July 31, 2014, 07:53:23 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 - awinphoto

Pages: 1 ... 107 108 [109] 110 111 ... 132
1621
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS-1D X Canon USA Press Release
« on: October 18, 2011, 11:13:45 AM »
Where does that leave the rest of us?

I'm kinda torn about this camera... on one hand, it's a camera most everyone has been clamoring for... a low MP full frame high FPS camera with a pro grade AF and a metering system as sophisticated as the nikons matrix system... Well, you cant say canon didn't listen to those people, you got what you asked for.  While this camera, in some instances, to me lacks the wow factor, I also think... well what else do you expect this camera to do (that it cant do with or without an accessory?  It appears they really beefed up the "camera" part of the camera while keeping the video part solid for most purposes... No it doesn't have the 4K the red does, no it isn't 24 MP like nikons offerings, yes, there are sacrifices here and there, but it is a solid camera on it's own.  I think the confusion is not knowing where the canon roadmap is going... first they bushwhacked the xxd line, then the juggernaut 7D which is still a debate where it sits, if it's pro or not pro, and yada yada yada... Once again Canon appears to be deviating from roadmap we all knew and loved and to some extent, somewhat expected to happen... this is just one of those in transitions... I doubt Canon will hold a formal press conference and fully explain what they are doing, but I think the writing is on the wall. 

I'm not sure so much how much this is for photojournalists as it is meant to be a "go-to" camera for pros... It appears to be a great camera for wedding photogs, low light junkies, and even sports photographers (high FPS)... While likely this camera will debut outside my budget range, I hope the new 5D series and whatever cameras they announce in the future will also impress. 

1622
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS-1D X Canon USA Press Release
« on: October 18, 2011, 10:19:17 AM »
I'm not quite sure what to think of the jump from the 1ds3 or the 1d4 to the 1dx.  Almost sounds a bit too much like to the old nikon D1x  While they didn't go right out and say it, it kinda sounds like a merging of the two lines however it could be an improved 1d4?  If it's the 1ds3 merging with the 1d4, i find it interesting indeed they dropped to 18mp... Their mantra was always bigger MP the better, but now 21 is too much?  Especially now that nikon has jumped all over the MP bandwagon supposedly?  It's like canon's marketing strategy is taking a page from nikons playbook and visa versa... I always thought it would make more sense to release the 5d3 first, but I guess I am wrong, but I hope to see it soon. 

1623
Lenses / Re: 70-200 F4 L IS noise too much
« on: October 17, 2011, 10:17:39 AM »
Also I surprise this lens has high no of 5 start ratings. Though I do understand it has good IQ.

Also Do you guys think I should return this as well, its driving me suspicious of having fault inside lens?
Thanks

This lens is excellent in terms of IQ, quality, and IS... it is loud but most are willing to overlook the noise for great images... Regarding the video, are you using an external mic or on-board mic?  At your distance using a telephoto lens, it may just be worth while having a simple cheap mic that goes on your hot shoe... Better audio of your subjects and no IS buzzing... From what you describe, I dont think you have a faulty IS, but it a personal preference if you can live with it or not... I cant speak for the 2.8 IS... perhaps because it's physically bigger they build in a bigger damper area within the lens to eliminate the noise?  I dont know, but I think your lens is up to par... and if you want to sell it for used prices, let me know.  =)

1624
Lenses / Re: 70-200 F4 L IS noise too much
« on: October 17, 2011, 10:11:07 AM »
From my experience, it does make a hum... however it's kinda reassuring to me knowing it's on and working (rather than thinking it should be on but it isn't or off).  I find it maybe louder than other lenses I've used but not over the top. Plus, as far as your subject matter is concerned, at the distance you will be shooting at, it shouldn't be loud enough to bother your subject matter except if your in an ultraquiet studio setting... It's a personal thing...

1625
EOS Bodies / Re: 1D Mark III vs. waiting for 5D MK III
« on: October 14, 2011, 05:53:58 PM »
You mentioned that you done need "those darn 18MP"... you do offhand realize there is a strong likelyhood the new 5d would be 21mp if not bigger... granted a lesser pixel density, but yeah....  Just to bring that up... The 1D is an interesting oddball in the lineup... dont get me wrong... I love it's AF and rapid fire... but lenses are odd... you have to use full frame lenses or AF-s lenses that wont damage the mirror.  Sounds like that isn't an issue at this point in time, but something to consider as well.  Dont forget the 1.3x factor which, while would be good for telephoto, wont be good for landscapes or architecture (let alone since you cannot really use af-s lenses to compensate...

I have bought used in the past and regularly sell off gear I dont use, but as my grandpa said "if you buy used, you buy other peoples problems"... Do your research on the 1d3 that you would be buying... test it, look it over... does it have damage either physical or hidden?  Dead pixels?  AF needing calibrating?  Can you check shutter actuations?  As others mentioned, do you need a new camera right now or is this a splurge on a once in a lifetime price?  Just somethings to ponder... only you can answer your own question. 

1626
EOS Bodies / Re: The New EOS [CR3]
« on: October 14, 2011, 12:23:58 PM »
If this is the 1d/ids series specs... I hate to see the 5d specs... maybe the 5d mark II is starting to look more appealing... but wont believe a word till i read the specs on the press release...

1627
EOS Bodies / Re: New DSLR on Tuesday, October 18, 2011. [CR3]
« on: October 12, 2011, 04:10:30 PM »
Using a page from the Canon Playbook, I cannot see them lowering the MP from the flagship camera whether your looking at the 1ds (21mp)... then again, I could see them doing kind of what the nikon 700 does where they offer there 30mp+ regular slow mo settings or a cropped 1.3 or 1.6 version that would be eq of 16-18mp with a crazy 12-14 FPS.  I also would hope the ISO could also be a tad higher, but a lot can happen for the next few weeks/months... I also hope they release the 5d with this release... if they do, that could be enough for nikon to crap their pants...

1628
United States / Re: Photography is Terrorism?
« on: October 11, 2011, 01:59:24 PM »
Last but not least, I remember a few years ago I had friends (using cameras and telephoto lenses) took some pictures of some cool buildings in Los Angeles and someone saw them, reported the cars license plates to cops, and sure enough later that day they had a lovely visit from the police at their house asking what they were doing taking photos.... They had a good answer and the cops went away, but it's getting bad all over for photographers, not just a certain area or culture. 

1629
United States / Re: Photography is Terrorism?
« on: October 11, 2011, 12:36:16 PM »
Then again..... Here in the good ol' USA in a outdoor mall I was shooting at in Santa Barbara, CA, I was told by security to stop shooting and delete all photos taken at the mall... (I had to go afterwards to the front desk/office and sign a release saying I could shoot for personal shoots but not professional use or sale.).  I also cant take my camera into my local university's football games so it's a mixed bag depending on location, venue, and security... Some places I get stopped and asked what I'm doing when I've got my camera with me... but as long as you got a legit answer they dont bat an eye. 

1630
Software & Accessories / Re: Canon Brand Tripod Mount Ring vs 3rd Party
« on: October 09, 2011, 01:51:35 PM »
I have first hand experience with both... I borrowed the 70-200 from CPS before I bought the lens.  The lens was equipped (from CPS with the canon tripod mount ring) and I loved the lens enough to commit to buy it once I sent the lens back.  The problem was the lens, as i found out, didn't have a ring... so I bought a third party to use when I get my lens... The ring surprisingly got to me early... so early that I had the lens for a day or two left to try out both rings... The difference is big but minimal at the same time... The canon mount locks firm.... even before you tighten the set screw... The 3rd party feel loose until you tighten the screw fully, and even at that you have to tighten it a bit just to catch.  Also the difference is the canon one feels like it's a heaveir allow metal, similar to the construction of the lens itself... whereas the 3rd party, while not necessarily plastic feeling, but is considerably lighter and flimsier feeling compared to both... The 3rd party, when fully secured, is tight and secure and I'd trust it to an extent, however compared to the canon, it just is not quite the same. 

1631
Lenses / Re: super telephoto prices
« on: October 07, 2011, 02:06:27 PM »
Back in the day, the rule of thumb was to spend 2x the amount on lenses vs camera body for optimum results... while camera prices have jumped from the film to digital age, lenses hasn't made as much of a jump.  Perhaps this is just evening out the ratio and thinning the herd sort of speak..  Plus when you take in account the time, precision, skill and effort to design, create, and mass produce these glass, there must be a high element of rejects on the manufacturing side, especially on these big whites that we all love... That all takes $$ or in this case, $$$$$.  =)

1632
EOS Bodies / Re: Nikon D800 at 36mp, Will Canon Respond?
« on: October 05, 2011, 03:00:28 PM »
awinphoto makes a pretty good point here.  I have the feeling that canon does know that this is a bit of a hole in their lineup, and just as they recently cranked a [stunning] 200-400 f/4 to match/surpass Nikon's, I have a feeling it won't be long before we see a 14-24mm f/2.8 L from Canon.  after all, it's very clear the demand is there, and that people are willing to pay the premium for this lens, so it's just money waiting to be earned by Canon.

the recent comments about canon now diverting focus to its wide angle lenses makes perfect sense as they have pretty much run the gauntlet as far as telephotos go at this point (expect perhaps updating the 300 f/4 and 400 f/5.6 ... but those will probably wait a couple of years until everyone has bought the high-end II-series lenses)

Thanks... You know, I dont envy the canon lens design engineers... Not only do they have to find new ways to design these lens elements to bend light and not only meet up in unison to create a sharp image, but also get enough light lined up to create a sharp image across the entire frame, and oh yeah, consumers want a 2.8 aperture, oh and it cant be too similar to Sonys/Nikons/Carl Zeiss/etc patents... And then once it's all done, how to make it at a price point where people would want to buy it... Then again thats why they make the money they do... To invalidate "lesser" lenses such as the 17-40/16-35 especially compared to the 14-24 is just not the same, they are two separate animals, different strengths... I do think at one day sooner than later Canon will once again own not only the telephoto lineup but also the ultrawides, but until then there are options... There's TSE lenses which you can rent if need be if you need those critical shots, do pano style shots with 50% overlaps so the sweet spot of the lenses cover the entire scene you wish to cover, merge in photoshop... Quick, easy, and can make stunning photos... That's how I made many of my architecture shots...

1633
EOS Bodies / Re: Nikon D800 at 36mp, Will Canon Respond?
« on: October 05, 2011, 01:32:27 PM »
It's not the resolving power of lenses which is the problem, it's the border & corner performance.  On a 12MP camera it's much less noticeable as the resolution across the frame is more or less uniform, it becomes an issue though as the MP count increases.  The 5D MkII using a 17 - 40mm F/4 at the wide end wide open really shows this problem - plenty of resolution in the centre, no measureable resolution at all in the corners, it's a dramatic fall off which is really noticable.  Up the MP count higher and it'll become even more noticeable as centre performance increases, while border & edge stays the same.

Not trying to rock the boat or start a debate, but I just wanted to get this off my chest... People like to pick apart Canon's ultrawides (i.e. 17-40, 16-35) for example that the corner sharpness is bad, especially at the extremes... Mkay... At the end of the day, what are you shooting in which corner sharpness, especially if used on a Full Frame camera, do you need that corner sharpness?  architecture?  Landscape?  If you are, then why aren't you saving up to use a T/S lens which you would get that corner sharpness such as the new 17mm TS?   That lens is geared for pro architecture/landscape photographers.  17-40, on a crop body, is kinda like a short stubby all around lens however on a full frame, it's as close to a fish eye and you get without the fisheye effect.  That lens is a good lens but has it's place within the professional photographers bag.  I know i'm one to talk and battle this battle on a daily occurance with the costs and everything, but in the end, using a 17-40 or even the 16-35 on a detail critical architecture shoot and then griping about corner sharpness, to me, is like someone using a hack saw to cut off branches off a tree and complaining it's taking to long... It can get the same job done but isn't the correct tool to use.

I donno man.  I think it is wasteful to only consider the most specialized tools for a particular job, particular when the less specific tool has some advantages over the more particular one. 

Photographers, both "prosumer" and professional don't have unlimited resources.  And, sometimes the 17mm TSE just isn't going to cut it, for whatever reason.  That's where those zooms step in.  Nikon understands this, in my opinion.  That's why the 14-24 exists.  Crop shooters have the super sharp Tokina 11-16.  Why can't FF shooters have better performing glass, too?

I fully understand but then again, the 14-24 is at least $500 than the 16-35  and $1000 more than the 17-40.  If/should canon pump out one at the same price point, then it could be argued more apples to apples, but it is what it is.  I work every day as a pro photographer... I used to do a ton of architecture/high end real estate until the market crashed, now i'm doing more commercial.  I'm not arguing that there shouldn't be an equivalent in canon's line-up, but to compare a $700 lens to a $1700 lens I dont think is quite fair on that regards and doesn't quite do it justice... The 17-40 is a fine lens and if you know some short cuts, you can come out with some stunning architecture shots using the sweet spot of the lens and working at it's strengths... 

1634
EOS Bodies / Re: Nikon D800 at 36mp, Will Canon Respond?
« on: October 05, 2011, 10:43:01 AM »
It's not the resolving power of lenses which is the problem, it's the border & corner performance.  On a 12MP camera it's much less noticeable as the resolution across the frame is more or less uniform, it becomes an issue though as the MP count increases.  The 5D MkII using a 17 - 40mm F/4 at the wide end wide open really shows this problem - plenty of resolution in the centre, no measureable resolution at all in the corners, it's a dramatic fall off which is really noticable.  Up the MP count higher and it'll become even more noticeable as centre performance increases, while border & edge stays the same.

Not trying to rock the boat or start a debate, but I just wanted to get this off my chest... People like to pick apart Canon's ultrawides (i.e. 17-40, 16-35) for example that the corner sharpness is bad, especially at the extremes... Mkay... At the end of the day, what are you shooting in which corner sharpness, especially if used on a Full Frame camera, do you need that corner sharpness?  architecture?  Landscape?  If you are, then why aren't you saving up to use a T/S lens which you would get that corner sharpness such as the new 17mm TS?   That lens is geared for pro architecture/landscape photographers.  17-40, on a crop body, is kinda like a short stubby all around lens however on a full frame, it's as close to a fish eye and you get without the fisheye effect.  That lens is a good lens but has it's place within the professional photographers bag.  I know i'm one to talk and battle this battle on a daily occurance with the costs and everything, but in the end, using a 17-40 or even the 16-35 on a detail critical architecture shoot and then griping about corner sharpness, to me, is like someone using a hack saw to cut off branches off a tree and complaining it's taking to long... It can get the same job done but isn't the correct tool to use. 

1635
EOS Bodies / Re: 7D + 50mm 1.8
« on: October 04, 2011, 05:22:40 PM »
Maybe you're just shooting in a too well lit spot too!!!

You might wanna try a faster shutter speed too, images with just be cleaner...

Faster shutters will lead to a choppy look on video... try neutral density filters... If you dont have any, try a simple polarizing filter... It knocks down 2 stops of light right there... It also can make for a more interesting scene.  Also shoot ISO 100. 

Pages: 1 ... 107 108 [109] 110 111 ... 132