February 01, 2015, 02:54:07 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 - Axilrod

Pages: 1 ... 79 80 [81] 82 83 ... 92
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Why canon?
« on: January 20, 2012, 09:33:21 PM »
I got a Canon Vixia camcorder in December 2009 and thought it was awesome.  But then I was over at my neighbor's (pro photographer)  and he pulled up a random video he had recorded at his last photo shoot.  I think my reaction was "That's the most HD S___ I've ever seen!"  Then I did some research, and ended up getting a T2i/18-55 kit.   

I was told I HAD to get other lenses, so I started looking and these were some of my noob thoughts:
1) I got 18MP yay, that must mean it's better than this guys 1DII since it's only 12mp!
2) Why are there so many 70-200mm and 70-300mm lenses?
3) I already have an 18-55IS, why is the 17-55IS $1000 more?!  For 1mm!?
4) Why is this 85mm cost $1800 more than this other 85mm?  I'm not sure what this f/number means but it's only .6 difference so how much better could it be?

I didn't know jack about photography but knew I had to learn if I wanted to use the thing properly.  Took 20,000 pictures over the following 8 months and decided that DSLRs were something I wanted to stick with.   

I bought a 5DII in November 2010, followed by 11 or 12 different L lenses over the course of 2011, gradually narrowing them down to the ones in my sig.  I've shot a pretty ridiculous amount of video, recorded over 60 bands with 2 5DIIs and a 7D, its pretty crazy how much you can learn in 2 years.  Thanks Canon.

Lenses / Re: 50mm f/1.2L and 85 f/1.8 VS. 50 f/1.4 and 85 1.2L
« on: January 20, 2012, 08:08:18 PM »
[quote author=Axilrod link=topic=2923.msg61397#msg61397  My 85L sits on the shelf a little more than I'd like, but I can't bring myself to get rid of it, it's unbelievably sharp even wide open.  But I use my 50L more than all my other lenses I'd say, it's super versatile and a lot of fun.

I use my 50L a lot, recently I got an 85mm Sigma and I really love it, it has great IQ and bokeh but it doesn't get used as much as any of my other lenses (maybe neck and neck with my 100mm 2.8L macro), which makes me glad I plumper for the Sigma over the 85LII.

I've heard great things about the Sigma as well, no sense spending $1800-$2000 on a lens you're not going to use that much.  For me the 85L is almost a work of art and I know whenever I do use it it's guaranteed to produce some awesome results.

Just read the article again and basically its doing exactly what the C300 is doing for down converting the video from 4K to 1080p.

Thought it sounded familiar but wasn't able to put my finger on it at first.

Its a good sign that the tech is cheap enough to produce by the sounds of it. Lets just hope that it gets here sooner rather than later.

I hope it does.  Someone mentioned that it may be released around the same time as the 5DIII, which would actually be a pretty good idea.  That would keep video people from buying a 5DIII and then realizing they made a mistake when the CDSLR arrives.

EOS Bodies / Re: The 5D Mark III Megapixel Count? [CR2]
« on: January 20, 2012, 07:34:10 PM »
Wow so let me get this straight it will have 5fps, not even as much as the 50D and not quite enough to really be even a decent low-end compromise for action, it won't even have as many AF points as the 7D and it might just be 5D2 AF with the outer points no x-type wow big change for nearing a decade and it won't even bump up the MP so no increase in reach or detail.

So why again am I not just sticking with my 5D2 or for finally for the first time ever truly seriously eying Nikon?

Yeah it should have better video but so should any upcoming 70D or 7D2.

So what we spend another nearly $3000 to upgrade to outer x-points and 1 extra fps and better video and a touch cleaner image and this is our FF body for the next four years?

When Nikon appears ready to offer 6fps with grip, top of the line pro AF, better video, and 36MP?

The sad thing is Canon has had the tech to blow away the Nikon offerings but they care so much about not hurting themselves internally they don't care if they give away the ship in the process.

This is a rumor, not an announcement.  And do you really think Canon would spend 3 years on the successor of one of their most celebrated cameras of all time for those few upgrades?  Come on now, they're smarter than that.

Lenses / Re: What lenses should I get for my 7d? (16 year old)
« on: January 20, 2012, 07:18:32 PM »
24-105 is a great lens for FF, on a crop, it is not wide enough. I'd get a Wide or UWA lens and then a tele.

Your choices for wides depend on how much you have to spend:

$250 - Sigma 15-30mm F3.5 DG EX IF
$400 - Samyang 14mm (MF)
$671 - EF 17-40 F4 L refurbed from Canon
$900 - EF-S 10-22mm

If you want something on the long end in roughly that price range, the 70-200mm F4 L IS is a great and very sharp lens. You could get a used one for your budget.

Hope this helps.

Did you read what he said?  He can get the 70-200 f/2.8 IS for $750, the 100L macro for $350, and the 10-22 for $450.  And he supposedly already got the 24-105 for $450. 

The only way I could see any of those prices being realistic is:
1) They are stolen
2) Your friend is rich and/or a complete fool that doesn't care about money
3) You meant the 70-200 f/4 non-IS instead of 70-200 f/2.8 IS, and the non-L 100 macro instead of the 100L macro. 

Lenses / Re: What lenses should I get for my 7d? (16 year old)
« on: January 20, 2012, 07:10:06 PM »
I would just buy everything that your friend is selling because those prices are absolutely unreal, buy all of them and resell them and you'll get double what you paid for them.  Even if you had a Nikon I would say buy all of those.  The 24-105 for $450 is ridiculous, they are $850-$950 used.

Maybe not the 10-22 for 450 (even though thats a pretty solid deal still), but the 100L Macro for $350?  Are you sure it's not the non-L macro?   A A 70-200 f/2.8 IS for $750?  That's a $2k lens and the cheapest I've EVER seen one was maybe $1100 used.  I paid $1500 for mine and I paid $900 for the 100L and thought that was a great deal.

As for the 70-200 having "soft focus," I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but the 70-200 is one of the sharpest zoom lenses I've ever used, so if you heard it's not sharp you heard wrong.

Something just doesn't sound right, your friend has literally the best deal I have ever seen on every single one of those lenses.....They are all like 1/2 the normal used price.

Lenses / Re: 50mm f/1.2L and 85 f/1.8 VS. 50 f/1.4 and 85 1.2L
« on: January 20, 2012, 07:03:58 PM »
I have to say that IQ wise, there's little difference between the 50 1.2L and 50 1.4. The bokeh is slightly better but the build quality is significantly better on the L. Thats one of the reason I only buy L lenses.

I agree, I've had all the lenses mentioned, and while the the 85L II and 50L are amazing lenses their cheaper counterparts are very very solid lenses (especially for the money).  But it's $800 worth of lenses vs $3500. 

As for the OP, I think it just depends on what you do more.  If you shoot a lot of portraits, I would go 85L/50 1.4, but if not I would definitely go 50L/85 1.8.  My 85L sits on the shelf a little more than I'd like, but I can't bring myself to get rid of it, it's unbelievably sharp even wide open.  But I use my 50L more than all my other lenses I'd say, it's super versatile and a lot of fun.

Lenses / Re: Going Wide on FF but which.
« on: January 20, 2012, 06:59:38 PM »
canon is lacking in wide zoom L lenses. hands down. this is where nikon kicks the crap out of canon.

come on canon, give us a FF 10-20mm f/2.8 L

As fun as that would be, it would take some serious engineering to make that happen.  But I do agree that the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 is a bad ass lens and I really wish Canon would make one.

Lenses / Re: Going Wide on FF but which.
« on: January 20, 2012, 04:39:29 PM »

Haven't tried the 50 f/1.4 yet, although it's on my list to buy (replace the 50 f/1.8 I have). 85 f/1.8 I love as well. Classic portraiture length, and pretty large aperture. Great value for the money in my book, even if supposedly it isn't as good as the 85 f/1.2.

The 85mm 1.2 isn't supposedly better than the 85 1.8, its a much better lens, no question.  The 85 1.8 is a great value and performs very well, but after using the 85L I could never go back. 

Lenses / Re: fill the void -17mm to 24mm
« on: January 20, 2012, 04:36:24 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

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Is the AF really that bad on the 5Dmk2
« on: January 19, 2012, 02:17:35 PM »
I don't think its "bad" at all, although it's subjective I suppose.  I think there are a lot of different settings that affect AF performance and lots of different combinations of said settings. If you use the wrong ones for the situation it could lead one to believe that the autofocus is bad.  I remember thinking it was initially, but after messing with the settings I feel it performs just fine. 

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: What makes a photographer, a photographer?
« on: January 18, 2012, 07:07:11 PM »
Amateurs worry about gear, pros worry about sales, photographers worry about light.     ;D

I like that, but what do you mean by worry about gear?  Like someone worried that they are lacking gear or worried about getting new gear?  Or just putting too much emphasis on gear in the general?  I know a guy that makes stupid amounts of money off stock and he loves his toys.  But he'll admit that his favorite pics were his 5DII/24-70 even though he has tons of other lenses and a that 40mp Hasselblad cam.  That's a pro. 

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: What makes a photographer, a photographer?
« on: January 18, 2012, 07:02:58 PM »
I'm not sure what you're asking either, but randomly/accidentally hitting a button without any thought on why you're doing it is definitely NOT it.   ;D

Are you high?

Landscape / Re: Winter Milky Way Time Lapse - (Canon 5D MK II)
« on: January 18, 2012, 02:28:08 PM »
I shoot Manual, @ f2.8 , in Raw.

Also to add: 30 second exposures, ISO 3200, White Balance 3400K. I don't think I mentioned those settings on here.

Harles99 - I was blown away by your video - truly well done.

One question though...  if you're taking 30 second exposures, how have you not got star trails?

Inspired by your pictures, I tried taking some images of the stars a few nights ago and found that above 15 seconds the stars start to trail   :-\

It depends on the focal length, the wider you're shooting the longer exposure you can use.  What lens were you using?

Lenses / Re: 35mm L vs. 135mm L. IQ?
« on: January 18, 2012, 10:59:07 AM »
This is kind of like comparing a Mercedes S600 with a Ferrari 458 Italia, they are both bad ass cars but serve different purposes.  35L and 135L are both AWESOME lenses and both have amazing IQ, but I just don't see the sense in comparing the two, seeing as the focal lengths are so far apart.

Pages: 1 ... 79 80 [81] 82 83 ... 92