Messages

61

Pricewatch Deals / Re: The 5D Mark II & 5D Mark III Get Cheaper

« on: October 24, 2012, 09:39:47 PM »

I'm still glad I picked up my 5DmkII last Christmas at <$2000USD. Almost 8000 clicks since then. :-) 

If you're in the market for a FF, jump on this one NOW. The 6D just isn't the same body as the 5DmkII, yet you'll be paying more for it. Get your 5DmkII NOW.

I'm interested how you get to that conclusion The 5D2 is really good, but the 6D is largely unknown. Have you had chance to play with one?

62

EOS Bodies / Re: What's a good camera?

« on: October 24, 2012, 10:09:02 AM »

The next better camera than the one I've already got at the price of the one I've already got.

63

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EF Lens Speculation [CR1]

« on: October 24, 2012, 09:30:40 AM »

Mark II of 135L??   
Why paint the Peacock?

Because it could be better.

And it could be more expensive :-p

...could. It most certainly will be.

64

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EF Lens Speculation [CR1]

« on: October 24, 2012, 08:29:35 AM »

Mark II of 135L??   
Why paint the Peacock?

Because it could be better.

65

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark III Firmware adds HDMI & AF Upgrades

« on: October 23, 2012, 10:13:22 AM »

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/about_canon/newsroom?pageKeyCode=pressreldetail&docId=0901e024806daf9c

Thanks for the link. It looks it will be a dark (=not AF illumination in SERVO) update 

Maybe they're giving themselves 6 months to work that one out. I might give it a go in my lunch break

66

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark III Firmware adds HDMI & AF Upgrades

« on: October 23, 2012, 10:06:40 AM »

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/about_canon/newsroom?pageKeyCode=pressreldetail&docId=0901e024806daf9c

67

Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits

« on: October 21, 2012, 05:58:25 PM »

A couple from around Australia's Northern Territory:

Lovely pictures dave. What did you shoot them with?

Thanks!

They are a year or so old, so I think a 550D/T2i

First one was a 70-200 f4 non is

The other two were with the 400mm 5.6 prime - great lens for the price, but large minimum focus distance and slow aperture combine to make it fairly challenging to use. Fortunately in the tropics here, there are plenty of birds for practice.

68

Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits

« on: October 21, 2012, 10:49:16 AM »

A couple from around Australia's Northern Territory:

69

Animal Kingdom / Re: Puppy Love

« on: October 21, 2012, 10:33:13 AM »

Here are our two new ones - Sandro and Lily:

70

Lenses / Re: A very dumb view

« on: October 19, 2012, 09:44:17 PM »

Is there a site that scientifically tests and ranks filters? I would enjoy such a site. Certainly the anecdotal reviews we get from people trying to justify their spending are unlikely to be reliable.

filterrumors.com, anyone? 

71

Portrait / Re: Guitarist C&C

« on: October 19, 2012, 08:54:05 PM »

My favourite is the third one.

Because the guitar is so large and she is quite small, the other positions to me feel not quite right and slightly awkward. This is my personal view and depends what you are aiming for.

When you have the guitarist as the main focus by using the angle that you did in the third it seems more natural. The line of the guitar also leads into the image, whereas in the others it is so dominant.

Don't stop doing these type of photos though, you have found some really nice light and, even better, you use it well.

72

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1Dx simple DR stress test

« on: October 19, 2012, 07:29:21 PM »

The old sensor tech in Canon  is not up to date 2012 and  in a comparison with Sony, not much to discuss

Please, then, stop discussing it. You wanted facts. The fact is you are embarrassing yourself.

You are spouting the same crap with same graphs and rubbish demo photos as you have done on dpreview for ages.

I actually looked at your gallery on dpreview as well and for all of your talk there are plenty of people here who posted pictures taken with rebels that have far more vision and creativity.

You are entitled to your opinion but please stop taking over all the threads. We get your point.

73

EOS Bodies / Re: POLL: How much $$$ will the high-mp eos cost?

« on: September 26, 2012, 07:28:19 AM »

I tend to agree with the EOS-S name.

But rather than s for studio I am going for s for sardine tins - as in sardine tins are what you would need to build your house and shoes out of to afford the camera.

$9000 all the way.

74

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma Announces Three New Lenses: 35 f/1.4, 17-70 f/2.8-4.0 OS & 120-300 f/2.8 OS

« on: September 17, 2012, 07:42:40 PM »

I like the new design of the lenses too. Very clean and simple looking.

+1

They look schmick.

75

Lenses / Re: 24mm F/1.4L II or 24mm-70mm F/2.8 II

« on: September 12, 2012, 09:34:46 PM »

Hi,

I got my 24-70mm ii yesterday (in Australia). Because I have bought quite a bit of stuff this year and the new lens is expensive I had to get rid of one of my more expensive primes. With a sinking feeeling that I was making a bad decision I sold the 35mm f/1.4. I LOVED the colours and but never got anything out of it at less than f/2.8 that I was happy with.

The new lens is an absolute beast. I did really like shooting with the 35mm prime, but I definitely feel like I have gained a lot more than I lost. Unfortunately I can't afford to just accumulate lenses so it is about balance. Being able to carry one 24-70mm ii lens around that does not feel like a compromise is a liberating feeling in itself. It has a zoom lock so you need never take it off 24mm if you want to use it like the 24mm prime (obviously it will be slightly slower).

I had a similar dillemma when I bought the 70-200mm is ii, except I couldn't bear to part with my 135mm f/2. I would have felt like I was giving up something that made photography special. The colours, size and sharpness are magic. Basically in this case I had to sell the 35 or 135 and went with the 35mm. If you don't absolutely love your 24mm ii, then try the zoom. If you absolutely love the 24mm ii and frequently use it at less than f/2.8 then you have a really difficult decision. As much as some people would probably flame me I didn't absolutely love my 35mm f/1.4. I could have kept it, but I really want an ultra wide angle lens and in that range I am definitely keen on a prime (TS-E 17 or 14ii) (aaargghhh $$$$$$$$$$), so it's swings and roundabouts.

Hope this helps,

dave