February 27, 2015, 07:42:25 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 - tapanit

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5
Lenses / Re: A New Pancake Lens? [CR1]
« on: August 24, 2014, 06:48:04 AM »
Can somebody explain the appeal to me? Not trying to start a flame war, just trying to understand.

A 24mm pancake (which won't have IS) seems a bit redundant with the 24mm 2.8 IS, which by all accounts is a very good lens, has USM and which Canon cut the price to a much more reasonable level. The size seems kind of irrelevant once you put it on a 5D, 6D or other full frame body [...]
The size is important for transportation, not for use. I have the 40mm as well as Voigtländer 20mm, and use them when I need to travel light - as in, hiking in the wilderness with already overweight backpack or struggling with airline carry-on restrictions.

If the rumored 24mm pancake becomes reality and is good enough I'll probably get it and start carrying it instead of the Voigtländer, even though I'd sorely miss the 4mm. A *good* 20mm EF pancake I'd pay serious money for.

I'd also love a bit longer pancake, say 70-100mm, especially a close-focusing one so it'd double as a portable macro.

EOS Bodies / Re: SL1 as a "travel" body
« on: August 14, 2014, 03:58:25 AM »
I still think the missing piece for the SL1 is the wide angle pancake.  The pocketability of that camera lives or dies with a tiny lens (as it does the EOS-M), so pancakes are vital.  But the EF 40mm pancake scales to 64mm FF equivalent on a crop, which is functional for portraits but too long for general walkaround, IMHO.
Yes. I've been using the Voigtlander 20mm f/3.5 complementing the 40 as a light-weight travel kit, but as a manual-only lens it is not as convenient as more modern lenses.

Software & Accessories / Re: Insurance is an accessory right? :P
« on: August 11, 2014, 03:49:04 AM »
I roll the dice here on whether insurance is really an accessory. But anywho, my question is about just that.

Do you insure your gear? Where did you go? How much does it cover? What does it cover? And how much does it cost yearly?
I don't insure my gear at all. In general, insurance makes sense only if there are significant secondary consequences of the compensation in an anticipated loss scenario, like lost income because of lost work opportunities &c. On the average you're better off financially by not insuring and instead saving the premiums and/or taking a loan to replace lost equipment as needed.

Yes, I have broken and lost equipment over the years that insurance would've covered. But I've also done the math and know insurance would've ended up costing more.

Lenses / Re: canon 16-35 2.8 II vs. WHAT?
« on: July 31, 2014, 05:03:00 AM »
I wish I had some ultrawide angle lens, say 16-35, but I don't have enough money because I recently bought 35mm 1.4L which makes me incredibly happy.

So the question is whether there is something really close to 16-35L. Don't say 17-40, this lens sucks because of its apperture, I need something faster, wider, lighter and sharper.
Do you need an autofocus zoom or would a manual focus prime do? If so, consider Samyang 14mm f/2.8. It is faster, wider, lighter and sharper than the 17-40/4L, and indeed wider, lighter and sharper although not faster than the 16-35/2.8.

EOS Bodies / Re: One other hoped-for feature on the 7D2
« on: July 29, 2014, 02:34:23 AM »
All that I'm hoping for in upcoming cameras is to add M* to the supported modes for exposure compensation, where M* = M with auto-ISO enabled.

I guess that the thinking is that if you are in M, then the two dials would most often be used to adjust the shutter speed and the f/stop, so you run out of dials to adjust EC.
Some cameras, notably including Ricoh GR which I happen to own, have a separate "TAv" mode, which is basically "M with auto ISO and exposure compensation", whereas in regular M mode you can't set ISO to auto at all. A bit strange perhaps, but works. More important though is that it does have enough dials for shutter speed, aperture and exposure compensation, re-purposing a rocker button that's usually used for ISO setting in other modes (which of course also makes changing ISO harder, requiring at least one extra button press).

Thinking of Canon's ergonomics, I guess EC in M would have to be behind some button-plus-dial combination, or especially if they add a separate TAv mode, either shutter speed or aperture could be done that way and EC directly (ideally customizable any way you like).

EOS Bodies / Re: Eos7D mk2, How EXCITED will you be if . . .?
« on: July 08, 2014, 03:02:52 AM »
What I'd want is IQ better than the 5Dmk3 cropped 1.6x (i.e., in focal-length-limited situations) even at (moderately) low light with a good enough lens. That is, the "crop factor advantage" would have to be actually realized. I don't think that's an impossible wish - FF bodies would still beat it hands down in low light when there's no need to crop.
Besides that, I'd want better movement-tracking AF (at least 5Dmk3 level, preferably better) and speed (I could live with 8 fps, but I'd want a big buffer - that's my only real gripe with the 5Dmk3 as compared to the 7D).
Otherwise I don't care much - GPS, WiFi, dual card slots would be nice but not important, video I don't care about.

PowerShot Cameras / Re: G1x vs. G16 vs. ??
« on: July 04, 2014, 01:46:44 PM »
I've concluded there's no pocketable camera with zoom that has good enough IQ, so I've settled on Ricoh GR. Besides IQ, it's really well designed ergonomically. It's only real drawback is the fixed 28mm f/2.8 lens (with its APS-C size sensor f/2.8 about as fast as f/2 in the Canon G1X).

EOS Bodies / Re: 1Dx vs 5DmIII sealings
« on: June 06, 2014, 03:00:12 AM »
I would like to see if either can handle this:


I'm not going to try with my gear, though. :-)

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7d2 IQ thoughts.
« on: May 27, 2014, 02:19:47 AM »
For me, I would want IQ at least roughly as good as 5Dmk3 _cropped_ to same size (using same area of the sensor). Especially with high(ish) ISO values. That is the hard part: if they can do that, everything else I want is almost a given. If not, nothing else matters much.

Otherwise, I'd want more speed, especially bigger buffer (that's the one thing where even old 7D beats 5Dmk3), better AF (at least as good as 5Dmk3) - and that's about it. WiFi, GPS, video features I don't care much about. One contraindicator: if it has fixed vertical handle like 1-series, then I won't buy it unless it is otherwise really miraculous or ridiculously cheap.

Lenses / Re: Good lens for hiking
« on: March 01, 2014, 02:51:10 AM »
You are fortunate that you have the luxury of easy consistent water access.  That makes a big difference with how far you can go and weight reduction overall.
Yes. I have done some hiking in places where I had to carry all water I needed, and it does indeed make a big difference.
Since we put a lot of our stuff up in bear bags at every camp, there is a lot of packing and unpacking every day. 
Right. For whatever reason, Finnish bears are very shy of people, so there's no need to worry about them. I've only once come across a bear in Lapland, and by the time I saw it, it was already running away fast.
IMHO, when hiking, the simpler the better.
So that's why I am trying to really think the whole "better camera" thing through.  Because the group loves my pictures regardless, even if they're just from the little rugged D20.  I'm the only one who really appreciates/enjoys the IQ difference and superior handling of the SLR.
Right. My problem is that besides scenery I also want to photograph wildlife, including birds. The 70-300L is a compromise for that: small enough to carry easily, long enough to be useful - although longer would of course be better. (I have carried the 100-400L on occasion, and the moment I find myself considering dragging my new Tamron 150-600 on a hike... probably won't, though). Otherwise, I might take just the Ricoh GR (then I'd probably get the wide-angle accessory for it though).

Lenses / Re: Good lens for hiking
« on: February 28, 2014, 04:50:57 PM »
My current kit for week-long hikes in is 5Dmk3, Voigtländer 20mm, Canon 40mm and 70-300L, plus Ricoh GR. Works pretty well for me.
Wow.  8+ pounds?  Plus the space required in the pack. What kind of hiking are you doing?
Walking in the wilderness (Lapland), away from the civilization - last fall I was there alone and didn't see anybody at all for six days.
  In my case, I will be totally off the grid for 10 days covering ~90 miles in the mountains.  There could be daily rain.
I remember one hike when it rained every day and last three days almost nonstop... it was still fun, though not exactly photogenic. :-)
  I'm in a group of around 14 scouts and adults.  Only stops I will make are for daily program camps, and food pickups every 3 or 4 days.
Being able to refill food en route helps - I carry everything for the entire trip. In autumn there're usually berries and mushrooms, though.
  No power, etc.  So whatever I take, I have to carry for the duration.  The only weight variations are from food/water consumption and whatever weight I might take on for someone else having trouble.
One nice thing about Finnish Lapland is that there's no need to carry water, there's plenty of drinkable water around. Otherwise I have to carry everything I need, too.
So while I have learned that adding a little weight isn't a big deal if I'm in shape and trained for the trip, throwing caution to the wind and taking what you take would likely make the trip miserable for me.
Throwing caution to the wind is not a good idea in the wilderness. I've been hiking for years and know what I need and how much I can carry (about 30kg is my comfort limit), but if you're new to the game, don't overpack.

Lenses / Re: Good lens for hiking
« on: February 28, 2014, 10:58:04 AM »
My current kit for week-long hikes in is 5Dmk3, Voigtländer 20mm, Canon 40mm and 70-300L, plus Ricoh GR. Works pretty well for me.

I'm sure that there is some useful info for 7D users also. I would personally be interested if the 7D also supports my 2 zone back button / shutter button AF method. Let me please know when you find out!
Yes, the same method works with 7D as well. The other trick, switching between zone and all-points focusing does not, however, as far as I can tell.

Lenses / Re: question about 600mm lenses
« on: February 09, 2014, 12:22:15 PM »
[...] the overall complexity of the lens design would have to increase (and mind you, were just aiming to maintain IQ parity with the 150-600 f/6.3 lens, not a 600mm f/4 lens.)

[...] that still doesn't take it outside the realm of affordability relative to a 600mm f/4 lens. The price could double, and it would still only be $2200...
Indeed. If it was optically as good as the 150-600 is at 400mm and priced $2200, it would sell like hotcakes, IMHO. (Tamron, feel free to take a hint.)

How to "possibly" get it 30 - 40% cheaper, for Europe residents:
If you postponed your purchase, until your next trip to USA "assuming you that will go there of course", you can get it delivered to your hotel within 24-48 hours
1- Postage is free for USA addresses. I would have saved 10%
2- No duties or VAT. I would have saved 30%
In my understanding, which could well be wrong; after you use it while you are in the USA, it becomes 2nd hand, thus no VAT or duty (I could be wrong here)
You are: 2nd hand stuff is subject to VAT and duty just as much as new gear, although the value used in calculating them should be its values as 2nd hand stuff, not the original purchase price.

That's the theory anyway. In practice they probably will not bother, if you're bringing in one obviously used tripod, if only because they don't want to spend time figuring out its value or think it'd probably be too low to be worth the paperwork. But if you try to import a carload of used tripods, you'd better be ready to pay duty & VAT.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5