September 20, 2014, 10:07:15 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 - ecka

Pages: 1 ... 22 23 [24] 25 26 ... 43
346
PowerShot / Re: SX50 outperforming 5DIII +100-400mm
« on: April 14, 2013, 10:35:32 AM »
I must admit this is pretty impressive for a 1200mm P&S :)

Impressive!!! :)

I must admit this is pretty impressive for a 1200mm P&S :)

That's got to be the understatement of the year......

This is making me re-think my strategy for a hiking camera.... I have been avoiding P/S cameras because they quality just was not there.. things appear to have changed!

I had to spend some time in LR4 to make it look like that :). However, I think that I will never own a proper 1200mm or even 600mm lens, therefore this little camera looks like a great deal ... and it shoots RAW!.. finally!
Now I'm curious, if it is possible to make a 1200mm zoom P&S with a little larger sensor, like the one in G15. How big could it be?  ::) That would be something really cool, even if it had no wide angle, like 12x 100-1200mm eqv. dedicated super-tele-zoom.

347
Lenses / Re: A 4000$ budget for Lenses on 5D3... need suggestions
« on: April 14, 2013, 07:28:36 AM »
I don't know how you feel about it, but I like traveling light. I'd take only 2 primes and a tele zoom, but it is easier for me to choose, because I already know what focal length I prefer. Do you? If not, then maybe renting few L zooms could be a good idea. 16-35L, 24-105L and 100-400L should do well + that 50/1.8'II.
My dream UWA lens is TS-E 17L, so it would definitely be on the list (the only reason it's not, is because I don't have $4000 budget to spend :P), but for traveling I'd grab the 24/1.4L, which is much more versatile and a better lens for the trip. 70-300L would be my tele-zoom choice for traveling and 40STM is great for hanging around my neck all day long (same as 50/1.8'II) :). I love macro, so I would buy a macro lens (sigma 150 or canon 100L), but I would travel without it, I'd get an extension tube set instead (for my 40STM).
I know that many would suggest the standard 24-70L'II USM + 70-200L'II IS USM combo (which costs more than $4k). It is great, when it is wide enough, long enough and fast enough for the job, but I wouldn't travel with these two workhorses.

348
PowerShot / Re: SX50 outperforming 5DIII +100-400mm
« on: April 13, 2013, 09:54:33 PM »
I must admit this is pretty impressive for a 1200mm P&S :)

349
EOS Bodies / Re: Will the 70d have a new sensor?
« on: April 13, 2013, 12:30:34 PM »

You never get a worse result with higher resolution camera regardless of the lens  you are using.

Is that a blanket statement applying to all cameras?  ::) ::)

yes
Try Nikon D800 at 36MP with mid range (and below) lenses.

I suggest you sell ALL your Canon  gear and get a Nokia 808 cellphone. With 41 megapixels it MUST be better.

and it IS BETTER :D ... than other cellphones.

350
Lenses / Re: $1000 budget, need lens recommendation for Canon t1i
« on: April 13, 2013, 08:03:24 AM »
IMHO, the right combo would be something like T4i + 18-135 STM or 15-85IS USM + 50/1.8'II + 430EXII - easy to use, needs no wires for off camera flash, decent performance. The only problem - it costs more than $1k. So, just get a flash, 50/1.8'II and 55-250 IS (if you really need it) ;)
Great picture = decent gear + photography skills + post processing skills. Even if you put on the EF 24-70/2.8L'II in auto mode you may end up shooting at f/8 + built-in flash, and without post processing images may look the same as before (with 18-55 kit lens).

351
Lenses / Re: near future lens size and resolution
« on: April 13, 2013, 07:22:44 AM »
I think that in the future things will get much simpler. Super-tele lenses for wild life could be replaced by any small lens + a flying invisibility suit (or that + downloading images directly from your brain).  ;D

352
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Announcements on April 23, 2013? [CR2]
« on: April 12, 2013, 04:46:31 AM »
Right, because the majority of the people buying the cameras are consumers and not photographers.

ummmm....... ALL photographers are consumers, and all consumers who purchase cameras and take at least one picture are photographers.....

NO, those are just snapshooters  ;D
The real photographer is a person who actually knows what he is doing  ;)
I've seen a monkey taking pictures of tourists, was it a photographer too?

I'll just say it like this

Yes, all photographers are consumers - but, some consumers just buy cameras - that doesn't necessarily make them photographers.  Yeah yeah yeah its a nebulous term.  But, many trades are learned by apprenticing.  Like plumbing - you learn from a plumber...again, just because I buy a wrench and replace a gasket that doesn't make me a plumber.  Just because you buy a camera and snap a few shots, that doesn't make you a photographer.  That's the point the original person was making.  It's a dividing line between those who are serious and willing to learn and those that buy it cause its fancy - the latter cares about what the specs really mean, the former says that # is bigger than the other so it must be better.

Exactly. There are cameras for non-photographers with shooting modes like "dog", "cat", "baby", "flower", "tree", "fireworks", etc.  :)

353
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Announcements on April 23, 2013? [CR2]
« on: April 11, 2013, 07:18:21 PM »

Photographer is a nebulous term. There is no standard definition... there is no certification or levels.... there is no governing body and there is no rating system of specialties. For example, I could be the world's greatest bird photographer and the worst imaginable wedding photographer... I know people so good that they can effortlessly snap off a shot that I would have to take time to prepare for.... and that "snapshooter" would get a better picture than me. I also know "experts" whose photographs are "somewhat less than stellar".

In the absence of standards, like it or not, anyone who uses a camera is a photographer and the question of if they are good or bad comes down to opinion.

Well, I have no problem with calling a photographer whoever is pretending to be one, but it doesn't make their photographs any better. The problem rises when they start asking money for it, just like that monkey  ;D

One of the problems is that it isn't even clear which is the best photograph..... Hypothetical situation.... a cougar is sighted "down by the stream". Neuro, my Neice, and I head off to get a picture.... Neuro with a 1Dx and a 600F4, me with a 60D and a 70-200, and my neice with an iPod. Neuro finds a nice vantage spot and shoots of a couple hundred perfect pictures..... I work my way downstream and get a couple hundred pictures of the cougar nicely framed in front of a waterfall, but because of the distance my pictures are heavily cropped. My neice got bored and waited in the car. When we get back to town and process the pictures the great debate starts.... which is the better picture? Neuro's are definitly sharper and more pixels on target, but mine are more artisticly framed....and while we argue my neice sells the 30 iPod pictures of bigfoot, that she took while waiting in the car, to a tabloid.

So which is better? Technical, artistic, or commercial sucess?

That depends on a buyer, I guess.

P.S. So, who was pretending to be a bigfoot, you or Neuro? :)

354
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Announcements on April 23, 2013? [CR2]
« on: April 11, 2013, 06:48:37 PM »
Right, because the majority of the people buying the cameras are consumers and not photographers.

ummmm....... ALL photographers are consumers, and all consumers who purchase cameras and take at least one picture are photographers.....

NO, those are just snapshooters  ;D
The real photographer is a person who actually knows what he is doing  ;)
I've seen a monkey taking pictures of tourists, was it a photographer too?

nobody qualified skill levels.... Pro's, amateurs, snapshooters, enthusiasts, and even (GASP!!!!) people with cell phones are photographers. nobody mentioned if they knew what they were doing or if they are any good at it.... :)

I would think that's part and parcel to the whole debate.  I wouldn't consider anybody who snaps a shot as a "photographer" - just as I would not consider myself to be a "plumber" because I bought a wrench and replaced a gasket on my sink.   Just as I would not consider myself to be a "carpenter" because I put together a table.  Just as I would not consider myself an "auto technician" because I changed my oil by myself.   

Photographer is a nebulous term. There is no standard definition... there is no certification or levels.... there is no governing body and there is no rating system of specialties. For example, I could be the world's greatest bird photographer and the worst imaginable wedding photographer... I know people so good that they can effortlessly snap off a shot that I would have to take time to prepare for.... and that "snapshooter" would get a better picture than me. I also know "experts" whose photographs are "somewhat less than stellar".

In the absence of standards, like it or not, anyone who uses a camera is a photographer and the question of if they are good or bad comes down to opinion.

Well, I have no problem with calling a photographer whoever is pretending to be one, but it doesn't make their photographs any better. The problem rises when they start asking money for it, just like that monkey  ;D

355
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Announcements on April 23, 2013? [CR2]
« on: April 11, 2013, 04:15:26 PM »
Right, because the majority of the people buying the cameras are consumers and not photographers.

ummmm....... ALL photographers are consumers, and all consumers who purchase cameras and take at least one picture are photographers.....

NO, those are just snapshooters  ;D
The real photographer is a person who actually knows what he is doing  ;)
I've seen a monkey taking pictures of tourists, was it a photographer too?

356
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Announcements on April 23, 2013? [CR2]
« on: April 09, 2013, 02:14:55 PM »
I think it may be a new canon mirrorless announcement :)
and I think it may be a 7d2 that shoots 12fps, has 1dIV level weather sealing, 82pt-AF, APS-H with 5d3-like ISO noise, for $1800.  ::)

Nice wishful thinking  ;D. I wouldn't bet on it, but I hope it's close to that :D.

357
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Announcements on April 23, 2013? [CR2]
« on: April 09, 2013, 12:32:00 PM »
I think it may be a new canon mirrorless announcement :)

358
5D MK III Sample Images / Re: Need some help in editing.
« on: April 09, 2013, 11:42:22 AM »
This is definitely not the easiest file to edit  :D
I used Lightroom 4
crop
contrast +50
blacks -30
clarity 100
split toning: 116/100/0/189/100
sharpening: 40/1.5/15/90
noise reduction: luminance 30/0/0



359
Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Lightroom 4.4
« on: April 04, 2013, 10:46:52 AM »
Works nicely, no problems, loads faster than 4.3.

360
Lenses / Re: Migration from zooms to primes...your suggestions?
« on: April 04, 2013, 05:18:09 AM »
You haven't said why you want to change from those zooms.  If its image quality, I note you have a 7D.  If I were you I'd get a 5DmkIII - you'll notice a dramatic difference over the 7D.  The IQ of my 7D was less than the 5D classic (which I subsequently upgraded to a 5dMkII and which is worlds superior to the 7D).

Primes are nice, I love them and use them parallel to my zooms.
But as someone suggested before: if IQ is that counts, take a FF first.
My 2 cents.

+1

5D3 with zooms would be better than 7D with all the primes.

FF + 16-35/2.8L'II ~ APS-C + 10-22/1.8
FF + 24-70/2.8L'II ~ APS-C + 15-44/1.8
FF + 70-200/2.8L'II ~ APS-C + 44-125/1.8

APS-C + 14/2.8L'II ~ FF + 22/4.5
APS-C + 24/1.4L'II ~ FF + 38/2.2
APS-C + 35/1.4L ~ FF + 56/2.2
APS-C + 50/1.2L ~ FF + 80/2
APS-C + 85/1.2L'II ~ FF + 136/2
APS-C + 100/2.8L ~ FF + 160/4.5
APS-C + 135/2L ~ FF + 216/3.5

My advice:
5D3
TS-E 17L or TS-E 24L instead of 14L'II (for landscapes and architecture)
24L'II is fine
Sigma 35/1.4 instead of Canon
40/2.8 STM - a must-have :D
Sigma 50/1.4 instead of Canon
85L'II is great, but 85/1.8USM is fine (while smaller and faster AF)
135L is nice (better than 85L on APS-C)
Sigma 150/2.8 or 180/2.8 OS Macro instead of 100L, 180L and 200/2.8L'II

Pages: 1 ... 22 23 [24] 25 26 ... 43