« on: July 30, 2012, 03:28:48 PM »
Me in the thermal infrared. More expensive camera than the 1DX, but not quite 400 times more expensive.
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.
The 90 TSE is almost perfect as it is, with the possible exceptions of the suggestions as listed above. But, they could really hit the mark by adding to the TSE line for product shooters, by making either a 135mm, 150mm, or 180mm TSE as well.FYI, it's possible to use extenders with the TS-E 90/2.8 lens. Both the 1.4x and 2.0x work well, giving 126mm/4.0 and 180mm/5.6 equivalents.
Metering and White balance shouldn't matter in a studio Environment.
My old 5d Mark II's still surprise me with how absolutely beautiful they shoot in a controlled environment.
sigh...i think your missing the point ...Yes, sorry, I now realise I missed your point. You mean that peripheral equipment becomes more expensive for the D800, than the 5D3, to the point of eradicating the $500 price difference advantage. I think you would have to be a very heavy shooter for that to be true, and for most people the cheapest current computer with a couple of external 2 TB drives would be plenty for both configurations.
For water and blur, I tend to go with ND filters and f22 - depending on time of day I will go with 1-20 second exposures.... IS ain't gonna help there.Of course there are plenty of situations where IS is not going to help, that's obviously true. If those are the only situations you shoot in, then IS is obviously useless for you. About flowing water, it depends on the angular velocity of the water with respect to the camera; e.g. close to a waterfall you can get a lot of motion blur in a small fraction of a second, while you would probably prefer 10s of seconds for braking waves lit by the moon at some distance.
If thats your attitude then the $500 price difference shouldn't matter either then.My attitude is that computer power (however you want to measure it) is growing quicker than sensor megapixels, and therefore any complaints you have with sensors producing too big files should go a way at a similar rate. Yes, of course, you can always save money by sticking to yesterday's tech, and that may be the best thing to do in many cases.
You wouldn't believe how may photos I can get on a 16Gb card with my D30Exactly
Speculation:That's true for sure. In particular, large apertures seem especially difficult. That's the reason there are no fast primes with IS, the fastest being the immensely expensive EF 200/2.0L (AFAIK).
It might be cheaper to put IS into a medium-quality, small aperture kit-lense, than a 70-200 f/2.8 L-lense. Stricter requirements, heavier glass to move.
If your referring to the d800, then have fun spending all that you saved buying that body on more CF cards, cause unless you shoot in crop mode the files are huge.In addition to the Murphy's law you are referring to, you should learn about Moore's law. CPUs, GPUs, hard drives, RAM and about anything computer related including CF cards, tend to double their performance every 18 months. This stands in stark contrast to the Mpix of camera sensors, which increase much more slowly. You can get fast 64 GB CF cards for $150 today. That's more than a 1000 raw files for the d800. File sizes today is a non issue.
Just that IS will have no benefit for wa lens when the subject is moving and you are not panning - IS does not stop motion blur.
I think they look cool, but might be labeling myself as a noob if i were to go out shooting with them
Different hand sizes are a major point with camera bodies. My hands are very much on the large end of the scale (nearly 10-1/2 inch span) so my 7D feels tiny, even the 1 series is not very large for me - so it will clearly be that what fits me wont fit others. Same applies to weight of camera + lens.
If venus is in the top part of the
moonSun, is that because all of you guys are northern-hemispheres?