October 20, 2014, 05:32:00 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 ... 102 103 [104] 105 106 ... 206
1546
Lenses / Re: Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 or Canon 24-105 f/4
« on: January 04, 2013, 07:32:01 PM »
If you buy the 24-105 then you need to buy the 17-40 if you want to shoot wider than 30mm. The barrel distortion on the 24-105 at the wide end is crazy.

1547
Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS Resolution Tests
« on: January 04, 2013, 07:30:07 PM »
So how can Canon continue to bundle the 24-105 as the kit lens?

Oh wait, for years it sold DSLR bundles with the 28-135 so they just care about moving kit, not quality.

Time for the 24-105 to go the way of dinosaurs - agreed.

1548
Lenses / Re: Glacier National Park - New lens?
« on: January 03, 2013, 08:13:43 PM »
Montana may be my favorite place to visit.  Been several times now as a old college buddy is border patrol out of whitefish.  Be sure to drive out to polebridge for pizza, seriously its worth it. Plus the drive is spectacular and once you get there you realize having beer and pizza in the middle of nowhere is pretty special. As others have suggested the 10-22 is a no brainer on crop. Rent that plus one of the extenders and you should be set.

Which drive to Polebridge are you thinking of as being spectacular?

On the whole, there's not much more to Polebridge than the one shack for food/drink and if you blink, you'll miss it and won't miss much. Not somewhere I'd go just for pizza unless you enjoy spending $40 on gas to buy a $10 pizza.

1549
It would have been nice if the AF maps were in English.

1550
Lenses / Re: 4 weeks Trip around California
« on: January 03, 2013, 10:02:39 AM »
Bad news: the lenses you have are a complete mismatch for Yosemite, except for the 24-105.

Yosemite is just a part of the trip.

Where else are you going?

Let me guess, you're going to drive along US-1 in the fog during August?

But as it stands, all of the other posts thus far have corroborated with my statement above.

1551
Lenses / Re: DXO Mark review the 28mm f/2.8 IS...
« on: January 03, 2013, 09:56:23 AM »
well, not necessarily a violation of the laws of physics.  it could be that Canon actually built a t/2.7 lens and is marketing it as an f/2.8.  which would violate the law of "canon shafting us on price with every opportunity that they have", which seems to be a law many abide by here.

Correct.

If you look at many of the patent applications for lenses, you'll notice that the f-stop is never exactly "2.8" or "4', just as the zoom is never exactly "24" or "50" or whatever.

Canon will round up or down to the nearest meaningful f-stop.

1552
Canon General / Re: Total File Size - All Your Images and Keep or Delete
« on: January 03, 2013, 08:08:32 AM »
36.5 gigs 2002 through 2012... at the moment...though I feel like whittling down even more.  Actually quite a lot of TIFF files(star trails/etc) in that making it larger than it really is imagewise.

That's a tiny amount of storage for photos. I've done over 20GB in one trip, easy. Right now, I've got about 300GB of .CR2's in "Recycle Bin" and there's still more cleaning out to do. Current raw storage is at about the 1TB mark. For backups, it is more.

I tend to keep a backup of everything - I make the backups before I start cutting down on things. This means I've got about 1.5TB of images backed up on a single 3TB drive.

So I keep everything backed up but my "working set" is much smaller. When someone in the family wants a picture of baby John, I want to minimise the time it takes to find a good one, etc.

1553
From the 20D to the 30D, there was no change in IQ, some even argued it got worse. The screen on the back changed and that was it. The 40D was marginally better than the 20D with a few extra megapixels thrown in. The 50D delivered IQ that was still measured to be about the same as the 20D plus a few extra megapixels on top of the 40D. Whilst the 50D can now shoot at ISO 12800, nobody really does because you can't recognise anything above ISO 3200. The 60D gave us even more MP but still the IQ hasn't gone anywhere and wasn't really that different to the 50D.

And yes, a lot of people are sick of Canon offering something almost the same as what the new camera replaces except something a little better.

What absolute garbage. The 20D had the worst IQ of just about any Canon DSLR - worse than the 10D it replaced. The 30D was a massive upgrade even if only for the rear screen that was actually usable. The 40D wasn't "marginally better" it was significantly better in both operational and IQ terms. Night and day better. Every camera since has had massively better IQ - only the 50D has been a bit of a lemon on the IQ front, and then only because of terrible high ISO performance.

Congratulations!

You're the first person I've ever seen say that the 30D is better than the 20D in terms of IQ and that the 40D was significantly better again.

1554
Lenses / Re: 4 weeks Trip around California
« on: January 03, 2013, 07:55:42 AM »
Bad news: the lenses you have are a complete mismatch for Yosemite, except for the 24-105.

1555
Lenses / Re: 24-85mm Lens?
« on: January 03, 2013, 12:58:29 AM »
I mentioned the 17-40mm only because it is the cheapest new-in-box UWA option from Canon. If Canon could undercut the Nikkor 18-35mm with better build quality and image quality it would be huge.

Except that you don't want to use the 17-40mm at anything less than 21mm if you can help it and even then the corners suck.

1556
Lenses / Re: 24-85mm Lens?
« on: January 03, 2013, 12:55:14 AM »
The 24-105 is much more welcome than this 28 -85 length. And, they had better not get ideas about killing it for the 24-70 IS f4...

Good copies of 24-105L are gems....great all purpose lens with IS!

Hmm, so now it is a lotto draw as to whether or not you get a 24-105L that's worth keeping.

Great.

Think I'll buy Tamron in future and spend less to enter the lens lottery.

1557
OK, wow.  Now you really have me confused.  If there hasn't been a decent upgrade since the 20D, what are we even discussing?

Moving from APS-C to FF isn't an upgrade so much as it is a change of format. It would be like changing from using a FF to MFDB, except that some of your lenses may still work.

Quote
The 6D and the 5DIII aren't decent upgrades to the 5D2 and the 5D2 wasn't a decent upgrade to the 20D.  It sounds like the entire Canon lineup since the 20D has been a huge waste of time.

From the 20D to the 30D, there was no change in IQ, some even argued it got worse. The screen on the back changed and that was it. The 40D was marginally better than the 20D with a few extra megapixels thrown in. The 50D delivered IQ that was still measured to be about the same as the 20D plus a few extra megapixels on top of the 40D. Whilst the 50D can now shoot at ISO 12800, nobody really does because you can't recognise anything above ISO 3200. The 60D gave us even more MP but still the IQ hasn't gone anywhere and wasn't really that different to the 50D.

And yes, a lot of people are sick of Canon offering something almost the same as what the new camera replaces except something a little better.

1558
Because, as I subsequently said... "6D is a warmed up 5D2" .... Obviously it has to up the ante a bit... No one is going to replace the 5D2 *with* a 5D2 ....they need to give people a few frills after 3 years...so we have 6D

"5D2-plus " if you will ...after 3 years wait at 2k ...a worthy upgrade for the suckers... Er...I mean  consumers :)

What makes you think the 6D is intended as an upgrade for 5D Mark II owners?  Did you take a bathroom break or step out to get more popcorn and miss the part where they added an extra 'I' to the Mark designation of the 5DII, when they named the 5D Mark III?

Well if a 5D Mark II owner is concerned about IQ then the 5D Mark III isn't an upgrade either.

Regardless, his point still stands.  The 6D isn't an intended upgrade to 5D Mark II owners.

Indeed, many 5D Mark II owners are still waiting for a camera that is an upgrade to the 5D Mark II.

1559
Unless you have full-frame Canon lenses (non EF-S), it makes no sense to buy the 6D.

I'm guessing there are a lot of senseless people out there, then.  Plus maybe a few sensible enough to know that the lens is the primary determinant of IQ, and that 24-105 kit lens is better than the 24-85 kit lens.

Hmm, that's not really clear to me.

If I look at the reviews on photozone.de, the 24-85 has less distortion at 24mm and appears to be sharper at every step. The 24-85 looks worse because the center is so much higher so what the graphs show is that the 24-105 has a center that isn't that much different to the edge whereas with the Nikon it is. Feel free to interpret the information in another light.

1560
Because, as I subsequently said... "6D is a warmed up 5D2" .... Obviously it has to up the ante a bit... No one is going to replace the 5D2 *with* a 5D2 ....they need to give people a few frills after 3 years...so we have 6D

"5D2-plus " if you will ...after 3 years wait at 2k ...a worthy upgrade for the suckers... Er...I mean  consumers :)

What makes you think the 6D is intended as an upgrade for 5D Mark II owners?  Did you take a bathroom break or step out to get more popcorn and miss the part where they added an extra 'I' to the Mark designation of the 5DII, when they named the 5D Mark III?

Well if a 5D Mark II owner is concerned about IQ then the 5D Mark III isn't an upgrade either.

Pages: 1 ... 102 103 [104] 105 106 ... 206