April 24, 2014, 01:52:24 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 - aznable

Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15]
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Should I upgrade to a 60D?
« on: May 12, 2012, 05:35:08 PM »
if you need just video functionality and better iso you can consider the 600d; if you need more, better to go with 7d

Lenses / Re: BATTLE OF THE PRIMES: F1.8 Vs F1.4
« on: May 10, 2012, 04:35:39 PM »
are we talking abot 50mm?

sigma 50mm 1.4 for the sharpness, canon 50 1.4 is you want a lightweight lens

a touch screen addition, same autofocus and plastic body of 60d... actual price of 7d with a nice 20% for the marketing research of the new name...subpar sensor but hdr in camera just like a compact camera from casio (respect to casio)

Animal Kingdom / Re: Kitty
« on: May 06, 2012, 03:29:16 PM »
This tread is totally unfair as the I am a cat lover, but I most say the photos have been outstanding.

for sure your cat's photos are outanding to....post post :)

sigma 70-200 OS 200mm@f/4

Epic Sciangatta by candido.dessanti, on Flickr

Of course, I don't say that a 24-70 f/2.8 without IS is garbage (as we all know, the version I sells/sold pretty well) but I simply cannot image how Canon will justify the almost $1000 difference when they will not provide IS while Tammy has one along with a quite decent optics. Perhaps someone can enlighten me?
Just my2c

the IS is a useful feature...better to have that dont for sure

well from the first test the tamron optically is in the same leaugue of old canon 24-70 that's wasnt anything special, so i guess the new 24-70 II will be really better that tamron and will be better built, with a better and faster autofocus, and of course it will feature a red ring.

in my opinion the brand is important, so Canon e Nikon are able to sell their stuff to a price considerably higher than 3rd parties, so they have the margin to give you an all around better product

Lenses / Re: EF 50 1.4 vs. 1.8
« on: May 03, 2012, 04:24:32 PM »
the sigma 50mm 1.4 it's better than both...if the weight it's no a problem for you...the price it's something more than canon 1.4

Lenses / Re: Canon 85 1.8 vs. Sigma 85 1.4
« on: May 03, 2012, 04:22:05 PM »
sigma cost roughly the double of canon a it performs extremly better...it's a no contest

Lenses / Re: Lenses to shoot the Milky Way. Is a 17-40 enough?
« on: April 30, 2012, 02:35:47 PM »
just take a look to the exif of photos of milky way...it's seems that everyone is using 2.8 high iso with long exposure time, su bumping to f/4.0 would force you to double the iso to get the same quantity of light.

both the lenes you want to try are sharper than 17-40 anyway but they costs a lot

Canon General / Re: Canon Aims to Sell More Stuff.....
« on: April 29, 2012, 04:08:28 PM »
Then I imagine they are willing to reconsider their pricing strategy. Prices of latest camera and lenses have been kinda  disconnected the economic reality as we know it IMHO... ::)

i think every producer of anything has lost sense of reality when it come to pricing

i think it's unlikely will use different senosr's Technologies

i am surprised about the comments on 5dmkIII

Lenses / Re: Canon 50 1.4 worth the upgrade?
« on: April 22, 2012, 02:34:25 PM »
if you want a lens usable from 1.4, better to go with sigma

the resolution diference with 1.4 canon huge


Lenses / Re: First dSLR, lens recommendations
« on: April 22, 2012, 03:34:10 AM »
I have looked around on the internet, reviews and forums and have reached the conclusion, that the 60D will do a nice upgrade from my current camera.

i dont like the 60D...maybe is a better idea to get a 7d/50D used body; if you need a fast and advanced autofocus, god for the 7D
I like to photograph landscapes and animal as well as portraits.

As for lenses, I have read that the EF-S 15-85 mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM is a good choice for an all-round starting lens so I’ll buy that unless you convince me otherwise :)

Now, the thing is I’m going to Malaysia in six weeks where I among other places will be going to the rainforest and hopefully I’ll be able to 'shoot' some wildlife.

I was fist thinking of getting the ES-F 10-22 mm f/3.5-4.5 USM as my second lens for landscapes, but now I’m wondering if a tele lens might do me better as the difference between 10 and 15 mm isn’t that much.
How long focal length will I need for 'shooting' animals? My guess is that even the 15-85 mm will be too short even at the long end. So is this 200, 300, 400 mm?

the differences between lenses like the 15-85 and other lenses like canon 10-22 , sigma 8-16 and so on is the huge distorsion you will get at short end of the lens; for example on the sigma at 8mm the distorsion is near the half you will get with the 15-85 @15mm and both wide-lenses become flat @15mm.

anyway i dont think is a good idea to buy a wide angle lens from the start, it's surely better to experience with an all around lens and in the future consider more specialized lenses.

you are right, you will need a tele, but the length depends on which subject/distances you think to shoot

you will go with tamron 70-300 VC USD; decent performance for a low price

for low light shooting then i suggest the sigma 50mm F/1.4 thats usable @1.4 and very sharp from 2.8

Animal Kingdom / Re: Kitty
« on: April 22, 2012, 02:07:31 AM »
scinagatta the good cat

a bit out of focus

there is no doubt D800 , the samples images looks incredible even at ISO 6400..they retained lots of details in them. they can be easily used with slight noise reduction and size reduction even with ISO 12800

check them out


from 800 iso is terrible…. and someone bothered about the sigma sd1 iso performance

Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15]