July 25, 2014, 03:16:07 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 - RGomezPhotos

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 21
31
EOS Bodies / Re: What's Next from Canon?
« on: February 14, 2014, 01:40:17 AM »
Somehow I bumped into a rumor of the Nikon D4s and though "This is my perfect camera!" FF, 24MP, 10FPS. Well, only in specs because Nikon ergos and UI don't work for me. But that's a sweet camera in specs. The D4 is a nice camera too.

I wish Canon would come out with something that exciting. The 1Dx last did it for me. The 5D MKIII just missed the boat a bit. If you don't need the much improved AF, you don't need an upgrade. And the older version is already 3 or so years old. It's sad.

The G1x MKII is a $400 - $450 camera. I hope no one has their career riding on sales of that camera. Give me the EOS-M anytime.

32
PowerShot / Re: Canon PowerShot G1 X II Final Specifications
« on: February 12, 2014, 01:14:14 AM »
The Mk2 is more consequent in its features.
I didnt like the optical viewfinder because it was too small. A halfway solution, and made it bulky.
No increasing number of pixels, another good point.
How does it look?
Absolutely dont care.
I own a Sony RX100; I like its small size and superb IQ.
The 1GX offers more, so it is bigger.

@ flash: hm. When I use all this extra gear it makes no difference if I carry my 1 or 5D.

Price: $ 600 in a few months will be the fair price for it.

Thanks for reading!

At $600 it would definitely be a better deal. But the sensor size just kills me. When I can get a Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 for $300 or Canon G16 for $450...  Don't know if it's worthwhile.

33
PowerShot / Re: Canon PowerShot G1 X II Final Specifications
« on: February 11, 2014, 10:51:19 AM »
On one hand, I like the camera. But if the price is still in the $700 - $800 range, I think it's too expensive without without a bigger sensor. I'd rather go EOS-M...

34
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Deal: EF 50mm f/1.8 II $99
« on: February 10, 2014, 08:42:26 PM »
I'd consider buying one of these little guys.   :D

35
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon EF 24-85 f/3.5-5.6 IS
« on: February 09, 2014, 10:00:58 PM »
At first I thought "boring". Really, a 24-70L f4?  But then I thought of it as broadening their range. There's not much in the middle. You got low and high. Okay, boring but practical at least.

36
PowerShot / Re: What to Expect From Canon For CP+ Next Week
« on: February 07, 2014, 11:48:39 PM »
I could never part with my trusted G11, so as long as it lives no replacement in that class for me. :'(

I don't blame you. I wish I hadn't sat on my Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3 with my fat arse busting it...  Loved that camera and would STILL be happy with it. 5 years later...

37
PowerShot / Re: What to Expect From Canon For CP+ Next Week
« on: February 07, 2014, 03:53:19 PM »
It's nice that a G1X update is coming out..  But yes. Boring. 

38
I would love something like this so much!

I love the Canon 18-200 a lot! But I can't use it on my 5DMKII. The Canon 24-105 doesn't have enough range. The Canon 28-300 L is pricey and HUGE...

If this lens can do a little better in IQ and performance than the Canon 18-200, it's almost a no-brainier. If it's around $600, I'm in!

39
EOS Bodies / Re: 1DX Replacement
« on: February 02, 2014, 09:19:55 PM »
I played with a 1DX and it was impressive. It really is a good jump from the 5DIII in almost every way. Except for image quality at most ISO levels. Though, I could only justify one if most of my income came from photography. Not yet.   ;)

40
PowerShot / Re: Canon PowerShot G1 X Successor Coming Shortly [CR2]
« on: February 02, 2014, 08:49:14 PM »
Looking forward to it! I liked the G1X but it didn't self itself far enough from smaller and cheaper compacts that were almost as good and smaller good DSLRs.

41
Lighting / Re: Cheetah Light CL-180 vs Canon 600ex-rt
« on: February 01, 2014, 12:52:01 AM »
When I saw those Cheetahs...  I started salivating! Big power in a Speedlite form factor.

I have read nothing but glowing reviews on those units. Especially from wedding photographers. I'm going to wait a while and see if Phottix will come out with something similar. I don't want to use multiple radio systems and I love my Phottix gear. Putting a bare-bulb into a softbox always looks better than a speedlite.

Have you tried using different batteries in your lights? Say NiHM vs Lithium. How about taking them in for service?

Good work and website BTW  ;D

42
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in Q2? [CR1]
« on: January 31, 2014, 01:08:56 PM »
I think this is just marketing. This is an APS-C camera and what photographer would chance an important shot being missed by a prototype?

43
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in Q2? [CR1]
« on: January 31, 2014, 01:07:27 PM »
So it won't work with existing CF cards, might as well throw all of my existing CF cards in the garbage if they change it.
I'm selling my collection of thirteen CF cards of 2GB or larger. Sold three and and pre-sold five. The rest I need to look for as they are scattered in the house.

Original plan was to replace them with four 64GB or 128GB cards. I hate keeping track of so many loose items that I do not end up using. Why four CF cards? That makes it one body to one card.

Reading up on Sandisk, Lexar & Canon's involvement with CFast (and further readings on XQD) got me thinking that 2014 could be the year that we will see EOS bodies with SATA-based CFast card slots.

Too many eggs in a single basket? That has been the argument since over a decade ago. Never had a memory card go bad on me but misplacing them is always a problem.

FINALLY someone else says it! Yeah, it can happen. But are they eBay cheapies? Do you sit on them regularly? Are the cards 10 years old?


44
Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EOS 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM by DxO Mark
« on: January 29, 2014, 06:51:53 PM »
The focal length is so awesome. At big events, the 70-200mm on a crop gets very close to this focal length. Great for sporting events on a large field. I would like to see a maximum aperture of f4 or better, but f4.5 isn't too as long as you have plenty of light.

This lens was introduced in 1998. And that's quite ancient. My first lens, the 28-135mm, was introduced in the same year. When I compare the 1998 EF 28-135mm with the 2008 EF-S 18-200mm, the latter lens is far superior. Even though it's probably originally, a cheaper produced lens.

45
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Review: Sony A7R With Canon Glass
« on: January 28, 2014, 10:16:03 PM »
It seems to me that putting big lenses on a compact body kinda negates the advantage of compactness.  That leaves the great sensor as an advantage, but still, the practical advantages over say a 5D3 or D800 are not that great.

Your mileage will certainly vary!  :)
I was thinking the same thing if I think of the camera as a compact. Big lens makes it impractical. But if you think of it as a DSLR competitor, then it becomes much more interesting. It's like a stripped down DSLR. For my fashion work, it would be an excellent camera to use in many levels.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 21