December 23, 2014, 12:15:06 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 ... 16 17 [18] 19 20 ... 24
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Black specks on 5D Mark III
« on: September 02, 2012, 12:43:14 PM »
I've got a couple specks on my 60D viewfinder and tried cleaning the eyepiece to no avail. Must have gotten inside...oh well. It's mainly only visible in bright light (outside sun) but at least it doesn't show up in pics. Still, if anyone knows an easy way to clean, I'd be all ears...

I kind of feel like we're seeing a consensus here on a few issues - that being learning and gaining experience trumps gear when judging image quality.  Gear gives you more options, but those options are really only available to you if you spend that time learning the gear.

you nailed it, that's exactly the way I feel.

Also, it helps to get the right "gear" for the type of photography you do, rather than just fancy gear that makes you look cool. I mean, I think the 5D Mark III is a great camera...killer AF & high ISO...but despite being able to afford one, I will pass. Why? Prefer the reach of a 1.6x camera, and the 1.6x suits the type of photography I like to do. Would I like better high ISO performance or more AF points than what my 60D offers? Would love it, actually, but not willing to give up reach (or spend crazy $) for them. Fairly happy with the 60D...just wish it were able to adjust for slight focus errors in lenses so I don't need to send them back if AF is off a little.

Well, HAVE they? :P

I dunno. I mean, I've been interested in photography for a very long time- once the transition to digital happened, I basically stuck with P&S compacts while mulling upgrading to a DSLR for the longest time...the breaking point however happened when I got to go to this really great (indoor) Q&A event...I took back and EVERY SINGLE FLASH PHOTO with a person in it had red-eye...and every non-flash shot was grainy and blurry. I just got sick and tired of not being able to get decent shots indoors (or in non-"sunny, blue sky" lighting) then the Rebel T2i came out and I got myself one right away. I had the impression that getting a DSLR would improve my photos overnight. Well, shocker- it didn't. I found out rather quickly that if I was going to get the pictures I wanted, I needed to learn to use this thing...and also get a better lens as the kit lens quality was DEFINITELY not $800 better than my Canon Elph.

The main issue was that I had rather high expectations. I guess I was expecting closer to professional-quality photos since I now had what laypeople seem to refer to as a "professional" camera. My point is, I suppose, it wasn't the camera itself so much as it was my working to fulfill this new, higher expectation I had from it that ended up having the biggest impact on my photos. It involved several trips to the camera store, several hours/days/weeks reading about photography basics and talking to people, thousands of shutter clicks and, of course, thousands of dollars spent on the type of lenses required to meet my IQ expectations. And it's a learning process that I'm still going through right now.

I guess, now I can pick up my iPhone or Elph and under the right conditions, get somewhat better shots than I used to, but having the right camera REALLY helps. Makes things so much easier...BUT- there IS a learning curve that has to be overcome before you get the desired results.

EOS Bodies / Re: Anyone else preorder the EOS M yet?
« on: August 24, 2012, 05:30:12 PM »
Oh man. Just had a chance to play around with the T4i live view mode. There were times I had to wait up to FIVE (!!!) seconds for the camera to lock focus. I'd think Canon would at least try to speed things up a bit for a camera system purely dependent on this focus scheme...because otherwise I'm not sure how useful this camera would be (if at all).

EOS Bodies / Re: Anyone else preorder the EOS M yet?
« on: August 23, 2012, 08:00:51 PM »
I've been looking at this camera as a potential replacement for my SD950IS camera, and as a backup/travel camera to supplement my 60D. While I'm excited about it and its potential, I might wait for at least 1-2 reviews on a final version of the product before I pull the trigger.

OTOH, I've already started considering possible lenses for use with it, since just about every lens I have would be impractical for a camera that small. With the exception of the 40 2.8, that is.

- The stock 18-55 zoom appears to be junk. Sorry if I offend anyone, but after looking at Canon's sample images taken with that appears to be no better than the DSLR version of the 18-55 (kit lens). So...I've been eyeing another general walkaround zoom that can be comfortably used with that camera. I've settled for the (now discontinued) 24-85mm 3.5-4.5 lens, probably the most compact zoom Canon makes. It's apparently the size of the EF-S 60 Macro (I'll find out in just a moment). And while it's no 24-105 4 or 24-70 2.8, it's definitely a step up in quality from the 18-55 from what I've read. And believe it or not, a 24-85 used + the EF adapter only comes out to be a little more than what they're asking for the 18-55 M. Only downside is no IS, but I think I can deal with that.

- The 50mm 1.8 I think would be perfect for a camera like this. I was thinking of the 40mm 2.8, but the extra 1+ stop of the 50 might come in handy. Until they come out with an M-mount version of the 50 that can match or surpass the SLR version in quality, this is a good (and inexpensive) solution to get DSLR-level quality in a compact package.

- And, of course, there is the stock 22mm lens that comes with the camera. Makes the camera small and pocketable (?), which is nice, and it would make the M a great 2nd camera to stuff in my DSLR camera bag. However, I'd like to have a little more reach by default.

But all this might be moot if they don't fix some big issues. The slow AF reports are concerning.

Lenses / Re: 70-300L or 70-200 2.8 IS II?
« on: August 15, 2012, 01:49:06 AM »

Ummm no.  The 70-200L II IS is sharper than the 70-300L.

I have to agree. Although the margin (difference) is actually quite small near the long end, and at smaller apertures (probably won't notice a difference, honestly). But at 70mm there's no contest, the 70-200 is clearly better.

Software & Accessories / Re: Other photography websites...
« on: August 14, 2012, 07:48:35 PM »
I had some stuff on was a great way to share my photos with "the public" (non-FB friends)...but I soon reached my limit for a free user (200 images)- ultimately I just decided to put everything on FB instead (also allowed me to tag the relevant folks in select shots)

Lenses / Re: 70-300L or 70-200 2.8 IS II?
« on: August 14, 2012, 04:05:08 PM »
I have both lenses- the one question I would ask to make this decision is whether you'll be shooting majority OUTDOORS or INDOORS. If OUTDOORS, go with the 70-300 because it is (much!) lighter, and there is plenty of light available so the variable aperture isn't really a problem. If INDOORS, go with the 70-200 because the extra stop(s) will be extremely valuable, especially if you dislike shooting w/flash (like myself).

Lenses / Re: If you can have ONLY 3 lenses, what would they...???
« on: August 14, 2012, 01:53:54 PM »
I have several lenses but if I chose only 3:

24-105 4
70-200 2.8
35 1.4

Lenses / Re: Travelling zoom
« on: August 14, 2012, 12:58:37 AM »
If you're willing to give up some range (but get better IQ for it) then have a look at the 24-105 as well. Great walkaround for me, in terms of general photography.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D3 for sports/action?
« on: August 13, 2012, 05:05:16 PM »
Interesting comments, all.

I'm not a sports photographer but I have tried to shoot a few action events with my 60D. I get relatively mixed results. I wouldn't recommend it if your job depends on it, or you MUST get *THE* shot, but for casual everyday shooting it is OK. Coupled with a 70-200 2.8 lens the hit rate is OK- many non-keepers were my bad, but there were others where the camera did miss focus. Other times I find myself having to wait for the camera to clear buffer, missing a shot or two in the process (I shoot RAW). I feel that it just might be the limits of an aging 9-pt AF system though.

I started a similar thread earlier as I was looking at the 28-300 for the same reason- at certain events I find the 24-105 not long enough for some shots, and when I have the 70-300 sometimes I find myself wanting to go wider. From reading reviews It seems the 28-300 delivers comparable performance to the 24-105 at the respective focal lengths, but once you get past 100mm it can't deliver the IQ of a decent telephoto. (seems like very average or even mediocre performance, especially considering the $2500 price tag & weight).

My take is that this is a lens you use when you want a good quality general walkaround (focal lengths 28-100mm), but would also like telephoto coverage (100-300mm) when necessary, without the hassle of switching lenses. In that case, an average-quality shot is better than a missed shot.

Heat is one thing- how about humidity though? Sometimes it can get rather sticky here. (I'm not talking about the condensing type like after you shower, but the sticky outdoor summer type humidity)

EOS Bodies / Re: A New 100-400 & Coming Announcements [CR2]
« on: July 26, 2012, 12:09:41 AM »
Might be alone here, but curious to see what other EF-M lenses may be coming...

Focus seemed to be faster when using the center point(s). The corners of the frame rely on the (much) slower contrast-detect focus, and that's what this user was using so it makes sense. How does it do with a regular EF lens when focusing with those center points?

Also, I wonder how tough it would be to get a sharp image particularly since you are forced to hold the camera away from your body, which removes one aid in stabilization. Particularly with longer non-IS lenses (say, 85 1.8 ), probably would need pretty fast shutter speeds, I would take it? Hopefully an EF-M lens in the 60-80 mm range with IS materializes to fill this gap.

Perhaps a EF-M telephoto option (even the EF-S 55-250 looks pretty ridiculous on that tiny camera, haha) might be in the works too, but that wouldn't really matter to me personally anyway.

Pages: 1 ... 16 17 [18] 19 20 ... 24