September 17, 2014, 05:48:30 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 - studio1972

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5
Lenses / Re: EF 50 f/1.4 II & EF 50 f/1.8 III [CR2]
« on: May 20, 2011, 03:53:09 AM »
I doubt it.  The 50/1.2L is not that old (released in 2007), and was itself an update of sorts, from the 50mm f/1.0L (released in 1989, and still shows up on the used market occasionally for $3-4K).  The other two current 50mm standard primes are from the early 90's.

Why did you tell me about this just cost me an extra $3000.  Thanks.  :)

I did not know the f/1.0 existed, but for the night time pictures I take, it might be the right lens.

The 1.2 is a much better lens from what I've heard, the 1.0 is more of a collectors lens.

Software & Accessories / Re: Yongnuo ST-E2 vs Canon ST-E2
« on: March 24, 2011, 07:53:45 PM »
Thanks for the review Sarah.

I was unaware of this product, but after reading about the rotating shoe, I'm very interested. It seems like that alone would make this worthwhile for a 7D owner like myself (Use the built-in flash trigger under most circumstances, but have the Yongnuo available when the setup is wrong for the on-camera trigger).

Yes, that's one of may favourite features. It works quite nicely, turning smoothly with notches at various angles. I've been looking again at the strength of the beam, and it flashes a lot brighter than the canon, which itself is brighter than the 7D I suspect. So that should help you outdoors I think.

Software & Accessories / Re: Yongnuo ST-E2 vs Canon ST-E2
« on: March 24, 2011, 02:14:47 PM »
I tried the eneloops and also some Costco alkaline batteries, same result with both. The eneloops are recommended in Syl Arena's book which is why I use them, but maybe there are better ones out there. The 2CR5 in the canon unit is 6V however, and as it is a lithium battery, I guess it probably has more oomph than NiMH.

Software & Accessories / Yongnuo ST-E2 vs Canon ST-E2
« on: March 24, 2011, 10:55:52 AM »
I've put together a short review of the Yongnuo ST-E2 in comparison to the Canon unit on my blog. I found the recycling time on the Yongnuo to be slower than the Canon unit, which is a problem. Otherwise, it's a nice piece of kit however:

Software & Accessories / Re: Which flash; Canon 580EX II or 430EX II
« on: March 23, 2011, 04:44:58 PM »
always go with the biggest and best :)

you will be glad you did in the long run

I've had a 430 EX (previous version to EXII) and 580EXII for about 3 years. Both have been used heavily, and I would say the 430 has been more reliable. If you really need more power, you van always get 2 430s for about the same price as a 580.

EOS Bodies / Re: The 7d with an aps-h sensor!!!!!!!!
« on: March 01, 2011, 05:43:10 PM »
If the next generation 1D is FF, then moving the 7DMk2 to APS-H almost makes sense.

If the next 1D isn't APS-H, then it makes even less sense.  A one off sensor is an expensive luxury on a $5k camera,  and a non-starter on a $1300 camera.

I wouldn't expect an upmarket APS-H 7DMk2 to cost $1300. $3000+ seems more realistic. Also, why is a "one off sensor" untenable? If the non-recurring design costs for the unique APS-H sensor are $1 million and the production run is 10,000 units, the cost per unit is only $100. I would expect that to be swamped by the additional recurring cost due to an APS-H sensor being larger than an APS-C sensor.

With the xxD series becoming consumer cameras now, the 7D is the cheapest semi-pro body available. I think the next one will have better high ISO, and not much else new (maybe an articulated screen). The price will not change much as they need to have an affordable semi pro 1.6 crop body.

Lenses / Re: EF-S 15-60 f/2.8 IS [CR1]
« on: February 11, 2011, 06:05:33 PM »
A 4x zoom at a fixed f2.8 would be record-setting if I have my facts straight:

1.45x = 11-16mm (tokina APS-C)
1.71x = 14-24mm (nikon)
1.75x = 16-35mm (tokina)
2.06x = 17-35mm
2.19x = 16-35mm
2.50x = 28-70mm, 80-200mm, 120-300mm (sigma), 200-500mm (sigma monster)
2.68x = 28-75mm (tamron)
2.77x = 90-250mm (olympus 4/3), 18-50mm (sigma)
2.85x = 70-200mm
2.92x = 24-70mm
2.94x = 17-50mm (tamron, sigma)
3.00x = 50-150mm (sigma APS-C)
3.13x = 16-50mm (tokina APS-C)
3.24x = 17-55mm
3.75x = 28-105mm (tamron adaptall MF)

In fact, I think it would be the second largest zoom range of any constant-aperture ever released (behind the 5x Nikkor 24-120mm f4).  Anyone know of another lens I'm forgetting?

It is easier to make an f/2.8 ef-s lens than an ef one of course. Also canon do a 24-105 which is a larger zoom range btw.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS Development Announced
« on: February 09, 2011, 07:00:58 PM »
They just crop the FF image that the lens delivers, and increase its dof.

Depth of field remains the same. Angle of view changes because of the crop.

A 50mm lens with 6 inches DOF is a 50mm lens with 6 inches DOF, no matter if you put it on a 1Ds or an HV40. A lens is a lens is a lens. Depth-of-field is controlled by optics. Angle of view is the ONLY thing that changes between imaging formats. The difference is that on a FF sensor, more objects are now in view in the frame that are closer and farther away (blurrier objects appear in the frame), creating a higher contrast between the blurriest objects and the sharpest objects, which appears to create a shallower DOF when the DOF never changed.

Actually you're both wrong. If the 2 images were viewed at 100% on screen then the DOF would be the same, as stated, assuming the pixel density is the same. However, if the images were printed or scaled to the same size, say 12 x 8, then the DOF would be less on the cropped image as the lack of focus would be amplified by zooming into the image. DOF is very dependant on the medium on which the image is displayed.

Lenses / Re: New L Primes
« on: January 25, 2011, 07:36:20 PM »
Guys get real. The 50L 1.2 was released on 2006, Its very unlikely to be updated.

Now for the 35L and 135L, its about time.

yes.  the 135 was excellent when it was first released, but compared to the new 70-200 f/2.8 L II you can tell it's getting long in the tooth.  when a supposedly excellent prime lens falls behind a zoom lens, no matter how excellent a zoom lens, it's a signal that it's time to start reworking the prime lens.

a 135 f/2 L IS would be awesome, but I'd take a new 135 f/2 without IS on it

Just wondering where you think it falls short? I think the 135 is pretty amazing TBH, sharp and with superb bokeh. I could see the advantage in an IS version, but that's about it.

EOS Bodies / Re: 1Ds3 Changes on Canon USA Website
« on: January 16, 2011, 08:23:02 AM »
The 5D and 5DII don't do 5fps so I can't see why anybody would expect the 5DIII to do so?

Lenses / Re: 5D MKii lens
« on: January 11, 2011, 06:21:02 AM »
Not sure what Hallor has against the 24-70. I find it to be a great combo with the 5DII, even in low light. Would definitely recommend it as a standard zoom for this camera. The second lens I would recommend is a 135mm f/2 which is a great low light option. I would also get a tripod so you can use longer shutter speeds if required. If you are doing video you will need a video tripod as well, and sound recording equipment as well of course. You may also want to look into getting something like an HMC151 as a proper video camera if you are shooting live events, the 5D is not very well suited for that as the record time is limited and the ergonomics are tricky.

BTW, eBay is definitely an option, I got my 135mm f/2 from there and it was excellent and cost around half of a new one.

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III [CR1]
« on: January 07, 2011, 06:47:52 AM »
The money Canon spends on developing and implementing video specific features is presumably more than offset by the extra sales canon makes to people who want them. This is not a very difficult concept to understand.

Just look at the pricing of the 5DII vs the D700, the 5DII isn't any more expensive than the canon despite having the video feature. If they scrapped this feature the camera wouldn't be cheaper, in fact the price may well go up!

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III [CR1]
« on: January 04, 2011, 05:03:59 AM »
Don't know about the rest of you people, but I'd really LOVE to have the option of buying a cutting edge FF DSLR without video capability, if the price difference is at least 500 dollars. I don't see the point in a video capable DSLR with virtually non-existent autofocus. If Canon released two versions of a 5D mark III (one with video, and a cheaper one without), they'd really make me a happy customer. I know some of you want to say GO BUY A NIKON D700, but that camera's outdated, not enough pixels on a FF body. The only thing still holding me back from buying a 5D Mark II is curiosity - I'd love to see what Nikon churns out in the coming months... And then see what Canon throws back at them ))) My 50D works just fine for me right now.

Getting rid of the video capability wouldn't save any money, the few video specific components in the camera are very cheap. That's why the 5DII costs about the same as a D700. I can't see Canon ever introducing a new DSLR without video now.

EOS Bodies / Re: all 18MP bodies
« on: January 03, 2011, 02:07:45 PM »
Personally, I have found SDHC cards to be much more robust than CF, where the pins inside the camera can be easily bent, requiring the camera to be sent to the manufacturer to repair. It is a fallacy to think that bigger = tougher.

I would love a 5D Mk III with 2 SD slots instead of a single CF slot.

Lenses / Re: 70-300L & More
« on: December 07, 2010, 07:59:45 AM »
Very dissapointing re:50mm.

i see myself buying a 24mm f.14 Nikkor, 35mm F1.4 Nikkor and a 50mm f1.4 Nikkor in the near future. There are a lot of pros who don't shoot sports, and Canon is neglecting them.

They do make a 50mm 1.2 though, and the 35mm and 24mm canon primes are not too shoddy either.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5