September 02, 2014, 06:50:17 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 - Act444

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 22
1
Lenses / Re: Canon Price Drops on L Lenses
« on: August 31, 2014, 11:35:04 AM »
The price on the 24-70 f/4 should have been under $1K from the get-go. No way did it feel or perform like a $1500 lens.

Indeed although at this price I think it becomes a potentially significant lens, especially if your[sic] talking entry level FF sales.

Perhaps. The 35 f/2 IS came out at $800, but it wasn't until the price drop to $550 that I decided to pick one up. Decent lens, just overpriced (initially) for what it offers. Same with this new 24-70. I was interested in it but the price needed to come down. No way was it worth $1500, and I'm not even sure it's worth $1000. But pretty soon, used ones (or white box models) should be able to be picked up for $800 or less...now we're talking...

2
Lenses / Re: Canon Price Drops on L Lenses
« on: August 31, 2014, 09:58:53 AM »
The price on the 24-70 f/4 should have been under $1K from the get-go. No way did it feel or perform like a $1500 lens.


3
EOS Bodies / Re: Are you planning to purchase a 7D2
« on: August 27, 2014, 10:42:17 AM »
90% sure I will get one. It just may not be immediately though.

4
Lenses / Re: Has anyone tried new 10-18 on a full frame?
« on: August 23, 2014, 08:58:38 AM »
I don't think the lens will physically mount on the FF cameras...

5
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 22, 2014, 02:52:34 PM »
So how confident is CR that this new camera will be called "7D Mark II"?

Sounds like a good camera on paper - only interested in one thing though and that is high ISO performance.

6
I'm not a pro but I've shot some ice skating shows - same type of thing.

Using flash wouldn't even enter my mind as a remote possibility - as everyone else has already said, it's a safety issue and you don't want to blind the athletes/performers. Plus, its use is banned anyway (people with small P&S/smartphones fire off regardless). But that aside, I don't think it would even help very much...I prefer natural lighting anyway.

I know the noise struggle...especially at shows that are poorly lit and even 2.8 isn't enough (on the 7D) to stop action without overstepping the ISO 3200 boundary. I've tried DxO Optics Pro and while it's great at what it does, it is FAR too slow when one is dealing with hundreds of images...

7
Site Information / Re: NEW ___ Sell Your Gear - Beta Test
« on: August 19, 2014, 09:58:16 PM »
Cool idea!

Is this fee going to be a one-time fee or a monthly subscription type fee?

8
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D3 No Longer in Production
« on: August 17, 2014, 11:14:41 AM »
Doesn't sound right...it must be some kind of mistake.

In fact, if it's Best Buy I'm almost SURE it's a mistake. Don't get me started with them...

9
I use both the 5D mk III and the 7D. I like have both, it is like have two sets of lenses. That being said if i am close enough i will always go to the 5D.

Same here. If I am not reach-limited, it will almost always be the 5D/6D. If I am, then the 7D offers more reach (at the cost of more noise).

10
EOS Bodies / Re: 7D or wait for update...
« on: August 09, 2014, 11:35:13 AM »
Faced this situation last year. Sold the 60D shortly after getting a FF camera in anticipation of the new 7D (or 70D) becoming available in time for an event where I needed the reach of 1.6x again. (Last time I will ever make a purchasing/selling decision based on a "rumor". I've learned!)

Turns out that the 70D got delayed, and thus wouldn't be available in time...so I was forced to scramble and ended up grabbing a used 7D for just over $800. However, after trying the 70D later, it appears I made the right decision...the 70D just felt like a beefed up 60D while the 7D felt truly pro-grade. But the 7D shows its age when shooting at high ISO. I found that while it's an upgrade over the 60D in handling and speed, it's a downgrade(!) in image quality. Not a big one, but it was noticeable in my sports shots. The keeper rate was a bit higher though, hence the tradeoff...


11
EOS Bodies / Re: Reports of EOS 7D Reaching End of Life [CR2]
« on: August 05, 2014, 01:12:06 PM »
Switching from a 60D to a 6D made a HUGE difference in my shots taken at book signings, even with the same 70-200 2.8 lens. When one is not reach-limited, FF is a million times better than any crop camera. Of course, using the 6D meant needing to get a little closer to get the same shots I got with the 60D, but at least I could do so. As a bonus, 70mm is no longer super-awkward...it's actually useful!

With the ice shows, it's a different story though. I AM reach-limited in that case and the range of the 1.6x (later swapped the 60D for a 7D) is ideal. But the 7D really struggles when the lighting is poor (as is the case at many of these events). I could use the FF but that means giving up reach and more work in cropping afterwards. I really would like a 7D successor for this...the existing equipment works just fine but it would be nice to get cleaner shots without having to sacrifice anything.

12
Canon General / Re: What is your Least Used Piece of Gear?
« on: July 31, 2014, 03:28:45 PM »
It varies, but I think overall it'd have to be the 135mm f/2. At one point it sat for over a year unused. When finally called upon, boy did it come in handy...of course, hasn't been used since. The niche it fills is REALLY small. (Before, it was the 35 1.4 but it's since been sold...despite my not using the 135 much I wouldn't give it up)

Although the 85 1.2 may eventually overtake the 135 (only test shots so far, no plans for use in near future)

13
Lenses / Re: Canon 24-70 f/4L IS disappointing?
« on: July 29, 2014, 11:16:36 AM »
Another observation - compared to the 2.8 II version, even at 70mm the 2.8 is noticeably better than the 4 when both are set to f/4. I was truly hoping for a smaller, lighter, slower version of the 2.8 lens but the 4 (at least the one I tried) just doesn't have the resolving power of the 2.8, even factoring in the IS.

Compare to the 70-200 series where the 4 and 2.8 are near equals!

14
Lenses / Re: Canon 24-70 f/4L IS disappointing?
« on: July 28, 2014, 11:44:13 PM »

My second copy definitely was better than the first. But your copy sounds super bad at 50mm.



Thankfully it wasn't "my copy" so to speak, just one I got to try at a local store...it seemed fine at 24 and at 70 but at 50 it's probably the worst performance I've seen. I expect FAR better from a lens in that class/price range. Even my 18-55 kit lens + M is superior...

It was bad enough that I would have figured there was something wrong with it. Haven't written it off yet, though - I really would like to test another one. Problem is that the "bad one" is the only one available to test (so far). We'll see, perhaps that's a good thing...

15
Lenses / Re: Canon 24-70 f/4L IS disappointing?
« on: July 28, 2014, 10:30:43 AM »
Clearly this forum is not the place to hang out if you're trying to avoid buying more stuff (sigh)

Anyway, yes, I have seen the reviews of the 24-70 f4 and remain confused. I was wondering why so many gave such a high impression of this lens (with the exception of TDP which shows awful performance at 50mm)...I went to my local store to try one out and it confirmed the mediocre performance at 50mm f4 (ok, trying to be nice - it simply sucked at 50). It was very good at 24mm (much better than the 24-105 and close to the 24-70 2.8 II)...got worse as I zoomed in. At 35 it was just ok...at 50 no part of the image was sharp. Center was just barely passable, toward the edges - I thought my 24-105 was meh at 24, but (!!!)...and then it improved again at 70mm but it's still not as good as it was at 24. Macro mode seemed cool but gimmicky at the same time. Performance wise the macro mode seemed to be fairly good (of course, not in the league of the 100L but WAY better than anything in its class).

Basically, with the exception of 24mm f4, this seemed like a step DOWN from the 24-105 which really surprised me given reviews I've read singing its praises. Then, finally I stumble upon some reviews docking it for its performance at 50mm (and threads like this)...I wonder if that was just a bad copy that the store had. Unfortunately it's the only copy they have too...I'd like to try out another one to see if it's any better.

So...sounds like it's normal to see a drop in performance in that lens at 50, but it shouldn't be a dramatic one?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 22