October 24, 2014, 06:20:55 AM

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] 5 6 ... 19
46
EOS Bodies / Re: A Few EOS 7D Mark II Specs [CR1]
« on: June 12, 2014, 04:09:14 AM »
Can somebody explain to me HOW lack of a mode dial is a good thing? I've never really understood the button system on the 1D line. To me it seems to be a lot slower to switch modes like this.

That's the point. You don't want the mode changing accidentally and more to the point, the mode doesn't change that often - less often than you change lens/camera.
That's why all the newer ones have the mode dial lock? ???
+1 :)

47
I feel that cps members with a crap ton of points should get this free...

A free cow-poop ice cream cone is still a cow-poop ice cream cone :/

I'm deeply entrenched in the tech industry and I just can't see using "cloud" at this time:
1) ISPs feel they have the right to choke you down if you use 'too much'* bandwidth or to the wrong provider
2) Likelihood of outage to your ISP, anyone in between, the actual service
3) Data breeches by adverse outside parties
4) Sharing of data with outside sources via pressure (national security letter)
5) Sharing of data for profit (advertisers, 'meta data')
6) Hidden clauses in endless EULAs that turn ownership of your IP into someone else's

Now, I'm beginning to sound like a security nut, but I've had it with the cloud snake oil.  There has been a systematic disingenuousness of most large companies that seems to be the accepted norm, and people are turning over more and more control and aren't really getting anything for it.

Don't get me wrong, I'll gladly hop on board when I might be getting something I really want, but until, at very least, ISPs are forced to disclose limits and advertise ACTUAL average upstream/downstream and who they are blacklisting/whitelisting, I'll take my local software and hard backups.

Oi.  Rant off.   :-[


*an arbitrary number, that they won't ever tell you
+1000000000000000000000000000000000000000

48
Lenses / Re: What was your first L lens?
« on: June 06, 2014, 04:53:57 PM »
24-105mm

49
Do a total reset of the flash to its factory settings, sometimes that clears software glitches.  Be sure to install fresh batteries too.
Thank you Spokane I will do that  :)

50
Hello I'm wondering if anyone has this problem with their 580 EXII flash. This happens quite a few times the unit will shut off and disconnects itself electronically from the camera but turns backs on (of course after I miss the shot). I tried turning both the camera and the flash on and off repeatedly to reconnect it nothing but then magically it reconnects later. Go figure!!! Tired of missing shots... It's happens on both of my bodies 5D Mark II & III when this flash is attached. Thanks >:( >:( >:( 

51
Good it's about time!!!! Bring it on!!!

52
Lenses / Re: Canon Working on Faster f/2.8 Ultra Wide Zoom [CR2]
« on: May 16, 2014, 05:49:22 AM »
Concerning the bulbous front element:

At least Zeiss is able to build an excellent 15/2,8 lens without a bulbous front element. Well, but it's a prime lens and not a zoom lense.

ok, yes a couple of things:
1) prime as you stated so totally different
2) not bulbous but requires 95mm filter - 16-35 II 82mm
3) no autofocus

I know for an event photographer likely all three of these compromises would be a deal killer.  Canon's last improvement to the 16-35 included increasing the front element so that it required 82mm filters instead of 77mm.  While further improvements could be made likely by going beyond 82mm, question is do people want this for event photography/reportage as some already complain the current 82mm is too big.

might make more sense to focus on landscape who would probably prefer wider than 16mm and wouldn't care about front element size/shape.
+1

53
Lenses / Re: Canon Working on Faster f/2.8 Ultra Wide Zoom [CR2]
« on: May 15, 2014, 12:21:32 PM »
Ok ok now this is what I've been waiting for....

54
Wondering if it is the outrageous initial price of the 24-70 f/4 IS that makes this 16-35 f/4 IS seem "reasonable."  After all, it sports quite a premium over the 17-40.  Not to say that it won't be worth it because it probably will be once the reviews are in, but just an observation...
Random that's a great point which I can't deny...hummmmmm!!!!

55
I had my heart to set on a Canon version of the Nikon 14-24mm but I'm willing to take a crack at this one!! I'll wait for the reviews.  ;) :)
I'm with you, but I took the leap and pre-ordered this morning.  I'm going to sell of my 16-35 II and hope that the new lens is as good in person as it looks on paper :)
Finger crossed here.  :) Canon adding the IS is a great idea and the price is good.

56

I am not a good MTF reader :-\


Can someone explain to me the IQ difference between the 16-35 f/2.8II and the 16-35 f/4 IS based on the MTF's?
I put them here (upper images are the 16-35 f/2.8II)


Simple, more contrast (bold lines) and more sharpness in the corners (thin lines), from left to right = center to extreme borders, the higher the lines on the graph, the more transmission of contrast (bold) and sharpness (thin), usually, black lines are for wide open aperture whilst blue lines are for f/8. At least, if Canon did not change its MTF legend :)

EDIT: after more observation of those MTF from 16-35/4L, damn, that will be bitingly sharp at f/8. Landscapers rejoice :)
+1

57
I had my heart to set on a Canon version of the Nikon 14-24mm but I'm willing to take a crack at this one!! I'll wait for the reviews.  ;) :)

58
Lenses / Re: More Wide Angle Lens Speculation [CR1]
« on: May 06, 2014, 11:03:54 AM »
Performs as good as Nik 14-24 or better + IS + screw on filter = I'm in
+1  :) ;)

59
PowerShot / Re: New PowerShot & EOS Cameras to Offer DOF Control?
« on: May 05, 2014, 09:44:39 AM »
Just make sure it works with current EF L ;)
;)

60
EOS Bodies / Re: When Does the Year of the Lens Start?
« on: May 03, 2014, 06:08:30 AM »

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 19