April 16, 2014, 04:00:14 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 - rpt

Pages: 1 ... 68 69 [70] 71 72 ... 140
I think we are missing an option here. We need an option "I'll survive with my current gear thank you"...

I'd go with that. :)

I think that's implied by the second option but yes, there are those who will use what they have until they wear it out and then they'll shop for a replacement.
Taking that into consideration, I doubt many of those who use their cameras until they're worn out are paying a lot of attention to these debates.
My principle in purchasing electronics is to buy what you need and skip two or three generations. For sensors I went from 300D to 5D3. My next purchase of the body is going to be several years down the road. Unless I inherit a million dollars (US or AUS) - fat chance of that happening!  :)

I think we are missing an option here. We need an option "I'll survive with my current gear thank you"...

I'd go with that. :)

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Networkable DSLRs trivially hacked
« on: March 26, 2013, 01:47:08 PM »
I have a simple strategy for somebody trying to hijack my camera: I did not buy the 1DX. I got the 5D3! ;)

1D X Sample Images / Re: Any Thing shot with a 1Dx
« on: March 26, 2013, 11:25:48 AM »
1Dx 300f/2.8 V2, shot @ f/7.1 & 1/250th.
Mala Mala, Northern South Africa, March 2013
Lovely leopard shots! Could you describe how you took this one?

Lenses / Re: Canon 24-105 F/4L
« on: March 26, 2013, 11:18:47 AM »

But seriously, though...this lens doesn't just extend and contract lengthwise when zooming, but its girth also expands and shrinks. At 12mm and when it's in your bag, it's no bigger than the Shorty McForty. Sure, fully zoomed, the front objective is almost as big as the Perkins Telescope at Lowell Observatory -- but, even then, it still only weighs four pounds -- barely more than a gripped 5DIII -- so it's not at all a problem to handhold.


You are posting on the wrong thread! You should be posting on the one that talked about the future of photography in 20 or 30 years ;)

Lenses / Re: Prime vs zoom
« on: March 25, 2013, 11:01:15 PM »

I like the 400f5.6 more than the 100-400 or the Sigma 120-400.... whenever Canon updates it, I'll add one to my kit.

Don, thanks for the idea. That is what I will do too! Well, if it does not cost an arm and a thumb... :)

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark II - Light stain on a body!
« on: March 25, 2013, 10:58:20 PM »
Just chill! It will naturally flake off. Well some of it will. :)

Like many have said, do not use strong solvents (or acid or grinders). You will only make it worse. Consider it a battle scar and tell a story about it...



Lenses / Re: Canon 24-105 F/4L
« on: March 25, 2013, 10:50:09 PM »
I currently have a T3i with the kit lens, a Canon 50mm f/1.4, Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM II Macro Zoom Lens and a Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM that I'm selling.  I will be buying the Canon 6D with the 24-105 f/4L  In your opinion will I be able to get low light shots with the  24-105 f/4L on the 6D, as I have with the Sigma f/2.8 on my T3i?

Yes, all you will need to do is shoot at one stop higher iso. IE, if you are shooting f2.8 on the t3i/sigma combo at iso400 you can get the same shot with f4 on the 6D/24-105L combo at iso800. The DOF will be will be pretty close as well. The big plus being the 6D will have a lot less noise even shooting at one stop higher ISO then the t3i.

You should be able to shoot up to 6400 ISO without a problem. I have a 5D3 - not a 6D but I am sure you can get good shots at that ISO too. I have got reasonable shots in poor light at 12800 and 25600 too.

Lenses / Re: Prime vs zoom
« on: March 25, 2013, 10:35:53 PM »
I mostly shoot with zooms. I usually do not shoot in very bad light but that could be because of the zooms I have :)

Most of the time either the 24-105 or the 100-400 is on my camera. Unless I am shooting macros... There was only one evening that I shot exclusively with the 40mm...

Lenses / Re: naked eye equivalent?
« on: March 24, 2013, 09:43:26 PM »
Hope this is of interest
Very informative. Also lovely pictures. I love your architectural shots. It feels like I am actually being there.

Lenses / Re: naked eye equivalent?
« on: March 24, 2013, 09:38:38 PM »

Oh -- and modern viewfinders generally suck royally compared with the days of classic manual focus SLRs such as the Pentax ME-Super.



I would kill to get the AE1 viewfinder on my 5D3!

Lenses / Re: naked eye equivalent?
« on: March 23, 2013, 11:29:04 PM »
The answer is 42   ;D

You jest, of course...but the answer on 135 format ("full frame") is actually pretty close to that: about 43 1/4.

Now, if only somebody could tell me a decent place to have dinner that isn't at the End of the Universe....


Forty second street ;)

Lenses / Re: naked eye equivalent?
« on: March 23, 2013, 11:27:36 PM »

Lenses / Re: How Much do you use your Canon EF 16-35mm L ??
« on: March 23, 2013, 11:18:30 PM »
I use mine occasionally, but I wouldn't say frequently.  Mostly for travel and city walkabouts.  Unlike you, a bit over 60% of my shots with the lens are in the 16-24mm focal range. 

Here are some from a relatively recent trip to San Francisco.  The first is a long exposure on a tripod, the second two were high ISO to keep the shutter speed up (1/200 s for the last one, which was taken up through the windshield with the camera resting on the dashboard as I drove across the Golden Gate Bridge at 50 mph  :) ).  All with the 1D X, 16mm, 17mm, and 20mm, and ISO 200, 12800, and 25600, respectively.
The second one with the swan is lovely!

Pages: 1 ... 68 69 [70] 71 72 ... 140