September 02, 2014, 08:54:44 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 - dave

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9
92
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.

93
Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: October 21, 2012, 10:49:16 AM »
A couple from around Australia's Northern Territory:



94
Animal Kingdom / Re: Puppy Love
« on: October 21, 2012, 10:33:13 AM »
Here are our two new ones - Sandro and Lily:


95
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?  ::)

96
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.

97
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.


98
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.

99
I like the new design of the lenses too. Very clean and simple looking.

+1

They look schmick.

100
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

101
Picking this thing up in the morning, we'll see if these results are indeed accurate.

Will you be able to sleep?  :)

102
I don't believe these findings at all...

One... claiming the 24 TS/e is the sharpest lens canon has created....
two... they forget that canon made a 28-70mm 2.8 that consistently beat the 24-70I in all tests...but neglected to track down a copy and compare.

I think this is promo-hype to try and sell an overpriced piece of glass.
$1800 sure...
but 2300 is obscene.

The author claimed the 24mm TS-E ii (in the original blog post) was the sharpest 24mm - which it is.

You can take an awful lot of different types of photos between 24mm and 70mm. We'd all like to pay less, but there'll be plenty of takers at 2300 if it is that good. Canon is a business - it's supply and demand. There are still plenty of people stumping up similar cash for the 70-200mm is ii and this will be the same.

If you don't want to spend that much then the Mark i version, 24-105, and 28-135 fill various price points.

The price makes complete (but painful) sense.

103
Lenses / Re: The First Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II Review
« on: September 08, 2012, 10:16:40 AM »
Pretty decent review, mostly because it agreed with my opinion.

:-) ... his videos have a very subjective, amateurish approach - see also his reviews of the Tamron 24-70. While this is fine if you want to p&s, it lacks tech knowledge (the fact alone that he expects 70mm to be the same on every lens).

In this case: The new Canon mk2 uses more doublecross af points on the 5d3/1dx, so it being as fast as the mk1 is a good sign since more precision usually means less speed. And a more detailed test might show that the mk2 has a higher af hit rate on Canon newest systems.

I think he is a little too preoccupied with the 'world's first' moniker. He said it in the video that he borrowed it for a day. I felt the same about the Tamron reviews. To me it is very much a sitting on the fence approach and trying not to piss anyone off.

Among other things, I would have liked to have seen discussion of distortion as this area has long been an area where major improvement could be generated on zooms that have a wide end.

My overall impression was that he said that it basically does what Canon says it is supposed to do.

104
Lenses / Re: Post your 24-70 II Experiences Here
« on: September 05, 2012, 11:55:10 PM »
That's true. My education did suck a bit. ;D

...but

I wonder if 24-70 II will achieve the same for say 24L, 35L, and 50L.

I thought it could not happen, period. That guy started the whole thread with that very proposition.

105
Lenses / Re: Post your 24-70 II Experiences Here
« on: September 05, 2012, 11:23:01 PM »
35L is the sharpest non tele prime canon makes, there is no way 24-70 MKII will be sharper at 2.8, period.

first of all 30 years ago pro photographer did not use crap lenses. they used good primes because 30 years ago zooms sucked. plus they used something at least as large as 6x6, and that is pretty large stuff(compared to the little sissy things used now) giving it a big mechanical advantage.    today zooms are very good, and some are great. you are also wrong about that 35l and 50l being sharper than the 24-70mm v1. look it up, from brain's site at the digital picture, photozone, or some of the sites where they look at the 35l -vs- the 24-70 and others for astro work. the sometimes unloved 24-70 is pretty darn good.  from looking at the charts and what canon is asking and saying about this lens, it'll probably be everything we can hope for. (other than IS !) BTW- i've never seen any 50l chart or photo that was very sharp. if it was, i'd own one . but my 50mm1.8 stopped down a stop is much better in sharpness and it's a 100$ lens made or plastic with a plastic mount! the 35mm was very good at it's release , now a cheap korean 35mm 1.4 is sharper. now i said sharper, not better. i don't want to fool with it's other limitations for everyday use.   BTW- what happened to this thread?  and i'm only making it worse, sigh...

At what aperture? And whereabouts on the image?

on full frame the borders and corners of the 35mm f1.4 are not great, even stopped down to f2.8. As just one example Photozone records the borders and extreme corners of the 40mm pancake as having higher resolution at the aperture that you nominated.

As for the 24-70mm I'll wait and see before making such a baseless statement.




Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9