October 20, 2014, 07:24:19 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 - insanitybeard

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 20
91
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 70D Next to Be Announced
« on: June 27, 2013, 01:00:34 PM »
My 7D continues to be available for service, and continues to take decent pictures. It will keep fulfilling that role until something comes along to justify the upgrade. Until that time, no sweat from me.

92
Lenses / Re: 24mm options...
« on: June 26, 2013, 06:31:28 AM »
I think I'll be adding the 24 2.8 IS to my collection next for use on a crop body, my main reasons being the compact size and low weight, the low light handholdability and the ~40mm equivalent focal length, good as a walkaround lens. For more specialised architectural work and landscapes the tilt shift may be a better bet in your case, even though it is manual focus, if that is one of your primary uses.

93
Lenses / Re: 16-35 f/2.8II vs 17-40 f/4
« on: June 26, 2013, 05:14:56 AM »
YES! THIS! I'm noticing it on the 16-35. On close subjects it seems OK, but on landscape shots at infinity (or far away focus) I can't seem to get past the blurry/hazy extreme corners...I almost thought the lens was defective, actually, until I examined some of the shots I took at closer distance....weird.

Interestingly, and I admit my knowledge is limited on this, lens resolution/performance can vary with focusing/subject distance, and annoyingly this factor is rarely mentioned or tested by many lens testing sites. My 17-40 and EF-S 10-22 are both similar in this regard on the 7D, at close distances even to the edges of the frame the sharpness is pretty good, but for infinity subjects at the corner of the frame it's a different matter. Obviously, factors such as CA, field curvature and astigmatism have a part to play, and resolving fine detail on small and distant subjects is always going to be a bigger test of a lens than closer subjects.

94
EOS Bodies / Re: Pick between two options for the Canon 7D II
« on: June 25, 2013, 09:35:03 AM »
Like the majority, I would prefer improved high ISO performance, even if that requires the MP count to be kept down. I can't imagine a 7D II having less FPS than the original.

95
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Weak LP-e6 battery
« on: June 24, 2013, 06:56:04 AM »
I try as far as possible to completely discharge the LP-E6 in camera (so it will no longer power the camera) before I recharge it, though I'm not sure if this really makes much difference to battery life/ recharge performance.

If anything, that's worse.  Li-ion batteries are better used frequently but lightly. Frequent full discharges will actually reduce overall longevity.

 :-[ oops! Thanks neuro, I'll bear it in mind!

96
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Weak LP-e6 battery
« on: June 24, 2013, 05:36:08 AM »
I try as far as possible to completely discharge the LP-E6 in camera (so it will no longer power the camera) before I recharge it, though I'm not sure if this really makes much difference to battery life/ recharge performance.

97
Lenses / Re: 16-35 f/2.8II vs 17-40 f/4
« on: June 24, 2013, 04:59:43 AM »
When I only used crop, the 17-40 was one of my most used lenses, but once I switched to FF for landscapes, it rarely found a use, except for some more creative ideas, as the corners are simply not good enough on FF, even at f/8-f/16. Mind you, the 24-105 suffers form the same deficiencies between about 24-30mm, but then I now use the 24mm f/1.4 MkII for landscapes at 24mm.

This is why when I eventually go full frame I'll also need to get a better wide angle zoom than the 17-40 I already own, otherwise I could just get a 6D and be done with it. I'm not saying you can't get decent ultrawide shots with the 17-40 on full frame, but especially for landscape use, seeing how the corner resolution falls off even using it on a crop body, I can only imagine how it would be on full frame. Interestingly this is more apparent to me for landscape work at infinity focus than it is for closer subjects. For this reason I am interested to see what becomes of the rumour rumor that Canon may have a new ultrawide zoom coming to market sometime in the medium term future.

98
Lenses / Re: EF 100mm f2,8 L IS Macro... is IS worth it?
« on: June 22, 2013, 05:14:30 AM »
I never understood, what is the specific advantage of this hybrid IS?

See here: http://www.dpreview.com/news/2009/7/22/canonhybridIS

It is meant to correct for movement in several planes. How effective it actually is, I cannot speak from experience.

99
Lenses / Re: EF 100mm f2,8 L IS Macro... is IS worth it?
« on: June 22, 2013, 04:30:16 AM »
Also, I don't think this has been mentioned so far, apologies if it has, the 100L macro has the hybrid IS which is supposed to be more effective than normal IS in macro photography for correcting lens shift.

100
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Weak LP-e6 battery
« on: June 22, 2013, 04:26:15 AM »
Both my LP-E6's dropped to 2 squares recharge performance instead of 3 after 12-18 months approx. use on my 7D, they've been doing that for the last 18 months or so, have had no battery issues so far, like Neuro says, just means they've had a bit of use and aren't recharging quite as well as they did when new.

101
Lenses / Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« on: June 19, 2013, 01:39:06 PM »
I await developments with interest.... would quite like to see an improved 17-40L or some derivative.

102
Canon General / Re: improving IQ in landscape
« on: June 19, 2013, 12:18:42 PM »
Not wishing to dispute/discount the O.P's suggestion but it isn't always possible to use this technique- some of the most photogenic landscapes involve rapidly changing light and conditions which could not be accurately captured in the amount of time necessary to position and capture multiple frames.

103
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 28mm F/2.8 IS USM $399 from Adorama !!
« on: June 18, 2013, 11:05:22 AM »
Too slow for a prime; it seems (because I have not tried it) to lack the clarity of the L primes based on the TDP comparisons. It has IS, indeed, but so does my 24-105 with 1 stop difference. Two stop faster, and I would jump on it.

I take your point regarding aperture, It would be nice if it was faster than 2.8. Another way of Canon differentiating between L and non L lenses I suppose, the flip side being that the smaller aperture allows the lens to be more compact, one of the reasons I wish to buy one.

104
EOS Bodies / Re: A Big Megapixel Discussion
« on: June 18, 2013, 10:25:04 AM »
WE WANT BETTER PIXELS

NOT JUST MORE OF THEM!


Your pixels will be smaller....

Strewth Don, I had to strain my eyes to read that  ;D At first I thought it was some grey line or error!

105
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 28mm F/2.8 IS USM $399 from Adorama !!
« on: June 18, 2013, 04:31:31 AM »
This made me realize that even $399 was too much for it.

Now, the 35/2 IS for $399 would have been another story...


Why so?

Optically it appears to be a very good lens. If the offer had been in the UK I would have been reaching for my credit card.

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 20