April 18, 2014, 10:49:04 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 ... 37 38 [39] 40 41 ... 76
Lenses / Re: Renting a wildlife lens
« on: March 26, 2013, 10:49:04 AM »
Since you have a 70-200 2.8 IS II mentioned in your signature you should consider getting/renting a 2x extender. It will keep your kit lighter and cheaper. The IQ is said to be almost as good as with the 100-400mm.
Have a fun and safe trip. :)

+1.  Superteles are much heavier.  Depending on how it's used, it might necessitate bringing a tripod too.

Lenses / Re: What would cause Canon to release the 35L II?
« on: March 26, 2013, 09:22:09 AM »
The Sigma 35 f/1.4 is a factor, but so is the 24-70 II.  Any prime in that focal length range that does not beat the 24-70 II is DOA.  Most of Canon's fast primes in that range are good enough wide open where corner sharpness is not as much of a concern for shallow DOF portraits/applications.  Having primes that beat the 24-70II would give prime users a reason for using primes for all types of photography, not just for shallow DOF, because right now the 24-70II is comparable/better than the 24L II, 35L and 50L at the same apertures.

Primes typically cost less than the zoom that covers the same range (except the original 24-70L), so I'm guessing that the primes would be less than 2300 at launch and less than 2000 in about a year.

Lenses / Re: small primes to go with SL1?
« on: March 26, 2013, 09:10:33 AM »
Given the way Canon has "crippled" the 100D down to "entry-level" specifications, I do not think we can expect any EF-S primes. Canon should have brought these primes out years ago, basically as soon as they went with APS-C - in order to replace the 50mm f/1.8 as a "first prime" for budding photographers. They didn't, as they reason that that part of the market only wants zoom lenses (although the "higher" demographic is also primarily into zooms ... 16-35mm, 24-70mm, 24-105mm, 70-200mm, 100-400mm, etc.)

Canon has, in my opinion, created a bit of a problem for themselves with the 100D. It is definitely a camera with the sole purpose of preventing current "users" not to buy m4/3, as once you go there it's lost business for Canon. Yet, bringing out EF-S primes will keep people, as they grow photographically, in the APS-C segment. This bites into their "full-frame" business, with its inflated price tag, as "full-frame" basically loses a lot of its appeal - because you get the same from EF-S (and currently from m4/3).

Canon sees APS-C as (1) a method of selling cheap DSLR's to the masses, and (b) an "upgrade path" towards their expensive "full-frame" offerings. The new 100D makes it obvious that they are losing serious ground on point (1) to m4/3 and other "mirrorless" systems. Yet if they make EF-S a serious form-factor with dedicated primes and decent tele-photo lenses, then they lose on point (2).

Canon, just like Pentax, has not kept up with their market.

I don't think Canon is afraid of APS-C threatening full frame.  For the same generation of technology,  FF will win in low light/high ISO/noise and shallower DOF.  Does that matter to the masses?  Probably not, but it's probably why most FF users are using FF.

I also don't see much advantage for Canon to release EF-S primes.  The 35/2 and 50/1.4 are fairly small and light already, and a lot of people balk at forking 1k for a EF-S lens (i.e. 17-55 f/2.8).  People also want lenses that are FF compatible in case they decide to move in that direction in the future.  Perhaps an EF-S 15 f/1.4 might make sense, but I don't think that there'd be a large market to make it worthwhile.

Lenses / Re: Lens recommendation
« on: March 26, 2013, 07:32:37 AM »
24-70.  For most people, it is better to cover the range you need first unless you know that you'll additional funds to spend soon.  If you have a larger budget, you could try covering the range with 2 primes:  a 35 and a 50/85.  The primes deliver better IQ and get you the shallower DOF, which is nice when the background in unattractive or cluttered.

Most people who get Rebels leave the stock lens on - or at best, get a 50mm 1.8...

How would you know? Just because the people in this forum are so well-off that they don't use Rebels with L glass?

Because 80-90% of the people I see shooting with Rebels out in the field are doing so with the stock lens...mind you, it's only from my own experience and I realize there are many that use much more expensive lenses with them. I was one of them (I used the 70-200 F4 IS with it)

This is not far from the truth.  In October 2011, Canon announced that the 50 millionth EOS cameras and 70 millionth EF lens was produced.  1.4 lenses to each body.

Lenses / Re: EF 17-40 Indoor foto????
« on: March 23, 2013, 10:03:25 AM »
I know you say that you want ultra wide, but if you want to shoot inside castles and churches without a tripod I would strongly recommend a lens with IS, even with the 6D's high ISO capabilities.

The default choice is the 24-105 IS or maybe the Tamron 24-70 VS. Or maybe consider the new 24mm f2.8 IS.

The picture below was taken with the 24-105 hand held.

Why didn't we use a tripod ? Because someone forgot it............... ::)

+1.  IS would be nice for these types of applications.  Cranking up the ISO loses a lot of detail.

Reviews / Re: Review - EF 24 f/1.4L II
« on: March 22, 2013, 11:57:40 AM »
Justin's reasons for selling his 24 match up well with why I never got one.

Most of the time that I'm looking for 24mm, I'm almost instinctively reaching for the TS-E 24. And I'm not looking for speed at those times.

I think most people would be very happy with either the 24 f/1.4 or the TS-E 24, but I don't think very many would get a lot of use out of both. They're both 24mm L lenses, yes, but they're not at all interchangeable and have no overlap except focal length. One might think that therefore there'd be room in the kit for both...but, as I see it, if you're happy with the one the other isn't going to interest you much except as a very expensive novelty.

And I couldn't be more thrilled with the TS-E 24....



I think the 24L II's utility depends on whether one shoots primes or zooms.  I see it as competition with a 24-70 or a 24-105 (zoom vs. prime).

It's fascinating how the only people defending Canon's latest releases all own either a 5D3 or a 1DX, and as such, are probably not going to buy a Rebel. If yes, only as back-back-back-back-up body.

Maybe your perspective would be a bit more accurate if that was the only Canon camera in your budget. Sure, one can switch to Nikon, but it has a cost to rebuild a lens kit, and money is the problem to begin with. Otherwise we would all buy a 5D3 and a D800E and lots of top glass and be happy ever after.

I bought a D600 and I'm building a set of lenses in F-mount. I didn't like it. Switching brand is always some sort of hassle and economic inconvenience. I could afford it and it worked very well for me, in the sense that I'm very satisfied with my purchase. But I understand that not everyone can afford to do so. This doesn't make them a bunch of childish whiners. As a matter of fact, I would hardly advise anyone to buy a 700D over a D5200.

I don't think people would argue that Canon needs to improve its sensors, but that takes time -- years.  Engineering takes years, tooling takes a year or more.  What is coming out has been planned years ago.  I think it's pretty clear Sony/Nikon caught Canon off guard.  It may take a couple more years before you start seeing the changes you want.

Unfortunately, the Rebel line is refreshed yearly.  It's also unfair to expect the Rebels to feature the newest and highest IQ sensors first -- I'd expect those to be in the xxD and xD lines first.  And history bears that out.  Over the next 3-4 years, the Rebels would inherit most of the features of the xxD line and the cycle starts again.  IFF the 70D comes out with a new 24MP sensor, then the Rebel would get that in the future, not now.

Does Canon deserve to lose market share in this market?  Yes, if its competition offers superior value to its customers, and that value is not just the body, but the whole system including lenses.  But Canon also knows that a large segment won't get anything beyond the kits lens(es), so it might not lose many until it can get its problems fixed.

Canon's FF offerings were all refreshed last year.  This year and next will see the APS-C lines get refreshed.  The future Rebel upgrades will be clearer once the 70D is released.  If you can't wait until then, choose the best system for you based on your time-table.  I'm sure Canon would rather have you as a customer than lose you to a competitor, but it can only move as fast as it can.  You make your choices based on your needs and what the market offers.  Complaining that Canon doesn't meet your specific needs/time table won't change a thing.  Individually, you or I do not matter.  A single person is not a profitable market.  Thousands/millions of people compose a market. 

Lenses / Re: small primes to go with SL1?
« on: March 22, 2013, 10:02:04 AM »
I don't see Canon coming out with a bunch of EF-S primes any time soon.  It makes more sense for Canon to do make the smallest lenses for the EOS-M because of its smaller lens mount and reduced lens to sensor plane distance (no mirror box).  Canon has also determined that there is a market for EF IS primes, and the lenses with IS are larger than their non-IS predecessors.  There are already two lines forming:  L glass that is fast or specialty (i.e. TS-E) and consumer grade IS primes under that.  I don't think a third product line makes much sense.

Although I see the logic in creating small wide EF-S primes, I don't know think that the market is big enough for Canon to make it a priority.  It is also telling that Sigma has yet to bother maker wider fast EF-S lenses after making the 30mm f/1.4.  Many of the Rebel buyers use the kit zooms and others see a APS-C camera as a stepping stone to full frame cameras down the road.  These segments probably outnumber the enthusiasts that would be interested in what you're proposing by quite a bit.

Interesting Graphic

It is interesting -- thanks for posting.  Add an EVF and some dials to the EOS-M and the length and width are similar.  The depth is bit larger to accomodate the mirror box, but then you also get a useable grip and phase detect AF.  Definitely wouldn't mind having one as a backup camera -- wouldn't take up much space in the camera bag.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Announces the EOS T5i
« on: March 21, 2013, 11:21:24 AM »
Are the T4i and T5i bodies exactly the same??

It looks like the SL1 might be positioned to take over the Rebel line.  If the SL1 sells well, I wouldn't be surprised if all future Rebels are sized like the SL1.

EOS Bodies / Re: 600D vs 100D
« on: March 21, 2013, 10:54:56 AM »
Anyone have any idea how the SL1will stack up against the 5Dii / iii in low light? I'm a 5Dii owner and want to know if I can get decent high ISO out of it as a backup camera...

Probably about the same as how the 4Ti does now.

To be fair, the previous releases did at least improve something:

500D to 550D was 15MP to 18MP

550D to 600D was articulating screen and a few other video features

600D to 650D was improved AF with 9 cross-type points

650D to 700D is nothing really new?!?

I think the 700D is a dead end.  The successor to the 650D is the 100D.  Canon used the year to reduce the size and to reset the Rebel line.  The Rebel won't lead the xxD and xD line in specs.  The Rebel line inherits most of the xxD specs and performance over 2-4 iterations/years.  The 650 closed most of the gap that existed between the Rebels and the 60D.  The 100D's size reduction was done to compete against the micro 4/3rds.

EOS Bodies / Re: 600D vs 100D
« on: March 21, 2013, 08:57:48 AM »
I think this is a good response to the mirrorless competition.  It's not much bigger than the EOS-M and it retains full functionality of a Rebel including phase-detection AF.  Stick a EF 40mm pancake, and you have a small walk-around or street camera or use it as a backup to a larger camera.  It won't take up much space in the camera bag. 

I think this is true evolution of the Rebel line, not the T5i.  It retains the physical controls that we are used to and are more efficient than menus.  Canon is probably using this to gage how well the public will accept the smaller form factor for future Rebels.  Now the Rebel is positioned better to compete with future micro 4/3rds systems.  Why design another line of lenses (EF, EF-S, EF-M)?  Play to Canon's strength:  its breadth and depth of EF lenses.

Lenses / Re: Best lens from my set for nightclubs?
« on: March 21, 2013, 08:18:09 AM »
Don't think you can do all that with one lens.  I'd suggest the 24L II and the 24-105L.  The 24L II for ambient, wide shots.  The 24-105 with and without flash for the close-ups.

Pages: 1 ... 37 38 [39] 40 41 ... 76