January 26, 2015, 08:46:27 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 - dstppy

Pages: 1 ... 36 37 [38] 39 40 ... 65
If these are the same caliber as the 24-70, we may very well have an 'affordable' L alternative provider on our hands.

I've gotta start selling some equipment to get the wife off my back before the next big wave of purchases  ;D

PowerShot Cameras / Re: Canon PowerShot G15
« on: September 13, 2012, 09:38:03 PM »
But, the D600 is like a bazillion dollars more, and, like NIKON.

Cue the guy from that 80's song from old SoHo.

Wow, $2,100 and Nikon doesn't even give you a full metal body?  I hope Canon isn't so cheap with the magnesium alloy.  You can get the 7D for $1200 and the body is a tank.  Hopefully the 6D will be the same. :-\

7D, built like a tank, but rebel-like IQ.  Even 650D is better.  :(

citation required . . .

As long as there are people who think a 4 year old 5D Mark II is just as good as a brand new D600, Canon has NOTHING to worry about...

But they do, actually their worry is that the 5d2 is just too good to make an easy profit with a "real" successor 6d - either it'll be too expensive to people will still get a 5d3 or 5d2 as long as possible, or it'll be too inexpensive cutting profits.

I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic . . . implying that those that look at actual images and performance are mindless automatons, unlike people that buy the newest thing with 3 more pixels :)

Okay, so where's that "it's gonna be $1500, canon's gonna poop their pants" guy now?

So, we've got a camera that's $300 more than and basically a 'single step up' from the 4 year old canon.  I'll pass.

Seriously, 6D could simply be what was posted: 7D AF, digic V+ FF and sell for $2500 without issue. 

Boy, I'm glad we were prepared with thread-upon-thread about how this camera was going to put Canon out of business  ::)

Lenses / Re: Where is Canon
« on: September 12, 2012, 10:52:30 AM »

Enjoy your onion rind bokeh with the Tamron.

Well, the Canon mk2 has it too (but to a lesser extent), ye know? But don't let get facts in the way.

I think you're spot-on here; I think the *real* news is that the Tamron is so dang sharp.

Anyone with a hair of faith (maybe gullibility) could have believed the part about the Canon II being the sharpest, since that's pretty much what they said.  Yes, yes, we shouldn't blindly believe it, but now that we have confirmation, it's sort of obvious :)

Honestly, I think the Tamron is going to be an excellent candidate for the "only own one lens" crowd, even with it's price.

Lenses / Re: 200mm 2.8L II
« on: September 10, 2012, 08:46:58 AM »
I, also, am in love with this lens.  I actually started using my monopod with a lens ring and this (after having the monopod over a year and not really using it all that much.

My Two favorite configurations are:
FF straight on body
Crop w/ 1.4x teleconverter

This is really one of those lenses that (after you learned the basics), really gives you a lot of confidence from what you get from it.

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Canon 5D Mark II vs Nikon D600
« on: September 07, 2012, 02:48:44 PM »
"Nikon is making there move soon with the d600"

So we've heard, repeatedly, exactly like the first post, in several other threads.  How about we stop with this crap until we have a firm (or at least firmer) speculated date?

"Canon certainly won't be making their small FF dslr anytime soon"

This is news to people reading this forum in particular, as Craig gave a [CR1] to soon, quite potentially just to rattle Nikon on release.

A NEW FF going for less than $1800? Why would Nikon do that when don't HAVE to?  A new 5DmkII body can be had for around $1800, so they don't have to price new-tech for under that.  Also, if that is a bottom-line, then MSRP will be higher.  At first I thought $2k would be too much, but seriously, if the MSRP is below that, they're giving away cash they just don't have to.

Seriously, I'd be interested in hearing the specs and price (here on the CANON FORUM) when there's something other than a rumor to talk about . . . but we got our yearly quota for "I'm moving to Nikon" and "Canon is out of touch" posts in early this year, so we're all good.

I have both and I have to say, I don't feel as though I love my 5DmkII as I should.

Reading through some of the points on this thread, I have my own thoughts about FF.

1) "feels like FF" - honestly, I want to say all of the bad things I've seen from lenses is more pronounced in FF (CA, barrel distortion, and vignetting) vs crop.  I've been shooting with my 24-105 on the 5D and can't believe how much more correction is needed for vignetting  -- maybe it's not that where people get the 'feel' from, but that's what I've seen

2) The iso difference on the 5D rocks hard, probably the best thing about it

3) Never seen banding myself

4) Nice shot for the dog, but if you go back and pick up a rebel, you'll be surprised what you can get out of 'lower end' cameras after you've been shooting a while.  I'm still more comfortable with my 60D;  these days, (aside from un-cooperative subjects or bystanders) I can't seem to get a bad shot.

5) Auto-Focus speed seems faster to me on the 60D, but I believe Neuro said at one point that it wasn't any faster than the 5D

Lastly, mk3 vs mk2, you're going to see a at BEST $1k difference in the bodies for some time (best price, I mean) . . . until you've shot on FF for a while, you may not see as much improvement for the price difference.

Personally, I've decided to start selling some gear and moving both bodies up a notch, but I have ALWAYS had a bad case of accessoritis and upgraditis.  I get sick of cars 9 months into them, but I'm working on that.

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Win a 5D Mark III Kit from Norman Camera
« on: September 06, 2012, 06:27:31 PM »
You both luck out because you're not gulled into joining facebook? :)

Lenses / Re: Need advice on indoor low light lens choices.
« on: September 06, 2012, 10:23:12 AM »
It depends on size of indoor. If it's not enough room, then 24-70 (I or II), if you have enough place in there - 70-200 F2.8 (II in case of IS)

I checked with my 24-105 this morning and it seems as though the 24-70 range for me will be my more used indoor simply because of room. I am debating on returning the f4 70-200 for the 2.8 but not really sure the added weight is worth the extra $1k and to only gain a stop still will require fill flash to me. I do not find myself using the 50mm simply because with kids it can be hard sometimes not being able to zoom in or out plus the more light the less my twins are in focus so thats why I am having a hard time finding the best way to approach most shooting environments knowing I cannot get them all. I did great birthday portraits with it at 2.8 but there was plenty of ambient light in the room. Basically what is everyones go to suggestion for christmas morning? Should i get the 600ex and go that route?

The Tamron SP 24-70mm Di VC USD is also a really competent contender . . . Christmas morning and flashes don't go together at my house

EOS Bodies / Re: The ultimate Photokina bet poll...
« on: September 04, 2012, 02:44:03 PM »
Okay, so where's the option for "nothing significant"?

I'm with K-amps on this one. 

Ideally it'd be a 70D (basically a 7D/60D merge).  I agree (from other threads) with others that the new firmware on the 7D means there's no immediate successor.

The new FF camera would be ideal, but they're going to have to make an affordable FF in such high volume (closer to that of the crop bodies) that I suspect we'll hear more chatter first.

Barring that, I'd vote for another price-prohibitive lens and/or really entry-level gear.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Flat lens discovered in Harvard
« on: September 04, 2012, 09:04:12 AM »
Here comes the science! Where's Neuro? (I half expected to see him in the picture of the physicists, presumably explaining it to them)


This is my first time posting here and I'm amateur for sure.  I've been shooting for several years but still consider myself in the hobby phase.  I have to say that the first shots when going from a T1i and kit lense to a 7D and first L lense was a stark difference.  Now I see why all the rukus about L lenses.

It's not just "L" but I do really agree with you.  I think frustrating pieces of consumer glass really hinder an amateur from starting to get really great shots consistently.

I started on a 15-85, which I'm very happy I went with.  I see the shots that even today I can produce on the 70-300mm non-L and think: Yuck.

Good glass doesn't really have to be expensive, the 50mm 1.4 and 85mm 1.8 come to mind as lenses that's value truly exceeds their worth.

Pages: 1 ... 36 37 [38] 39 40 ... 65