April 19, 2014, 11:30:01 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 - dilbert

Pages: 1 ... 111 112 [113] 114 115 ... 158
1681
EOS Bodies / Re: 7D upgrade or wait for 5DX/III
« on: February 16, 2012, 04:50:22 PM »
The obvious upgrade is a used 1D4 if the budget will go that far.

Or a 1d2 if you can find one in good condition.

1682
Lenses / Re: Is it worth waiting for an upgrade to 24-105?
« on: February 16, 2012, 04:47:44 PM »
I'm currently using 550D + Sigma 17-70 OS, but I plan to move to a FF body sooner or later (most likely I'll grab 5dmkII when mkIII gets released), and that's why I want to buy 24-105 now and use it on my cropped camera (as far as I know it's pretty good for APS-C cameras), but the lens is 4 years old and has some drawbacks, e.g. pretty pronounced distorsion at 24mm. So is it worth waiting to get it, or I'd better buy it now and save money for an FF body?

Let me rephrase this question...

"I want to buy a FF camera but I want to get a good deal on it and hopefully when the 5D3 comes out will be a good time. I'll also need a new lens for it when I do."

Given the price drop and rise over the last 3 months of the 5D2, perhaps you should look for a price to match your budget, whenever that happens to be, rather than wait for a particular event or time. Waiting for the price to reach its lowest point will likely mean you wait too long.

1683
Lenses / Re: 24-105 f2.8IS
« on: February 15, 2012, 05:52:10 AM »
The 24-70/2.8 is the 2.8 version of the 24-105 f/4.0.

Just the same as the 24-105 is the f/4 version of the 24-70/2.8.

I know that might seem a bit strange, but there is only 1 f-stop difference.

um and 35mm of focal range which happens to cover the important 85 to 100mm

Are you going to say that the 5mm difference between the 16-35 and 17-40 is also important?

f/2.8
16-35
24-70
70-200

f/4
17-40
24-105
70-200

1684
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Why the hate for video capable DSLRs?
« on: February 15, 2012, 05:43:46 AM »
Just would prefer that rather than put all the video stuff in there, they just give us better cameras...more megapixels, better AF, faster frame rates...you can't do it all well, I would just prefer, as a photographer that they give me a better camera and stop feeing features I don't want...

I got flamed for my last such post, but while I understand some people want these features I think Canon should do three things.

Have a line of pro video cameras, have pro level dslrs and maybe a few hybrid options...

Let the flaming begin.

Do you use every feature on your camera?
Or are there some that you don't use?

I know that there are many features that my digital cameras have that I don't use.
But do I wish that they weren't there?
No.
Why not?
Because they don't tailor make camera for me, they make a camera for everyone all over the world and everyone has different needs. So if only the features I wanted were there, only people that use a camera like me would be it and that'd make it less profitable for them to make.

I'd encourage you to be more open minded about cameras.

1685
EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II? [CR1]
« on: February 14, 2012, 10:45:41 PM »
I'm going to get smited into the ground for this one..... Why are people acting like it's the end of the world if Canon makes the 70D the new 7D? If the make that move, they'll likely make the 70D better than the current 7D, so what's the problem? Is it because then you wouldn't have bragging rights on owning a "pro body"? As long as it's better, then who cares what number it's badged with. Whether or not they make a 7DII, you'll still get an upgrade. Or just buy a Nikon.... Let the smiting begin.
No, it's because if it's a 70D it won't have pro features. The xxD line is gimped compared to the xD line. I want high end durability, AF, metering, 2 CF slots... everything that's in the 1D line but with a APS-C sensor. I'm not the only one.

What if it is the 70"DX", to try and distinguish it from the 60"D"?

There's no reason why Canon can't put more features into the xxD line if they also bump the price up.

If they can bring in micro-focus for the 50D and then take it away for the 60D, then there's no reason why they can't bring it back (for example.)

Think of this in another way...

A camera with the 7D's features would cost what a 7D does (or did) regardless of the name on the camera. It isn't the name on the camera that determines the cost.

Therefore consider the price as the indication of what features are in the camera and the name to just be "dressing."

As for the durability of the xxD series, search youtube for the video of someone that tries to destroy their xxxD and see what it withstands.

1686
EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II? [CR1]
« on: February 14, 2012, 10:24:36 AM »

And what if the "5DX" has 61pt AF and 6.9fps, as the rumors suggest?

It would mean a drop of 10 MP as a 22MP FF is 8.5 MP cropped.

What concerns me more is if the 7D line will be adopted by the xxD line again, what will happen to the micro adjustment? The only body in the xxD that had it was the 50D, to be dropped again with the 60D.

If the xxD becomes a higher end camera then features such as micro-adjustment can be reintroduced.

1687
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III/X Information [CR1]
« on: February 14, 2012, 08:49:39 AM »
I hope canon also makes a budget FF camera.  Imagine if the 7Dm2 was a 12mp FF for $1000 that would kill nikon

With their commitment to EF-S lenses, I don't think so.

1688
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III/X Information [CR1]
« on: February 14, 2012, 08:22:33 AM »
If the 5D2 is going t be left on the market, might i suggest that Canon will knock its price down to that of the 7D or make it a replacement for the 60D? Blimey, wouldn't that upset the Nikon and Sony apple cart - having to compete with a 5D2 as an intro camera - or move up from your budget DSLR?

If the new camera comes it at around $3000, then the current price of the 5D2 at around $2000 to $2200 seems right.

1689
EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II? [CR1]
« on: February 14, 2012, 08:18:47 AM »
Finally Canon wakes up.

They've been dumbing down the xxD to bring down the price, creating a hole for the 7D.

If Canon move the xxD back to where the 7D was (70D replacing 7D seems kind of neat), or close there to, then that gives Canon the option of pulling all of its DSLRs up in pricing.

Why would they do that?

How about to make room for a mirrorless at the bottom.

If the 7D evaporates, then we might end up seeing:
xxD - ~$1500-$1700 (or more?)
xxxD - ~$1000-$1200
xxxxD - sub $1000
... or even xxxxD disappears and is replaced by a body like that of the NEX-5 or 7.

With the 7D, they had one too many DSLRs in their lineup but it was required as an offensive move against the Nikon D300(s) whilst they sorted out their overall plan.

1690
Lenses / Re: 24-105 f2.8IS
« on: February 14, 2012, 02:31:24 AM »
The 24-70/2.8 is the 2.8 version of the 24-105 f/4.0.

Just the same as the 24-105 is the f/4 version of the 24-70/2.8.

I know that might seem a bit strange, but there is only 1 f-stop difference.

1691
Lenses / Re: A Lens Roadmap? [CR1]
« on: February 11, 2012, 12:44:12 PM »
Sigh, my 50/1.4 has focus issues (quite often needs to be manually focused) so I'm tossing up between getting a new one or having the current one repaired.

I wonder if Canon would kill both the current 50/1.8 and the 50/1.4 and replace both with a 50/1.8 IS?

Going from 1.4 to 1.8 might be a design issue where they're trying to keep the size, weight and cost of the lens down as they're also adding IS to it. Oh, is assuming that it would be USM safe?

1692
Lenses / Re: 70-300L with extension tubes?
« on: February 11, 2012, 12:39:46 PM »
There are known issues with the Canon TC's and the 70-300L, but are there any such problems with the extension tubes (ET) such as th EF 25mm Extension Tube?

If so, can you stack things up so that you have 1.4x TC, then 25mm ET, then 70-300L?

Yes, you can do that.  The ET won't add much to the magnification, though.

The idea isn't to add to the magnification but rather to use the ET to separate the TC from the lens as a workaround for the problem where the 70-300L cannot (currently) be used with quite few TCs, including Canon's.

1693
Lenses / 70-300L with extension tubes?
« on: February 11, 2012, 10:34:05 AM »
There are known issues with the Canon TC's and the 70-300L, but are there any such problems with the extension tubes (ET) such as th EF 25mm Extension Tube?

If so, can you stack things up so that you have 1.4x TC, then 25mm ET, then 70-300L?

1694
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Split? 5D X & 5D Mark III [CR1]
« on: February 09, 2012, 11:04:34 PM »
The part that doesn't make a whole lot of sense is why would they develop a new FF 22 MP sensor for the 5D Mark III when they just released another FF 18 MP for the 1D x. The difference in resolution between 18 and 22 is so small it's barely worth the cost and effort that must have went into R&D unless one is suited for video while the other for stills, doubt it. On the other hand, if Canon is going to release a FF 45 MP sensor, they must have developed a whole new sensor technology to overcome noise because with the current technology, that thing will be next to useless above ISO 1600.

Lets deal with some of your points.

1) The pro's who'll use the 1DX are less concerned about MP than the non-pro's that will buy the 5D3. For some non-pro's it will be the crop-ability: in upgrading their 5D2, they don't want to lose out on being able to crop. For others it will simply be that their new camera must have at least the same, if not more, megapixels as their current camera, otherwise why upgrade?

2) The rumor specifically suggests that the 5D3 sensor will be enhanced for video and that it will be better than the 1DX. Thus if you're looking for a DSLR from Canon to shoot video with then this is your go-to camera. Will they try and do 4k video with it or not? The 1DX sensor has probably been developed with the target shooter (professional) in mind and now the 5D3 sensor and camera design has a video focus for all of those people that bought the 5D2 to shoot video with. Makes a lot of sense.

3) The samples from the G1x look pretty good at screen resolution for ISO 1600. With most pictures being downsized and exported to JPEG/GIF/PNG, what more does Canon need to do? But seriously, the G1X establishes what I believe would be the lower bound for a full-frame sensor using the same pixel size.

1695
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Split? 5D X & 5D Mark III [CR1]
« on: February 09, 2012, 10:39:23 PM »
Both over $3k makes no sense unless we're going to see a similar price increase in the 7D Mark II.

If Nikon can sell their 36MP D800 for under $3000, the 5D Mark III would have to be pretty amazing.

Or maybe this is how Canon will deal with demand?

By driving up the price of the 5D3, they reduce the sales numbers to what they can produce whilst maintaining their ability to produce other cameras.

Unfortunately I suspect that the "low price" and widespread popularity are what have driven up the 5D3 price more than anything else.

I'll add that I'm not sure I could justify a 5DX with a 40MP sensor. Not because of the price but because it would make hand-held photography a whole lot less enjoyable. At 20MP on FF, it is generally advised to have 1/(2 x focal length) for shutter speed in order to get a sharp photo. At 40MP, what will it be - 4x? So with a 50mm lens without IS, I'm going to need to either be tripod mounted or shooting at 1/200. No thanks, it just limits my options too much. I'm pretty sure that this plays a part in the megapixel count for the 1DX/D4.

Pages: 1 ... 111 112 [113] 114 115 ... 158