December 19, 2014, 10:59:30 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 - c.d.embrey

Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18 ... 37
226
Lenses / Re: naked eye equivalent?
« on: March 23, 2013, 08:18:09 PM »

The "standard" AOV/FL is usually accepted to be somewhere between 40mm and 50mm on FF but there cannot be exact definition (despite what wikipedia claims).

The frame diagonal is the standard used by photographers since the beginning of time. I learned this rule way back in the 1960s, well before anyone thought of starting Wikipedia. People were using a 150mm as a standard lens for 4x5 well before Oskar Barnack inverted the 24x36mm still film camera.

227
Lenses / Re: naked eye equivalent?
« on: March 23, 2013, 06:33:40 PM »
For Full Frame it's 43.3mm. AFAIK Pentax is the only camera company to make a 43mm lens. For a Canon APS-C it's 27.3mm and 28.4mm for a Nikon DX.

"For still photography, a lens with a focal length about equal to the diagonal size of the film or sensor format is considered to be a normal lens." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_lens


228
Lenses / Re: Is there anything I can improve on this gear list?
« on: March 23, 2013, 05:33:02 PM »

... I mainly shoot at family parties and friendly gatherings. Occasionally I do some landscape photography and interior/exterior photography of buildings

Try shooting with the 50mm f/1.8 ONLY for awhile. Zoom with your feet. Photos of family and friends look better when shot at a shorter focal length ... 200mm is way too impersonal.

"Robert Capa once said, “If your pictures aren’t good enough, you’re not close enough.” Capa wasn’t advocating the use of longer lenses; he was telling us to physically get closer — to become more involved and intimate with our subjects. In fact, a wide-angle lens is often a better choice than a telephoto lens when you want to “zoom in” on your subject." http://rising.blackstar.com/if-your-pictures-arent-good-enough-youre-not-close-enough.html

Photography is all about taking meaningful pictures ... not about collecting gear.

229
Lenses / Re: How Much do you use your Canon EF 16-35mm L ??
« on: March 23, 2013, 05:09:15 PM »
Last July, I bought a new one for $1350 on a impulse buy from Newegg, but haven't really warmed up to it. ...
 
I'm thinking of selling it, but I hate to.  It is a very sharp lens, no problem there, I just find that I have little need of super wide angles.

Lenses are simply tools, if you don't need this tool sell it.

You have fallen into the trap of "everybody has one so I need one too."

230
...all I've been able to do to date is get her to shoot RAW so I have a bit more ability in post.   

Just set the camera to P (for professional). The jpegs will amaze you!!

More than a few professionals shoot jpegs. If you get it right in camera, you don't have to waste time in post.

231
I am torn between keeping my sony nex 6 for the wife or getting her the new sl1 ...

Why do you think that you should pick her cameraa ??? Let her pick her own camera.

BTW a Panasonic G5 is a better camera than either of your choices. A small/light camera with small/light lenses that will make prints that even a pixel-peeper couldn't complain about.

232
Lenses / Re: 200mm 2.8 II vs. 85mm 1.2 II for Food Photography
« on: March 23, 2013, 11:18:13 AM »
Food is a product, and the ultimate product photography lens is the TS-E 90mm f/2.8.

You got that right!! If you shoot product, this is the only lens you need. It tilts, it shifts and it shoots close ... all in one lens :)

233
Canon General / Re: Announcements Coming Tonight
« on: March 22, 2013, 01:36:06 AM »
CameraSize.com now has the Rebel SL! in their database.
SL! vs 60D http://camerasize.com/compare/#448,100

234
Canon General / Re: Announcements Coming Tonight
« on: March 21, 2013, 04:32:02 AM »
A solid 24mm or 35mm f/2 for under $500 would make this a lot more competitive with the M4/3 offerings coming out. But Canon doesn't have one.

Canon needs some EF-S primes. 15mm (=24mm FF), 22mm (=35mm FF) and a 32mm (=51mm FF). The EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 (16-35mm FF) at 13.6 Oz is pushing it weight wise. And the EF 85mm f/1.8 (=136mm FF) weighs 16 Oz and is the largest kens I'd feel comfortable using on a SL1.

235
Canon General / Re: Announcements Coming Tonight
« on: March 20, 2013, 11:11:02 PM »
The small camera seems interesting, but I have big hands.
 

I'm over 6' tall, wear size 13 shoes and X-Large gloves. The camera that fits me best is the Sony NEX. My least favorite is the 1D/Ds Pro bodies. I prefer a xxD body over a 7D or 5D3. YMMV ;)

I think this has a lot to do with how you hold a camera (and long lens). I carry the weight with my left hand and hold the right side with the thumb and middle finger of my right hand, and use the first finger for button pushing :)


236
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS-b Images Leak & a New Kit Lens
« on: March 19, 2013, 01:29:25 PM »
By the way the fact that this camera (that none is expecting and none asked for) is coming out before both 70D and 7DII is a clear sign of how unimportant for Canon is the entire Gearhead/Pro-amateur/Semipro/Pro market.. T_T

Gearheads think that they are important, but the truth is that they buy very few cameras vs casual consumers. Casual consumers like small/light. Follow the money.

237
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS-b Images Leak & a New Kit Lens
« on: March 19, 2013, 01:25:50 PM »
does anyone have an idea why Canon released such a camera? who is this small DSLR for?

Canon and Nikon are both losing sales to Panasonic, Olympus and Sony NEX. Theses small/light mirrorless cameras are attractive to people who don't need to impress others with the size of their lens.

238
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 100D Detailed Specs Appear
« on: March 17, 2013, 11:26:49 PM »
How small is it ???
Canon 100D                3.6 H x 4.6 W x 2.7 D - weight 13.96 Oz
Panasonic Lumix G5  3.28 H x 4.72 W x 2.79 D - weight 13.1 Oz

Here's the comparison of th G5 amd T4i http://camerasize.com/compare/#347,333 The 100D is close to the G5 in size, so that's one small APS-C camera. The main difference is the height 3.28 vs 3.6.

239
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 100D Coming? [CR1]
« on: March 16, 2013, 11:44:47 PM »
yeah!!!! a diminutive, even more entry level DSLR that is a bit expensive! Wow, Canon really knows how to make people happy these days!

What makes you think that this sligghtly expensive camera will be entry level ??? They would not have mentioned slightly expensive if this camera didn't cost more thab the present Rebel line. Maybe even more expensive than the POS 60D ;)

240
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 100D Coming? [CR1]
« on: March 16, 2013, 05:16:05 PM »

I think the EOS M was supposed to fill that slot, but was seriously let down by its pokey AF. They get that fixed, and toss in the real EF/EF-S adapter, and I'd love it. (I still have my EOS IX ;) )

The problem is that the Canon exec specifically said "will not be mirrorless." The EOS M is a mirrorless camera. But Canon execs have lied in the past ;)

So what do you think this new small and expensive DSLR will be if it isn't an EOS IX-D ???

Maybe the Canon Rumors Guy will remember the interview and post a link to it.

Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18 ... 37