November 29, 2014, 01:33:40 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 - Random Orbits

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 93
31
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 6D Mark II to Move Upmarket? [CR1]
« on: October 16, 2014, 02:20:07 PM »
So what is it exactly that you want, what needs to be added to a camera to compete with Hello Kitty?  A cellular 4G radio?  Should it also make phone calls, perhaps to call our editors and beg forgiveness for the few minutes delay?  Instant cloud upload?  A Facebook, Twitter, Instagram app, a contacts list complete with social media addresses of all customers?

That's a pretty good start. I've crossed out the phone, because I'm not sure that's necessary, but I would entertain it. But, certainly a usable wifi interface and the ability to do some quick edits in-camera at a minimum.

That gets the heart of the question -- doesn't it?  People pay a lot of money for cell phone network/data access.  I can't see many people paying a similar fee for a camera in addition to the cell phone that they already have...

32
EOS Bodies / Re: Scott Kelby Does a Field Report on the EOS 7D Mark II
« on: October 11, 2014, 07:29:30 PM »
+1.  One person doing one review or giving experiences from using something over a short period of time is not going to satisfy all the "review points" for all the critics of this forum. 

The problem is that he had the camera for like a week? more? and did an hour long video on the camera but didn't say anything of substance.  Its actually kind of amazing how little he was able to convey in such a long period of time.   I guess the soothing, melodious voice of marketing and vague reassurances that everything is totally great guys just trust me is all people really need. Be sure to get your pre-orders in!

He's used to using a 1DX and has a 70D.  He says it's little brother to the 1DX but is an older brother than he thought it would be.  ACR and DPP don't support it yet, so what is the point of comparing RAWs?  Noise looks better than 70D but it doesn't match FF.  It has a deep buffer.  What else are you expecting?  And you've found some other source that played with a preproduction model and got all the info you wanted?  I don't think so...

which led to my second sentence which you didn't quote "But instead of treating it as some information/experience from someone who has used multiple lenses/cameras in advance of it becoming generally available, it's being discounted as worthless."

33
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: EOS 7D mk2 or 5D mk3
« on: October 11, 2014, 05:55:55 PM »
It depends on what lenses you'll be able to afford to use or have for each camera.  I use the 5DIII for everything (sports, portraits, landscapes, etc.) because it is the only camera I have.  Sometimes, I wish it had a higher frame rate for shooting my kids soccer games, but that is about it (a deeper buffer would help too).  And yes, I love the additional DOF control of FF.

34
EOS Bodies / Re: Scott Kelby Does a Field Report on the EOS 7D Mark II
« on: October 11, 2014, 04:37:43 PM »
You all seem to be making the same mistake.... You are confusing an in-depth review with advertising...... This is advertising.... Of course it is fluff and no critical information.....

Some very critical info I gathered from the review:
-Great buffer
-AF almost as fast as the 1DX
-AF points very near the edge of the sensor
-Amazing ISO performance for a crop sensor
-Scott Kelby doesn't care as much about DR as everyone else on this fourm!

+1.  One person doing one review or giving experiences from using something over a short period of time is not going to satisfy all the "review points" for all the critics of this forum.  None of us have access to it, so this is what we have.  But instead of treating it as some information/experience from someone who has used multiple lenses/cameras in advance of it becoming generally available, it's being discounted as worthless.  I didn't have any interest in a 7DII, but I miss frames because of the slower framerate and smaller buffer of the 5DIII.  Now I'll consider it once it's out a while and I get to have a chance to play with one.

35
Canon General / Re: More Canon Lens Mentions [CR2]
« on: October 11, 2014, 10:14:02 AM »
12-24mm was a typo.. fixed that.

2000$ are less then 3000$ that´s what i meant.

11mm is crayz wide yes.
But as you can see in the comments here most would prefer faster glass and a less wide lens. Some even say that most people don´t get wider than 16mm. So imo the 3mm are less important than f2.8. The usefulness for the majority is smaller.

For me 14mm f2.8 would be great at the wide end... when the image quality is right.

Right now im using a EF 14mm f2.8 for night/stars.

In that case, most people will find supplementing a 16-35 with a Samyang 14 to be a much more affordable option, no matter what Canon produces in the range.  No matter what Canon produces (14-24 f/2.8 or this 11-24 f/4), it will be expensive than the Samyang option.  The 24-70 II started around 2300 and now can be had for less than 1800.  This lens won't remain near 3K for long (less than a year), but I doubt it'd fall below 2K if it's IQ is comparable to the 16-34 f/4 IS and 24-70 f/2.8 II.  I find a 16-35 to be more useful than a 14-24.  It accepts filters easily.  If I want wider, then I use the 14 prime, which isn't really that large...

36
EOS Bodies / Re: Scott Kelby Does a Field Report on the EOS 7D Mark II
« on: October 11, 2014, 09:25:00 AM »
if you want to shoot sports and wildlife and can't afford the 1DX, this is the camera that you should consider

To reach that conclusion, it probably doesn't require a review by a renowned photog :-p

Right... and Canon is just going to let no-name people evaluate their preproduction units...

37
Canon General / Re: More Canon Lens Mentions [CR2]
« on: October 11, 2014, 09:21:15 AM »
Who asked for a f4 lens?
People asked for a 12-24mm f2.8 that matches Nikons.

Now we get a f4 that cost more then Nikons 12-24mm.

Maybe you don´t see the difference.. i see it.

Right... because the 12-24 is lens for APS-C cameras.  Nikon's 14-24 f/2.8 for full frame is 2K.  Canon is going to charge a premium for those first adopters, and 11mm is a lot wider than 14.  Sigma has a 12-24 zoom, but it's performance is poor in the corners.  What other choice do you have for 11-13mm on FF?

38
Canon General / Re: More Canon Lens Mentions [CR2]
« on: October 10, 2014, 08:37:38 PM »
I wouldn't give it a second glance at f/4.  At f/2.8, it would work great at low light events wide open, as I'd be able to zoom to 24mm for small groups, creative portraits, details...And it would work great wide for small to medium tents to bring in lots of environment, energy.

But I would want the f/2.8 ability to reduce ISO a stop and get faster shutter speeds.

It would be a shame if Canon couldn't come up with a great fast UWA, suggesting that the company's innovative days are tapped out, or they're having internal battles about shrugging of the professional dSLR market.

And who has a FF lens that is 11 or 12mm at f/2.8?
Yes, we get it.  This one literally goes to 11.  That alone isn't necessarily going to cut it for everybody... especially at $3k.

Nope, it isn't going to be for everyone, but what other comparable choices are there?

39
Canon General / Re: More Canon Lens Mentions [CR2]
« on: October 10, 2014, 01:59:54 PM »
I wouldn't give it a second glance at f/4.  At f/2.8, it would work great at low light events wide open, as I'd be able to zoom to 24mm for small groups, creative portraits, details...And it would work great wide for small to medium tents to bring in lots of environment, energy.

But I would want the f/2.8 ability to reduce ISO a stop and get faster shutter speeds.

It would be a shame if Canon couldn't come up with a great fast UWA, suggesting that the company's innovative days are tapped out, or they're having internal battles about shrugging of the professional dSLR market.

And who has a FF lens that is 11 or 12mm at f/2.8?

40
Canon General / Re: More Canon Lens Mentions [CR2]
« on: October 10, 2014, 11:49:42 AM »
Before we burn the barns in indignation lets get a couple of things clear:
  • The Nikon 12-24 is a crop camera only coverage lens, a $1,099 crop camera only lens that doesn't do the "ultra wide" job half as well as the Canon 10-22 EF-s and that costs $599.
  • The Nikon 14-24 is a FF ultra wide that costs $1,999. And those that herald it's all conquering capabilities probably haven't actually used it, yes it is much better than the Canon 16-35 f2.8 in the corners etc, but the 17 TS-E is a much better corrected lens for resolution, distortion and CA.
  • The 17 TS-E has a coverage of 11mm if you do a horizontal stitch, the projection distortion from an 11mm to rectilinear on ff is pretty bad, virtually unusable most of the time.

Whilst I don't see 14mm as being a hard limit for ff rectilinear lenses, 11mm is beyond extreme, at these focal lengths a couple of mm makes a huge difference. The 16-35 f4 IS has confirmed Canon can make fine ultra wide zooms, but where is the market for an 11-24 f4 next to that 16-35 f4 IS? If it was f2.8 I'd probably buy it, but my most used lens is the 17 TS-E anyway so it would be a nice compliment to that, at f4 I can stitch the 17 to get 11 on the very rare occasions I need the fov. The 16-35 f4 IS appeals, but it has limited utility for me over the 17 TS-E.

I can see the market for an f2.8 ultra wide zoom to compliment the 16-35 f4 IS, and the kudos of going wider than the 14-24, I am sure Canon would like the title of widest ff rectilinear lens back too, but the Sigma 12-24 is an f4 so even a 12-24 f2.8 would give Canon the fastest widest ever (so far)........

Nikon's 14-24 f/2.8 weighs more than 2 lb.  How much heavier would a well-corrected 12-24 f/2.8 weigh?  Would a 3-4 lb lens sell?

I'm hoping that the Canon is working on a 16-35 f/2.8 III that is as easily filterable as the II.  A 16-35 f/2.8 III, 16-35 f/4 IS, and a 11-24 f/4 will meet most photographers needs and would provide the best breadth of high performance lenses amongst mainstream camera/lens manufacturers.  How will 11mm be used?  I'm not sure, but I'm sure that people will figure out a use for it, and then it'll be copied ad naseum like the Go Pro action video or aerial/drone stuff...

41
Reviews / Re: Tamron 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 Di III VC Review (EOS M and NEX)
« on: October 10, 2014, 10:32:59 AM »
Thanks for the review, Dustin!  It would be nice to see a comparison versus the EF-M 55-200 if you get the chance.  Granted it's not sold natively in the US, but sourcing it from Canada is easy enough.  It is interesting how quickly the Tamron gets to f/5.6 (near 50mm) and see how that stacks up against Canon's 55-200.  Given how small the EF-M 18-55 is, carrying an extra lens for the M system is not as large a penalty compared to FF.

42
Canon General / Re: More Canon Lens Mentions [CR2]
« on: October 10, 2014, 09:31:43 AM »
$3000?!?!?!?!?  That's triple what overpriced Nikon charges for its popular 12-24 f/4!!!!!!!!!!

Isn't the 12-24 f/4 for crop only?!  This is for FF.

43
Canon General / Re: More Canon Lens Mentions [CR2]
« on: October 10, 2014, 09:09:38 AM »
The pricing of this lens is out of alignment with it being an f/4. Several factors could contribute to this:

1) difficult to manufacture in quantity
2) Canon perceives that there is a large, pent up, demand for this lens given how desirable it is to use the Nikon 12-24 plus adapter and thus lots of people willing to pay handsomely
3) the IQ is exceptional and Canon don't want to "give it away"
4) any combination of the above 3

Best advice in reaction to this lens is to wait a year or so and see what happens with the street price - similar to how the price corrected for the 24-70/f4L IS USM

If it has similar wide open performance to the 16-35 f/4 IS, then it will sell.  The Sigma 12-24 comes closest -- it costs close to 1k and has mushy corners.  11mm is much wider than 14, so even though it is f/4, it might still be as large as Nikon's 14-24, which is about 2k now, years after its introduction.  I'll wait for the reviews and also see where the price goes.  The 16-35 f/4 IS is so good, but there is something special about 11mm...

44
Lenses / Re: Thoughts on Having a 35 and a 50 on Crop?
« on: October 09, 2014, 02:21:07 PM »
Having both is fine.  When I used APS-C, I used fast 24 and 35 lenses.  Now on FF, I prefer 35 and 50 most of the time, 85 for portraits (50 on crop).  I love using fast primes indoors where the light levels are low and flash is not allowed/desired.

45
Lenses / Re: 16-35 f4 IS vs 16-35 f2.8 II stopped down
« on: October 03, 2014, 12:22:31 PM »
Not too much of a difference if that is where you use it exclusively.  The f/4 IS might handle color fringing a bit better...  It's improved midrange to corner performance wide open is well-known, and that improvement might tempt you to explore using ultrawides for other purposes than just stopped down for landscapes....

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 93