Messages

1

EOS Bodies / Re: Eos 1Dx OR...?

« on: May 16, 2013, 10:15:21 PM »

I'm happy to be in the minority if that's how you view CR.

2

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: F/8 Autofocusing impressions

« on: May 16, 2013, 01:09:21 PM »

This is something I'd like to know also.

3

Lenses / Re: When is the New 100-400 Coming?

« on: May 16, 2013, 11:22:39 AM »

According to the poll, It's the second most desired lens on CR. Which mean's there is alot of money to be made in this lens.

4

Lenses / Re: Poll: Most Wanted New Lenses of 2013.

« on: May 16, 2013, 11:18:00 AM »

1. 14-24mm F/2.8L USM
2. 100-400 F/4.5-5.6L IS II
3. 50mm F/1.4 II USM
4. 24-70 F/2.8L IS
5. 135mm F/1.8L IS USM

Poll is Locked and These are the Top 5 Lenses selected. Freebie Info for any R&D dept's wanting to make $$$$$$$.

5

Lenses / Re: 50 f1.4 vs 85 f1.8.....

« on: May 15, 2013, 12:38:00 PM »

If you have the space, the 85mm is more flattering than a 50mm. If not, the 50mm is decent for portraits.

6

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Magic Lantern... CONTINUOUS raw recording @ 24fps on 5D3

« on: May 15, 2013, 12:28:02 PM »

Holy Detail Batman!

7

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Fuji x100(s) to Supplement an SLR

« on: May 15, 2013, 11:42:20 AM »

Hello All,
So I'm seriously considering purchasing the new Fuji x100s.  I love my 5Dm3 and my variety of EF lenses, but the entire kit can seem a bit obnoxious at times... particularly for street photography or simply for a camera to casually carry around.  I have a point and shoot (S90), but rarely use it as I don't like shooting with an LCD.  So I'm looking to get some advice from members who have purchased the x100s or a similar camera.  Which do you find yourself using more?  Are you glad to have purchased a secondary mirrorless camera to supplement your SLR?

And the other half of this question is a bit more pointed; I'm also considering getting the TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II.  However, I've come to the conclusion that I likely wouldn't use a TS lens nearly as often as a more compact mirrorless camera.

Thoughts?  Thanks!

If you shoot alot of flash, the Sync speed is worth it's weight in gold but I get the same speeds from my g15. A camera that does something better than your SLR is always useful. 

8

Reviews / Re: The Digital Picture Reviews the Tamron 24-70

« on: May 15, 2013, 11:39:57 AM »

It looks like I won't be getting a 24-70 for awhile now...

9

Lenses / Re: EF 24-70mm F2.8 L ver 2 or 3 Prime Lens

« on: May 15, 2013, 11:20:39 AM »

Speed or Zoom? That's the choice.

10

Canon General / Re: It annoys me when camera phones try to take credit for professional level gear.

« on: May 15, 2013, 11:17:13 AM »

It does S___ me blind when people compare camera phones to pro gear stating categorically that they are just as good.

Take a look at the "no 7D2 in 2013" thread..... I posted pictures of the moon from a 60d and from an iPod to end a ridiculous "gear does not matter" debate. Although phones can take great pictures, particularly in the right conditions, once it gets a bit more challenging there is no substitute for a "real" camera.

Humorous post sure, but you didn't get close enough with the ipod. 

Instagram is a decent app for faking DOF, but it always just has that look of an overlay.

11

EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]

« on: May 13, 2013, 10:20:21 AM »

A great shot is a great shot. Weither its from an a1400 or a 1Dx. It's more convienent to get the shot with a 1Dx but If you got it with a a1400, both would be great shots. That's the principle and has nothing to do with equipment.

A great photo is a great photo. It's irrelevant what equipment was used.

Basic failure of logic.  A great photo can be taken with any camera, but it does not follow that every great photo can be taken with any camera.

No one is contesting the former, the latter assumption is where you're incorrect.

But just because the great photo would be different from the a1400 than the 1Dx makes it no less great.

IE: great wide angle shot of a landscape is no less great than a tele-compressed photo landscape, which could also be just as good.

Oh, sure. Look...here's this great photo of the Western Greebe's courtship ritual taken with the A1400.  The birds are those two tiny, dark specks there.  What a great photo. 

The photographer chooses the shot. For some shots, 'any camera' just won't do.

It's obvious you're practicing reductio ad absurdum - and you're doing a great job of sounding absurd in the process.  Feel free to keep on baiting, I've fed you enough troll food in this thread.

More like look, a close up wide shot of the western gebes courtship and here's another of them tele compressed.

Which one is better? Neither, they're both good. That's were I disagree, one shot was easier to get and the other was extremely difficult but the end product is the same.

12

EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]

« on: May 13, 2013, 10:04:10 AM »

A great shot is a great shot. Weither its from an a1400 or a 1Dx. It's more convienent to get the shot with a 1Dx but If you got it with a a1400, both would be great shots. That's the principle and has nothing to do with equipment.

A great photo is a great photo. It's irrelevant what equipment was used.

Basic failure of logic.  A great photo can be taken with any camera, but it does not follow that every great photo can be taken with any camera.

No one is contesting the former, the latter assumption is where you're incorrect.

But just because the great photo would be different from the a1400 than the 1Dx makes it no less great.

IE: great wide angle shot of a landscape is no less great than a tele-compressed photo landscape, which could also be just as good.

13

EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]

« on: May 13, 2013, 09:49:49 AM »

"I am uninterested in the notion that a good photographer can make good photos with any gear. That's NOT THE POINT!!"

That's the whole point right there but gear makes the job more convenient. 

No, that's not the point. It was never anyone's point. Its been YOUR point, but you've been ignoring everyone elses' point.

I'll try one last time. Lets see whether you succeed or fail at this test.

You see a Western Grebe off the sandy shore you are standing on. You are standing right at the waters edge. The Grebe some 65 feet off shore. The water out there is 10 feet deep. You have at your disposal a supercheap $109 Canon PowerShot A1400, and a 5D III with a 600mm f/4 L lens. Which camera will take the better photo?

And I don't mean something that is more convenient. I mean, BETTER PHOTO. Sharper detail. Less noise. Thinner DOF. Brighter exposure. No blur from camera shake. BETTER FRIKKIN PHOTO!! Which camera?

Let's do one better, I'll get a better shot from the A1400 wading water getting the shot closer than you will with that 600L you have.

RLP: I was reading this thread and sort of tracking along with you when you said something like 'photographer is more important than equipment' till I reached this post. I fist - palmed and shouted "HOW DUMB" so loud that the neighbor came to check if all is ok.

I also see that 99% of people have the whole point simply fly over their heads.

The point was a great shot from a A1400 is equal or could be better that said shot from $$$$$ combo. In the end, light, composition and subject make a photo. To claim that the only great shots could come from $$$$$ combo is quite haughty. If you got a great shot of said subject from either camera is equal in what makes a good photo terms. Its a 1000x more inconvienent to do so, but in this hypothetical brainstorm, the end products would both be valid.

That is not a point, it's an assumption. Your trying to turn into fact, without any actual evidence, the IDEA in your head that a photo from an A1400 could equal or (laughably!) "better" said shot from a super pricey combo. In the end, composition is a composite of factors...including depth of field, background blur, perspective, etc. You cannot achieve all of that with any old gear...you need the right gear to get the most flattering or intriguing or otherwise interesting shots that also achieve nuanced artistic aspects.

You assume that the A1400 is just as good as (or "better" than ) $30,000 worth of equipment explicitly designed to maximize your potential in perfecting all of those nuanced artistic aspects in your work must be tested. Your still providing anecdotes. No one has missed the point...it hasn't flown over anyone's heads. It's clear from the weed comments flying around lately that the point has smacked everyone in the face just one too many times (BTW, I thought the "weed dance" comment was pretty darn good! LOL  ) The problem is that your argument has no basis in fact...it is an anecdote. If you want people to believe you...you need to prove your point. You need to provide some actual physical evidence that people can evaluate.

I'd do the same...I'll point you to Art Morris blog "Birds as Art" (http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/) who's photography is all done with the Canon 1D X and EF 600mm f/4 L IS II lens (w/ 1.4x and 2x TCs), or Alan Murphy's "favorites" (http://www.alanmurphyphotography.com/favorites.htm), which are made with a Nikon D3x and a 600mm f/4 lens (often with teleconverters, according to his eBooks.) Both of these men, as well as many other men and women whom I could link if necessary, are the top professionals in the world in the bird photography niche, all of whom have years, even decades more experience than RL, myself, or probably the majority of members on this forum. The most ubiquitous kit among them? Nikon Dx series or Canon 1D series with a 500mm f/4 or 600mm f/4 lens, sometimes the EF 800mm f/5.6, frequently with 1.4x and 2x teleconverters.  That is quite literally the best equipment money can buy these days, and their photography clearly demonstrates the power of a highly skilled photographer in conflation with best-in-class professional grade equipment.

Sadly, I don't have any resources to provide that show any such high quality photos made with a Canon A1400 and its ultra-wide to normal angle built-in lens....(not for lack of looking, though...)

A great shot is a great shot. Weither its from an a1400 or a 1Dx. It's more convienent to get the shot with a 1Dx but If you got it with a a1400, both would be great shots. That's the principle and has nothing to do with equipment.

A great photo is a great photo. It's irrelevant what equipment was used. Slapped in the face? Lol, I doesn't sway my opinion on this subject on bit.

14

EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]

« on: May 12, 2013, 11:15:11 PM »

"I am uninterested in the notion that a good photographer can make good photos with any gear. That's NOT THE POINT!!"

That's the whole point right there but gear makes the job more convenient. 

No, that's not the point. It was never anyone's point. Its been YOUR point, but you've been ignoring everyone elses' point.

I'll try one last time. Lets see whether you succeed or fail at this test.

You see a Western Grebe off the sandy shore you are standing on. You are standing right at the waters edge. The Grebe some 65 feet off shore. The water out there is 10 feet deep. You have at your disposal a supercheap $109 Canon PowerShot A1400, and a 5D III with a 600mm f/4 L lens. Which camera will take the better photo?

And I don't mean something that is more convenient. I mean, BETTER PHOTO. Sharper detail. Less noise. Thinner DOF. Brighter exposure. No blur from camera shake. BETTER FRIKKIN PHOTO!! Which camera?

Let's do one better, I'll get a better shot from the A1400 wading water getting the shot closer than you will with that 600L you have.

RLP: I was reading this thread and sort of tracking along with you when you said something like 'photographer is more important than equipment' till I reached this post. I fist - palmed and shouted "HOW DUMB" so loud that the neighbor came to check if all is ok.

I also see that 99% of people have the whole point simply fly over their heads.

The point was a great shot from a A1400 is equal or could be better that said shot from $$$$$ combo. In the end, light, composition and subject make a photo. To claim that the only great shots could come from $$$$$ combo is quite haughty. If you got a great shot of said subject from either camera is equal in what makes a good photo terms. Its a 1000x more inconvienent to do so, but in this hypothetical brainstorm, the end products would both be valid.

15

EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]

« on: May 11, 2013, 03:22:48 PM »

Exactly. Just how you view f/4 and f/2.8 are virtually the same. Doesn't matter.

I could shoot MF film to get a similar look but its more inconvienent for me. I'd shoot a more inconvienent system if need be and still get my photos.

If you take a comment out of context you can make anything up. A FF f4 and a crop camera f2.8 are virtually the same!

But your latest outlandish comment states, by logical extension, depth of field has no importance in photography. You claim you can shoot any image with any camera give enough time and application, how do you limit the dof with your box brownie, P&S or iPhone to get you the same "unique look" as your FF camera and your 135 f2 wide open? You can't. You are just being stubborn, obtuse and foolish.

like I said before, I'm not going to answer every single situation you present, that's for your imagination. You find the answer but I already know of a few to the one you mentioned above. I'll leave it at that.

No, you are just being stubborn, obtuse, and foolish. It's a copout to not answer. You aren't answering because you have no answer. You can't debate a point and not actually provide arguments and evidence that back up your point, however that is what you are trying to do. Private isn't asking you to answer every single situation possible...he is asking you to explain, for a single very specific situation, how your argument that "any gear works" applies. You are, once again, ignoring the point being made, sidestepping the argument with a convenient little quip that does nothing to prove your point. The stubborn evasion only makes your argument look weaker, not stronger.

How about stitching or LF or brenzer method or lining up ten brownie box cameras. Like I said, I won't answer every situation but Ill leave that to your imagination. If you lack that, well I can't help you.