March 02, 2015, 12:23:25 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 - Axilrod

Pages: 1 ... 78 79 [80] 81 82 ... 92
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 5D X Speculation
« on: January 24, 2012, 10:30:48 AM »
To summarize the last 25 pages of rumor on this body:

(akiskev's image, nicely done)

Anyone else see those 4 little lights under the screen on the left?  Wonder what those are for...

Lenses / Re: What lenses should I get for my 7d? (16 year old)
« on: January 23, 2012, 10:30:15 PM »

I would suggest that APS-C owners do care about the IQ of their images and sometimes the only way is through the L route

Well, that was certainly the case for me. I am very demanding as far as image quality goes (if I was going to spend the money on a DSLR, I wanted significantly better quality than my point-and-shoot and I wasn't really getting it with the stock lens). I was never really part of the "L or nothing crowd" but funny thing- 2 years later, only one of my lenses is not L (that's the 17-55 2.8 ) Although I did have the 85 1.8 for a short while before trading it in.

17-55 is an L in disguise, aside from the somewhat poor weather sealing I think it's an excellent lens, wonderful IQ.

EOS Bodies / Re: *UPDATE* 5D Mark III Sighting?
« on: January 23, 2012, 10:25:35 PM »
It could very well be a EOS Movie prototype.  I'm sure they are out there. 

As to pricing of the 5D MK III, Nikon Rumors has a price estimate of $3K for the D800, which is where the D700 started.  I doubt that a 5D MK III will be far off this price.

Nothing about the pictures looks like a video shoot, no tripods, no stabilization, guy is always looking through the viewfinder, etc.  I think stills when I think of a safari. 

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III Sighting?
« on: January 23, 2012, 06:03:01 PM »
Oh dear god, no.  Not that stupid mode dial unlock button.  To me, that's one of the most useless additions that Canon can put on a semi-pro body.  I can see the reason for putting it on the 60D, but come on.  Anyone using a 7D or higher should have some idea of what they're doing and in all my years of photography I've never heard of anyone accidentally switching the mode dial unintentionally.  If the new 5D is in fact coming standard with the unlock button, I hope that one can "downgrade" and remove it.  Even for a fee, I'd do it.

I'm also really digging the new grip.

I have, running 3 cameras shooting video and kept accidentally turning the dial while turning the camera on.  I mean when you flip the switch its pretty easy to accidentally nudge the dial at the same time, it happen several times.  I kept thinking someone was switching it to aperture priority and was getting very frustrated.  It happens, maybe not to you, but it does.  You don't have to use the lock if you don't want to.

Lenses / Re: What is Lens IQ?
« on: January 23, 2012, 11:08:29 AM »
Image quality (IQ) is what you make of it.   :P

Seriously, it's the quality of an image delivered by the lens, and that's affected by several parameters.  Many people equate IQ with sharpness, but it's important to recognize that sharpness is only one characteristic of IQ, and sharpness itself has multiple meanings.  Other characteristics include contrast and color rendition.  There are various distortions and aberrations that affect IQ - geometric distortion, spherical aberration, chromatic aberrations (lateral and axial), vignetting, flare, etc.   

The recording medium also affects IQ - a lens does not function in isolation (although there are ways to test lenses in isolation, those are practically meaningless, since as a lens user, you need a camera to use the lens with).  Higher MP sensors result in an increase in perceived sharpness, but also sometimes magnify the effects of aberrations. 

Post-processing is another factor, involving yet more tradeoffs.  Many of those aberrations listed above can be corrected by software (especially geometric distortion, lateral CA, and vignetting).  However, some of those corrections result in a loss of sharpness in the corrected areas. 

So...I guess what it boils down to is that a lens with great IQ takes pretty pictures.  :P

I'd recommend not getting too hung up on lens sharpness - there are a lot of things you can do to increase the IQ of your images that don't depend directly on the lens.  For example, if you're shooting static subjects, using a tripod helps enormously.  Using a lens hood can increase contrast and color saturation in your images compared to the same lens without a hood.  Etc.

Or, if you prefer, go buy yourself an ISO 12233-type chart that costs more than some L-series lenses, and go nuts...  Heck, it works for me!   ;D

Those charts cost that much?

Lenses / Re: What about a new 50/1.4 ??
« on: January 22, 2012, 11:57:46 PM »
Is there any news about a replacement of the (very) old 50/1.4 ??

There have been rumors of an update, and as many times as they've updated the 50 1.8, it doesn't sound unreasonable.  Also, the 50 1.4 is an incredibly popular lens, I had one before the 50L, and its been the first prime purchase for a lot of  my friends new to DSLRs.


I wonder if the exclusion of f8 is in part to sell big lenses that have come out?

I think it's more that it's easier to lock focus at f/8 vs. f/2.8 (much more shallow depth of field at f/2.8, harder to focus).  I think the reason the previous poster was saying it wasn't for him because an f/5.6 lens with a TC loses a few stops so it would end up having a max aperture of f/8 and he wouldn't be able to use AF.  I could be totally wrong..

Could also mean that Canon might start looking at lower f stops on their lenses. Say f2.8 as a base, not f4 like is the current standard.

Highly unlikely, the larger the aperture the more expensive the lens.  Every lens would need more glass, they would be larger and much more costly.  I mean something like a 600mm or 800mm f/2.8 would be insanely big and would probably require refinancing your house to buy it.  There would be no such thing as a reasonably priced zoom if they were all f/2.8.   

Lenses / Re: What lenses should I get for my 7d? (16 year old)
« on: January 22, 2012, 04:26:24 PM »

Call me cynical, but from everything that has been posted about the used, broken, refurb, and new prices of these lenses, as well as how the OP has described this all....I'm not a betting man, but if I was, my money is on the lenses being stolen.  If it's too good to be true...

You're not cynical, you're just being logical and realistic based on previous experience.  I've purchased almost all my lenses used, I know a good deal when I see one, but none of the deals I've gotten were anywhere close to this (maybe the 14L II for $1100, but that's one lens).  One person having all the lenses this guy is talking about at below 1/2 price is highly unlikely.

Lenses / Re: fill the void -17mm to 24mm
« on: January 22, 2012, 12:21:32 PM »
maybe the Zeiss ZE 21mm f2.8?

That's an awesome one, I'm having a tough time deciding between that and the 24L II.  I really only used my 16-35mm for the wide end and with the 14mm it seems unnecessary, so I guess I'm going to sell it for the Zeiss 21 or 24L

if you thinking indeed about a 24mm -------take  look at the TS-E. I did, and will not look back
Zeiss 21 is a great lens too, according to reviews...and then there is the other TS-E (17mm)

I've actually never played with a TS-E, do you enjoy yours that much?  I always thought they seemed pricey and somewhat limited in terms of functionality.  If you don't tilt and shift it's just a plain 24mm right?

Lenses / Re: I can't believe I bought a $2000 prime.
« on: January 22, 2012, 12:17:09 PM »
It is a big chunk of cash for a glass. But it really does perform. I think dollies and sliders are way too overpriced, but thats just me. Just think of it this way. You can get years of good great photos with this lens and then if you want, you can sell it without much loss. These lenses hold their value quite well.

I agree, I try to look at lens purchases as me "renting" them with a full price deposit on them.  I know that if I ever need to "return" them, it's only a few clicks on Craigslist away.

Lenses / Re: I can't believe I bought a $2000 prime.
« on: January 22, 2012, 12:15:11 PM »
So I just purchased the 85L ii a couple days ago from BH and it came out to a total of $1860.  And while I'm anticipating it's arrival, I'm like... "man, that's really expensive."  Could have bought a Philip Bloom Pocket Dolly, 85 1.8 and a 135L w/ that money.  Theses stupid mind games big companies use against you.... I have an L addiction.

It's an awesome lens, but you mentioning what you could have had instead is making me question my owning one haha.  I haven't actually paid $2k for a prime, although the 14L II and 85L II both retail for around that.

 I don't' think I could ever have brought myself to pay $2000+ for the 14L II, but for $1100 I was all over it.

Lenses / Re: What lenses should I get for my 7d? (16 year old)
« on: January 21, 2012, 03:51:44 PM »

Actually, it's none of the above lol. He knows someone who works at canon. They are also used lenses, not new but in great condition

So you know someone that knows someone that works at Canon?  Your friend could be completely full of crap (most 16 year olds are), just keep that in mind.  The 100L Macro is $843 refurbished from Canon, so that would imply that your friend gets 60% off lenses, which is a pretty extreme discount.  And most businesses put measures in place to avoid people abusing their employee discount, so I'd be careful with that.

When I worked at Apple you could get 25% off 1 notebook and/or 1 desktop once a year.  Then you could also use a friends and family discount of 15%, 3 times per year.  But the crazy part was that they could ask you to prove that you owned it if they suspected you were buying stuff to resell. 

Lenses / Re: What lenses should I get for my 7d? (16 year old)
« on: January 21, 2012, 12:32:27 AM »
I got my 100mmL macro for double that price and I was happy. The 70-200mm f2.8L is a top lens, IQ wise it's awesome (though not as good as the IS version) and the price is decent.

The reviews on the mk1 70-200 f/2.8 IS all say the IQ is worse than the non IS - can you still buy the mk 1 in the US?

The OP said his friend would sell him a 70-200 f/2.8 IS for $750, Willrobb misread it and thought he was talking about the non-IS 70-200 f/2.8, or he saw the price and assumed it had to be.

Don't mean to sound crude, but it sounds like the lens is farting...

Pages: 1 ... 78 79 [80] 81 82 ... 92