March 04, 2015, 09:38:02 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 - max

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
EOS Bodies / Re: Who is going to buy the new 5Ds's?
« on: February 05, 2015, 09:07:03 AM »
I still use mRaw on my 5d3! hahhahaha
No way I would buy one of these!

Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EOS 7D Mark II by Fro
« on: November 25, 2014, 12:56:24 PM »
I have had some minor doubts about the battery life, and the feedback I got earlier on was of the diplomatic kind from a journalist. It still looks as though the batteries won't last just as long as they did on the 7D Mark I.

For some reason the battery life of mine has steadily improved. Not sure why. I was trying to kill the battery yesterday using GPS and a lot of live view and it seemed fine to me. Can't say how it compares to the 7D. He was complaining about only being able to shoot 1000 Raw + JPG with a single battery. He must shoot a pro body because I don't think that's unreasonable for one of those LP-E6's.
*nods* I bet some can be done by tweaking ones own settings and to chimp a little less. (As you get used to a camera, you will find smarter ways to accomplish things and that should also lead to increased battery life.) I also believe that a few tweaks of the firmware can increase the battery life to some degree, and deal with a few other issues yet to be discovered - bad coding can waste CPU cycles and wreck even the best intentions.

A tad shorter battery life could be a benefit to both Canon and users; Canon will sell more batteries, and users are more likely to buy that backup battery they otherwise wouldn't consider. Most of the time they won't need to change to that spare, but it won't hurt to carry it with you, and it would ensure you could go on for just a while longer if push comes to shove.

I shoot with a 5D3 and get like 1200-1400 pics, with basically very little screen usage during a wedding. I donĀ“t have lenses with IS that might require extra energy. But 669/0,75=892 which seems lame.

Lenses / Re: The New EF 24-105mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM
« on: September 11, 2014, 09:03:03 AM »
Woohooo!! the year of the lenses!!!

I mean sigma lenses  8)

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Preorder Zeiss Otus 85mm f/1.4 Apo Planar T*
« on: September 09, 2014, 12:17:27 PM »
I'll be curious as to the excuses well reasoned arguments that people come up with for why they 'need' this particular lens.

Why do people need a reason or "need" as you put it?

If you are fortunate enough to be able to afford the best, and you want to use what will be widely regarded as the best MF lens on the market, then there will be plenty of people that will buy it. Some people will not see US$ 4,500 as a lot of money, others do. If you can afford it great, if you can't and want it then work towards getting it, if you don't want it then that's ok too. Everyone is happy.

I would love to hear a reason as why to choose this lens with razor thin DOF at 1.4 with MF over any other 85mm lens, of course sharpness... but being so hard to use wide open will loose its point and makes it ridiculously high priced.

Lenses / Re: Review: Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4 Distagon T*
« on: February 26, 2014, 06:04:09 PM »
3 stops of vignette in the corner seems like a bit too much...

its an 8mp so it uses 4 pixels for each pixel kinda like a bayern 4 pixel so maybe it uses those for the dual pixel focusing.

so hype is over... now bring on the Fuji X100FF!! 8) 8)

Canon General / Re: Official: Sigma 24-105mm f/4 DG OS
« on: October 14, 2013, 01:16:01 PM »
how do these charts compare to canon charts?

most of the lenses patents aren't even exactly 50mm, 24mm 35mm etc...

I almost bought an open box one at frys last week for 350!
I just purchased one with the associate link!

Lenses / Re: Andy Rouse Reviews the EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x
« on: May 14, 2013, 10:24:04 AM »
It seems like a very nice lens. I have to ask myself though, if his only other choice were using the 100-400 how much different would these shots look? Sure the ISO8000 shots wouldn't have been possible at f/5.6. I guess what I'm saying is that it seems like a lot of money to gain one stop and IQ. This lens is 10x the cost of the 100-400, but is it 10x a better lens? It will be very interesting to see what an updated 100-400 will bring.

It gets more expensive than improvement in IQ all the time.

50 1.8 is 100, the 50mm 1.4 is 400 and the 50mm 1.2 is 1400... is it 14 times better? definetly not.
the 75-300mm is 100, the 70-300mm IS USM is like 500, the 70-300mm L is 1400 bucks... again, 14x better?


I was flummoxed when I heard that this thing is APS-C only.  Why?!  If this is a premium lens aimed at serious shooters, why go crop?  This is not a screaming need for the relatively few APS-C guys who spend big money on glass (i.e. birders, sports guys), so I can't make heads or tails of this.

Why not push for (idk) a 24-50 F/2 for the FF guys?  That would likely have a larger interest level.

- A

Now that's a lens I would buy.

EOS Bodies / Re: A Bit of EOS 70D Info [CR1-CR2]
« on: April 15, 2013, 11:36:00 PM »
Seems like the XXD line is back on track.

Its just a 10% discount... Its not like it was 200 dollars.

To me it was an international purchase so first of all I have to pay 50 bucks just for their mistake.
Second, BH and Adorama lately are showing one price and then changing it in the cart to be able to sell at lower prices, as it happened with a camera I bought last week and you can try it on most canon products.
Second, I do not want or need the pixma printer nor the 40mm pancake lens.

The price is not like it should be 2400 and shows 240 dollars. A 300 dollar discount is completely plausible. Now I cannot even purchase the camera because it is not listed and my credit card is now maxed out. I am seriously in a deep problem here as I need this camera to be delivered before the 3rd of march and last time my credit card took 3 weeks to give me back my money.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4