February 28, 2015, 12:27:39 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 - dswatson83

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 17
Reviews / Re: Review - EF 24 f/1.4L II
« on: March 22, 2013, 01:52:32 PM »
I find few uses for f/1.4 at 24mm. I much prefer the 35mm focal length personally and there are some great options for the 35mm f/1.4 lenses too. Personally, I'm a new fan of the Sigma because of the sharpness but it is hard to argue with the Canon version either. Maybe Canon will replace it this year.
Sigma 35mm f/1.4 vs Canon 35mm f/1.4 - Fight!

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 70D, DIGIC 6 & 18mp Sensors
« on: March 21, 2013, 03:26:37 PM »
For the last several years, megapixels have not mattered much unless you were printing big. But these days, screen resolution is catching up. 4k displays are on the horizon and 8k displays actually exist. In 2-3 years, I bet 2k displays are common place and 4k begin to pop up. An 18MP camera does not leave a bunch of room to crop if you displayed it on a 4k monitor or tv. TV displays are finally taking over prints. While most people do not print larger than a 8x10, there are a bunch of people with apple computers with 2880 pixel wide displays. While that still is not near 18mp, it's getting closer and if you crop much, you could hit that number fast. 18mp is the new minimum going forward.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D3 vs 7D AND 6D
« on: March 11, 2013, 11:29:17 AM »
I have all 3 of those bodies. I would go with the 7D or 5D3 and would not get 2 bodies. The 7D is still a great camera and great for sports/wildlife in so many ways. Of course the focus system on the 5D3 is amazing for that as well though you will not get the reach of the crop and it does cost more. I would go with either of those. The 6D for me lacks in many areas of the body and features although straight picture quality was on par with the 5D3.

I do have a comparison of the 6D and 5D3 if you want to take a look: http://learningcameras.com/reviews/4-dslrs/92-canon-6d-vs-5d-mark-iii

The 7D is amazing for the price for wildlife. You may purchase that while you save for the 5D3 or just get the 5D3 now. You will be happy with either of those. Skip the 6D and 5D2, both which will let you down for what you are shooting.
Canon 6D Vs. 5D Mark III Hands On Review

Lenses / Re: I'd love a little adivce...
« on: March 11, 2013, 11:23:27 AM »
I love the Sigma 35mm f/1.4. It is one of the best lenses. I also own the Canon 35mm f/1.4 and the Sigma is sharper, cheaper, feels better, and looks way better.

I've got a full review of the Sigma up on the site: http://learningcameras.com/reviews/7-lenses/86-sigma-35mm-f14-review

As well as a comparison with the Canon 35mm f/1.4: http://learningcameras.com/reviews/7-lenses/87-sigma-35mm-f14-vs-canon-35mm-f14

I also tried out the new Canon 35mm f/2 IS which might be good for you since you are shooting video and it has IS. I can't say I loved the lens and it is way overpriced, but if you need IS, it may not be a bad option. I personally a fine using the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC when I need IS and going to the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 when I want more light or less DOF. But feel free to take a look at the Canon 35mm f/2 IS review: http://learningcameras.com/reviews/7-lenses/89-canon-35mm-f2-is-review
and comparing that with the Sigma: http://learningcameras.com/reviews/7-lenses/90-canon-35mm-f2-is-vs-sigma-35mm-f14

EOS Bodies / Re: Experiences with the 6D
« on: March 11, 2013, 11:14:27 AM »
I have the 6D, 5D3, & the 7D. The 6D takes a great picture...but as a camera, it feels more like a 60D which I used to own about 1 year ago. It feels like a 5D3 trapped inside a 60D body (minus the flip screen and flash) desperately trying to get out. If you are happy with the 60D, you will like the 6D for sure. However, if you are not satisfied with the body, features, or general performance of the 60D, the 6D will not feel like an upgrade. Consider this, it will be a major upgrade to straight picture quality (FF sensor, better low light performance...) but a minor upgrade of the body and features.

I have a full review on the site so check it out: http://learningcameras.com/reviews/4-dslrs/91-canon-6d-review

Also a comparison between the 6D & 5D3: http://learningcameras.com/reviews/4-dslrs/92-canon-6d-vs-5d-mark-iii

Lenses / Re: just got my 6d, your thoughts
« on: February 20, 2013, 01:20:40 PM »
I love the new Sigma 35mm f/1.4. It is so sharp it is ridiculous. A 35mm might be a nice wide studio lens as well. The 24-105mm is also a good starter.

Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Lens Review

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: To buy the 6D or the 5DM3 and Which Lens
« on: February 20, 2013, 01:17:54 PM »
This video should help you out.
Canon 6D Vs. 5D Mark III Hands On Review

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: DPReview: Canon EOS 6D Reviewed
« on: February 13, 2013, 12:17:20 PM »
This camera was a tough one for me to decide on. Every camera has its ups and downs but I truly felt that this camera was less about some rumored tech that we all wanted like 4D video, 1080p @60fps, an extra 2 stops of DR, or something along those lines. Instead it was as if Canon was intentionally disabling features and including others to make this camera not step on the toes of any other camera available. As a result, it almost felt like this concoction of features from a variety of other cameras rather than a camera built with a specific user and a specific purpose. There were too many missing video features for this to be a video guys camera, too many missing controls for this to be a professional body, too high a price for this to be an average Joes consumer or vacation camera. However, other than the price, this seems like the perfect camera for someone who loves the t4i or 60D but wants the image quality of the 5D mark III. If you are or were ever interested in the 5D or 1D cameras, you may be a little disappointed using this camera, though not at all disappointed at the quality it produces. And that is why this review is so difficult. This camera oozes great image and even video quality, but getting it to produce this quality is more of a struggle than with the 5D mark III. Having a center focus point as the only decent point, lacking a white balance button and quick access to some controls, difficult to access video settings, not having backup card slots, no custom file naming abilities...and things of that nature just made me pick this camera up much less than any other camera I own. The small size and weight reduction didn’t quite make it worth it for me to put down my 5D, unlike some mirrorless cameras by Fuji for example. Thus, I maintain that if you are wanting or considering a 5D mark III, this is NOT a mini 5D mark III in many ways. However, if you want a T4i or 60D but are disappointed with the image quality they produce and you are lusting over the Full Frame advantages, you will love this Canon 6D.

There is a full review at the site: http://learningcameras.com/reviews/4-dslrs/91-canon-6d-review

Lenses / Re: DXOMark Reviews the Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS
« on: February 12, 2013, 09:48:43 AM »
I put this lens up against the new Sigma 35mm f/1.4 and it's not that the Canon is a bad lens, it just felt and performed like a $300 lens with IS...not worthy of the outrageously high price tag. The Sigma was clearly in another league while technically the same price.

Canon 35mm f/2 IS VS Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Lens

Reviews / Canon 6D - the good the bad and the ugly
« on: February 04, 2013, 12:00:01 PM »
I'm seeing a ton of various reviews on the Canon 6D, some loving it, and others giving it mediocre thoughts. I've been in the latter category and I really think that is where most of us should be.

Let's start with the good. It's not that the 6D takes a bad picture, it takes a great picture. In fact, it beat my 5D mark III in the low light test for example: http://www.learningcameras.com/reviews/4-dslrs/92-canon-6d-vs-5d-mark-iii. But there really is no such thing as a new $2000 camera that doesn't take a great picture so I feel that it is not enough to rank a camera great just because it takes a great picture. There are a ton of great bodies under $2000 from various manufactures that can take stunning images. What makes a great camera these days is the ability to offer you the tools you need for the job you need it to do.

Given that...If you are a video shooter, I think you will be disappointed slightly. Not with the quality, but why the lack of a headphone jack that even the Nikon D600 has. Why no swivel screen. Why not dual card slots that the Nikon D600, D7000, D800 and Canon 5D3 all have.

If you are a pro photographer, you will probably exchange some profanity with the focus system (although the 5D2 was slightly worse), likely miss the joystick for quick focus point changes, hate missing custom buttons, curse the impossible to press DOF preview button that I love to program, hate the missing WB button and inability to program any other button to take this task over, never use it with a flash due to the slow 1/160 flash sync speeds, and desire a bunch of other curiously absent features.

If you are a casual photographer or want something for vacations, you will love this camera...if you can afford it. $2000 is a ton to spend on a vacation camera but you will enjoy the simple operation, great quality, and small size for a FF DSLR. However, if you were considering the Nikon D600, you will likely buy it instead given the pop up flash, dual card slots for overflow or backing up those vacation memories, and the Nikon ability to utilize the dynamic range in the shadows: http://learningcameras.com/reviews/4-dslrs/79-nikon-d600-vs-canon-5d-mark-iii-

Once again, the 6D took stunning photographs, even in low light (though the D600 is better in dynamic range by a long shot), but I just feel like Canon artificially limited random elements to make it compete less with other cameras rather than make it a great camera for an intended purpose, whatever that may be.
I've got a full review with samples : http://learningcameras.com/reviews/4-dslrs/91-canon-6d-review
Am I wrong?

Lenses / Re: Have you one of the new 24-70 f4 canon lenses, Is it good
« on: February 04, 2013, 11:19:07 AM »
While it is a good lens (great if you want Macro), it was not significantly better than the 24-105 in my opinion. It was smaller and lighter if you want that but the sharpness was not improved (was lower at 50mm on my lens). Chromatic Abrasion was better which was nice but it just did not feel like it was worth more money. I also compared it to the Tamron 24-70 VC f/2.8 which gives you an extra stop for $200 less. Great lens. Take a look Samples and full review between the 2 lenses here: http://www.learningcameras.com/reviews/7-lenses/104-tamron-24-70-f28-vc-vs-canon-24-70-f4l-is

Also have the review of the Canon 24-70 f/4: http://www.learningcameras.com/reviews/7-lenses/99-canon-24-70-f4-is-review

And a direct comparison with the 24-105mm f/4 IS: http://www.learningcameras.com/reviews/7-lenses/103-canon-24-70-f4-is-vs-canon-24-105-f4-is

If you would like to see the details of what i'm talking about. It's not that it is a bad lens, it just didn't seem to bring much new to the table except for a huge price jump (unless you want it for Macro)

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Help to make my decision.
« on: January 29, 2013, 02:25:58 PM »
The Canon 5D mark II might be perfect for you as you could get away without some of the new features of the mark III and get it for dirt cheap. I upgraded to the 5D3 from the 7D and it is the most logical upgrade and a great camera well worth the $ but the 5D3 is a bit pricey.

I would start selling your lenses now and replace them with FF lenses. Some top choices for what you shoot would be the:
Canon 17-40 f/4L - One of the best landscape lenses
Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC - great all around lens and still good for portraits
85mm f/1.8 - The best portrait lenses around other than the extremely expensive 85mm f/1.2 and it is not too expensive

I picked the Tamron over the Canon because the Tamron gives the f/2.8 aperture which is great for portraits and low light such as indoors and still has the VC for stabilization. The Tamron was even a touch sharper than the new Canon 24-70 f/4L IS:

Canon 24-70 f/4L IS vs Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC - FIGHT!

Lenses / Re: Have 5D3, will shoot... but which lens?
« on: January 29, 2013, 02:18:39 PM »
A couple of reviews/tests that may help you out

Take a look at the Canon 24-105mm f/4L IS Vs the Canon 24-70 f/4L IS: http://learningcameras.com/reviews/7-lenses/103-canon-24-70-f4-is-vs-canon-24-105-f4-is

And the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC vs the Canon 24-70 f/4L IS: http://learningcameras.com/reviews/7-lenses/104-tamron-24-70-f28-vc-vs-canon-24-70-f4l-is

If you do not need a macro lens, I would personally rule out the Canon 24-70 f/4 IS. It is just way too expensive for what you get...other than the macro mode. The 24-105 can be found cheap so look for it if you can find a deal but the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 is still a solid performer, offers a stop faster aperture, and still has stabilization. It is also built like a tank and is still cheaper than the Canon 24-70 f/4 IS

I also love the new Sigma 35mm f/1.4. I'd consider selling the 24mm f/1.8 and buying the Sigma. It is just such an amazing lens and you will get a wider aperture and a great FF focal length for wider or indoor shots.

Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Lens Review

Lenses / Re: Fast lens for indoor use
« on: January 17, 2013, 02:28:04 PM »
I love the 35mm f/1.4 by Sigma. It's not quite light but it is sharp as crap. The problem with other lenses is even though you can shoot at f/1.8 or more, the pictures just are not very sharp. I'm telling you, the Sigma is sharp! There are sharpness results in the review: http://learningcameras.com/reviews/7-lenses/86-sigma-35mm-f14-review

And a comparison with the Canon 35mm f/1.4 : http://learningcameras.com/reviews/7-lenses/87-sigma-35mm-f14-vs-canon-35mm-f14

I would prefer a good 50mm for indoor but I just don't love any of them right now. I'm hoping that Sigma puts out an awesome 50 soon based on the new design

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 35mm f/2L IS Review from the Digital Picture
« on: January 16, 2013, 11:27:57 AM »
I have both lenses. I really prefer the Sigma. The only time I pick up the Canon is if I am shooting video. Otherwise, the Sigma is better looking, sharp, 1 stop faster, better built (feels like an L lens), less vignetting, and a host of other things. The big advantage to the Canon is the IS...the rest is really not a big deal. If you want something small and light then you might prefer the Canon too but if you travel with a heavy camera like a 5D or 7d, the difference is hardly noticeable.

If you want to see the review it is here for the Canon 35mm f/2L IS

Here is a head to head of the 2 lenses as you requested:

Canon 35mm f/2 IS VS Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Lens

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 17