March 05, 2015, 05:39:48 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 - max

Pages: 1 2 3 [4]
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon promises a 'mirrorless' camera in 2012
« on: January 09, 2012, 09:51:55 AM »
Canon just released the G1X with a sensor bigger than the micro 4/3, looks awesome!

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Lens Mug - Giveaway
« on: August 31, 2011, 02:46:54 PM »
a direct 3D print! ::)

Contests / Re: Holga Giveaway
« on: July 19, 2011, 09:12:24 AM »
I would like to play with these!!

EOS Bodies / Re: 3D (Again) & 5D Mark III (CR1)
« on: June 14, 2011, 04:41:20 PM »
I wouldn't be at all surprised if Canon took their model names off in an altogether different direction - possibly dropping the 'D' part altogether.

So the new camera would be an EOS 3?  Why does that name seem familiar??

Lenses / Re: Canon Announces EF-S 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS II
« on: June 13, 2011, 09:13:28 AM »
The patent says 55-203... Why do they say its 250mm?

EOS Bodies / Re: The Future of the 1Ds & 5D Lines [CR2]
« on: May 31, 2011, 07:28:33 PM »
Seems very possible to have a 5D mark III at the same price cost as the older one for stills with the same video functions but 720p 60fps, and a 5D mark III video for 3000-3500...

And where can I find the market share of each canon camera in the canon lineup?? Does this info exist?

Contests / Re: Giveaway - Blue Crane Digital DVD's
« on: March 01, 2011, 07:57:50 AM »
    * 1Ds
    * Digital Rebel / 300D
    * 5D Mark II
    * 1D Mark IV

shoot great video.

Lenses / Re: Your lenses wishlist for 2011.
« on: February 28, 2011, 04:53:13 PM »
On my wish list:
  • 24-70L F/2.8 IS
  • 50L F/1.2 II

Same here.
almost the same for me but I am thinking the 50mm 1.4 with a new longer lasting design is what i would get... and i am going to get a 24-70mm without the IS for now...

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS Development Announced
« on: February 07, 2011, 10:38:42 AM »
To me it seems a bit expensive... obviously I have no idea about IQ but...

Canon 100-400 f/4-5.6 $1600 (but at 400 the glass is half the size in area)
Sigma 100-300 f/4 aprox $1200 (as I remember)
Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 aprox $2000 (as I remember)
Sigma 300-800 f/5.6 aprox $7500 (different range i know, but 800 5.6 should have same size glass than 400 4... but its an 800mm)
Canon 70-200 f/2.8 aprox $2200
Canon 300mm f/4 IS  aprox $1300
Canon 400mm f/5.6 aprox $1400

So to me without knowing anything about anything!! I would kina price in the 4-5000 range.

But thats just me... I will not buy this lens as i dont need it.

I would love a 70-200mm 2.8 that goes to a 140-400 5.6 with a 2xTC

EOS Bodies / Re: 1Ds Mark IV.. The Saga Continues... [CR2]
« on: January 20, 2011, 03:52:36 PM »
How many people buy 8.000 cameras???

Does anyone know how the pie cuts up?? (amount of each camera sold?)

Lenses / Re: List of rumored lenses
« on: December 17, 2010, 11:36:08 AM »
I have a 50mm 1.8II and want to upgrade it... but the 1.4 seems to be so unreliable and crappy constructed that it wont even last....

Should I get it, keep the one I have and wait for a newer version, or get the sigma 1.4?

EOS Bodies / Re: DIGIC V [CR1]
« on: November 24, 2010, 04:08:01 PM »
why not a digic V and a digic Vx2 like a dual digic V but in one chip...??

Lenses / Re: 100-400 Replacement
« on: November 20, 2010, 10:19:17 AM »
I would have liked a 100-300 f/4 IS... seemed like the way to go, it still takes teleconverters... I had a Sigma version and liked it a lot, lacked IS, if not I would have kept it.

The 70-300 just seems pointless in the lineup, i think it needed to go to the 400mm range or have wider aperture... but most people will just buy a 70-200 2.8 for less money or a 70-300 of the IS USM ones non L.

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark II Firmware 2.0.8
« on: October 19, 2010, 10:37:18 AM »
If I dont use any of those things, should I upgrade??

Lenses / Re: Lenses Lenses Lenses
« on: August 18, 2010, 02:19:36 PM »
I just bought a Sigma 100-300mm f/4... because the 70-200 was too short, and 100-400 with its push pull and the non constant aperture sold me. And the possibility of using a TC without loosing AF.

I would definetly change it for a canon version.

My 100-300 is not really that large in size and weight.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4]