January 26, 2015, 10:36:26 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 - Act444

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 25
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Test Camera [CR1]
« on: March 28, 2013, 10:22:29 PM »
Actually, if the 70D or 7DII (whatever) had those same specs, but the sensor had a 2/3 - 1 stop improvement in high ISO performance, that's more than adequate for me.

EOS Bodies / Re: Here I go, the Full Frame way!!
« on: March 28, 2013, 10:11:20 PM »

I sold the 60D I had in hopes of getting a decent amount for it before the 70D came out. I love the additional reach of crop but the mediocre high ISO performance (above 1600) was really becoming a drag. That's when I decided to spring for the FF 5D. I haven't gotten to use it too much (winter, etc.) but when I did, the IQ was amazing. The last straw with the 60D was shooting an outdoor nighttime sporting event - I had the 5D at the time but elected to take the 60D for the extra reach (I knew it would come in handy). I put the 70-200 2.8 lens on it and the show lighting was absolutely atrocious. This resulted in vastly underexposed/ISO 3200 shots at the shutter speeds I needed to freeze the action, and the resulting noise stripped so much detail out of the photos that I think I may as well have taken the 5DIII and cropped after the fact...and my hit rate probably would have been higher too. (this is noise that's visible even in 640x480 crops!)

Anyway, I still want a decent APS-C camera to supplement the 5D. I'm hoping for a beefed up 70D (7DII probably will cost too much/have to wait too long) that will have better AF tracking for sports. Still cheaper - and lighter! - than one of those massive 400mm or 500mm behemoths...

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Test Camera [CR1]
« on: March 28, 2013, 08:58:43 PM »
It's just a test camera, a rumored spec list, etc. Wouldn't put much (if any) stock in it. That said, I admit to not being too excited. It comes down to what the price will be in the end.

EOS-M / Re: To buy M or not to buy M?
« on: March 27, 2013, 09:40:30 PM »
I have the M and have used it a few times. I have both the 22mm and the 18-55mm lenses. No adapter (tried it and the focus with standard EF lenses was far too slow for my liking)

Unlike many posters here, I didn't buy it so much as a replacement or even complement to my DSLR as I did get it to replace my SD950IS Elph. I bought it as a small everyday camera and use it for the same things I would have used the Elph for (read: places where a DSLR is either inconvenient or not allowed). FOR THAT PURPOSE it excels. The IQ runs circles around the SD950IS and (using the 22mm lens) rivals my old 60D in quality. The two big drawbacks I see are a) lack of built-in flash and b) AF can hunt sometimes. The AF is no worse than the SD950IS in most cases (sometimes it is slower at wide angle, but at telephoto it's significantly faster - the SD950IS would take at least 2-3 seconds to focus zoomed all the way in).

The 22mm lens provides great IQ - comparable to, say a 60D with the 40mm 2.8. OTOH, the 18-55mm I find to be very average, even mediocre in non-ideal lighting situations. Even then it's STILL better than the SD950IS. Disappointingly, though, sometimes there's not much difference (usually shooting ISO 3200 indoors/no flash).

But the biggest upgrade from the Elph for me? The ability to shoot RAW...this keeps my workflow consistent and gives me the same options/flexibility for editing as if I used my 5D.

As a P&S replacement - get it, it won't let you down. As a DSLR replacement - not recommended. As a complement/backup to a DSLR - perhaps I would wait and try out the new Rebel SL1 first.

If the MP count stays at 18 MP - no.

If the high ISO performance shows no improvement - yes.

Most people who get Rebels leave the stock lens on - or at best, get a 50mm 1.8...

How would you know? Just because the people in this forum are so well-off that they don't use Rebels with L glass?

Because 80-90% of the people I see shooting with Rebels out in the field are doing so with the stock lens...mind you, it's only from my own experience and I realize there are many that use much more expensive lenses with them. I was one of them (I used the 70-200 F4 IS with it)

About this AFMA talk - I had the 60D (just sold it) and got along perfectly fine without the AFMA feature - at least, until I got the 40mm 2.8 (has a weird backfocus at longer distances)...and a 24-85mm lens that front-focuses. Would have been nice to be able to try to correct it in-house before needing to send it back. At least my current 5D has it, and although I haven't needed to use it yet, good to know it's there just in case.

I don't think it's really necessary on Rebels since the focusing on them tends to be inconsistent anyway (at least that was the case with my old T2i). AFMA wouldn't fix that. But definitely, leaving it out of the 60D was a ? move. In the vast majority of cases, I didn't really need it anyway.

Most people who get Rebels leave the stock lens on - or at best, get a 50mm 1.8...I'm sure if the focus is found to be off, it's simply exchanged for a new one.

About this SL1 - I think it's a great idea, actually and I think it will sell well. Everyone's looking for smaller cameras that can still take a decent-quality shot. I'd love to try one out myself when I get the chance. Curious especially to see how the handling is compared to the M. The only thing that might stop me from actually picking one up might be the focusing system - it's identical to the T2i focusing system which gave me fits with fast-aperture lenses...extremely inconsistent focusing especially near MFD, etc (and again, AFMA would have been useless here)...the M, although slower, is more accurate. I'd mainly be looking to pair a prospective SL1 with the 40mm 2.8 and perhaps a 35mm f2 IS (as a backup to the 5D/travel alternative) so it would need to be able to focus properly with those lenses.

Lenses / Re: small primes to go with SL1?
« on: March 22, 2013, 09:45:31 AM »
Hmm...how about the new 24 and 28mm 2.8 IS lenses?

Honestly, in my experience I find that it's technique first, lens second, camera third.

If you want good pics of any sport, the right technique is the key...also, understanding the sport you are shooting so you can get the timing down I've found to be key.

Second, the lens is a much more limiting factor than the body. A 70-200 (f4 if shooting day games, f2.8 if shooting evening or night) should be sufficient IF you are close to the action (on sidelines/first 5 rows).

Third, if the camera body has a decent AF system you may get more keepers. But without the right technique and/or lens, even the fanciest body won't give you the shots you want.

EOS-M / Re: EOS M Firmware Coming Soon
« on: February 11, 2013, 07:00:21 PM »
This would definitely be welcome by me. Having used it in a few "real-world" situations (not just firing test shots in my room), I do find myself occasionally missing shots because the camera didn't focus fast enough (or at all).

The lack of sharpness on the 24-70 at 50mm (compared to the 24-105) jumped out at me when I looked at the TDP resolution charts...so it wasn't just my imagination then- something is going on there.

Perhaps that's the compromise they had to make optically in order to squeeze in the macro function- who knows. Still would have expected more at that price point.

Reviews / Re: Any thoughts yet on the Canon 24-70 f/4 IS
« on: January 12, 2013, 12:16:31 PM »

So, not a copy variation issue; likely a design characteristics of the lens.

That's the first thing that came to my mind...but then again, it depends on where the three samples came from. Were they taken from the same "batch"? Or different ones? When there's a defect, it usually manifests itself in a particular batch, rather than being "randomly spread out".

I'd like to see him test a 4th one a month or so from now. Still, you'd probably have to (randomly) test 50 or 100 of these lenses to make such a determination...

Reviews / Re: Any thoughts yet on the Canon 24-70 f/4 IS
« on: January 11, 2013, 08:35:01 PM »

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)

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.

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.

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 25