Messages

211

EOS Bodies / Re: All is Quiet. Odds & Ends.

« on: March 04, 2011, 12:55:09 AM »

Careful when you point fingers

Who's pointing fingers?  I just don't think a front camera and faster processor is a "surprise the world" product announcement - considering the impact Honeycomb had with it's 3D interface features, live-sync scrollable widgets,  and fully cloud-based sync. 

Is that a biased analysis?  It really wasn't meant to be, as I own both Android and iOS devices.  :dunno:

Apple products haven't click for me (I tried an iPhone3 for several months but went back to my ancient BB because messaging is so much easier on it), but some people seem to love them. Does that make them a fanboi?

The Tablet market is heating up and I'm interested to see what floats to the top, be it Apple or otherwise. But the Xoom with Honeycomb doesn't appear to be a slam-dunk just yet. The total package of power, usability, ease of use, weight and form etc will be what wins me over, and I think that will be a different equation for everyone. I haven't seen a convincing enough package yet in any of the products.

I think my expectation of a tablet is going to remain very high because I already maintain a smartphone, laptop, desktop, and Camera gear. I'd be sold if it could allow me to leave my phone and laptop at home. Maybe even if it could reasonably replace the laptop, or provide a lot of storage for images.

212

EOS Bodies / Re: All is Quiet. Odds & Ends.

« on: March 03, 2011, 11:49:51 AM »

Let's see where the Honeycomb market share will be this same time
next year.

Ugh.  Fanbois.

Sorry - I made the mistake of assuming you were interested in objective debate/analysis of the device.

Xoom / Honeycombe is far from perfect as well, and initial hands-on review is mixed at best http://www.zdnet.com/blog/mobile-news/motorola-xoom-and-honeycomb-8212-not-ready-for-prime-time/1105 . Wishing it were different doesn't help.

Careful when you point fingers

213

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS Rebel T3i in Stock (B&H)

« on: March 02, 2011, 11:31:13 PM »

No, I dont put it on auto. I have a point and shoot camera for that. I am trying to learn how to take nice portraits. I do want to know all the features of my camera. Do you think I am better off with the 60D v. T3i?

Both will take nice portraits. I have the 60D and a 5DII. The 60D has two control wheels, the T3i has one. This doesn't sound that important until you start using manual controls. It's much faster working through menu options on the 60D vs Rebel series (even faster on the 5DII).

For nice portraits get two off camera flash units with stands and umbrellas and a nice backdrop. A 24 - 50 mm prime lens is good to use as well. This is a very good website to read:  http://www.strobist.blogspot.com/

214

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS Rebel T3i in Stock (B&H)

« on: March 02, 2011, 11:14:53 PM »

The 60D is much easier to use, if you use the more advanced features, manual settings etc. If you use it like a point and shoot you'll be fine with the T3i.

If you want something noticeably lighter try the Panasonic GH2.

hmm? i dont get it. if someone wants to use a dslr as a P&S, why not buy a P&S?

Most Rebels are used as P&S. Three of my neighbors bought them to get better pics, and they shoot on fully automatic all the time.

215

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS Rebel T3i in Stock (B&H)

« on: March 02, 2011, 10:05:23 PM »

I got the 60D and is very heavy. I can still return it. Should I take the t3i? Are the 60D features a lot better than the T3i?

The 60D is much easier to use, if you use the more advanced features, manual settings etc. If you use it like a point and shoot you'll be fine with the T3i.

If you want something noticeably lighter try the Panasonic GH2.

216

Lens Gallery / Re: Canon 50mm Æ’1.8

« on: March 02, 2011, 10:02:28 AM »

The 50 1.8 is inexpensive, but low contrast and a bit soft until at least f4. That makes it underwhelming in low light, and loses my interest for most situations, so I rarely use mine. The focus ring is terrible, and the rough bokeh will spoil an otherwise decent image.

If you have a nice camera, you'll get more satisfying results with a better lens. Even in low light I'll use the 16-35 2.8II or 85 1.8 before the 50 1.8. The 50 1.4 is worth the extra IMHO.

217

EOS Bodies / Re: Something Coming March 1?

« on: March 01, 2011, 11:42:45 AM »

March 1: apparently not

218

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS Rebel T3i in Stock (B&H)

« on: March 01, 2011, 10:54:34 AM »

A new Rebel comes out every year. If you try to keep current, after three years you could have bought a 5DII (almost), which is only replaced every three years. Buy the 5D series, it's a better deal, and when you upgrade, your old camera still has value used, so the upgrade cost is maybe $1200 every three years.

As I often say, I absolute love my 5D MK II, but a person with a good eye can certainly take a image with even a point and shoot that will exceed the most expensive camera in the hands of a person like me who just loves technology and tools.

Here is one from my non photographer wife with her Canon 720 IS.  She just wants to point and shoot, but she sometimes finds great scenes.

Every camera has it's advantages, and you can get great images with almost any camera. But you'll get better images more often, and in a wider range of conditions, with a DSLR.

She caught a very nice moment!

219

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS Rebel T3i in Stock (B&H)

« on: March 01, 2011, 05:51:39 AM »

With the 60D at $900 who would buy the t3i?

Maybe someone who finds the 60D just a tad too heavy?

By the time you put a lens etc on it's about 2.5 vs 2.8 lbs. If Canon had a pancake lens I could possibly see an advantage for compact size/weight in a T3i package.

220

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS Rebel T3i in Stock (B&H)

« on: February 28, 2011, 07:41:01 PM »

A new Rebel comes out every year. If you try to keep current, after three years you could have bought a 5DII (almost), which is only replaced every three years. Buy the 5D series, it's a better deal, and when you upgrade, your old camera still has value used, so the upgrade cost is maybe $1200 every three years.

221

EOS Bodies / Re: Bodies and Lenses [CR1]

« on: February 22, 2011, 09:48:43 AM »

We do not know what, if anything would be announced.  Canon keeps this information very quiet, so its just rumors, some may be true, but many do not pan out.  Just read them and have fun, but don't make buying decisions based on rumors.

know what u mean, just dun want to end up buying the lens and have the new one announced in mar/apr 

If in doubt, put your money towards something else you can use that won't be replaced soon: 24 1.4, 70-200 2.8, 14 2.8, 100 2.8IS macro etc. Get the new 24-70 IS when it comes out

222

Lenses / Re: Your lenses wishlist for 2011.

« on: February 18, 2011, 12:15:36 PM »

My wish:

24 1.4 II
100 2.8 IS macro

for new lenses:

35 1.4 II
50 1.2 II (or a 50 1.4 II)

PS ... I'd like all lenses to have IS. It's great for video, and sometimes you want deep DOF in low light.

223

Lenses / Re: 24 - 105 mm f/4 L IS II

« on: February 11, 2011, 01:21:15 PM »

The new 24-105 replacement was rumored last year as well.  Lens rumors are very difficult to get accurate information on.  It does not seem unreasonable that a new one could be coming with a wider focal range, but it will be much more expensive, so it won't pull down the value of my existing one that I paid $700 for new three or four years ago.  Back then the 5D kit with 24-105 cost a $600 premium over the base camera, and I bought the lens from a person who already had a 24-105 and just wanted to defray the cost of his 5D.

Mine has been a wonderful lens, on a crop camera, its a bit better than it is on my 5D.  I don't use it except as a outdoor walk around, and prefer to use primes if I can.  I even returned my new 70-200mm f/2.8L II because I found it easier to carry three primes with me.

If a new 24-105 replacement came out with a 5D MK III, I'd be tempted to buy the kit.

I'd buy the kit too, and sell my original 24-105. The original is still a great lens, but upgrading with the kit would be cheaper than upgrading later, so why not?

224

EOS Bodies / Re: What next?

« on: February 11, 2011, 11:56:19 AM »

I could really use a 17-40mmL IS. As per earlier post I do not have a camera now, and I am in a toss up between Nikon and Canon right now, and the 17-40mmL IS would seal the deal for me.

It would probably cost and weigh the same as the present 16-35 2.8 II. The 16-35 would still be the better deal, with an extra stop. The difference between f4 and f2.8 is huge when the light is very low.

I'd vote either the 16-35 2.8 L II or the 17-55 2.8 IS on a 7D body.

what is it exactly you need the IS for?  if you are using the lens for landscapes, you need to be purchasing and using a tripod.  if you are using the lens for a walkaround/general purpose shooting lens, the f/2.8 max aperture and the current ISO ceilings of even crop body cameras means you can get excellent shot in a massive variety of situations.

How about the Tokina 16-28mm f/2.8 (this lens would be used for Landscape I know I need a tripod, and also be my normal zoom, I have seen some impressive results from this lens).

" I'd pay the extra for the Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 L II because it takes filters, and is much smaller and lighter than this Tokina." - http://www.kenrockwell.com/tokina/16-28mm.htm

Also on that site Ken claims that they are optically similar. But the the Canon you get an extra 7mm reach, which comes in very handy.

Tokina makes some nice lenses (I still own the 50-135 2.8, and I would buy the 11-16 2.8 for crop), but the Canon L's are built like a dream and are a pleasure to use, with full-time manual focus over-ride as well. The zoom and focus rings on Canon L's are smooth as cream.

225

EOS Bodies / Re: What next?

« on: February 11, 2011, 11:30:20 AM »

I could really use a 17-40mmL IS. As per earlier post I do not have a camera now, and I am in a toss up between Nikon and Canon right now, and the 17-40mmL IS would seal the deal for me.

It would probably cost and weigh the same as the present 16-35 2.8 II. The 16-35 would still be the better deal, with an extra stop. The difference between f4 and f2.8 is huge when the light is very low.

I'd vote either the 16-35 2.8 L II or the 17-55 2.8 IS on a 7D body.

what is it exactly you need the IS for?  if you are using the lens for landscapes, you need to be purchasing and using a tripod.  if you are using the lens for a walkaround/general purpose shooting lens, the f/2.8 max aperture and the current ISO ceilings of even crop body cameras means you can get excellent shot in a massive variety of situations.

Definitely the 17-55 2.8 IS if it's for a crop body. I owned this lens before I moved to the 5DII. The 17-55 is very sharp, very fast focus, and the IS is superb. I'd buy it again for a crop body.

However if you are heading to Full frame, the 16-35 2.8 is a very good ultra-wide, and the 24-105 f4 is a great normal zoom. F4 on FF is roughly the same as f2.8 on crop: FF has about a 1 stop advantage in high iso noise (so you can compensate by increasing the ISO a bit), and a 1.3 stop advantage in creating shallow DOF.