April 16, 2014, 09:26:47 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 ... 81 82 [83] 84 85 ... 91
1231
Man I wouldn't worry about it too much, out of all the Canon lenses I've had I felt that this one needed an upgrade the LEAST. 

Just remember, when a new version of a lens comes out it's not like the older version becomes a bastard lens that gets thrown away or anything.  It's optics don't become any better or worse.

Phew, what a relief!  I read on another forum that as soon as a MkII comes out, the MkI versions all spontaneously melted down!   :P

The 35L could use weather-sealing.  Optically, it's very good, although it would probably benefit from the newer coatings designed for digital imaging.  But you're right in that pretty much all of the other L-series primes under 100mm that were updated had one or more issues that needed work, whereas the 35L really doesn't.

Haha, I agree.  I would rather see the 50L get updated first, but I suspect that isn't far off in the horizon.  And hell even the 85L could use faster AF, but then again its damn near perfect optically. 

1232
EOS Bodies / Re: Do you REALLY need a new camera?
« on: January 05, 2012, 05:48:14 PM »
What I really need is a Bugatti Veyron.

Sometimes when I go to pick up a pizza, especially in winter, it's not hot enough when I get it home. If I could go 200 mph, that would solve the problem.

And after the Veyron, I'll need a 1Dx to take a picture of it -- and the steaming hot pizza.

My needs may be different than yours. See manufacturer warranty for details.

A $2,000,000 car and a $1400 camera, seems like a fair comparison to me ::)

1233
Lenses / Re: Buying my first L lens...which one is best for video?
« on: January 05, 2012, 05:36:12 PM »
If you're set on getting a zoom:
7D - 17-55 f/2.8 IS, It's awesome on a crop body and has a super versatile range.
5DII - 24-70mm f/2.8

If you get primes you'll have better low light capability and sharper images with a beautiful bokeh.  But at the same time you have to "walk to zoom" and you don't have the convenience of a zoom.

You could get the Canon 50mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.8 for around $350 each used.  Or the Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 ($725) if you get the 5D, it's a great general purpose lens and it's better suited for video.

70-200 - I've had bad experience using the IS on the 70-200 for video, it seems to makes the rolling shutter worse.  As for shooting with the 70-200 handheld, you won't be pleased with the results.  You maybe could get away with it at 70mm but any more zoomed in and you'll need a tripod, slider, or some other type of stabilization. 

Regardless of what you do try getting something that is more wide.... if you end up with 1 telephoto lens it makes it much harder to improvise. 


1234
How much do you think the 24-70Lii and the 35L ii will start at?  I just bought my 35 for 1329...  Kinda wish i would have waited a tad longer.

Man I wouldn't worry about it too much, out of all the Canon lenses I've had I felt that this one needed an upgrade the LEAST.  I really think this is one of those lenses that is getting updated simply because there isn't a Mark II and the first version has been out a while. 

You got an awesome lens, just enjoy it and don't worry about the Mark II for now.  If a Mark II does come out, try renting it and see what the difference is like.  Then decide whether or not its worth selling your 35L and buying the new, more expensive version. 

Just remember, when a new version of a lens comes out it's not like the older version becomes a bastard lens that gets thrown away or anything.  It's optics don't become any better or worse.  People will still buy it, people will still love it, and people will continue to get great pictures out of it. 

1235
Canon General / Re: Canon 16-35 vs Tamron 17-50
« on: January 05, 2012, 03:40:14 PM »
I have the tamron 17-50 f/2.8 non-VC and I think it's one of the best standard zoom lenses you can get for APS-C

so much so that I think it doesn't make any sense to "upgrade" to canon L options, be it 17-40 or 16-35: depending on the settings, the image will range from very slightly better to actually worse, and price is a lot higher

the only upgrade I would consider is to the 17-55 f/2.8 IS, in case you need the sharpest standard zoom for APS-C and IS too, and are ready to pay for it; I haven't gone that route because again the difference is not huge, the price is steep and I don't need IS that much - and I wouldn't want to spend so much on a lens that won't work on fullframe, to use it on a camera that has no microadjustment

Thanks for the feedback. I actually find the Tammy slightly SHARPER then the 17-55, its lighter, cheaper, and more modern build to my taste. Alas, I understand from all the replies that for me to "upgrade" in a significant way - I need to consider FF or expensive wide primes. The zeiss 21mm 2.8 seems to be a gem - for a fortune!

Oh I didn't see that the 17-55 had already been mentioned.  I played with the Tamron 17-50 and don't recall being super impressed by any aspect of it, although I felt it was a great lens for the price.  Now the 17-55, I remember seeing the first images I took on my computer and being like "holy sh** which lens was that?"  You may want to play with another copy before you rule that one out.
The Zeiss 21mm is a gorgeous lens.....The only reason I haven't gotten the 24L is because I can't make a decision between the two : )

1236
Canon General / Re: Canon 16-35 vs Tamron 17-50
« on: January 05, 2012, 03:36:44 PM »
I have never tried any lens other than Canon L so I can unfortunately not compare the two lenses.

However, I can highly recommend the 16-35L II, I did take a major share of my pictures with it as it is a great walk around lense on a crop body. I would definitely buy it again...

Whats your take on the 24L ?

24L is awesome, most likely going to be my next acquisition.  However, I remember the first time I put the 16-35 on my old T2i, and its a really great range on that lens.  The bokeh is beautifully circular and looks even better on an APS-C sensor.  The 24L is great, but in terms of versatility I think you would be more happy with the 16-35mm.

But I wouldn't rule out the 17-55 f/2.8 IS, it's even more versatile and DAMN sharp.  I love that lens, best non-L zoom I've ever used, and it was sharper than both of the 24-70s that I had. 

1237
EOS Bodies / Re: C 300 is not an alternative to 35mm motion picture film.
« on: January 04, 2012, 06:15:12 PM »
+1

I'm also sick of people on other forums acting like this camera is some sort of godsend from the heavens. It a $3000 XF camcorder with a large sensor. It running a DigivIII for craps sake. This camera is such a up-sell it's not even funny. The worst part is when people constantly support it... everyone should have said "f- you canon, back to the drawing board". Instead it just a bunch of elitist delusional non-sense about how you "only need 4:2:2 8-bit" and "now you can stop using 'cheap looking' DOF in night shots with the high ISO"

It's all a bunch of garbage from wannabe pros who just want big expensive cameras to make themselves feel more important that the 20 year olds with DSLRs that they despise.

The C300 is only a marginal upgrade from a 7D, if that. Not a $15,000 one.

on board 10bit 444 uncompressed for 16k? try 60k, and you got yourself an Arri Alexa.

It doesn't matter what Arri is selling the Alexa for. We should have 10bit 4:4:4 for $15,000 by now. The GH2 is capable of 200mb/s video... that's good enough for 4:2:2 at 10bit. The hacker who worked on the GH2 also said that the hardware to make something like the AF-100 into 4:4:4 10bit is only around $2. It's all smoke and mirrors marketing BS, that is in turn supported by "pros" who don't want the technology to become available to the masses.

Are you basing all this on personal experience or spec sheets?  Have you actually used it yourself?
I don't think that anyone was acting like it was from the heavens, if anything people were disappointed bc it's not 4K (like that is all that matters).  I'm not sure what your definition of "marginal" is, but the 7D's rolling shutter/aliasing/moire can be quite terrible.  If it's only slightly better and 10X the price, then I guess no one will buy it, right?

7D is a great camera for the money, but it doesn't have HD-SDI outs, built-in ND filters, and you can't comfortably shoot over ISO 800, and you have no codec options aside from H.264.  It doesn't have the ergonomics, it doesn't have the adjustability, they are nowhere close in my book.

Remember, this is the Internet where everyone and anyone with a web browser can be an expert in anything and everything with just a little bit of typing and clicking.

Very true, I don't think I've ever seen someone so angry with a camera that they don't have or want. 

1238
EOS Bodies / Re: C 300 is not an alternative to 35mm motion picture film.
« on: January 04, 2012, 03:31:07 PM »
+1

I'm also sick of people on other forums acting like this camera is some sort of godsend from the heavens. It a $3000 XF camcorder with a large sensor. It running a DigivIII for craps sake. This camera is such a up-sell it's not even funny. The worst part is when people constantly support it... everyone should have said "f- you canon, back to the drawing board". Instead it just a bunch of elitist delusional non-sense about how you "only need 4:2:2 8-bit" and "now you can stop using 'cheap looking' DOF in night shots with the high ISO"

It's all a bunch of garbage from wannabe pros who just want big expensive cameras to make themselves feel more important that the 20 year olds with DSLRs that they despise.

The C300 is only a marginal upgrade from a 7D, if that. Not a $15,000 one.

on board 10bit 444 uncompressed for 16k? try 60k, and you got yourself an Arri Alexa.

It doesn't matter what Arri is selling the Alexa for. We should have 10bit 4:4:4 for $15,000 by now. The GH2 is capable of 200mb/s video... that's good enough for 4:2:2 at 10bit. The hacker who worked on the GH2 also said that the hardware to make something like the AF-100 into 4:4:4 10bit is only around $2. It's all smoke and mirrors marketing BS, that is in turn supported by "pros" who don't want the technology to become available to the masses.

Are you basing all this on personal experience or spec sheets?  Have you actually used it yourself?
I don't think that anyone was acting like it was from the heavens, if anything people were disappointed bc it's not 4K (like that is all that matters).  I'm not sure what your definition of "marginal" is, but the 7D's rolling shutter/aliasing/moire can be quite terrible.  If it's only slightly better and 10X the price, then I guess no one will buy it, right?

7D is a great camera for the money, but it doesn't have HD-SDI outs, built-in ND filters, and you can't comfortably shoot over ISO 800, and you have no codec options aside from H.264.  It doesn't have the ergonomics, it doesn't have the adjustability, or the dynamic range, they are nowhere close in my book. 

1239
I'm sitting next to the 70-200mm f/2.8 l is ii box that the UPS people delivered from B&H! First time ordering anything from B&h. bah, is it normal for the box to have punctures? but that would be ups' fault.

upon opening, the box is HUGE!(up to this point i have the canon rebel xsi with the 55-250mm, kit lens and the 50 f/1.8) I never have seen a lens box that big, but its lighter than i expected. and luckily the lens box didn't get punctured.

First impression of the lens: it is ICE COLD. I don't have the heater on (FL here) but hopefully no condensation forms. Fudge, condensation is appearing on the outside.  its been 30 mins since it was delivered. i think i'll keep it wrapped in plastic and in the bag. i don't know much about lens condensation except that it is bad. but the lens itself is a beauty! can't wait to try it out!

now I am thinking of selling the ef-s 55-250mm IS mk i. but i have no idea how to go about it like pricing, shipping (im thinking of craiglisting it to avoid shipping but that would mean smaller audience) and stuff. Tips?!

Congrats on your first L lens, you picked a good one!  Depending on how big the puncture is, it's possible that UPS was air testing it.  They do it randomly to check for drugs and/or explosives.

1240
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 3D & 5D Mark III Mentions
« on: January 02, 2012, 08:14:08 PM »
Quote
I would likely have to agree. Although, at this point, I don't see why Canon WOULD continue to upgrade video features in their photo-intensive cameras simply because they appear to be segregating the video from photo into a new grouping of sorts.

I can think of two reasons. The first is that regardless of the cinema line, the market expects it. One of things that made the 5D2 so successful is the combination of photo and video features. The option NOT to buy a separate camera was and still is a HUGE deal to a lot of people. Both from a usability/convenience point if view and value wise. I am not so sure that saying to these costumers that while in '08 you could buy a great stills camera AND a video camera for 3K, now you have to pay 3K + 3,5 or 10K. Sure, the 5D3 will do video better than the 5D2, but will it improve it enough to be considered as great as the 2 was in '08?

Secondly, while Canon now has its cine line, Nikon doesn't. That means that Nikon will probably push the video capabilities in its new DSLRs to the max. Can Canon afford to play second fiddle to Nikon in the DSLR stills/video hybrid department? I'm not so sure that Canon can easily afford reviews that go something like "Canon X is just as good as Nikon Y in the stills department, but lags way behind it on the video side".

Oh I can certainly understand that. However, if such were the case, then why start a cinema line that would differentiate itself from the photo line? If they supply a 5dmkIII with incredible video features for $3k, then how will they sell any of their cinema line DSLR, let alone the C 300? If they instilled a clarity and quality that is on par with the C 300 in the 5dmkIII, then of course everyone would be buying the latter and saving 13 grand (Unless you REALLY needed the HD-SDI outputs and the built in ND filters). The market may demand it, but it would seem like a mistake for Canon to have bothered with a Cinema line if they were to keep their video DSLR revolution in motion with the momentum the unintentionally started it with. From a business standpoint, either the photo line will get limited, or the cinema line will prove to be somewhat fruitless. At least as best as I can for see it. Nonetheless, I could certainly be completely wrong, and Canon may be completely comfortable just offering more models with similar options. After all, that seems to work for the Auto industry to an extent.

As for Nikon, you make a very valid argument - one that could be precedent in Canon's decision to make their photo line equally competitive. Although, I don't believe Nikon has much of a video department dedication. I can't see them making too many leaps and bounds into the video world, but I can definitely be wrong there too. It would be exciting to see what the come up with, no doubt.

I agree, Canon didn't know that the 5D2 was going to take off in the video world like it did. And when they did notice, they began to adjust accordingly, they aren't dummies.  Bottom line is the 5DII is a stills camera and it doesn't make sense for people that only want it for video to have to pay for photography features. 

I suspect the 5DIII will shoot improved video but still be geared towards still photographers.  And I suspect that the Cinema DSLR will be what the 5D2 video users are looking for.  I know a lot of people watched the Cinema EOS event unfold and were disappointed when they saw the price tag of the C300.  I think Canon showed the Concept DSLR to reassure prosumers that they didn't forget about them.  I mean how many other products does Canon preview that far in advance? 

It's possible that they were worried that people would get frustrated after waiting that long and start looking for something else. 

1241
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 3D & 5D Mark III Mentions
« on: January 02, 2012, 08:06:31 PM »
Well now that we've got the 1DX announced, seems people want:

- A 1DX sensor in an ungripped, less fps/AF body for $3-3.5k (lets call this one the 5Dmk3).

- A video-split, we know it's coming, possibly C300 sensor in a 1D-sized body (a 3840*2560 sensor is 10MP for stills, or a clean 4:1 binning would be a 39MP sensor).

- A high-MP (30-36MP) FF in an ungripped body for $3-3.5k.

- An APS-H 18-25MP in whatever body with 45pt and f/8 AF and uber-sealed, to upgrade from 7D/replace 1D4 for $3.5-4k

- An APS-C 20-25MP as above, pro-sealing and 45pt f/8 AF is more likely for $3k.

- 7D2 will keep same sealing, AF, fps, and features for $2k and probably be 20-24MP.

So which of those above is the 3D? I'd be guessing it's the High-MP studio camera, the video split will have a new naming convention, either of the bodies with the 45pt f/8 AF is a bit more of a dream...

That actually sounds somewhat plausible, the 3D could be the Concept Cinema DSLR.

1242
Lenses / Re: Do all of canons 50 mm lens suck?
« on: January 02, 2012, 08:02:35 PM »
I love the 50 f/1.2L. I've heard the "focus shift" issue has gotten better over time. I've never really noticed it. Though it doesn't have a floating element, so it's probably there.

The 50 1.4 is in dire need of replacement, Canon makes a lot of money selling focus motors for it though.
I was wondering if the 1.2 had similar issues I find 50 mm to be a very useful focal length, it seems to focus best 4 to 5 feet away. When the 1.4 is on its very sharp ESP when used with a 580 ex useing focus assist. The weather sealing could be better on the 1.4 too

I agree about the weather sealing, the design for the 50 1.4 is from 1987 I believe, it's long due for an update (sooner rather than later, I suspect).

1243
Lenses / Re: Do all of canons 50 mm lens suck?
« on: January 02, 2012, 04:56:04 PM »
I have had my 50 1.4 recalibrated every so often but sooner or later back to suck. Is the 1.2 version any better or should I just get the 35 1.4? It seems to be much better rated. I used it with an aps-h sensor anyway so is there any one that has used one or the other or both?

I've had the 1.8, 1.4 and 1.2L.  I can't say any of them really suck, sure the 1.8 is plastic and feels like a toy, but for $100 you can't complain.  I thought the 1.4 was very sharp for the money, and I really liked it.  I love my 1.2L, always did, but particularly so after I got it re-calibrated. 

If you're looking for something in-between the 1.4 and 1.2L, check out the Zeiss ZE 50mm f/1.4, it doesn't have autofocus but I think it's a wonderful lens.  I think it's around $725...

1244
Lenses / Re: Do all of canons 50 mm lens suck?
« on: January 02, 2012, 04:53:53 PM »
I have a love hate relationship with my 50 1.2L..
Compared to my 85mm 1.2L II it.. well you can't even compare them because the 85mm is sharper at 1.2 than the 50mm is at 2.8!!!! and has better contrast.

On the other hand i love the size and the weather sealing and i love the focal length and the colors look really nice and its not bad at all its just that the 85mm is better.

I wish they would make a better 50mm!! i have been thinking they decided to make it more affordable and cos' of it didn't make it as good as they could have.

Ive been thinking to buy the 8000$ 50mm cine lens if it works good for still photos too.

The cinema primes are supposed to be $6800 actually, but I guess with tax it'll be close.  But like the Zeiss CP.2, most of the added cost is for the focus marks, manual iris adjustment, and uniform housing size to make swapping easy.  I'm willing to bet the optics are very similar to the 50L, and when you factor in no autofocus it doesn't seem like a great deal.

1245
Lenses / Re: UW lens recommendation for 7d?
« on: January 02, 2012, 02:20:37 PM »
I think in the Tokina is the best overall.  Built like a brick, super wide, constant aperture, and solid price.  You could probably find one for $500 used. 

The 10-22 is a great lens too, but I can't stand variable aperture and it's more pricey.  I would get the 11-16 and use the difference and get a 50 1.4 or some accessories.

Pages: 1 ... 81 82 [83] 84 85 ... 91