November 27, 2014, 12:24:20 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 - ewg963

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 19
Lenses / Re: Does it matter anymore who makes the sensors?
« on: September 21, 2014, 08:26:03 AM »
The reason I ask the question. Before digital, the various manufacturers made their respective bodies and lenses while the film was made by someone totally unrelated to their company. The things that set one camera manufacturer apart from another was the build quality of their bodies, ie: ruggedness, sophistication and their lens construction, ie: build quality, optical quality.

They all used the same "imaging device" if you will. It was called film. It could be made by one of several different manufacturers, Kodak, Agfa, Fuji, Ilford, etc., all with their own image characteristics. One film stock could be used to compare the quality of one lens vs another. One body vs another.

So why is it important that Canon even make its own imaging sensor? Nikon tried then decided not to. They gave up on the the sensor race. They didn't have the size company with the deep pockets Canon had. Now, Canon should just buy them from Sony like Nikon and let the sensor wars become the body and lens wars again. I don't think Canon has the deep pockets or research capabilities Sony has for the long haul.

EOS Bodies / Re: Video Review: Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 17, 2014, 10:48:31 AM »
On paper the spec's look really impressive, if it ends up being as good as it looks I imagine it may take a few sales away from the 1DX.  You could purchase 2 (1 for back up) and a very nice piece of glass for the amount of the 1DX.  I know the 1DX has some more features and better weather sealing but I don't think that will matter to a lot of potential buyers; will be interesting to see what happens.
The 1DX and the 7dII are two whole different markets but I'm not taking anything away from the 7DII because it will attract more budget minded shooters. The jury is out on the high ISO results.

EOS Bodies / Re: High ISO Samples from the Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 16, 2014, 07:12:15 AM »
Looks good... :) :) :) :) :)

Lenses / Re: New Lens Information for Photokina
« on: August 31, 2014, 06:51:43 AM »
The 40mm pancake turned out to be quite popular so maybe this 24mm one will too .... but wait EF-S? Now that just seems a little bit silly to me. Why restrict it to crop only? And without IS? This thing had better be under $100 because otherwise why would anyone need this? The kit lens does f/3.5 IS at 24mm, right? And if you want a quality 24mm prime there's the ~ $500 EF 24mm f/2.8 IS (which is pretty small already IMO).

The 24-105 could be a cheaper FF option. Some people were banging on about that here so I guess there might be a demand but seriously? So you fork out $1600 on a FF 6D right? Assuming you went body only. And then you go an pair it with, what I assume will be, a cheap kit lens with compromised IQ? Why? Why not just stick with a rebel and a 18-55 kit lens if you're a cheapo? Having a FF camera means you give a s___ about IQ. This rumor makes no sense.

And a 400mm DO version 2?  :o because the the original was so popular right?? Right?

Where is the 100-400 replacement and where is our 50mm IS?

I have a feeling the next rumor will say "Sorry no 7D replacement, just a white powershot with instagram built in".  >:(

Theater, Concert and Event / Re: Nightclub photography shots
« on: August 30, 2014, 11:30:53 PM »

Technical Support / Re: Another my Stupid question = Sensor Sizes
« on: August 22, 2014, 07:08:13 AM »
There are no stupid questions  ;D

Most folks in general do not understand the relationship of sensor size, pixel density, and pixel size.  For many, the picture they take on their phone looks great on that little 4 inch screen. Put it on an 8 by 10 print and it doesn't so much anymore.

Most folks who own good DSLRs are shooting crop sensors (APS-C).  Those sensors are already 500 times bigger than an iPhone. Full frame is simply twice as big as that. Mr. Haines nailed it for you.

But again there are never stupid questions when you're trying to learn!
Ditto +10000000000000000000000  :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)

While very cool, I'm satisfied with the 16-35 f/4L already. Too late sigma. :P

The 16-35mm IS is excellent in a sea of wide angle zooms that are mediocre, with the Nikon 14-24mm, and 16-35mm VR being one of the few other good ones.

The thing is Sigma's 14-24mm might be even sharper than Canon's version and wider. That would be a killer lens. There's lots of room to improve quality in this segment. The 14-24mm could blow Canon out of the water, or just be slightly better in every way like the 24-105mm (though lacking weather sealing, and being much larger as the down side)

I'm very curious to see what the 24mm 1.4 is like, every major brand has tried to get the 24mm prime right, and most don't perform well above f/2.0.

I'm very hopeful of some serious improvements with these lenses. :)
+10000000000000000000000000 :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)

Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 15, 2014, 09:25:09 AM »
I'm excited :) Now what's the price point? Hmmmmmmmm.....

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 11-24 f/2.8L Coming [CR1]
« on: August 08, 2014, 05:23:47 PM »
I too am skeptical about a zoom as wide as 11mm. I hope they don't sacrifice too much IQ for it.

My ideal UWA is a 14-30mm f/2.8. I'd gladly give up 5mm on the long end for 2mm on the wide in regards to the current 16-35mm. And despite the number of people here who don't think f/2.8 is necessary, it comes in very hand for wedding receptions and night photography.
+10000000000000000  :) :) :) :) :) :) :)

EOS Bodies / Re: Plan B
« on: August 07, 2014, 06:47:31 AM »
Continue making photos with the old gear.
+1000000000000  :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) Yep!!!

Street & City / Re: Street Candid Portraiture
« on: August 04, 2014, 07:31:32 AM »
Besides since posting this thread, I do less telephoto in the street now - use my 35mm a lot more

If left in colour, you'd see the colours of their suitcases - who cares what colour they are :) that is not the point of the photo.

FQ2A6148 by dancook1982, on Flickr
+10000000000000 :) :) :)

Street & City / Re: Street Candid Portraiture
« on: August 04, 2014, 07:28:33 AM »
Guildford never feels as inspiring as my trips to london, but here's a selection from recent times.

1 In the office by dancook1982, on Flickr

2 Shoes by dancook1982, on Flickr

3 FQ2A0465 by dancook1982, on Flickr

4 Beautiful People by dancook1982, on Flickr

5 FQ2A9041 by dancook1982, on Flickr

6 FQ2A9103 by dancook1982, on Flickr

7 FQ2A8606 by dancook1982, on Flickr

8 FQ2A8583 by dancook1982, on Flickr

9 FQ2A6982 by dancook1982, on Flickr

10 FQ2A6999 by dancook1982, on Flickr

11 FQ2A6899 by dancook1982, on Flickr
Great shots Dan I love the B&W touch.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon to Make a Big Splash at Photokina? [CR2]
« on: July 30, 2014, 01:47:33 PM »
The more "1DX" they put into the 7D Mark II, the more I will like it!   8)

EOS Bodies / Re: Is there something wrong with my 5D Mark III?
« on: July 28, 2014, 06:10:52 PM »
You've demonstrated that Nikon's 85/1.4, which is among Nikon's very best performing lenses even wide open, is sharper than Canon's 50/1.4, which is not a particularly sharp lens, particularly wide open.  You make no mention of performing an AF microadjustment/fine tune, which can be critical for sharpness with fast primes shot wide open.

You've demonstrated that Canon's AWB is poor...something most of us know already (although it's better on the 1D X than any other Canon camera I've used).

I'm not convinced you've learned anything beyond the obvious...

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 27, 2014, 07:36:27 AM »
I will continue to go out and shoot improve my skills with my outdated 5d Mark III & II camera. Oh DXO you sealed my faith I'm doomed ::)

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 19