December 19, 2014, 08:44:51 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 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 50
EOS Bodies / Re: Thinking Out Loud: EOS 7D Mark II Thoughts
« on: December 15, 2013, 01:03:26 PM »
1. There had better be a 7d MK II.

2. I hate video. Optimize my camera for still images.

Divergance is an extremely important concept Canon does not get. See this link...

3. The 7d mk II MUST be APS-C. I have discussed many times on this forum the superior nature of APS-C.

Canon, listen, or let the K3 eat your ever dwindling customer base...

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: The Unthinkable: Swapped out 5D3 for 6D
« on: December 11, 2013, 08:02:31 AM »
I would have swapped the 5d III for a 7D, but, to each his own...

The 5D III is a model generation newer...

Also, on the 7D examples, you have focus issues in the first one of the great blue heron, and motion blur in the second, it appears....

Lenses / Re: Ken Rockwell reviews canon 50mm f/1.0
« on: November 21, 2013, 04:13:22 PM »
Ken is Boss!

I love reading his reviews. There's nothing like them! He clearly puts a lot of thought into them, and his pictures are superb!

Also, everytime someone posts Rockwell, the thread turns into a bloody flame war!!! I am trying to be positive here to prevent this.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Any reason to choose a 7D over a 70D?
« on: November 15, 2013, 04:32:56 PM »
Find a used 7D on ebay. They go for around 700 in good condition, las I looked...

Street & City / Re: Share your Funniest Street Photo
« on: November 11, 2013, 08:03:37 AM »
Great thread idea and great pictures! Keep them coming!

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Major IQ advantage of FF?
« on: November 08, 2013, 12:22:53 PM »
Yes. The Hi ISO advantage disappears.

I wouldn't know about you guys with the big lenses, but I know this is true for macro - shooting near 1:1 with a ff has a so much thinner dof that a crop is at least equivalent in terms of required iso, plus the crop has got the longer working distance.

Edit: One more note: High iso on ff is *NOT* equivalent to low iso on crop because the higher iso always has less dynamic range - so the advantage not only disappears, but a disadvantage appears :-o

Well said, sir! I had not thought of that!

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Major IQ advantage of FF?
« on: November 08, 2013, 12:23:00 AM »
A FF camera has a larger area, BUT...
Has shallower depth of field (NOT always a good thing, ESPECIALLY with long lenses)

This is a misconception. FF does not have shallower DOF. It only has the option for less DOF when needed.

Sure it has shallower depth of field 50mm at f4 on a 7D is roughly equivalent to 30mm f2.5 on a 5D. Same framing, shallower depth of field. When shooting birds in flight, I need usually f8 on a 7D to get the bird at least mostly in focus. On full frame? That's f13. To maintain shutter speed, that means ever rising ISO's.

Yes. The Hi ISO advantage disappears.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Major IQ advantage of FF?
« on: November 07, 2013, 10:14:50 PM »
I know that you get a more shallow DOF and better high ISO performance with a full frame over a crop, but with good lenses on either is there really much of an IQ difference all other things being equal.  I do get great results with my T1i, but I do see some ultra-great results out there that my camera just isn't capable of.  The sensible option is to remain with my crop-inspired lenses and maybe go to a 70D or the next Rebel, but the 6D seems pretty cool. 
I agonize over this stuff because I'm the opposite of a gear-hound.  I'm a minimalist who tries to do the most with the least so it's quality over quantity.  Thank you in advance for your wisdom.

All else being equal, a photosite is a photosite. A FF camera has a larger area, BUT...

Costs more
Has shallower depth of field (NOT always a good thing, ESPECIALLY with long lenses)
Wide angle lenses are WAY more expensive (there are superb crop lenses Tokin 11-16 for example)
lenses are not as long...
Bulkier camera
Bulkier lenses

There are a lot of people jumping on the Micro four thirds bandwagon. check out
The author there has ditched FF for smaller, far more usable gear. A camera is useless which is too bulky to use. If you ever feel like not picking up your camera because it is too heavy, consider the true price of FF...

Lenses / Re: Which Normal to Wide Angle Focal Length Matches Your Vision?
« on: October 12, 2013, 04:16:24 PM »
I see longer... My walkaround lens does tend to be  a 300 2.8... Although, I do also carry a 24-105 on a 5d mkII, because my wife likes landscape images...

Aye, tis a soft lens!!! I replaced it with a 300 f4. Then added a 300 2.8 to that. Now am looking for a 600 f4.

It was always soft at the long end, but it does get a lot better, I believe, if you stop down.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Pentax K-3
« on: October 11, 2013, 08:45:29 AM »
If pentax had in lens IS

Also, as I just read this in-lens system suppresses moire so no aa filter is necessary?

Pentax IS is at the sensor, not in the lens as Canon and Nikon. It is the sensor vibration mechanism that sets up a carefully controlled amount of blur to avoid moire, whereas other cameras use the micro-lens AA filter on the sensor to create a small amount of blur to the same effect.

IS at the lens is usually reckoned to be more effective, but the pentax IS (like Olympus) can work on all lenses - saving the need to buy IS equipped lenses.

If I wasnt invested in Canon gear, I'd be tempted to try my father's lovely manual lenses on a Pentax, to see how effective the IS at the sensor might be. On the other hand, if Pentax launch a full frame DSLR, I might sell up and switch.

Pentax just may have its break here...

Canon General / Re: Irritating photography advice
« on: October 10, 2013, 09:07:50 PM »
I get tired of hearing about cloning is bad because it destroys reality or creates a lie...

Canon General / Re: Havasupai Falls
« on: October 10, 2013, 08:03:19 PM »
Im hiking down to Havasupai Falls in the Grand Canyon next week. I'm trying to limit how much I carry down with me. I'm trying to figure out what lenses to bring. I have Canon 5D MkIII. My lense choices are 17-40, 24-105. I also have 70-200 and 85 and 135 Prime. Any advice would be appreciated. I think I only want to take two of them.

Any other advice about the hike would be appreciated.



I hike at the GC this summer. The 17-40 and the 70-200 will be all you need. You may want the 24-105 on a second body or back up?

Canon General / Re: How to be a bad photographer.
« on: October 10, 2013, 08:01:54 PM »
G.A.S. can be bad if you are poor. I don't mind wealthy amateurs buying lots of gear they don't need.

Well, being definitely on the rather poor side I do enjoy reading threads about "should I get 2x 5d3 or 1x 1dx?" because it puts my personal GAS back into perspective :-) Also neither the article or I said that GAS *makes* you bad, just that it often goes along with it to compensate for the lack of skill and/or experience.

I'm absolutely in favor of people buying €6000 1dx or €10000 1dxs so Canon can lower my 6D to €1500 (which is still very expensive for me)... that's why I voted against Magic Lantern hacking the 1dx into a 1dc, rich people should cross-fund r&d and profits when they buy the premium gear, I'll stay 1-2 levels below that.

Nice scheme! May it drop the price of the 7D mk II!!!!

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 50