September 02, 2014, 11:02:01 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 - Random Orbits

Pages: 1 ... 23 24 [25] 26 27 ... 88
361
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 70D or Refurb MK II?
« on: December 17, 2013, 08:12:56 AM »
With that, my final end all question has to be,

Is it better to go with the 70D ($949 at BH) with a couple of quality lenses, or do I jump straight into Full Frame with the 6D ($1500 at BH) with maybe the ability to buy a fast prime like the 50mm 1.4?

Unless you plan on shooting at or above ISO 3200 regularly, I would go with the 70D + lenses, unless you already have a bunch of compatible lenses with FF.  You had stated that this will be your first dSLR but are you coming from a P&S and don't have any lenses or are you coming from a film SLR with a bag full of lenses?  30% video usage is a lot and the 70D wins there.

If you don't have any lenses right now, I would suggest the 70D + lenses. That will allow you to get some lenses to cover all your shooting interests.  And if you intend on having money to upgrade the setup in the future, then it might make sense to get lenses that will work on both FF and APS-C.

362
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Advice on getting a landscape setup!
« on: December 17, 2013, 07:52:25 AM »
The 10-22 might be slightly better in the corners than your 10-20, but if you're looking for significant improvement, then FF + a top shelf lens will be it but it'll cost a lot of money.  The 6D would work, but the Samyang 24 TS and 17-40 are both soft wide open.

What I would suggest is improving your technique rather than ugrading your gear.  Assuming that you already have a tripod, I would get a nodal slide/pano setup.  That will allow you to use a longer focal length lens and to get more pixels on target by stitching.  Stitching won't work for all subjects but a good stitch with a modest body and lens will easily beat a single non-stitched image from FF with the best lens.

Lighting (or waiting for good light) and postprocessing are bigger factors for making landscapes shots standout, and stitching will give you better details and allow you to print much larger.

363
Perfectly obvious Canon dropped the ball with the 6D, giving it weaker AF than the 60D.  Canon makes mistakes and should be called on them, just as they should be praised for the many cameras they get so wonderfully right.

Note that I don't call the AF issue a mistake simply because I have to pay more for a FF with good AF.  Putting the weak system in the entry level FF was a blunder because Canon needs dSLR customers committed to its entire eos/ef system.  Ticking off current customers looking to upgrade to FF was bad business, as was turning off prospective customers comparing Canon's offerings to those of other companies.  If Canon had simply equaled the xxD line's AF in an entry level FF, they'd have had more customers coming in and more customers with ef-s lenses looking to buy new lenses for their FF.  But Canon was shortsighted, stingy, and over protective of the 5DIII, which was simply out of range for a great many enthusiasts.

We have members of the press in the USA who reflexively cover for their favorite politicians no matter how outlandish the lies or harmful the policies.  But you know what?  Those journalists get paid for their sophistry.

Seriously?  Canon knew what it was doing when it spec'ed out the 6D -- they did not drop the ball.  Dropping the ball implies it was done by negligence or laziness and Canon intentionally chose an AF system for the 6D to be what it is.  Canon has traditionally used AF as a discriminator across camera models, and the 6D is no different.  This is marketing.  Why would you put 90% of the features into a camera that you'd charge 50% less?  The 6D's AF is better than the 5D II's, and the 6D is more sensitive to light than the 5D III and has signficant features that the 5D III lacks -- GPS and wifi.  If Canon hadn't planned on a 6D, there is no way that the 5D III would have a similar AF system as the 1DX.  Canon chose to give the 6D a more advanced sensor, wifi and GPS or would you rather that Canon would have made the 6D without wifi and GPS and with a worse sensor but with better AF?  You might have opted for the second option, but their marketing research guided their decision for the first option.

364
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 70D or Refurb MK II?
« on: December 16, 2013, 11:24:15 PM »
Now that you bring up that point, and seeing how the 6D is $1500 on B&H, I'm very tempted. Even though I do Concerts, I feel as though there isn't AS MUCH movement as something like wildlife/sports which I will never be shooting. So as long as the 6D can be a competitor for Concerts, I think it might be the way to go.

It should be fine.  Lateral movement at a far distance is not challenging AF-wise.  What is hard is when the target is moving erratically and is closer.  I used the 5D II for kids soccer and the AF worked OK.  Is the 5D III better?  Yes, but I got plenty of good images with the 5D II, and the 6D is more accurate than the 5D II.  Using the 5D II with fast primes with the outer parts when the subject was close (thin DOF) was asking for trouble.  The outer focus points on the 5D III are much better.  The 6D's aren't as good, but they're better than the 5D II.  Part of the photographer's task is knowing the limit of his equipment.

365
EOS Bodies / Re: Thinking Out Loud: EOS 7D Mark II Thoughts
« on: December 16, 2013, 01:37:33 PM »
...

PS: This could be the reason why Canon tries to cripple or limit EOS M and its EF-M lenses and will be the last camera maker to release mirrorless FF. The situation with EOS M is not like with usual DSLR APS-C users, the chances that new users of small and tiny EOS M will ever purchase EF-EOS M adapter and EF-S or EF lenses (including big whites) are close to zero -- these are just too large for this camera...

Perhaps true for those that don't already own a EOS camera, but probably not for those that do.  For those that do, the M serves as a more portable solution that can be used in a pinch with other EOS lenses.  The 11-22/20/18-55 setup would be about as far as I'd take the M setup -- a compact travel kit. 

366
Software & Accessories / Re: Tripod Advice for Landscapes with Big Stopper
« on: December 16, 2013, 01:27:35 PM »
I'm 5' 8" and use the TVC-24L with the BH 55m, and it works well.  Most times, I can get away with not extending the last leg section, but in comes in handy on sloped terrain.  I've had no problems using it up to a 70-200II + 2x.  I'd like to try heavier lenses on it, but I haven't had the chance to, but I'm sure it can handle much heavier loads just as easily.

367
Lenses / Re: Review: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS
« on: December 16, 2013, 01:20:24 PM »
Does weather sealing really even work on this or any other pumper/extending type zoom lens? It has to let air in somewhere.

Weathersealing is one of those concepts that is really hard to measure.  There are no universally accepted metrics about the extent of weathersealing. Weathersealing does not mean weatherproof.

I take any "weathersealing" with several large grains of salt.

I don't think the Sigma 24-105 is marketed for Canon users.  I think that Nikon users will be more interested in this as they don't have a simular specced lens.

+1.  I hate the term "weathersealing" too.  Weather-resistant or water resistent would be better.  With the term weathersealing, some people assume that the lenses are airtight, which they are not.

368
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
« on: December 13, 2013, 11:52:40 AM »
All this drivel about "Canon wants to protect their customers from bogeyman" is just that: drivel. And to some of these "if you spend x000 $ on camera gear, why be cheap when spending y00 $ on batteries": I really shouldn't have to answer to Canon or anyone why I make a purchasing decision, and Canon should be the very last one to slap my wrist after all the money I have spent on their gear.

You can choose to buy Canon or 3rd party equipment as you would like.  Just don't expect Canon to care about maintaining 3rd party compatibility.  You make your choice that is best for you, and Canon will make the best choice for itself.  Canon doesn't owe anything to 3rd party equipment manufacturers, but it does have a vested interest to make sure that all Canon stuff plays nicely together.

You got your benefit in a lower price upfront by going with a third party manufacturer, who sells at a discounted price to offset the risk.  After all, who'd buy a third party part if it was the same price as Canon's?  And clearly you have not spent enough on Canon gear else you wouldn't have any 3rd party equipment.   ::)

369
Lenses / Re: 24 f2.8 IS or 28 f2.8 IS ???
« on: December 13, 2013, 09:02:45 AM »
If you're considering a three lens kit, then the 24/35/50 is a bit more natural than a (24 or 28)/40/50.

For architecture, a 16/17 lens is useful indoors and a 24 is useful for larger rooms and buildings, which favors your 17-40.  If you're going for architecture, I'd suggest bringing your 17-40 over getting another lens even though it is a bit larger than what you're considering.  The 17-40 will also be more flexible for landscapes.

For street, I prefer a 35 if I'm only going to use one lens.  If you opt for the 35 f/2 IS, then you might be able to leave your 50 at home a lot of the time because f/2 would also work well in low light situations.  You might want to consider swapping the 40 for the 35 f/2 IS, and seeing if that one lens will satisfy your needs for street photography.  If you need wider, then you can consider the 24 f/2.8 IS and if you need longer, then bring along your 50 f/1.4.

FWIW, I recently picked up the 28 f/2.8 IS.  It's nice:  the colors are good and it's sharp enough.  The IS is less useful than I thought it would be.  I need to drop the shutter speed a lot before I can see IS making much of a difference (i.e. 1/15 or slower, at 1/30 I'm getting similar IS on/off results).  I chose the 28 because I have plenty of options at 24/35/50 and I got it during a sale for 350.

370
Lenses / Re: Canon 2X III teleconverter
« on: December 12, 2013, 02:50:49 PM »
Hmm, I am just about to pick up one of those. But as it's the first negative experience I've heard of I won't heditate.

 I hope you'll get a good one when you get it changed.

+1.  Just remember to AFMA when using the TC.  Canon bodies store lens and lens+converters separately.  My 1.4x changed the AFMA setting minimally, my 2x changed it by 4 or 5 units.

371
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: What camera for a mom
« on: December 12, 2013, 02:46:38 PM »
I would point her at an SL1 with the 18-55 kit.  You can start off in "green box" mode and as experience builds you can start into some of the more challenging modes.

It should do far better than a p/s camera and gives her room to grow.

+1.  The EOS-M is a nice camera, but it stinks at tracking moving objects, especially if her daughter is younger.

I have no experience with Eos M. Is it at least faster than p&s? For mirrorless cameras, perhaps sony is a better choice?  I know too little about mirrorless.

It's typical of p&s, which is not very good.  Other mirrorless offerings by other companies are better but are also pricier.  The AF tracking of the M is its Achilles heel, which is why people are waiting to see the M with the 70D's dual pixel sensor technology.  IQ-wise, it's like most Canon APS-C offerings.  For 300, it delivers a lot of bang for the buck.

372
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: What camera for a mom
« on: December 12, 2013, 01:45:51 PM »
I would point her at an SL1 with the 18-55 kit.  You can start off in "green box" mode and as experience builds you can start into some of the more challenging modes.

It should do far better than a p/s camera and gives her room to grow.

+1.  The EOS-M is a nice camera, but it stinks at tracking moving objects, especially if her daughter is younger.

373
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 10D, 100D or 700D?
« on: December 12, 2013, 08:29:36 AM »
Option 2 but with the kit lens if you stay with a DSLR.  The 18-55 range is more useful than the 24-105 for parties and is smaller and lighter.  She could always "borrow" your lenses for a specific purpose, but the 100D with the kit lens is compact and light.  Most women I know prefer the more compact option even if it has fewer features.  The camera that is small enough that they don't mind carrying is the one that gets used... which is why I got my wife the EOS-M.

374
Lenses / Re: IS Versions of the 50mm, 85mm & 135mm Coming? [CR1]
« on: December 11, 2013, 12:42:56 PM »
Just a thought, but how many people (especially unhappy 17-40mm or 16-35mm owners complaining of soft corners) would be please if Canon replaced the 20mm f/2.8 USM with a 20mm f/2.8 IS or 18mm f/2.8 IS for around the same street price as the 17-40mm (not initially, but eventually drift down like the 24/28/35mm IS primes)?

I know 20mm is much longer than 16mm or 17mm, but I'm sure a new IS prime would be incredible sharp, and still fairly small.  Sounds like the perfect solution for video (widest stabilized lens in Canon EOS mount) and tripod-free nighttime landscape photography (theoretically handholdable at 0.8 sec).  What does the CR community think of such a replacement?

I like the idea.  I got the 28 f/2.8 IS and am impressed with it.  If Canon do get a similar result with the 20mm, then I'm all for it.  It would make me that much closer to getting rid of the 16-35 II.

375
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 35 f/1.4L II to Finally Arrive? [CR1]
« on: December 11, 2013, 12:37:39 PM »
My Sigma 35 does not fail at focusing. I have used a few pre-2012 Siggys in the past and I know what the issues were and the new Art 35 has none of those. My copy focuses nearly as fast as my 135F.  Me thinks some folks love Canon a bit too much and are not open to 3rd party lenses or at least to the possibility of those said companies improving and actually doing nearly or even better at times than the big C to the point they convince themselves it's not true.

I don't care who made my gear as long as it performs.

When the 6D was announced, a lot of people on this forum did not see its value and swore that they would get the 5DII instead.  Now, few people would opt for the 5DII over the 6D.  Right now the S35 is better than the 35L.  I'll wait for the 35L II to be reviewed and then make the choice.  Right now people can't see a lens much better than the S35, but what if the 35L II is much better?  And if it's not, then S35 will continue to do well in the marketplace.

Pages: 1 ... 23 24 [25] 26 27 ... 88