March 06, 2015, 03:38:40 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 - TexPhoto

Pages: 1 ... 34 35 [36] 37 38 ... 72
526
Lenses / Re: 300 f2.8 Ser 1 vs. Ser 2?
« on: January 10, 2013, 02:42:55 PM »
Too bad, but good you did not loose any money on this. 

This kind of scam works both ways, buying and selling.  If you list your X00mm or pricey camera etc, you will more than likely receive email from buyers "on vacation in London" etc.  It's a shame as it once you are aware of the scam you may loose legitimate buyers.

527
This and many other features always get left on accidentally.  I always do it with the damn self timer.  Need it, set it camera goes into bag. An hour/day later bigfoot appears in front of you, you grab the camera and shoot! Damn it whats it doing?

528
Lenses / Re: 300 f2.8 Ser 1 vs. Ser 2?
« on: January 08, 2013, 03:39:41 PM »
If that is a Series I IS, there is no worry about parts or service, at least not in the next several years.  That is a pro lens discontinued only a year or so ago.  Canon will support that for quite some time, and 3rd party repair for even longer.

I think the dire warnings issued earlier in this post assumed it was a series I non-IS, making it 3 generations old.

Anyway, as the others have said, amazing deal if real, be careful.

529
I want to love this lens.  But how many editions of this lens have come out in total?, in just the past few years?  Am I the only one worried by that?  It seems like they keep trying to get this lens right.

Granted nobody makes exactly the same lens combination, but B&H is listing this lens for $3599 on pre-order!  But you can get a 70-200 f28 IS II (one of the best lenses in the world), and a 1.4X III extender for $2393.  Or about $1200 less.  How good does it have to be to be worth not getting the Canon?

I suppose compared to a Canon 300mm f2.8 IS II, it seems cheap, and it zooms.  I will wait for the reviews...

530
Lenses / Re: Your "precious" lord of the red rings is?
« on: January 08, 2013, 08:28:15 AM »
Don't ask me to choose between my children!

I'd take my 400mm f2.8 IS. Because I love it.  From an emotional standpoint I love this lens the most.

And my 24-105 f4 IS.  I know, I know! It's a "kit" lens.  But it has made more money for me than every other lens I have combined.  So I owe it something.


531
That is a really nice piece of gear, and i would not skimp on any accessories for it.

That said, I really like my Wimberly sidekick.  It converts my ball head to a gimbal in a few seconds.  Much faster than swapping a whole tripod head.   This means I can carry just one tripod.  And at 1.3 pounds it's a much lighter addition to my travels than a separate head, or separate head and tripod.

Obviously it must mate to a high quality ball head.  Mine is great and the combination has been great with my 400mm f2.8 IS. 

532
Lenses / Re: 300 f2.8 Ser 1 vs. Ser 2?
« on: January 07, 2013, 09:02:18 PM »
Aloha Jon,
                 As others have said, it's hard to know what model lens you are talking about.  At that price it sounds like it might be an FD lens.  (Pre EOS)  It also might just be a good deal. 

Do you have a better description?  Do you have a Photo?

All that said, 300mm f2.8s are awsome but heavy.  You will love it or hate it.

-B

533
Lenses / Re: 28-400 2.8
« on: January 06, 2013, 10:02:56 PM »
The Panasonic FZ200 4.5-108 mm, and a sensor the size of a fingernail.  (Equivalent to a 25-600mm on FF) It is much easier and cheaper to make this stuff much smaller, but the quality of the photo is not close.

wdh777, Let me ask this.  Canon makes a 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 L IS.  Do you own one? Why not?  It's not a 2.8, but it does not cost 15K either.

534
Lenses / Re: Educate me about why 70mm <> 70mm...
« on: January 06, 2013, 09:52:50 AM »
Don't get too wrapped around the axle about this.  When was the last time you looked a great photo and said: "Man, that's pretty good, but it looks like it was shot at 64.2mm.  70 mm would have been awesome!".  Back when 70-200s were 80-200s, I had a friend tell me his 24-70 and 80-200 set did not seem complete.  After all, what if he needed a 75mm?  I punched him.

Zooms tend to cheat more than primes in this area.  Some very technical reviews will tell you the actual measured focal length.

535
Canon General / Re: Photography magazines
« on: January 06, 2013, 09:38:01 AM »
Popular Photography and some of the other mags that you can find in any magazine stand are somewhat repetitive and often don't cover subjects in too much depth.  But with subscriptions as low as $10 for a year, it's not exactly terrible for what you are paying.

My favorite is Outdoor Photography.  I think I have subscribed to it on and off for the past 10 years.  I let the subscription lapse for a year or two, then subscribe again.

There is a ton of free and more detailed information online, but a magazine subscription does no mean you have to ignore those.   

536
Technical Support / Re: Repairing Scratches - 5D MKIII
« on: January 05, 2013, 10:15:59 PM »
It's not perfect, but when I wear one of my cameras down to the white/translucent plastic, I go over it with a black sharpie.  Like touch up paint on a car, it's not perfect, but it's 90% better.

I don't think I've ever done it unless I was getting the camera ready for an eBay sale.

537
Lenses / Re: Educate me about why 70mm <> 70mm...
« on: January 05, 2013, 04:23:32 PM »
It's both.  The 70mm is an approximation on both. 

One thing you could do is shoot similar sets of photos, but shoot a mountain, or something a mile away or so.  Thus the issue of lens size will not matter.

Oh and you may also notice the lenses will zoom a little when focused.  So even the same lens is not the same focal length exactly at it's closest vs. infinity focus.  This is called focus breathing.

Oh, and it's not "<>" it's "!=".  != means not equal. -Of course this is the internet, so some people will argue about this, rather than the real topic.

538
Lenses / Re: 600mm f/4 II - extra foot?
« on: January 04, 2013, 11:53:04 PM »
The 600 II includes feet? Not just foot?  Who knew?

If one of you guys owns a camera, why not post a photo.  It's worth 1000 words from what I've been told.

539
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Canon EF 600 f/4L IS II back in Stock
« on: January 03, 2013, 03:10:19 PM »
Is there a limit on how many I can buy?

540
EOS Bodies / Re: Camera (Body Only) or Camera with Bundle Kit
« on: January 03, 2013, 02:47:41 PM »
The bundle is almost always the way to go.  The lenses are a great place to start and are often a savings of several hundred $ vs buying the body and same lens separately.  Enough that you could sell the lens later and break even or close to it. The nifty fifty f1.8 lenses are so cheap, it should almost certainly be your second lens.

As you start down this path, try too keep photos as the goal and not gear.  Thee is nothing wrong with buying a new camera or lens and drawing inspiration, but few of us can afford every item we want.  Just don't avoid taking great photos because your pining away for the latest and greatest gear. (Be a Photographer First, and a gear hound second)

Good Luck.
 

Pages: 1 ... 34 35 [36] 37 38 ... 72