September 18, 2014, 05:50:10 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 - unfocused

Pages: 1 ... 65 66 [67] 68 69 ... 140
991
Lenses / Re: best NON L long lens
« on: March 15, 2013, 05:15:53 PM »
Okay I own or have owned the 55-250 EF-S (not relevant since you want full frame) the Tamron 70-300 VC, the 70-300 L and the 100-400 L. I have also rented the 300 L  f4 and the 400 L f5.6.

My opinion:
 
The 55-250 EF-S, the 100-400 L and the Tamron 70-300 VC are all very good lenses and generally quite sharp.

The 70-300 L is sharper, weather sealed and generally a better lens overall, but we are talking margins here. Is it worth the price? Probably not. But I wanted it badly and bought it anyway. I don't regret it. I use it along with my 15-85 as a two-lens kit that covers almost every situation.

The 300 L was sharp, nice and a stop faster so it took a 1.4x converter. But, it was shorter than I wanted and not as flexible without the zoom.

The 400 5.6 L is light and sharp but doesn't have IS and since it isn't a zoom it also isn't as flexible and it takes up a lot of space due to its length.

While the 100-400 L is not quite as sharp as the 70-300 L, it is sharp enough and the extra 100mm is pretty critical for shooting critters.

The 70-300 Tamron is as sharp as the 100-400 and the 55-250, which means it is sharp. It does have a tendency to hunt a little on autofocus sometimes. Not sure what the problem was and it may have just been an anomaly. A minor nuisance, not a deal breaker.

Since the 55-250 doesn't work for your needs (full frame) I would say the lowest cost solution is the Tamron VC. Is it as good as the Canon L? Obviously not, but it's almost $1,000 cheaper. If you don't need a zoom, then maybe the 300 f4 or the 400 f5.6 would work for you, but for the marginal difference in price, I went with the zooms.

I got my 100-400 L as a refurbished. They haven't had it in stock for awhile, but there have been some good prices lately, still, it is also about $1,000 more than the Tamron. 

All in all, I'd say the Tamron is the best value 70-300 lens out there next to the 55-250 (which you can't use.) If you need longer length, you are going to pay for it.

I thought the opinion of someone who actually has owned or rented these lenses might help.

992
I'm kind of in the jrista camp on this.

If I'm shooting a wide angle it's usually because I want the wide angle "look." If I were shooting interiors for clients like privatebydesign, it would be a different story.

I do use the vignetting, but usually to make it worse not better. And I do try to correct for chromatic aberration, but usually find the custom corrections work better than the lens profiles.

993
Sports / Re: Trying to get noticed...
« on: March 15, 2013, 12:56:50 PM »
"Trying to get noticed..." is probably an unfortunate choice of subject title, as the comments indicate.

There are lots of way to try to get noticed. If you are serious about it, do them all. I'm generally not all that enthusiastic about "how to" books and books on marketing are pretty much all the same (perhaps because I've spent a lifetime in marketing in one way or another) but a pretty good primer is David DuChemin's Vision Mongers.

My personal advice sounds trite, but I still think it is the best path: follow your passion and strive to be the best. Worry about getting noticed after you've built up a body of work.

Your pictures are great. Spend another thousand hours shooting the same subject and they'll be even better. Another couple thousand after that, and on and on. You have a leg up on most others since you don't expect to be able to earn a living at this. After you've done it for a few years and built up a reputation you may find that the work finds you.

994
EOS Bodies / Re: Zoo Photos with 5D MIII
« on: March 15, 2013, 12:37:42 PM »
I really like that lioness shot with the kid's reflection!

Yeah that's a great one. It's one of those shots that you can clean up with at the right photo contests. Good eye.

995
Very nicely done. Terrific images. Great video. Music very nice.

Not meant as a criticism, but my reaction was: what's the story?

996
iPhone   :o

Yes, I noticed that was conspicuously absent from the list, although I'm pretty sure it is the best selling camera in the world.

It's a phone that takes pictures, is it not?  ;)

More of a camera that makes phone calls.

997
iPhone   :o

Yes, I noticed that was conspicuously absent from the list, although I'm pretty sure it is the best selling camera in the world.

998
EOS Bodies / Re: A New DSLR Line from Canon? [CR1]
« on: March 12, 2013, 10:16:51 AM »
Why are people assuming it would have the same size sensor as a Rebel? Smaller sensor = smaller camera.

999
Seriously, EVERY review I've read and every comparison I've looked at makes it clear that Canon's lineup of sensors far outperforms Nikon's in high ISO performance.

???

The 1DX is probably only barely better at high ISO than the D4 and it also, I think, has a weaker CFA.
Canon isn't worse at high ISO now but far better???

I wouldn't say the Canon is "far" better...things are limited largely by physics at that point. In real-world examples, I've noticed more color noise from the D4 at ISO 25600 and 51200 (probably because those settings are digitally amplified, vs. Canon's primarily analog amplification). Outside of that very slight difference, the two cameras are definitely comparable at those levels...you would be hard pressed to notice any real differences in most situations, I think.

Okay. Point well-taken. Post corrected. Strike "far." And, frankly, I may have overreached a bit referring to the 1DX. Upon further consideration, I would say that most of the comparisons I have seen have been between the 5DIII and the D800. General consensus is that the Nikon is great for resolution, but falls apart at higher ISOs, while the 5dIII shines at high ISOs. Early reviews seem to indicate the 6D also performs quite well at high ISOs and from the comparisons I've seen between the 7D and the 24mp Nikons, the Canon 18mp sensor still holds its own against the competition despite its age.

Main point still stands. There is no "legendary" low-light performance on Nikon sensors.

1000
I don't ever get the angst over video advancements from still photographers. What do people think a DSLR is anyway? It is nothing but a video camera optimized for stills.

It's kind of like those who complain that they don't want to "pay" for video because they never use it. It's been explained over and over again – video capability makes DSLRs cheaper not more expensive. Unless you are using film, video enhancements inevitably makes stills photography better.

Wow. This might go head-to-head (if not surpass) Nikon's current lineup of legendary low-light performance sensors.

Nikon has a "lineup of legendary low-light performance sensors?" I must have missed those. Seriously, EVERY review I've read and every comparison I've looked at makes it clear that Canon's lineup of sensors far outperforms Nikon's in high ISO performance. Nikon has been emphasizing megapixels, while Canon has focused on high ISO performance. A few years ago it was the other way around, but since the introduction of the 1D-X Canon has captured the high ISO field.

Take a close look at comparison shots on any of the reputable test sites and it's clear that at higher ISOs Canon outperforms Nikon and Nikon/Sony sensors.

1001
Lenses / Re: Canon 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS II Design Idea
« on: March 02, 2013, 11:17:53 AM »
1) Yet another reason why we need to bring back Karma ratings;
2) Somebody has too much time on his hands;
3) The tripod ring would never work;
4) Given the anticipated cost of the II version, I'm not sure I care what it may look like.

1002
EOS Bodies / Re: Will the 70d have a new sensor?
« on: February 28, 2013, 10:53:09 PM »
.
Yep.

Next generation of crop sensor starts now. Kiss the venerable 18mp goodbye.

Agreed. They have to start somewhere. Might as well be the 70D. Nothing says the 7DII has to have the same sensor as the 70D either. As has already been pointed out, every full frame model has a different sensor.

I'd expect 22-24 MP for the 70D to match Nikon's D7100 and then 20-22 MP in the 7D with the emphasis on better high ISO performance.

1003
Lenses / Re: Buy EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II now or wait until September?
« on: February 28, 2013, 01:56:02 PM »
I owned this lens ("loaned" it to my daughter, so I suppose I still own it technically, but I will never see it again). It's one of Canon's best bargains. It's very sharp and has IS.

Maybe it's just me, but on a lens this cheap, I would pay the small premium to buy new from an authorized dealer rather than risk buying used. Particularly because it isn't the most robust lens in the world and you just never know what kind of abuse a used lens has been subjected to.

1004
EOS Bodies / Re: New DSLR at the End of March [CR2]
« on: February 28, 2013, 10:03:42 AM »
Thanks Nikon. With your release of the D7100 you pushed Canon to release the 70D.

Now, please release your D400, I want a new 7DII.

1005
Canon General / Re: How well do you see color?
« on: February 25, 2013, 05:48:34 PM »
Without any negativity,   isn't it a little bit funny how several people don't have time for a short color test, yet found the time to write a message to inform us that they don't have time for it?  ;)

You are right and I thought about that when I responded. I plead guilty to an unnecessary drive-by comment.

Pages: 1 ... 65 66 [67] 68 69 ... 140