September 22, 2014, 12:27:43 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 ... 24 25 [26] 27 28 ... 90
376
Software & Accessories / Re: How many cards?
« on: December 18, 2013, 04:58:59 PM »
You can choose.  It is up to you.

377
Lenses / Re: DXOMark: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Reviewed
« on: December 18, 2013, 04:57:10 PM »

Yup, it implies that current coatings are better than something that came out in 2005.  Canon's 24-70 f/4 IS has a t-stop = 4.  The 24-70 II has a t-stop of 3 while the version I has a t-stop of 3.4.

It's not just coatings. The newer lenses have bigger front elements and that counts for a lot (more surface area on the front of the lens = more light gathering ability.)
[/quote]

Maybe... although it would affect some and not all a zoom's focal range.  But it can also be done without changing the lens diameter.  For example, the 24 f/2.8 and the f/2.8 IS both use 58mm filters.  The old one has a t-stop of 3.2 while the new one is 2.8.

378
Lenses / Re: New to Canon - please help me decide on lenses
« on: December 18, 2013, 03:37:40 PM »
I've been reading a little more about the 20 2.8. The venerable K Rockwell seems to think that Canon intentionally adjusted its design to maximize corner focus/clarity for field curvature when shooting in three dimensions (as opposed to test charts). He even gives it an acronym but I haven't read it anywhere else. He's constantly contradicting himself but I don't find he makes stuff up for no good reason. If the Canon 20mm was good in the field for landscapes, cityscapes etc, I'd be seriously interested in it. I just don't hear much from people who actually use it so I appreciate your input. I really liked my Minolta 20mm. Then I might be more amicable to a mid-range zoom like the 24-70. 14mm scares me but 20 I can frame up in my mind.

I've never used the 20 f/2.8, but reading the review at TDP scared me away from it.  TDP recommends the 17-40 over the 20 f/2.8.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-20mm-f-2.8-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

I don't know how representative the review is because the lens is not that common.  Most people opt for 17-40 or 16-35 instead.  Now, if they gave it the same treatment as the 24 and 28mm f/2.8, then I'd be interested.

379
Software & Accessories / Re: How many cards?
« on: December 18, 2013, 03:29:29 PM »
I'd keep the compact flash.  The camera writes to it much faster and it's also much faster when transferring the files from the card to the computer.  SD cards are slower in practice.  For more critical shots, I'll set the 5DIII to write RAWs to both cards.  Otherwise, I'm leaving the SD card in there but I'm only using the CF.

380
Lenses / Re: Should I choose the 70-200 2.8 II?
« on: December 18, 2013, 03:24:11 PM »

My advice: Consider if you really need this "all in one" package, the alternative is for example to buy a longer 70-300L and a prime that is faster than f2.8 or maybe the 100L macro which is also f2.8 but gives you more shooting options.

+1.  The 70-300L is a better travel lens than the 70-200 II.  If it will be your only lens in the focal range, then the 70-200 II is more versatile:  sports, portraits, etc.  -- it can pretty much do it all.  You'll just be at a weight and size disadvantage for travel.  It also comes down to how you intend to travel with your gear.  If you're carrying the telephoto in a backpack most of the time and you're using the 70-200 at select locations, then it won't make as much of a difference.

381
Lenses / Re: DXOMark: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Reviewed
« on: December 18, 2013, 03:16:28 PM »
An f/4 zoom lens is not one you'd expect to have optimal light transmission anyway.
Isn't the point of lens design to have optimal light transmission?  And if the f-stop is four and the t-stop half a stop worse, doesn't that say something about Canon's glass elements and coatings?  The Canon 24-105 is a good lens but it should not have been branded with the red ring.

Yup, it implies that current coatings are better than something that came out in 2005.  Canon's 24-70 f/4 IS has a t-stop = 4.  The 24-70 II has a t-stop of 3 while the version I has a t-stop of 3.4.

382
Lenses / Re: DXOMark: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Reviewed
« on: December 18, 2013, 12:06:46 PM »
Well, if the box the worth $500 to you, then get it for 1149.  It isn't to me.  And good luck selling a Canon 24-105 that you would buy for 1149 for anything close to that amount.

Or in other words, anyone that paid anything close to the MSRP when it was originally released has been screwed over and that this lens was never worth the investment when it was first released.

Says a lot for Canon "L" quality, doesn't it?

LOL, good luck selling the Sigma 24-105 for 900 in a couple years.  The S35 came out at 900 and is now discounted to less than 800.  That says something about Sigma quality too, doesn't it?

The 5DIII came out at 3500, and the 24-70 II came out at 2300.  Early purchases pay a premium.  Kit lenses face even more pricing pressure, so what is your point?  The IQ of the S35 is better than the 35L and sells for less, so it is a good value.  The Sigma 24-105, whose IQ is slightly better but sells for more, is not the value winner that the S35 is. 

383
Lenses / Re: DXOMark: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Reviewed
« on: December 18, 2013, 10:13:17 AM »
Many of the cheap Canon 24-105L's are because vendors are taking it out of a kit and selling it and the camera separately. This is not a Canon approved activity but they seem to look the other way.

If you go to a proper web site for a store like B&H, then you can compare the price of the Canon and Sigma:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?atclk=Zoom+Focal+Lengths_24-105mm&ci=274&N=4288584247+4261208183

$1149 vs $899.

Adorama:

http://www.adorama.com/catalog.tpl?op=itemlist&cat1=Lenses&cat2=SLR%20Lenses&Feature5=24-105mm&sf=Price&st=de

$1149 vs $899.

Well, if the box the worth $500 to you, then get it for 1149.  It isn't to me.  And good luck selling a Canon 24-105 that you would buy for 1149 for anything close to that amount.

384
Lenses / Re: DXOMark: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Reviewed
« on: December 17, 2013, 11:25:51 PM »
People are comparing Sigma's MSRP with Canon's street price. That seems hardly fair. A proper comparison should be between equivalent prices, so either both MSRPs or both street. If the Sigma lens is able to sustain good sales at or close to its MSRP then that's not a bad thing.

It is fair because that the order price is the MSRP for the Sigma RIGHT NOW, at the same instant in time.  If I want to buy a Canon 24-105, I could have gotten one new for about 600.  If I want a to order a new Sigma, it'd cost me about 900.  Perhaps the Sigma's price will fall 100 in a 200 in a year and the Canon will remain at 600.  If so, then that is a comparison for next year.

385
CPS is aimed for Professionals, and i'm sure if they were to find out that you were not a professional, you could lose your status.  Being both a professional and a CPS member, i find threads like these kind of sad, but, for those who take advantage and bend the rules for your own gain, karma always comes back around...

What is sad are posts like these as they appear to be judgmental and pompous. What, may I ask are the criteria for being a "professional?" Where is the line drawn? Primary source of income? Your main job? How many gigs you've done? How often someone has paid for an image of yours? The level of ambiguity to this determination is huge to an extent to which I don't believe you have given any thought.

I don't quite understand how anyone is taking advantage or bending the rules. I'm quite certain that if Canon/CPS was overly concerned about making their memberships exclusive only to high level pros, they would do so. I tend to believe based on the way things are set up that they are really only concerned about whether you have spent enough money on their stuff.

I have a career which pays me very well which allows me to have the luxury of owning a lot of gear without having to do photography as a job. I do paid gigs for fun here and there and have plenty of gear which doesn't all necessarily get used on those jobs. Does that make me not a professional? Am I not qualified to get my equipment worked on?

Canon sells products and provides a way for you to get them serviced which also costs money. Who is anyone to tell another photog they shouldn't be allowed to have membership if they are willing to pay the money for both?

I'm pretty sure there is a higher likelihood of running into some bad karma when you are being wrongfully judgmental of others and/or being full of yourself.

Well, professional is somewhat defined on the US Canon website (see below).   Full-time is a pretty high bar and would exclude you and me.

Canon Professional Services (CPS) provides exceptional benefits for individual full-time imaging professionals. CPS members receive exclusive phone and e-mail support, expedited and discounted services and repairs, equipment evaluation loans, service loans, on-site support at select events and shows, plus discounts on Canon Live Learning workshops, and more.

386
Lenses / Re: DXOMark: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Reviewed
« on: December 17, 2013, 04:37:57 PM »
Yeah, it only undercuts the Canon because DxO still has the 24-105 costing 1250, which is far above its current street price.  It may be a slightly better than Canon's 24-105, but with the Canon version selling at 600-700, the Sigma isn't quite the bargain as when the Canon sold at 1250.

387
Without trying to be offensive, I often find myself mystified by customers who develop an almost religious faith in brands.  "If The Company did it, it must  be right."  Why?  Why recognize mistakes and press for improvements?

And who are these "customers who develop an almost religious faith in brands"?

Yes, I understand your point, but there are also a lot of others (not you) and a lot of threads already that basically come down to "I want a 5DIII at a 6D or a 70D price" or "I want a FF mirrorless with an EVF that servo AF that is as good as a 5D III for less than a 6D price), which is either not economically feasible for now or would lead to less total profit for Canon over the long term.  And it is long term profits that matter because that is how R&D budgets get planned 3-5 years in advance.  Canon is a stable company and there is a lot of value in that.  I have a lot more faith in Canon being in the camera business 5 years from now than Sony.

FWIW, I started with with film with a Pentax but found their lens selection too limiting.  My first digital camera was a Nikon.  I preferred Nikon's flash system to Canon's (until the RT system), but I switched to Canon because of the 20D.  I used a 5D II for everything, including sports and it worked (center point and crop).  I don't think the 6D is as crippled as you are saying because the 6D's AF is still better than the 5D II's, especially the outer points.  The 5D III solved almost all the things that I found deficient in the 5D II, and a lot of people did a lot of great photography with the 5D II.

The 5D II was an improvement on the 5D an the 5D III is an improvement on the 5D II.  The cameras evolve, but as I stated before, they are evolving in response to the changing market.  I am sure the that next wave of 1D/5D/6D will have a different set of features and differentiators as they do now, just as the 5D III had to improved AF-wise to accomodate the 6D.  No one expected the AF of the 5D III to be that close to the 1DX's.  The 6D has been designed and is selling.  I thought it was smart move for Canon to design something that could go lower than the 1800-2000 that the 5D II was selling at near the end of its life, and I'm guessing that the 6D's price could fall even farther and Canon could still be profitable.  Canon is doing better compared to its peers, which suggests it's getting more things right than not.  You and I individually do not affect marketing and engineering decisions.  Unfortunately, the design and feature set that will satisfy the most potential customers may still not be attractive to millions of other customers, of which you and I might be among.  You and I might not like a company's decision, but that does not make the decision that the company made wrong.

388
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.

389
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.

390
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.

Pages: 1 ... 24 25 [26] 27 28 ... 90