March 04, 2015, 02:09:36 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
Lenses / Re: Andy Rouse Reviews the EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x
« on: May 15, 2013, 05:40:22 AM »
In my own experience, I couldn't believe how much better the build of the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is over my 70-200 f4 IS - made me realize that there was more to the extra cost than just a tripod mount and an extra stop.

I'm curious, what are the main differences between the build of the 2.8 IS II and the f4 IS in your opinion? I own the f4 IS and it's probably the best made lens I have- no complaints from me.

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 6D Review - Real World
« on: May 15, 2013, 05:06:55 AM »
More and more users keep reporting how much they enjoy and are satisfied by the 6D.

It just goes to show how an excellent camera cannot be seen beyond its specs by the spec sheet nazis who wanted to leave Canon as soon as it was announced.

How true. I'd like to upgrade to the 5DIII from a 7D but it's just too expensive for me at the moment. There are times when I'd miss the 7D's performance if I went to a 6D, but maybe keeping the 7D and getting a 6D as well would give me the best of both worlds. Certainly the 6D should be a fine landscape camera, which is what I do most!

EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« on: May 13, 2013, 10:02:16 AM »
A great photo is a great photo. It's irrelevant what equipment was used.

I absolutely agree with this statement, as I'm sure most would. The problem comes when you seem to suggest that with skill, creativity or by sheer will you can use any camera to 'get the shot', whatever that may be. But there are so many instances where this is just not the case- high resolution macro work, deep space long exposures such as the Hubble space telescope, fast moving small targets. You could make some sort of shot, but would it be any good?

Lenses / Re: 17-40 f4 L discontinued???????
« on: May 13, 2013, 05:43:11 AM »
It is possible they will update date it, but NO ONE is clamoring for a better performing 17-40.

I don't entirely agree with this, the 17-40's inferior corner performance at wider focal lengths and apertures is fairly well known, so if Canon could improve the performance, I for one would be interested. A possible 14-24 2.8 is of lesser interest to me if it means it does not have a screw on filter thread, as is the 16-35 2.8 as I mainly use the lens stopped down a bit for landscapes. The current 17-40 is a nice lightweight and relatively compact sealed lens, which is good for e.g hiking outdoors and travelling light!

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.

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