February 28, 2015, 01:03:17 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 - AprilForever

Pages: 1 ... 28 29 [30] 31 32 ... 51
436
Were I to go FF, I would get either the 5D mk II or the D800... this here one seems to offer not a whole lot extra...

437
Wow, I had no idea people actually cared about megapixels.  Probably all of the photographers who love megapixels switched to Canon and all who hated switched to Nikon and now the companies are flip flopping.
A 7DII/7Dx (or maybe even rename to a 6D:

body would be pro, canon needs a pro crop (enough of this only the 1D series is all thats pro, so it would be a good move to counter nikon who boasts a pro crop)
so picture a crop body, boasting lets say, 28-30MP?  1.6 crop and 28MP would kill any argument of the wildlife togs that need extra reach and crop.  Throw in a decent AF, decent ISO and some other bells and whistles and you have an amazing $2000 pro crop body that even FF shooters may consider as a back up/special needs cam.

Do that and toss in a 40+MP full frame (which who knows, this we may see this year) and you put nikon in a real pickle (and who knows, maybe nikon  has something in their pipeline that better suits the needs of wedding togs)...

All in all, I am glad nikon did this.  If canon was the only real player, canon could just sit back.  With nikon putting out cutting edge, it forces canon to work harder, and that benefits all of us!

This would satisfy my photography needs!!! And, 3000 I would pay for it! +1

438
EOS Bodies / Re: NO 5dM3 On Friday * CONFIRMED By a canon Rep Today
« on: February 29, 2012, 10:52:22 AM »
:-\

I work for a big camera shop in Canada and Our rep Canon CONFIRMED to us today that its a rebel series thats is gonna be announce On friday March 2, 2012... probably T4-i

Something else he didnt want to tell me will be announcing in the next 2 month

Sorry For party stoping!

I am pretty certain it is coming Friday... If indeed this scenario occurred you describe, he didn't have the facts, likely... Though, probably the T$i will be announced soon, too...

439
EOS Bodies / Re: The new 5D Mark III ?!?! PICS!
« on: February 28, 2012, 10:07:51 AM »
Would the existing 7D users sell off your current 7D's after you buy the 5D3, if the AF of 5D3 can match the 7D?

NO. I use a 500 mm f/4L IS on my 7D. The 800mm (for a FF body) is too expensive and since it's an f/8 I could not add a 1.4x to it and still keep AF on the 5D3.

A lot of people think we shoot 7Ds because we cannot afford 5Ds. But there are a few of us that need a very good APS-C camera because we cannot afford a pair of 1D Mk IVs. And the additional cost and weight of a 600mm f/4L IS makes the 500 a better solution.

But I am thinking of a 5D2 for a landscape kit body.

This would be why I shoot a 7D. That, and a 1D mk IV is heaver, to get the same frame is even heavier still, and much much more expensive... The 7D just makes sense!

440
EOS Bodies / Re: WHAT DO YOU THINK THE NEW 5D ISO RANGE WILL BE?????
« on: February 24, 2012, 09:06:08 AM »
I'd like it to be within a stop of the 1D X. I shoot a 50D now, but might be willing to go up to the 5D if the AF, frame rate and ISO is sports worthy.

Sports worthy? As in 7-8 FPS? And FF? You are asking for a 3500-4500 dollar camera.

441
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Outdoor Fashion Shoot
« on: February 24, 2012, 09:04:14 AM »
Get the Nikon 50 1.8. I take it based on the kit, you are probably newer to photography. With the 50 1.8 you will be able to throw backgrounds rather out of focus. This is likely the cheapest way for you to get the backgrounds out of focus for many pictures. If you want a longer lens, the Nikon 70-200 VR will do you well (and eat your bank for about 2000, I think).

There is much more you will need to know' are y'all using ambient lighting, reflectors, strobes?

What do they expect of you is probably the most important question.

442
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Help with my "itch" for a FF
« on: February 23, 2012, 11:18:17 PM »
Get a FF, and watch your corners wither... Unless you get top level glass... So, your ultrawide is going to need to be probably the 14mm, or the 16-35. A lot of people find the 16-35 inadequate, and go for the Nikon 14-24. Yet... the APS-C sigma 8-16 is MUCH cheaper... and the Tokina 11-16 gets rave reviews... sooooo....

If you like sports, stay 7D. You might like the 5D mkII for weddings with your 24-105 and 70-200... but, it will likely be inadequate for what you seek....

443
Many are writing about how they crop a great deal, and that it's important.

Where does this come from?

Do you intentionally frame loosely/quickly, or is it more like:

"I wish I had that 300mm lens now that I haven't bought, but I'll crop my 85mm instead"

Sure, ability to crop is good sometimes, but it's not like it's a substitute for equipment or proper photography. and fewer, larger photo sites allow for better image quality in most cases.

It's more like: I wish I had an 800 5.6, but since all I can afford is a 300 2.8 + 2x TC, I may have to crop sometimes.


444
No, not at all.

A FF is not going to give me the FPS I want unless it costs a WHOLE lot of money.

A FF will not give me the reach I need unless it has like 36 MP.

If this is all they can do, this is pathetic. The D800 has it WAY beat.

445
Lenses / Re: Plausibility of a 100-400mm f/4 L IS USM?
« on: February 20, 2012, 10:08:39 AM »
I'm a big fan of my 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM lens. Its served me quite well, and better than the 400mm f/5.6 lenses I've tried from friends or other fellow photographers met out in the field. The only real detractor, however, is the aperture range...f/4.5 to f/5.6 is a bit limiting, from an AF standpoint, and from the standpoint of using a teleconverter. I'd love to have a relatively affordable telephoto zoom lens that I could slap a 1.4x TC on to get 140-560mm f/5.6, something cheaper than the new 200-400mm f/4 L IS USM.

Is a 100-400m f/4 a plausibility, for a "reasonable" cost around $3500 or so? Would it be a lens anyone else even cared about, or is that just a focal range and price that doesn't serve anyone's needs? Personally, I'd find 560/5.6 to be far more useful for general bird photography, without having to lug around a heavy 500mm or 600m L.

Thoughts?

Even a bare 400 f4 prime would bite you for much more than 3500. The 200 f2 goes for around 5000. The 300 2.8 mkI went for around 5000. So... It would probably go for over 5000...

446
EOS Bodies / Re: Due for a letdown?
« on: February 18, 2012, 01:48:20 PM »
Many will finally have to face the real world.  The will not get a 1 series body for $2000 like they wish.  The only question for me, is will it be worth the $1k more or less difference in price between a MK II and whatever FF camera is announced.  The only reason I would replace my MK II is a big high ISO advantage at about the same number of pixels.  A few MP more or less doesn't matter, but a 40MP body with no high ISO improvement wouldn't help my low light photography, even though many would love to see one, and I can understand that.

We should hear more certain specs in the next week or two.

+1 to the lens sales.

Indeed true....

447
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Off Lighting/Color With 7D
« on: February 17, 2012, 01:09:07 PM »
With pictures 1, 2, 3, and the last one, the subjects are light poorly. try shooting with your subject not backlight. Try shooting at either earlier or later in the day. Get the sun shining on your object; point your shadow at the subject to know if it is light well.

What does subject not backlight mean?

Also I can't really control the time of day in those pictures, unfortunately.

Quote
7 is a dull picture because there is no clear purpose to the image; when everything is on focus, nothing is in focus. You need the background to provide the eye a visual cue that there is depth to the scene. Use the 50 1.4 @ 1.4 as much as possible. It will help you develop this vision.

The purpose of 7 is to show what is there, I did not want anything blurred out for depth of field. Good tip, though.

Quote
#8 isn't bad, but would be better if the foreground were either black or lighter.

#9 would be better with a better foreground.

#10 would be better if you had pointed the camera  toward the ground a little more...

Hope this helps! What makes a good picture is not high saturation as much as it is subtle details as listed above; keep working at it! You are getting there!!!

Very helpful!
 Thanks.

Backlighting is when the light is coming from the back of your subject. If you expose for the entire frame, the subject will be dark. This can work well, if you desire to make a silhouette. Or, if you expose for your subject, you can make the entire background fade into white. Either can work, but an underexposed subject which is not black doesn't usually work.

Hope that helps!

448
Lenses / Re: IS substitute for faster glass in low light? Not convinced.
« on: February 17, 2012, 01:04:16 PM »
Many people say that having IS gives you 3 stops of compensation. Which means that you can have a faster shutter speed of 3 stops.


It does not mean you can use a faster shutter speed.  IS lets you use a slower shutter speed and reviewers often test it, and it works.  BUT- only for static subjects.

You are always free to use faster shutter speeds as long as there is enough light.

Here is a image on my 100-400mmL handheld thru my back window at 1/25 sec 400mm.  I grabbed my camera and snapped the image with whatever settings were on it.  I was amazed that a 1/25 sec image came out at all.  Seconds later, he slowly started to roll the baby goat off, and motion blur took over.  He loves the goats, but it hurts when they play on his back.  A few months ago, we watched a new set of babies, and one was on the roof of his goat house and jumped on the horses back as he walked by.  As soon as the horse took one step, the goat left.  It can be a real circus.



Starting to roll



Over he goes, and the goats leave quickly. IS does not let you freeze moving subjects!



Indeed. Although, a supertele lens without IS is extremely hard to use hand-held...

449
EOS Bodies / Re: Anyone else want a cropped sensor?
« on: February 16, 2012, 07:34:00 AM »
So what do folks think the next cropped bodies will be like? Is there anyone else out there who wants one?

I really don't care if my body has a crop sensor or not - I'm interested in the functionality of the body and the pictures resulting from the sensor-lens combination. However, one advantage of ff is the large viewfinder.

The only thing that is very stange that I am currently only using ef lenses that aren't made for my aps-c body - this is historically understandable, and with older lenses it's just fine that only the center is used. But shelling out a lot of €€€/$$$ for an ef tele lens and thinking "great, on a crop body the reach is even further" is just ridiculous - I'm buying high quality glass and it's weight and will never use part of it.

On a crop body, you're using the best part of the glass.

450
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Off Lighting/Color With 7D
« on: February 15, 2012, 10:51:57 PM »
With pictures 1, 2, 3, and the last one, the subjects are light poorly. try shooting with your subject not backlight. Try shooting at either earlier or later in the day. Get the sun shining on your object; point your shadow at the subject to know if it is light well.

7 is a dull picture because there is no clear purpose to the image; when everything is on focus, nothing is in focus. You need the background to provide the eye a visual cue that there is depth to the scene. Use the 50 1.4 @ 1.4 as much as possible. It will help you develop this vision.

#8 isn't bad, but would be better if the foreground were either black or lighter.

#9 would be better with a better foreground.

#10 would be better if you had pointed the camera  toward the ground a little more...

Hope this helps! What makes a good picture is not high saturation as much as it is subtle details as listed above; keep working at it! You are getting there!!!

Pages: 1 ... 28 29 [30] 31 32 ... 51