July 28, 2014, 01:44:29 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 - AJ

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 27
46
If the theoretical future incompatibility keeps you awake at night, then get the Canon.

If spending an extra 400 bucks keeps you awake at night, then get the Sigma

47
Lenses / Re: A Walk Around Lens for a Trip
« on: May 01, 2013, 11:49:50 AM »
I keep thinking I'll move into a full frame but, truth be told, it gets more doubtful as I age.  For that reason I haven't spent a lot on EF-S glass but all the praise the 17-55 is getting sure impresses me. 

I may break my prejudice about buying EF-S lenses and pull the trigger on the 17-55 2.8 IS when my photo-fund gets rebuilt.

I've never been an adherent of the 'I'm getting a FF camera someday so I won't but EF-S' school of thought. But the lens(es) you need for the camera you have today.  Particularly if the EF-S lenses are the top ones (17-55, 15-85, 10-22), where resale value is strong.  When I eventually sold my 10-22 and 17-55, I think I lost a combined total of ~$120 from what I paid new for them - pretty cheap 2-3 year rentals.

IMO, the EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS is the best general purpose zoom for APS-C.  However, it is a little short for a travel lens whereas the 15-85 is better suited. If taking the 17-55, I'd be inclined to bring a longer lens, too.  I found the 100L Macro IS to be a great second lens for travel, since it does both tele and macro very well, and gives you f/2.8 across the board (with the 15-85, I'd consider a 430EX II or at minimum a 270EX II).

17-55 is a great zoom if you intend to do a lot of indoor shooting, with or without flash.  15-85 would be my pick for an outdoor walk-around lens.

17-55 is also very heavy.  I have one with my 7D.  I also have a drebel and Tamron 17-50/2.8.  This combo is much lighter, and does not lag far behind in image quality.

48
Lenses / Re: Lightweight lens for backpacking and bicycle touring
« on: April 16, 2013, 05:07:51 PM »
7D is a heavy camera.  How about bringing a T4i

49
Lenses / Re: 2 filters jammed together
« on: April 12, 2013, 01:02:47 PM »
1) Find a second lens (or other cylindrical object) with equal diameter, and some tape.
2) Tape the inner filter to lens #1
3) Plase the second lens against the outer filter and tape it to the outer filter
4) Twist

The nice thing about this method is that it applies twisting forces only, and not compression

50
Lenses / Re: Lenses for carpets photography
« on: April 08, 2013, 04:10:23 PM »
You don't need a 5D for this job.  You're not shooting high-iso, ultra shallow-dof, or making huge prints.

I'd get a 60D, 15-85/4-5.6 IS, 50/2.5 macro, a really nice tripod, remote shutter trigger, and a few flashes with umbrellas and stands.  And a copy of Lightroom.

51
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5Dc a good option?
« on: April 08, 2013, 12:08:49 PM »
I know my 450D is a newer camera with a DIGIC III processor and the 5Dc has a DIGIC II processor, but would going back to an older processor matter?
yes.

With the 5Dc being full frame the ISO and image quality will be much better than the 450D, am I right?
yes.

Is there a big difference in image quality between the 5Dc and 5D MKII?
yes.

I do understand that the 5DMark ii is again better than the 5Dc, but I am trying to save money. I am basically asking is going from the 450D to a 5Dc a good option?
and yes again.

52
If you want to capture images of a baby with minimal lighting, get a 6D...  This would be a better choice.
That's silly.  Why wouldn't one improve the lighting instead?

Why?  Did you read what he wants?  Do you think that maybe using a flash in a babies eyes is the best way to go?
 
OP
"My first child is due on the first of May and I want to document his early months with a DSLR."
 
I stand by my recommendation.  A child is not going to be running around in his first few months, or years, and blinding him with bright lights would not be the way I'd treat my child.
Contrary to popular belief, flash does not injure babies.

53
If you want to capture images of a baby with minimal lighting, get a 6D...  This would be a better choice.
That's silly.  Why wouldn't one improve the lighting instead?
Baby sleeping?
Babies sleep in broad daylight

54
If you want to capture images of a baby with minimal lighting, get a 6D...  This would be a better choice.
That's silly.  Why wouldn't one improve the lighting instead?

55
Get the 7D.  At this point in the product cycle it's priced right. 

The new 7D mk2 is bound to have very little improvement in the sensor department.  It'll have wifi, gps, and a mind-boggling price tag.  I wouldn't wait for it.  Get a 7D now and start shooting.

Renting makes no sense at all.  You need a camera to capture your child at every stage.

Good luck!


p.s. nice photos Canon-F1

56
EOS Bodies / Re: diy ideas on how to protect camera from rain?
« on: April 07, 2013, 02:51:42 AM »
Can you set up a tarp at the sideline, e.g.
http://www.mec.ca/AST/ShopMEC/Tents/LightShelters/PRD~5000-629/integral-designs-siltarp-2-tarp.jsp

I'm sure your local hunting/camping store will be able to find a solution.

57
...Canon 100L has a better IQ.

And how you you know this?  Do you own both a 100L and a T90VC? 

58
Best lens: Canon 17-55/2.8 IS.

Best lens for the money: Tamron 17-50/2.8 non-VC

I own both of these lenses and they are both excellent. 

59
Lenses / Re: Is the upcoming 50mm F/2 IS USM for me?
« on: March 31, 2013, 02:47:57 PM »
I too think that a 50/1.8 IS or 50/2 IS is just around the corner.  I think it'll be pretty good optically, and I think Canon will price it north of 700 bucks.


60
Lenses / Re: Shooting a Rock Concert. Which Lens(es)?
« on: March 31, 2013, 02:43:35 PM »
Big arena?  Crowded bar?  more info plz

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 27