like it for all around use.

I feel bad when I don't use my lenses.  Almost like they are on the playground and are never picked to get into the game.

Haha I know what you mean. I throw my 35-80 4-5.6 iii on my 60D sometimes just because. and im like "Awwe, see, you dont take THAT bad of shots little old cheap lens!" haha

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Medical joint overload by heavy dlsr?
« on: June 27, 2013, 09:37:07 AM »
I paid <40$ for my battery grip for my 60D and it makes shooting a lot more comfortable. not only does it give my pinky somewhere to live, but the "pivot point" or fulcrum if you will, [that is pushing against your palm] is further from your fingers releiving some tension.

PowerShot Cameras / Re: The love for AA size batteries
« on: January 29, 2013, 09:24:33 PM »
I used AA rechargeable batteries in my old Kodak, and I swore by them, because they are cheap to use. Then I got my T1i and I could take a S___-ton of pictures, and in the cold it still performed, and held a charge forever. I liked this new lithium. My wife has had powershot digital ELPH cameras for a while now, and the LIon batteries last way longer than any AA's every immagined. LIon batteries have more power density than NiMh ever can. Th performance(voltage drop) is very consistant as well, and in cold environments do much better than AA's, and even come back up to voltage when warmed back up. My NiMh batteries do not, so I can not keep things in my vehicle here in New Hampshire for a good part of the year (last week had -11 degrees F). Just my opinion, I love AA's for anything that does not come with a LIon battery, but I prefer LIon

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: T4i vs 60D comparisons
« on: January 24, 2013, 06:00:29 PM »
So you have ISO 1000, and 1250 on the T4i? Hmm those are some of my favorite ISO's. The T4i has the same sensor are the 60D, with a few pixels converted to contrast A/F detection.(which, BTW doesnt work well enough to bother with) ISO 25600 on the T4I is nothing but noise. how about a top LCD screen so you can change all your settings with the screen off too? The 60D does anything the T4I can do, but with a much better viewfinder, about 2x battery life in real world shooting, and a much better build.  I can choose any/all AF points with the push of ONE button. No rear exposure wheel on the rebel either. Rebel has Fixed focusing screen, and a dim 95% .85x viewfinder.  The T4i is not a bad camera at all, but dont be bashing the near-identical 60D because you didnt buy one and need to justify your purchase. I had a rebel, the benefits to a xxD seres are small but worth it.

I agree with the other posters here. There is a reason the best zoom lenses have a limited range. If you want an 18-300 you can't be expecting great quality images, so why do you want a more expensive canon version. Sigma's build quality is on par with canon EF-S lenses(probably better honestly) but their AF is sometimes off on certain copies of a lens.  Just my $.02 the 15-85 is quite a nice EF-S lens, and adding a 70-300 would give you that extra reach for when you want it.

keep in mind that the 6d shots are softer

What? Where did you get that from?

I've never shot a 5D3 but the 6D shots are just as sharp as my 5D2 shots... why would there be a difference in sharpness between any of the full frame sensors?


actually the 5D MK2 has the highest spatial resolution of the three cameras.
a lot of reviews confirm this.

but you have to shoot testcharts to see it or pixelpeep pictures of the same motive to notice it.
yet it IS visible.

the reason is a marginal lower MP number of the 6D (but that is really marginal) another reason is the difference in the AA filter.

i guess the 6D has a stronger AA filter then the other two cameras.
if that´s the case it is a shame that there is so much moire in 6D videos.

anyway, not all FF sensors are equal... ;)

Im kind of a pixel peeper myself, but almost by accident. I am viewing my shots at 24" on a 1920x1200 monitor, and judging them. My wife wanted a 8.5x11 print of a tiger lilly I shot last summer, and on my PC I thought, ehh, its not real sharp but W/E and had a print of it made. at 8.5x11 in our hallway it looks super-sharp, and gets alot of comments. Maybe a 2' print in a restaurant on a wall, 1' from someones face it may look soft. SOOO many amazing shots have come from 12 MP 5d classics, and alot even cropped. Just a little point on pixel peeping I guess, Rant over haha

I had an older version of ML on my 60D that didnt do alot for still shooting, so I removed it, but it was quite a neat set-up. all menu's were normal, and there was a seperate menu system for the ML software. Im thinking about adding it again now that it has the advanced Av/Tv/M stuff.... that could be useful for me.

Side note: My 60d had the latest firmware version when I installed ML and I thought I bricked my 60D. A re-install of the latest canon firmware (same version I was already running from factory) fixed it. The M.L. website states this might happen. So I SUGGEST updating your camera to the latest firmware, even if you are already running that version.

Other than that my ML worked great, no issues.

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: How did they make this vid?
« on: January 16, 2013, 07:26:12 AM »
I love how they made this clip go badly on purpose :-P and natural looking as paul said

Im anxious to see. Im chomping at the FF bit. congrats!

Canon General / Re: Hey Canon, I've got cash to burn, but...
« on: January 15, 2013, 12:43:36 PM »
Ive seen some reviews stating the 6D has very bad moire in video and pattern shots. Perhaps a very limited AA filter? wonder if anyone has tested this yet? 6D perhaps a good landscape/studio cam?

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 6D weatherproofness, tested.
« on: January 14, 2013, 10:26:01 PM »
im mostly posting so this shows up in my replys. But do keep us informed!

EOS Bodies / Re: 6D AF and Focal Plane issues by recomposing
« on: January 14, 2013, 10:12:44 PM »
I wonder if some of the lenses that have strong "field curvature" would cancel out the focus-recompose teqnique.   if your focal plane was shaped like a    "  (  "    for example, tilting the camera would all be on same focal plane. Sorry If i lost you, im sure a few people will see my point.

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Canon 6D - Meike grip on ebay for under $40
« on: January 09, 2013, 07:45:06 PM »
I have a meike for my 60D and it seemed ok, except for the reviews saying it shorted out batteries, I checked the internal wiring and it was all fin on mine. However sometimes the thumb wheel on the back of my 60d would stop working with it attached, untill I turned the exposure wheel. No biggee. But shooting a friends wedding, I was against a wall in a kinda cramped area, and was holding the camera a little weird, and gripping the meike grip firlmly, and it all of a sudden, powered my camera down and the batt light was all that was on the top LCD, and it wouldnt tunr on/back off. In about 30 second I had the grip removed and the batt and door back on body only, and I didnt miss a critical shot, but it pissed me off. It did the same thing with my 300mm lens a couple times. I assume the cheap plastic flexes too much when gripping tightly, and loses  contact

Lenses / Re: 2003 vs 2013 17-40/4L
« on: January 07, 2013, 08:58:08 PM »
I would bet that the lens is near-identical. Especially the glass. Designing glass takes a ton of time and money, and won't be tweaked, unless a new lens is released. If the early versions had any known electronic or mechanical problems, they would have fixed it in the later ones, Other than that they will be near-Identical. I am kind of eye-balling a 17-40 Myself, I have wanted one for a while

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 16