September 18, 2014, 06:15:50 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 - jebrady03

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 17
61
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 10D, 100D or 700D?
« on: December 13, 2013, 01:39:22 AM »
Main use will be shooting at parties

I already have a number of spare Canon lenses and was thinking of donating my 24-105L to her and thus limiting the financial outlay to 'body only'. It would also have better IQ than any of the 100D/700D kit lenses.

Yes, the 24-105L would have better IQ wide open than the 18-55, although not as much better as you might be thinking.  Not sure if 100D + 18-135mm STM kits are available where you are (they aren't in the USA but since you call it the 100D and refer to IXUS P&S, I infer that you're not in the USA) - that kit lens actually delivers better IQ at the long end than the 24-105L, even giving the 24-105L the benefit of stopping down to f/5.6 (TDP comparison).

The real issue with the 24-105L is that on APS-C it gives a FF equivalent of 38mm.  Not sure which IXUS she has, but most of the recent ones start at 28mm or even 24mm FFeq…I'm not sure she'd be happy giving up the wide angle, particularly since you mention indoor use. 

So, my vote goes to a 100D body (for the small size) and either the 18-135mm STM lens, the 18-55mm STM lens for cost savings, or if you want to splurge and one-up the Joneses, the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS which gives better low light performance and IMO is the best general purpose zoom for APS-C.

I was thinking almost exactly what neuro said except I didn't consider the 17-55 upgrade.  I also agree with K13X5C.  Get her something new that is hers and let her show it off and get a real thrill out of using it.  And help her with it often so you can be her resident expert.  Compliment her on her work.

Another +1 for Neuro's suggestion.  I'd also like to second the "EOS M" suggestion as it was the very first thing that popped in my head.  Buying the "full kit" of the EOS M + 22/2 (for low light) + 18-55 + 90EX flash sounds PERFECT for her uses, IMO.  And if you're in the US can be had for $400.  That's a LOT of bang for the buck as the IQ from both of those lenses is OUTSTANDING, the kit is compact and the entire package is quite versatile.  If the 40mm f/2.8 STM is desired, it can be added along with the adapter for less than $250.

62
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS M2 Not Coming to North America
« on: December 03, 2013, 08:21:23 PM »
Well I'm glad I picked up a Fuji XE-2 with kit lens and the 23 f/1.4   That kit puts the EOS M2 to shame and I chose the Fuji over the A7r, because I don't want giant lenses on my mirror less body.  I'll save my giant lenses for the 1DX.

And you only spent $1900 more for it too!  Or, almost 6x as much!  Depending on your preference

63
I was going to purchase EF-M 11-22 IS STM soon, but if the Canon don't want to make more lenses and leave the system with small enhancements just for Asian market I'm not quite sure...
Maybe it's time to look for another mirrorless system before I got too deep in hopeless system.

Don't cut your nose off to spite your face. You'll not find a better UWA zoom than the 11-22, especially given the price. In fact, for most, the lens plus camera is cheaper than competing lenses alone.

64
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS M2 Not Coming to North America
« on: December 03, 2013, 04:10:25 PM »
What I'm getting at is, would these people even know? Realistically, no one knew anything truly specific about the launch of the M2 until yesterday?

65
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS M2 Not Coming to North America
« on: December 03, 2013, 04:03:09 PM »
if they were going to announce it, say for instance after the new year, do you think they would tell you right now?

66
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS M2 Gets Official
« on: December 03, 2013, 07:15:50 AM »
One thing that was initially supposed to be on the M but was removed prior to release was zooming during movie recording.  Found this in the specs:

Quote
Digital zoom - You can set about 3-10 times zoom

Pretty cool.

67
EOS-M / Re: The Next EOS M [CR2]
« on: December 02, 2013, 01:26:43 PM »
I love the M, but wish it had the articulating a flip out LCD display, a headphone jack, audio meters on all the time, larger battery, side door for battery and SD card, not the current bottom door. HD 1080p60. Use the full frame capture for HD 1080p without line skipping. Eliminate aliasing and moire. Better low light/available light performance without digital noise. Option to record ProRes 10bit 4.2.2  Built in ND filters. Zoom lens with constant f/2.8. A smooth rocker switch in an easy location for motorized zooming like their high end lenses for video cameras usually have. EF lens mount instead of the EFM. Just make the body a little bit bigger for this EF mount and larger battery with a side door. Continuous non stop recording for video to fill the whole SD card no matter what size card we use.

Probably higher costs for all of this, but I would pay extra for all those features if they compete with BMPCC and the GH3 around $1000 or less. I got my M with 22mm lens for $300 and the 18-55mmm EFM lens for $135. Extra batteries with chargers were also very low cost. A lot of quality there for a very low price, IMO.

Gary

LOL

68
EOS Bodies / Re: Just Touching the Surface of Dual Pixel Technology? [CR1]
« on: November 25, 2013, 04:49:29 PM »
I'm ready for QPAF (Quad Pixel).
HDR plus AF.
it seems like a natural evolution to me

69
EOS-M / Re: The Next EOS M [CR2]
« on: November 22, 2013, 10:43:03 AM »
Protect Rebel market share? Money is money. Why would Canon care if someone buys either of two equally priced cameras and lenses as long as Canon makes it? The bottom line is what matters, not the assembly line.

70
EOS-M / Re: The rumored tele lens for the M
« on: November 15, 2013, 08:25:12 AM »
I would be worried an EF-M version will have the same problem.

Yet another reason to go with a shorter telephoto zoom (50-150 or 75-150).  Shorter focal length means you're not pushing the limits of normal technique and the equipment should be smaller and balance easier.

71
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS Rebel SL1/Kiss X7 in White
« on: November 14, 2013, 09:55:49 AM »
I actually don't think it's that bad - perhaps because I had  low expectations? Although the small size and white color kind of makes it look like a toy.

If Canon is after the customer who used to buy point and shoot cameras, then offering DSLR's in multiple colors makes a LOT of sense!

72
EOS-M / Re: The rumored tele lens for the M
« on: November 14, 2013, 08:52:39 AM »
I've said it before and I'll say it again - I'd give up some reach in a native M mount telephoto zoom to get a smaller lens.  A 50-150 (3x zoom) or 75-150 (2x zoom) would be great and further reach than a 70-200 on FF (200 vs 240).  In fact, I'd give up a little max aperture too.  Rather than a 3.5 maximum aperture, I'd take 4.5 - especially if it didn't VERY QUICKLY narrow after zooming from the wide end like most zooms do).

I don't know the physics behind lens design but my guess would be that a smaller zoom range and smaller maximum aperture would decrease the size and weight thereby making this an ideal telezoom for MOST people (people in this forum are NOT in that group more often than not) when using the M.

73
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: NX300 AF vs. Canon DSLR's
« on: November 13, 2013, 03:12:00 PM »
They're comparing to base model DSLR's.

74
EOS-M / Re: The Next EOS M in 2014 [CR2]
« on: November 11, 2013, 04:25:37 PM »
Ideal system for me =
  • M + 70D sensor (improved if possible - that's ALWAYS appreciated but in this case, unlikely)
  • Focus peaking + panoramic capabilities
  • 11-22 released in US
  • 35 f/2 IS STM
  • 50 or 60 f/2.8 IS STM macro
  • smallest possible telephoto including IS and STM of course.  I'll sacrifice maximum aperture and focal length for size.  For instance a 50-150 or a 75-150.  Max aperture of 4.5 at the wide end is fine with me as long as it's sharp wide open - no reason to think it wouldn't be given the other STM offerings

To me, all of that plus the EF-M 22/2 and 18-55 IS STM represents a VERY complete system for the VAST majority of people.  Anyone wanting anything beyond this would be well served by the EF to EF-M adapter.

To me, this is AWESOME and quite complete!

If they wanted to offer an optional EVF, that's fine too!

75
EOS-M / Re: The Next EOS M in 2014 [CR2]
« on: November 11, 2013, 03:49:27 PM »
Smaller?
Why? How?

Exactly my thought.  I'm hoping maybe that's a misinterpretation and perhaps they mean lighter.  The M could stand to lose a few ounces - it's like a brick!

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 17