July 24, 2014, 11:55:06 AM

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 - Etienne

Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18 ... 38
226
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS Update [CR2]
« on: August 07, 2013, 01:38:28 PM »
The photographer in me is hoping for a home run on this lens,
and the banker in me is already crying.

227
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Information [CR2]
« on: August 07, 2013, 01:33:21 PM »
.
Nothing ignites passionate argument like Religion, Politics, and ... DOF on APS-C

228
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Information [CR2]
« on: August 07, 2013, 01:24:39 PM »
To summarize:

Full-Frame is better at everything, Crop is cheaper.

While that is a fact, it does not summarize the original thread. In fact, it does not even relate to the original thread!
People (including some of CR's more illustrious contributors) keep posting in this thread how FF is better than Crop. We get it! Why whip this dead horse? If someone disagrees, be magnanimous and quietly laugh at their ignorance or denial.
This thread is about the "hopes and dreams" of people who cannot upgrade to FF or choose not to. Let's discuss this particular thread within that purview, yeah?

This thread was all over the map long before my comment, which was to poke fun at all of that stuff.
I am not anti-crop. Although I the 5DIII is my favorite, I have and use a 60D, and an EOS-M, and I am keenly interested in the upcoming 70D and possible EOS-M successor.

229
Not only is it arbitrary, but it also changes over time.  For example, when I was growing up, 28mm lenses were far more common than 24mm lenses.  But these days, I doubt many people are buying 28mm lenses - all the interest is in 24mm lenses or wider. 

The same could be said for 85mm.  While appreciating that many people buy 85mm lenses, I suspect that the "standard" longer prime would be in the 90-135mm range (especially when you consider all of the macro lenses in that range that are sold).

I agree with the 24mm vs 28
But 85mm is still by far the most popular short telephoto.
B&H has almost 1400 reviews of the 85 1.8, and only 90 reviews of the 100 f/2, even though these two lenses are about the same price, same size, and deliver the same IQ

230
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Information [CR2]
« on: August 06, 2013, 04:14:42 PM »
To summarize:

Full-Frame is better at everything, Crop is cheaper.

231
Software & Accessories / Re: Macro gear suggestions for 5DIII?
« on: August 05, 2013, 11:57:32 PM »
Thanks Neuro. Fascinating how much gear can be attached to a camera in a useful way

You should check out some of the cinema rigs.... like these  (there's actually a 5DII hiding in these rigs)

232
Software & Accessories / Re: Macro gear suggestions for 5DIII?
« on: August 05, 2013, 11:51:33 PM »
Is there an esoteric trick to insert an image in a CR comment?

I am not sure about any esoteric trick, but I have been following a simple system like others. Write (or start writing the comment) and then click on "Attachments and other option" below the message box where i am writing the comment and attach the small sized photograph/image from my computer.

LOL ... that's easy ... I was looking at all the buttons on the top of the comment box and couldn't find something that would work for a pic

233
EOS-M / Re: EOS M replaced my 5D kit
« on: August 05, 2013, 11:43:41 PM »
The IQ is good, for a compact camera, but not even close to my 5D3.

The IQ difference is much more noticeable to "downgrade."  Upgrading from Canon aps-c 18 mp sensor to 5D III gave me the sense of "pretty good" IQ upgrade.  But after getting used to 5D III RAW files for a long time, the same 18 mp sensor RAW files from EOS-M feels like a much bigger downgrade than initially thought, especially if one is shooting in low-light man-to-man ISO-wise. 

With EOS-M, one can still get great results by shooting in good light, or arrange to have more speedlites, strobes, reflectors, etc in low light IME, with a good noise reduction software like Noiseware becoming helpful to narrow the gap.

I am a fan of the 'M', but in no way could I see it replacing my 5DIII. I see the M as a camera on my belt when I might not otherwise have a camera. I am rarely happy with a phone camera shot, even for personal use, so the M is a big step up there.

I see a huge difference in IQ between the EOS M and the 5DIII. Mirrorless will probably replace DSLRs eventually, but I don't see that day on the horizon just yet. I think APS-C is best for mirrorless until all the tech is fully developed.

Once the AF, viewfinder, and ergonomics are mature, then a Full-frame mirrorless with mirrorless-optimized lenses will be the way to go. There's no point of a FF mirrorless on the end of today's 70-200 2.8, or larger lens. Or even the 16-35 2.8. All of that is still over the horizon.


234
Software & Accessories / Re: Macro gear suggestions for 5DIII?
« on: August 05, 2013, 11:05:49 PM »
This was taken with the Sigma 150mm macro lens, jpeg straight out of the camera, just resized for posting. 1/400s / f5.0 / iso 4000 handheld
Is there an esoteric trick to insert an image in a CR comment?

235
EOS-M / Re: EOS M replaced my 5D kit
« on: August 05, 2013, 09:13:16 PM »
I like my EOS-M, but DSLR replacement? Big stretch that is.
The IQ is good, for a compact camera, but not even close to my 5D3.
I think the EOS-M, or one of it's relatives, will easily replace a DSLR,... for people who never really needed a DSLR

236
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Information [CR2]
« on: August 05, 2013, 02:48:28 PM »
I don't think the 7D IQ is that great, especially on portraits/skin tones, which is why I bought a 5D2 several years back.

Now that I have the 5DIII,  the 7D2 would have to be leaps and bounds past the 7D to be interesting.


237
Lenses / Re: Should I replace my zooms with primes?
« on: August 03, 2013, 12:38:44 AM »
How about this option:

Sell everything you have and buy:
6D,
24 2.8 IS USM
35 f/2 IS USM
100 2.8L IS USM macro
Sigma 15mm 2.8 fisheye

238
it seems that we just naturally gravitate towards certain focal lengths; even with a zoom, we tend to choose prime focal lengths more so than we choose non prime.

I always find it interesting to look at the focal lengths of my photoshoots, I find it amazing just how often they do gravitate towards primal focal lengths.  But then again, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics!

Few would debate that there are certain focal lengths that work well for certain types of shots. But my original question was really about why the standard focal lengths are PRECISELY 24/35/50/85mm, and not +/- 5mm off of those lengths.

They are not precisely 24/35/50/85  .... they are just labelled that way by the manufacturer for easy marketing I suspect. They are all off by a bit.  Zoom ranges can be quite a bit off.

239
Lenses / Re: Sigma 24-70 f/2 OS HSM Coming? [CR1]
« on: July 30, 2013, 11:48:34 AM »
The next trend will be hiring Sherpas to carry your camera gear on family vacations.

240
Lenses / Re: Sigma 24-70 f/2 OS HSM Coming? [CR1]
« on: July 29, 2013, 10:37:49 PM »
I'd rather have a small, light 24-35 f/1.8 (or even f/2), or a really sharp contrasty 18-28  f/2.8.
A 24-70 f/2 would be big and heavy. My bag is already too heavy

Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18 ... 38