September 20, 2014, 10:15:13 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 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 22
151
Reviews / Re: Any thoughts yet on the Canon 24-70 f/4 IS
« on: January 11, 2013, 08:35:01 PM »
Interesting...

Notice, however, that with all 3 copies of the 24-70, it is weakest at 50mm? The 24-105 beats it handily at 50mm (as does the 24-70 2.8 ), and distortion aside, the performance of the 24-70 at 50 ~ 24-105 at 24.

ETA: I dunno, if this is supposed to be the 24-105 replacement/upgrade, to be giving up the 71-105mm range and pay 2x the price I would have expected big improvement across the ENTIRE 24-70mm range. Unless one needs the macro and shoots exclusively at 24mm, may as well stick with the 24-105 (or save a few bucks and get the 24-105)

152
EOS-M / Re: My First EOS-M Review
« on: November 22, 2012, 08:07:37 PM »
I took some test shots with the 18-55 at my camera store (was looking to get one soon), put them on my card to evaluate...I was underwhelmed.

Build quality is MUCH better than the DSLR version, but IQ seems to be about the same, unfortunately. Images lacked sharpness and pop, even shooting in RAW. The 22mm is noticeably better. (I don't know if I was given a bum sample or what...I see people saying it's sharp but I cannot agree, unfortunately)

On the positive side, though- it feels nice and solid. Not cheap and plasticky like the EF-S version.

153
EOS-M / Re: My First EOS-M Review
« on: November 18, 2012, 12:32:43 PM »
FINALLY got to use the EOS M in the real world (a show I went to a couple of days ago, would not have gotten in with a 5D3). I just have to give a +1 to the incredible image quality out of this cam - I was pleasantly surprised, even in the low light. It's perfectly fine as an eventual replacement for my SD950IS - finally, a compact camera that can provide decent IQ!

Its weak point, as everyone has already said, is the AF. It's usually quick enough but on occasion it will hunt (go in and out) when it was in focus already- not sure why/how that happens, the SD950IS never did that- but hopefully that's something that can be tweaked/fixed in firmware. (Didn't stop me from getting a few cool action shots though  ;D )

I made use of the continuous shooting mode several times. It's actually quite responsive and coupled with the manual control allowed me to get shots I likely would not have captured with the SD950IS.

The 22mm lens was a bit wider than I would have liked for many shots (provided a good perspective when the action was close, though)...I would really like to see a ~50mm fast prime lens that's either the same size as or just a little larger than the 22.

But comparing to the SD950IS - completely blows it out of the water in IQ, color reproduction and resolution. Plus I can shoot RAW and my workflow is the same as when I shoot with the DSLR. I still carried the SD950IS with me and used it when I wanted to get a little closer...comparing the pics, you can EASILY tell which camera took which shot.


154
Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: Help me decide: 270EXII vs 90EX
« on: November 12, 2012, 05:37:32 PM »
When I got the EOS M, I faced a similar choice. For me, it was easy- the 270 gives me a much more powerful strobe, tilt/bounce capability, is not all that much larger (still fits in a medium-size pocket!)- and it gives it to me FOR THE SAME PRICE. Plus, it doubles as a great pocket flash for the 5DIII since that one lacks a built-in.

My one criticism of it- and it can be a major one, a dealbreaker even- is start-up time. While the 600EX RT is ready very quickly (assuming fresh batteries), the 270EX II can take 15 sec + to charge up. If you just want to pop this thing on and take a quick shot, you may miss it. I'm not sure about the 90EX- it may (or may not) be faster.

155
EOS-M / Re: My First EOS-M Review
« on: November 09, 2012, 08:10:43 PM »
I did not.

To be honest I'm really not a fan of "touch to shoot". Harder to steady the camera that way...plus, to me it feels unnatural, at least when hand-holding it.

Maybe it would make more sense when tripod-shooting?

156
EOS-M / Re: My First EOS-M Review
« on: November 09, 2012, 03:11:19 PM »
Just tried the M with the adapter and my old 24-85mm lens. My goodness...focus is slooooowwwww...it makes the 22mm seem lightning quick in comparison. Average time seemed to be about 2-3 seconds to confirm! (On my 60D, it's quick, within a split second as is usual with USM lenses...it front focuses though)

Anyone else with the adapter + EF lenses getting focus times that slow?

157
Lenses / Re: Choosing a kit thinking long term
« on: November 08, 2012, 03:39:31 PM »
I would go with the 35L. Very natural FOV on the 60D and other 1.6x cameras.

The 70-200 2.8 is an excellent lens but in my opinion, it would seem way too obvious for street candids (it's big, it's white, it's heavy, it's attention-grabbing!)

Another option is to grab the 40mm 2.8 (excellent lens for the price) and then hold out for the new 6D (will come out to ~same price as 70-200). The 6D is supposed to be able to focus in lower light than any of the current Canon cameras currently out at the moment.

158
Thanks for the explanation. Even though I'm not the OP, I had the same question and was wondering the same thing.

That's a bummer, really. I think it's the only weather-sealed 50mm lens for the Canon system?

159
EOS-M / Re: My First EOS-M Review
« on: November 07, 2012, 02:08:06 AM »
I tend to agree that I probably would have to think hard (and also get more hands-on time with the camera) before recommending it as an ONLY camera. A major reason I can deal with its shortcomings is because the DSLR I already have compensates for them- and that played into my decision as well. For someone without a DSLR, the decision gets tougher. And at that price point you can have a DSLR, too. I guess it just comes down to whether you value portability or functionality more.

160
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 60D Microfocus Adjustment on FoCal
« on: November 06, 2012, 06:33:19 PM »
Wow, that would be awesome....I'm not much of a "hacker", but given that I have a couple lenses that could use adjustment, if they do manage to figure it out, it might be worth it...

161
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Would I benefit from going full frame?
« on: November 06, 2012, 05:49:18 PM »
It really depends on what you enjoy shooting. For me, I made the move because I found myself shooting a lot of indoor events, and I prefer to use ambient lighting over flash. I wanted better high ISO performance than what I was getting from my 60D/17-55 and I had some $ saved up so I decided to go for the 5DIII and 24-70.

The real benefit of FF is at the high ISOs - 1600 and higher. While I almost never pushed the 60D beyond 3200, I have the 5D's auto ISO set up to 6400 and even 12,800 is usable.

162
Canon General / Re: EOS-M kicking butt in Japan
« on: November 05, 2012, 04:16:06 PM »
At the store, I handled both the G1X and the EOS M. The M (with the 22mm) is the smaller of the two.

The G1X has a lot of dials (and a grip) so it "feels" much more like a miniaturized DSLR. Controls are basically the same and it has a flipscreen and built-in flash. But there was one thing that bugged the heck out of me when I tried it- its complete inability to focus close. Also, there isn't nearly as much background blur (perhaps sensor size coming into play here).

The M, on the contrary, feels more like a fancy, new-age Powershot with its touch-screen and minimalist factor. But its IQ is simply amazing for such a small camera (provided you stay at f2.8 or smaller). The lack of flash of viewfinder may be a deal-breaker for some but I can deal with it. Surprisingly despite its size, there is still a bit of heft to it, so you know you are holding something.

163
Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS
« on: November 05, 2012, 02:01:41 PM »

Also, regarding the 35mm non-L refresh, a number of points come to mind:

  • If this is similar to the 24 and 28 IS lenses, the touted price of $800 is absolutely worth it, and I'm strictly a still shooter.  This will be an L lens without a red ring.  The 28 I own is sharper than an equivalently stopped down 35L (i.e. it is not just useable, it is great wide open, and stellar at F/4).  The USM focusing is very fast, it's internally focusing, is very well built (on par with the 100L macro), and it's very small and unassuming.  Plus, F/2.8 (with the 24 & 28) or F/2 (with the new 35) with four stops IS are some of (if not the) most handholdable lenses you'll find.
     
  • This is good news for what I am really looking for, which is a newer, sharper, better 50 prime.  We're due, and though I'm bummed it's not happening now, this announcement marks the refresh of a third non-L prime.  This bodes well for future upgraded versions of the 50 prime and 85 prime -- both stellar values vs. their L counterparts, but both are also quite old.  Here's hoping.
    • Which begs the question, if I am looking for something better than my current Canon EF 50mm F/1.4 prime, do I look at the 1.2L or wait for this new non-L?  As mentioned before, prior non-L refreshes were sharper than their L counterparts, and they pack a houseload of modern features (ring USM, IS, etc.) over their pro counterparts.  Given all that, it begs the question why the non-Ls are getting the refresh/sharpness/feature updates before the Ls?
       
  • The 24/28 IS lenses take 58mm filters, but the rumored new 35 will jump from the current 52 filters to 67 filters.  That would likely mean a new 50 (with similar upgrades) might also go to 67mm.  As odd as that diameter is, since I already own the 100L macro, I'm all set.   8)
     
  • The only bummer I see with all these great non-Ls coming out is that I lose the weather sealing I have been accustomed to on my other L lenses.
     

- A

I have the 35L and it actually lacks weather sealing. So the only advantage it would have now over the new 35 is the extra stop of 1.4. I would be curious to see an IQ comparison...

then again, sharpness is not the whole equation. How well it controls fringing, the color reproduction, distortion, etc. are factors as well. I get the feeling the 35L will still be better in these areas.

164
Lenses / Re: Opinion: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS
« on: November 05, 2012, 12:07:14 PM »
I'd be curious to see how the new 35/2 compares with the current 35L in terms of IQ at f/2 and higher. It's already significantly smaller, lighter and has IS (with loss of 1 stop). Since the 35L has no weather sealing/is not significantly better built its only advantage would be the 1.4 (a very good one, as I love the look). Because of this I'd assume the 35L is due for an update soon at a price point probably closer to $2k...

165
Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS
« on: November 05, 2012, 11:29:04 AM »
The 24-105 is a great walkaround- 70mm just isn't enough reach on FF for that purpose.

24-70 is a good range for indoor events, but especially for people shots, 2.8 is better given that often times, they're moving around and faster shutter speeds are needed anyway.

I don't change lenses out in the field- I usually just pick one lens for the day and stick to it. Minimizes accidents, dust on sensor, etc.

If this lens were small and under ~$700 I'd consider it for the 60D. But doesn't sound like the price will be anywhere near that reasonable. Meh.

Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 22