December 19, 2014, 07:37:22 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 - AJ

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 28
61
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.

62
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

63
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?

64
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

65
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.

66
...Canon 100L has a better IQ.

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

67
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. 

68
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.


69
Lenses / Re: Shooting a Rock Concert. Which Lens(es)?
« on: March 31, 2013, 02:43:35 PM »
Big arena?  Crowded bar?  more info plz

70
Lenses / Re: New or Refurbished Lens?
« on: March 31, 2013, 02:42:11 PM »
Look at it this way: do you want a lens that just plopped off of the assembly line without final qc, or do you want a lens that's been carefully checked over?  Get the refurb

71
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 DG OS HSM Delayed
« on: March 29, 2013, 04:05:09 AM »
what about people reporting that its not really 300mm on the long end so not providing much benefit over the 70-200 from canon anyway?

It is an industry standard practice to round the values. Canon do it too.

In theory, the front aperture should be 300/2.8=107mm in size. I just put a tape measure across the unobstructed front element of mine. It's near enough 100mm diameter. Therefore either the focal length is a bit less, and/or the focal ratio is a bit slower. It could be either 300mm f/3, or 280mm f/2.8, or somewhere in between. Regardless, it's still a truck load more than 200mm f/2.8.

Indeed.

What's more, the maximum focal length is probably a function of focusing distance.  For example (I'm just inventing numbers here, don't quote me on this) the lens could be 280 mm at infinity, 240 mm at headshot distance, and less than 200 mm at closest focusing distance.

Edit to add: a quick bit of googling suggests 296 mm maximum (Amateur Photographer mag. review), dropping off pretty quickly to 260 mm when shooting test targets.

72
I have made the following comparisons - sorry not the lenses you are interested in, but perhaps the conclusions might be similar.
- My 200 f2.8 (prime) with 1.4x teleconverter is not quite as good as the plain 200 f2.8 taken from a closer distance.  Resolution is surprisingly close, but chromatic aberration is noticeable with the 1.4x and largely absent without it...  The 1.4x combination would be acceptable for many purposes with careful PP.

I understand that the 2x TC noticeably affects image quality.


I can confirm both of these observations.

73
Lenses / Re: New 100-400 to Launch with EOS 7D Mark II [CR2]
« on: March 28, 2013, 12:32:12 PM »
Okay, I am interested in this lens but...  I use and love the 400 5.6 L, and what I would really like is a 500 5.6, with or without "IS" say $2500 without and $3200 with "IS"

Just guessing, but I think 500/5.6 puts it into the ~$4K range based on element size.  I doubt we'll see one - over 400mm, Canon wants more of your money than that...   ;)
 

Don't tell Canon, but, I would probably buy it at $3500-$4000.  I really think there is a missing $3-$5000 hole in their lineup.

I'd be pretty interested in a 500 f5.6 IS at that price expecially if its not too bulky and has an integrated lens hood like the 300f4L and 400 f5.6 do

Yeah me too, I'd be interested. 

Front element size should be around 10 cm (IS lenses are always a little bigger than fl/aperture).  That's still very portable.

However at that price I'm looking towards Sigma, not Canon.  As for 100-400, I think a Canon 100-400/4-5.6 L mk2 will come in around $3.5 to $3.6 k.


74
Lenses / Re: Why some lens says "macro"?
« on: March 22, 2013, 04:42:35 PM »
Just to add to the confusion...some wide-angle lenses that can focus very closely, such as the TS-E 24 II and the 8-15 fisheye, can make for much more interesting "macro" lenses than a true, dedicated macro lens. They let you get super-close to your subject for an interesting perspective and generally do a great job at including enough of the surroundings to put it in context.

The Sigma 20mm f/1.8 is king at this although it has a macro ratio of 1:4 ;)

Edit: due to its MFD of 0.2 m.

I'll trump you with my Tokina 10-17 fisheye.  It is supposed to have a focusing distance of  5.5" (from the image plane) but I have gotten mine to focus even closer.

75
Lenses / Re: Why some lens says "macro"?
« on: March 22, 2013, 01:32:00 PM »
I'm surprised the 40/2.8 says macro.  Usually when a prime says macro it actually does 1:1 or better, and has floating elements that keep the image sharp at close focusing distances. 

On zooms, "macro" often just means "close focusing"


Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 28