February 27, 2015, 06:50:22 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 - bvukich

Pages: 1 ... 35 36 [37] 38 39 ... 46
EOS Bodies / Re: What do you recommend for beginner?
« on: April 14, 2011, 12:58:49 PM »
However, there's one drawback: he's a Nikon shooter! That's blasephemy! :P

I agree, that was the biggest letdown..  :D But, seriously... Good books, easily accessible. Just the other night I needed to quickly refresh what settings I needed to use when taking a shot of the moon and it took me less than a minute and I was ready. I did a comparison to one of the 500 page-monster books I have, took me about 10 minutes to find the location and the it rambled on about a bunch of technicalities, all I wanted was a suggested shutter and aperture.  :D
The monster-book is great in explaining the actual workings of stuff, but for quickly finding suggested settings it is not the right place.
I can recommend a cheap, concise and GOOD book. "National Geographic Photographer's Field Guide". ($4.95, at least used to be). with pictures, examples etc. It is 120 pages,  4' X 8" fits into any coat pocket.

There's usually some interesting things to be found poking around here as well: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/photography

EOS Bodies / Re: Stronger body?
« on: April 12, 2011, 10:03:19 PM »
My wife has shot some weddings with a photographer who just dumps his 1DsIII in the boot of the car between locations.  Not only does it roll around during the drive, but it is exposed to all the dirt you normally find in a car's boot.  He is also a spirited driver!  (The punishment the camera gets is visible on the body.)  He also leaves lenses on the floor of his studio without either front or rear dust caps.

To many, tools of the trade are just that, tools.  That being said, I wouldn't hire a carpenter that abused his tools.

Animal Kingdom / Re: Bacon Face - Its Alive!
« on: April 09, 2011, 01:36:04 PM »
 Ummm, yeah.  Thanks for sharing.

EOS Bodies / Re: Estimate the price of the 'expected bodies...
« on: April 08, 2011, 03:22:39 PM »
The offering of multiple kits, one for each, would obviously render my argument moot. However I would think it unlikely, and don't see any advantage to Canon to do so.

The T3i, 60D, and 7D are each offered as kits bundled with one of two lenses (18-55/18-135, 18-135/18-200, or 28-135/18-135, respectively).  Given that the 5D/5DII were bundled with the 24-105mm, I bet Canon could do well offering a second kit with a 24-70/2.8 for those of us (well, for me at any rate ;) ) upgrading from a 5D/5DII who see a need for both.

I always assumed those other kits were "dealer" kits, as they're not mentioned on the Canon website.  Although the 5D kit isn't mentioned either, so I guess that shows how reliable of a source that is.

EOS Bodies / Re: 1D & 1Ds Rumors [CR1]
« on: April 08, 2011, 02:19:29 PM »
I believe the Sony A900 also has a mirror motion that doesn't swing out that much. The front edge of the mirror does not end up very far forward from where it started when a picture is taken. It's more like the mirror is "pushed" up rather than a "swinging" motion.

Just sliding up (or a combination of both) may be plausible with a pentamirror setup if you relieved the corners of the side(roof) mirrors.  But with a pentaprism I don't see there being enough room.  Interesting thought though.

Do you happen to know if the A900 mirror or prism?

EOS Bodies / Re: Estimate the price of the 'expected bodies...
« on: April 08, 2011, 02:09:40 PM »
I think we pretty much agree, but I'll elaborate more, mainly for others.

The choice between the 24-70/2.8 & 24-105/4 is probably one of the most difficult for the serious amateur or higher; generally someone who has the need, desire, and means to have multiple $1k+ lenses.  They are both outstanding, with their own strengths, and weaknesses, and a huge area of overlap.  That's what makes it so incredibly hard to choose, and why some even chose both.

Now look at the target market for a kit.  It's either someone that will only have a single lens near term (probably the majority, even on a higher end body like the 5DII), or someone who would like to add that particular lens to their collection at a significant discount (would really only apply to the 5DII, has anyone anywhere actually longed for the 18-55 or 18-135?  I would guess not.).

For the group that will likely only own one lens, there is little argument against the fact that the 24-105 would be superior in almost every case.  For the group that want to add the lens to their collection (or sell), it would be largely irrelevant unless it was one that they already own.

So I believe the substitution of the 24-70/2.8 would really only benefit those with more specific lens needs (they need that extra stop), to the (arguable) detriment to the rest of kit buyers.

The offering of multiple kits, one for each, would obviously render my argument moot. However I would think it unlikely, and don't see any advantage to Canon to do so.

EOS Bodies / Re: 1D & 1Ds Rumors [CR1]
« on: April 08, 2011, 01:46:25 PM »
Nikon has been pulling back the mirror privot befor flipping the mirror up for a long time ( may be since F 4).

Interesting, I didn't know they did that.  From an engineering standpoint, it just seems like a really bad idea if you can avoid it.

EOS Bodies / Re: 1D & 1Ds Rumors [CR1]
« on: April 08, 2011, 01:33:44 PM »
If you think it's a gimmick then don't use it. I personally think it's a good idea. It easily combines the 1D and 1Ds lines and allows users to get that little extra reach if they need it for sports and wildlife photography if they want it. But can switch to FF mode to get wide angle shots or start doing portrait work with the same camera.

The perceived increase in reach is just that, perceived.

And I still think Canon could redesign the mirror motion to allow a EF-S lens to be mounted on a FF camera. But that is beside the point.

Not really possible.  The mirror requires X amount of space to flip up.  The specifications for EF-S overlap that space by Y.

X-Y=broken mirror.

The only way to avoid that would be to make the top pivot point of the mirror move in addition to the leading edge flipping up.  Even then, you're probably only buying yourself a couple of mm.  That would result in the mirror being slower, less precise, and induce more vibration; and the more complex the motion of the mirror, the worse each of those attributes gets.

EOS Bodies / Re: 1D & 1Ds Rumors [CR1]
« on: April 08, 2011, 12:43:12 PM »
For me, the 1.3X crop on a FF sensor is a gimmick. By switching from FF to 1.3X crop will not by us anything except a smaller file size and a narrower angle of view. We can do the same thing at post process by cropping the FF picture.

Absolutely.  1.3x crop mode is pointless.  1.6x crop mode (assuming to afford EF-S compatibility) is impossible.

For Nikon it makes a little more sense, because their crop lenses vary only in image circle cast; afaik the physical specifications of the mount are identical.  With EF-S, lenses are allowed to intrude into the mirror box by a specified amount, and lenses that do (generally wide angle) will not clear a FF mirror.

EOS Bodies / Re: Estimate the price of the 'expected bodies...
« on: April 08, 2011, 12:36:41 PM »
I highly doubt 24-70/2.8 IS or non-IS would ever be a kit lens.  It is too specialized, and too expensive.

EOS Bodies / Re: Estimate the price of the 'expected bodies...
« on: April 08, 2011, 11:31:53 AM »
I'm budgeting for $2899/body $3899/kit at release.

That's assuming it's accompanied by the rumored 24-105L II.  If it's not a new version of the 24-105L I'd put the kit at $3699.

EOS Bodies / Re: 1D & 1Ds Rumors [CR1]
« on: April 08, 2011, 11:12:17 AM »
I think the rumorer meant the MP count is into "MF territory" at 42 MP, not that there's actually a MF sensor.

Absolutely.  Unless it came with a new mount and lenses, or mirrorless + CD AF that is usable.

Beyond image circle considerations (which apparently you can get around with TS lenses), there is the fact that you can't have a MF sensor on a EF mount body for the same reason you cant have a FF square sensor and retain the mirror.  Assuming the sensor is full 645 format (56 × 41.5mm), that would result in a mirror that is 58.7mm, which significantly larger than EF flange distance of 44mm.  Even a pellix mirror would be to big, but perhaps possible if you sacrifice VF coverage at the top (bottom) of the frame.

Canon General / Re: Canon 70-300 is L vs non
« on: April 08, 2011, 10:50:54 AM »
I'm in nearly the same boat.

70-200/2.8+1.4TC Vs. 70-300L Vs. 100-400

70-200/2.8 would be more flexible, but I lose IS.
100-400 has the extra length, but lesser IS.
70-300L looks like a good compromise, but will be too slow indoors.

Given unlimited resources, I'd get the 70-200/2.8IS + 1.4&2TC.  But that's not the case.

Lenses / Re: Samyang 8mm Fisheye
« on: April 07, 2011, 04:47:49 PM »
Post some pictures!   :)

EOS Bodies / Re: What do you want from the 5D mk III
« on: April 06, 2011, 02:12:56 PM »
Better AF, all points cross, double cross in center + zones.
16bit Raw, and the DR to make them useful (so at least +2 stops or why bother)
High ISO improvements.  ISO 102400 may be silly, but clean ISO 12,800 or even 25,600 would be awesome.
No low ISO banding

Pages: 1 ... 35 36 [37] 38 39 ... 46