July 24, 2014, 12:07:20 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 - dilbert

Pages: 1 ... 96 97 [98] 99 100 ... 177
1456
Lenses / Re: Most requested lenses for replacement?
« on: June 26, 2012, 12:36:16 AM »
I wouldn't say the 17-40 is woeful by any means, I also wouldn't be upset if they refreshed it provided A) they keep it 77mm, and B) keep it under the 1K mark...


It depends on your definition of "woeful", but I would say it is.  I believe the other poster was referencing FF performance and in that respect, the 17-40 is very weak in the corners with respect to sharpness.  The 16-35 Mk II may cost way more but it's definitely better.  The sad thing is that the 16-35 Mk II isn't that great either. 


Precisely.

Whilst an ultra-wide angle lens such as a 14-24 (http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/06/canon-ef-14-24-f2-8l-cr2/) may solve some problems, below about 17 or 19 is just too wide. And then there are the issues with filters because of the curvature of the front lens element (i.e. I wouldn't buy the Nikon 14-24 either.)

Quote
I agree with all the posters that 50mm nees a good solid entry from Canon.  In the film days, it was what I shot with more than anything.  Now I own 7 L lenses but not one 50mm.


Interesting!

At least the Sigma 50/1.4 offers some salvation in terms of IQ.

For Canon wide angle (less than 24mm), there is nothing.


17mm f4L TS, 14mm 2.8L II and the 8-15 f4L.   ;)


And which of those can you easily mount filters on the front of?

1457
Lenses / Re: Most requested lenses for replacement?
« on: June 25, 2012, 03:26:46 PM »
I wouldn't say the 17-40 is woeful by any means, I also wouldn't be upset if they refreshed it provided A) they keep it 77mm, and B) keep it under the 1K mark...


It depends on your definition of "woeful", but I would say it is.  I believe the other poster was referencing FF performance and in that respect, the 17-40 is very weak in the corners with respect to sharpness.  The 16-35 Mk II may cost way more but it's definitely better.  The sad thing is that the 16-35 Mk II isn't that great either. 


Precisely.

Whilst an ultra-wide angle lens such as a 14-24 (http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/06/canon-ef-14-24-f2-8l-cr2/) may solve some problems, below about 17 or 19 is just too wide. And then there are the issues with filters because of the curvature of the front lens element (i.e. I wouldn't buy the Nikon 14-24 either.)

Quote
I agree with all the posters that 50mm nees a good solid entry from Canon.  In the film days, it was what I shot with more than anything.  Now I own 7 L lenses but not one 50mm.


Interesting!

At least the Sigma 50/1.4 offers some salvation in terms of IQ.

For Canon wide angle (less than 24mm), there is nothing.

1458
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS [CR2]
« on: June 25, 2012, 01:15:08 PM »
the current version cost around 1300 euro.. so can we expect the new one will cost 2600 euro?


Or, if the algorithm is not 2X but +1000 it will be around 2300 euro which is no good either  >:(


yep.... i have a few hobbys but photography is the only one where the gear gets more expensive each year (beside the normal rate of price increases).

to bad the photography world does not work like the computer world.
or we would have cheap FF cameras by now.

of course the bad thing for us photographers is that a FF sensor can not be shrinked so that more of them fit on a wafer. :)


www.grammarly.com

1459
Lenses / Re: Most requested lenses for replacement?
« on: June 25, 2012, 10:45:03 AM »
What would be really nice would be a wide angle prime (17mm, 19mm or 21mm) from either Canon or Sigma or Tamron at 4.0 or faster with autofocus. Then I could ditch the 17-40 completely if they got the IQ right. Unfortunately the only wide angle primes in this space are all Zeis...

1460
Lenses / Re: Most requested lenses for replacement?
« on: June 25, 2012, 10:21:24 AM »
17-40L - corners are woeful and the distortion is barely tolerable at less than 20mm. Great on a crop camera but terrible on FF. And the 16-35 isn't that much better.

1461
The confusion is the statement, "I'm not buying a 5D Mark III because...," followed by an answer of, "I already bought one (or more) and I'm using it, what's your problem?"

Well that was there so that all of the folks that have one could tick a box rather than post :)

But in all seriousness, that line adds a lot of value to the poll, don't you think?

Too many options on the poll.

Why is that a problem for you?

1462
Interesting set of responses thus far... roughly 2/5 have bought a 5D Mark III, another 2/5 would buy one if it offered a better proposition and the other 1/5 is split between a bunch of different reasons.

I'm still confused by this, because your question pertains only to those who DIDN'T buy the 5D Mark III.

Of course! Why? Because that's what is actually useful to know. The people that have already decided for one reason or another that they liked what is on offer so there's no need to go into any depth about what they think. Perhaps one of the more interesting results is that the D800 will cost Canon less than 3% of its 5D Mark III sales. I would have thought it would be much higher.

1463
EOS Bodies / Re: LightRoom...HELP!
« on: June 24, 2012, 12:26:58 AM »
If you need help or direction in how to use Lightroom, go to www.luminous-landscape.com to buy and download the tutorial videos.

1464
Interesting set of responses thus far... roughly 2/5 have bought a 5D Mark III, another 2/5 would buy one if it offered a better proposition and the other 1/5 is split between a bunch of different reasons.

1465
Lenses / Re: Moving to India
« on: June 23, 2012, 02:22:13 PM »
but you will get a lot of people trying to scam money out of you at temples etc.

I don't know about you, I find this incredibly offensive.

After a couple of days, I simply didn't want to talk to any local because I simply couldn't trust anything that they said.

1466
EOS Bodies / Re: Announcement Day July 24, 2012? [CR2]
« on: June 22, 2012, 04:30:12 PM »
The danger factor depends on the type of bear as well. For example, brown bears are much more dangerous than black bears.

False. Black bear.

Either way you're dead.

Best advice, always go with someone slower than you. You can't outrun the bear, but you don't have to. You just have to outrun the person you are with. :)

There are three species of bear that can be found in North America:
- black bear: Yosemite and other warmer states (I've seen one in Arizona). Opportunistic feeder and easily scared. Don't get too close, don't run and don't come between mother and cub.
- brown bear: Alaska where they feed on mostly fish. Neither you nor your food is likely to interest them.
- grizzly bear: found in the upper rockies and Canada, these bears are not very well known for being kind. When walking mountain trails in grizzly territory, it is customary to be noisy so that they disappear before you see them. Most human casualties involve these guys.

1467
EOS Bodies / Re: Announcement Day July 24, 2012? [CR2]
« on: June 22, 2012, 04:21:26 PM »

I don't know about you, but my definition of safe is around the 50 meters/yards mark - the "half a football field pitch" length. I've never seen anyone recommend anything closer as being "safe".

Not unless you were in a car with the engine left on idle ....   

Or you have 300-400 meters between you and the bear with some ready -to-scram car or secure shelter to run to ...  anything under that is definitely not safe if you have big camera gear at hand !

I've never heard anyone from NPS say that much distance is required.

The goal isn't to be so far that you can escape but rather not be close enough for you to be perceived as a threat.

1468
Lenses / Re: Moving to India
« on: June 22, 2012, 02:15:05 PM »
I can't believe you're going back...

Why? We had a great time, loved the food, people, culture etc. Also it is a growth area in our professional fields!

your wife is going to stay indoors nearly all the time?

Not likely, she is the Scientific Attaché for the French Embassy...  She got the job, and as an acadmic scientist (biophysicist/biochemist) it was not too difficult for me to find another lab there to continue my research (muscle disease in children)... So, it is not as though I’m dragging her there, nor do I think it will be a problem. :)

Of all the countries I've been to, I've never been harassed and treated as badly as I have in India. And I'm male. For women travelling alone, it is worse again.

1469
EOS Bodies / Re: Announcement Day July 24, 2012? [CR2]
« on: June 22, 2012, 12:11:39 PM »
Lets hope the 200-400 f4 is one of the len's announced. I need one for October as im off to the forest to shoot bears, with a camera not a gun.

Mick

400 + 1.4x is not enough for close ups at a safe distance of bears in the wild.

You need 700mm or more in glass.

Doesn't that depend on your definition of "safe"?

I don't know about you, but my definition of safe is around the 50 meters/yards mark - the "half a football field pitch" length. I've never seen anyone recommend anything closer as being "safe".

1470
EOS Bodies / Re: Announcement Day July 24, 2012? [CR2]
« on: June 22, 2012, 09:35:11 AM »
Lets hope the 200-400 f4 is one of the len's announced. I need one for October as im off to the forest to shoot bears, with a camera not a gun.

Mick

400 + 1.4x is not enough for close ups at a safe distance of bears in the wild.

You need 700mm or more in glass.

Pages: 1 ... 96 97 [98] 99 100 ... 177