April 20, 2014, 01:59:16 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 - insanitybeard

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 20
EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« on: May 10, 2013, 09:02:44 AM »
RL, in it's simplest form your kit must be sufficient to perform for the application for which you intend for it. To that end, as an example, how would you ever get a single usable shot of a bird or aircraft in flight using a pinhole camera? Your new profile picture shows you using something that looks like a 200 F2, so to some degree, you must think your gear matters, unless it's to look professional, and I mean no offence by that.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon are you listening?
« on: May 01, 2013, 08:51:12 AM »
Oh, they're listening.

Canon announces the 7D Mark II
  • 19 megapixels
  • 21 AF points (all cross type)
  • 8.5 fps
  • Dual Digic 6
  • ISO range 100-25600 (expandable to 51200)
  • Extremely low image noise*

* low noise mode is JPG only and output is a 5 MP image

See, they listen well!

Neuro, is this an announcement that I have not yet been privy to?!

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon are you listening?
« on: May 01, 2013, 08:40:22 AM »
......And whatever happens, it must definitely have more DR. Anything and everything else is of lesser importance.  :P

EOS Bodies / Re: Bye Canon?
« on: April 30, 2013, 07:44:28 AM »
:)) you are so funny..... really,really.... the things that are important to me:

1. DR ( and yes those 3 extra stops make the difference)
2. Resolution. In what i do (commercial,product) size matters ( like in other cases  :P )

let me put it this way.... why the top Pro photographers shoot only with Hassyes and MF cameras ???  8) 8)

Emphasis on your words 'IN WHAT I DO'. That doesn't encompass everbody. I don't see many pros using MF and Hasselblad at sports events. Correct tools for the job etc.

Lenses / Re: Lens sharpness and distance from subject
« on: April 29, 2013, 05:33:17 AM »
It does. Use a lens at 1m, then at infinity - it is a different lens really. I have noticed this with my 17-55 - much better at 2-3m than at infinity.

Many people test lenses at close distances and make far reaching conclusions; and this is wrong.

This is a very good point, and not one I've seen covered in any depth on most review sites I've come across- anybody know any review sites where this is considered with more than a passing comment?

EOS Bodies / Re: 21mp Sensor in the 7D Mark II? [CR1]
« on: April 25, 2013, 09:56:55 AM »
I have both lens optical layout on my blog. I have used both lenses and the 10-22 is by no means "worthless crap".

That looks like an interesting article Zv, I will take a better look when I have more time. Here is arguably my best image with the 7D and EF-S 10-22, not full size as the file is too big. Viewed at 100% (original file) the limitations of the lens are apparent but I wouldn't have got this shot without the ultrawide.

EOS Bodies / Re: 21mp Sensor in the 7D Mark II? [CR1]
« on: April 25, 2013, 04:56:25 AM »
Carl, I think calling the 10-22 'worthless crap' is a bit much. It's not without it's limitations I freely admit, but it has got me some fantastic images I couldn't have got with any other lens*. Sharpness away from centre viewed close to 100% does suffer, but does that make it worthless crap? No it does not, and frankly, that's offensive.

jrista, from an old Canon lens brochure I have, it appears to me (and I stand to be corrected) that the EF-S 10-22 optical layout is not that dissimilar to the 17-40L (complete with SUD and aspherical elements), apart from smaller elements, presumably for the reduced image circle.

(*-by this, I mean ultra wide on crop)

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 6D viewfinder too big ?
« on: April 24, 2013, 04:13:58 AM »
No, it's not. At 0.71x magnification 100% coverage viewfinder will be bigger than 97% coverage viewfinder. 6D and 5D3 both has 0.71x magnification viewfinders. APS-C cameras have smaller magnification, 7D, for example, has 0.63x, 50D has 0.59x.

The specs I read (Canon's own 7D brochure) say the 7D viewfinder is 1x magnification and 100% coverage.
Or do you mean that the 7D viewfinder is only 0.63x the size of the 5D/6D?

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 6D viewfinder too big ?
« on: April 24, 2013, 04:10:48 AM »
You make a valid point. In the halicon days of 35mm SLRs the true pro cameras had smaller viewfinders than the other little gems that were produced in those days. Cameras such as the Olympus OM1 and Pentax MX had much larger viewfinders than any of today's DSLRs.

Pentax MX- my first proper camera! 'Lent' to me by my Dad with a 1.7 50mm M series prime to get started.....
Great camera, batteries only needed for the meter, and a massive viewfinder like you say!

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 6D viewfinder too big ?
« on: April 23, 2013, 08:14:55 AM »
It certainly is due to the larger full frame sensor (and consequently larger mirror, prism etc).... An unusual complaint that the viewfinder is too big though, usually the reverse is true.... My partner has an old EOS400D and compared to my 7D, the viewfinder is tiny! I much prefer the 7D's larger viewfinder for focussing and composition. Bigger is better as far as I'm concerned!

Debate regarding the light gathering ability of this lens and equivalent DOF vs FF aside, I must admit this is an interesting lens. This is coming from somebody who up until this point has only considered Canon glass. Maybe it will give Canon a push to put out some more high quality and fast dedicated crop lenses of it's own. The implications of using this lens on a crop camera cannot be ignored, if it is good optically.

and 2 more...again, totally different scene...

in the first one I was definitely embracing the distortion, the girl I was shooting was very thin and not overly tall, but taller than average.  This is where distortion can be your friend...but even with that in mind...it's not for everyone.

Chuck, I love the look and perspective of that second shot! Her legs go on for miles.....  8)

Lenses / Re: 16-35 f/2.8II vs 17-40 f/4
« on: April 19, 2013, 06:10:45 AM »
As usual, "more expensive is better" applies here, though as far as I read it not for f8-f11 landscape shots. If you use uwa a lot, the 16-35 might be the better choice, but often it'll be used in a combo with a 24-70 lens - and then it gets more difficult: 16-35+cheap 24-70 or 17-40+expensive 24-70? That's why I've got the 17-40, and at f8 I'm happy so far, it's a good iq (even on crop) and sturdy internal zoom lens.

I use the 17-40 on crop as well, as my general purpose lens. Well built, sealed and performs well, and used on a crop body it's not suffering the same drop off in resolution or vignetting at the corners as it does on a FF body at the wide end, wide open!

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Confusion about Macro Photography
« on: April 17, 2013, 08:50:28 AM »
Just because you are using a Macro lens does not mean the subject has to be close and small.....

The andromeda galaxy.... The image is unedited from the camera jpg, with the exception of cropping to the center 50% to meet website guidelines. The shot was taken an a very clear night, handheld (with the help of a tree for bracing) with a 60D, F2.8, ISO3200, 10.4 second exposure, no image stabilization, manual focus, and no flash :). All image settings were neutral or camera default.

That's a fantastic shot of Andromeda for a handheld 10 sec exposure, what was the lens?!

Lenses / Re: IS mandatory? 70-200 f/4 IS vs. f/2.8 Non-IS
« on: April 17, 2013, 06:00:39 AM »
I ended up getting the 70-200 F4 IS. It is a lot lighter than the F2.8 version, and if you are going to be lugging it around all day the extra weight becomes a big factor.

I own this lens for the same reason (well, that and the fact that the 2.8 IS version is twice as expensive  :P). The IQ from both 2.8 and f4 lenses as I understand it is pretty similar, so I can live with only having f4 as the max. aperture!

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 20