September 24, 2014, 12:57:54 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 - Zv

Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 83
Lenses / Re: EF-M 55-200 4.5-6.3 IS STM Coming Shortly
« on: June 17, 2014, 03:39:06 AM »
f/5.6 --> f/6.3 is 1/3 of a stop.  REALLY people?  You're going to ***** and moan about 1/3 of a stop?  Seriously?  OBVIOUSLY, the point of the M is to shrink things down as much as possible.  1/3 of a stop throughout the focal range is a "duh" kind of compromise.  As in... DUH... DO IT!  (when talking about mirrorless)

Yes, I do take issue with f/6.3 - beecause in practice it likely means T/7.9
Instead of filter thread 52mm, Canon shouild have made it f/5.6 and 55mm or f/4.0 and 58mm filter thread, even if that wozuld have meant 50 grams more or 100 grams more weight and 50 dollars or 100 dollars higher price.

Huh, lets say Canon did make it constant f/4, for about $50 more. Now there is less demand for the EFS 55-250 STM since its slower, bigger and costs about the same. From a marketing point of view that would seem counter productive, I think (I'm no expert!). Sure, it would attract more M users but more people already have a rebel or xxD model camera so you might not wanna irk them by giving the M users the good stuff, would you?

I think by keeping it small and light they've surely compromised but in a good way. I feel like this is what the M was made for. Small, light, compact. You'll not be shooting sports or tracking BIF with it but for a wee trip to the zoo with the kids it'll do just fine!

EOS-M / Re: Canon EF-M 55-200 f/4.5-6.3 IS STM Gets Official
« on: June 17, 2014, 03:24:41 AM »
I never bothered with the EF-M 18-55 but I felt the need for something in the telephoto range to compliment the 35mm focal length equiv of the 22/2. This lens is perfect as a lightweight alternative for parties and small events where I can't be bothered lugging the big dog around.

Am I getting excited about an EF-M lens release?? What the heck is happening to me? :o

That makes three pretty solid zooms for the M mount. Now all we need is a couple more primes please! :D

Lenses / Re: EF-M 55-200 4.5-6.3 IS STM Coming Shortly
« on: June 16, 2014, 07:54:03 PM »
Hmmm could be a nice little cheap tele option for when I'm using my wide angles out in the field. F/6.3 might be alright as long as we get f/5.6 up to around 150mm, the IS helps too I guess. I've been using an FD 100 f/2.8 with adapter but the IQ isn't that great. Was thinking about the 55-250 STM but this one might be just the ticket.

The 18-55 is dirt cheap these days, hope this one is priced somewhere in between that and the 11-22.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: $ 100,000+ US Dollars
« on: June 14, 2014, 11:10:20 AM »
After buying the gear I need I'd use the rest of the money to travel and see the world, only I'd pay someone to carry all my gear.

Canon General / Re: CF CARDS
« on: June 12, 2014, 04:10:24 AM »
CF cards have been hard to come by of late. The prices in local retailers is astronomical and online is just a gamble (had a fake last year). I'm holding on to my 32Gigs and might sell the smaller ones and update to newest 160mb/s ones, though they seem tough as nails and just as reliable. With the exception of the fake and one cheap crappy Transcend CF that my card reader wont recognize I've never experienced any failures. But then SD has treated me just as kindly. Still prefer CF for their solidness.

What are the current CFast speeds?

Update - I looked up Sandisk 120Gb Cfast, it's 450 mb/s (read). Lexar boasts 500.

Lenses / Re: What was your first L lens?
« on: June 10, 2014, 08:05:33 PM »
After being disappointed with the Tamron 70-300 VC, I decided to stick to Canon lenses and with a friends wedding coming up fast I went with the 70-200 f/4L IS. It arrived about one day before I had to fly out to Scotland for the wedding. First time I used it was there. Later on it clicked that I had just bought my first L! Still impressed with the quality of this lens.

Followed it up with the 17-40L after selling my much loved 10-22. Then I bought a used 135L, and finally sold my 17-55 for a used 24-105L (which usually people get first!). And the move from crop sensor / ef-s was completed yesterday when I sold my 7D!

My fave L has to be the 135L but the 70-200 f/4L IS comes a close second.

Dear Canon make it 1 TB Free for ALL :)

Dear Canon,

Please don't.

The running costs would have to be met by loading prices on camera equipment. I'm sort of fine with that happening for iPhones etc., because those things have a limited life anyway and it's an ongoing thing to budget for. But I keep my camera equipment for decades.

BTW, it's Sunday evening on a holiday weekend here in Australia, and the Australia and NZ site is "currently undergoing testing and maintenance" by gurus. (For those who don't know, a "guru" is an expert on Unix and open source software. Generally they come with beards.)

Can you friends tell me how it is different from flickr except that it has a crazy pricing and flickr gives 1TB free. If this one allows RAW then its a different thing, but then, there are cheaper cloud storage available out there and if you are storing RAW, then all the drums and whistles are kinda useless :P

Anil George

Flickr is for displaying your work, viewing other peoples work, sharing ideas and commenting on photos (some video too) whereas a cloud storage service is mainly used in the same way an external hard drive is (though usually with more benefits like being able to share files easily).

I guess you can use Flickr for storing images if you only have JPEGs but you'd need to change the privacy settings so only you can view them. It's just faster and easier to use cloud storage as it's similar to the filing system found on most PCs - you can just drag and drop files where you want.

Think of it like this - Flickr is an art gallery and irista is an office filing cabinet. You wouldn't put up all your family pics / pics of you cat etc. on the gallery wall for storage would you?

Lenses / Re: Next Lens Canon Should Release?
« on: June 08, 2014, 11:57:42 AM »
I'd be glad to see a new 50 but I'd be excited for a 12-24 f/whatever.

Lenses / Re: Need some advice.
« on: June 08, 2014, 11:47:55 AM »
I'm fairly new to photography and I just bought a Canon 550D with a 18-55mm kit lens.
I am going to New York this winter and am wondering if I should buy a wider lens so that I can get nice pictures of the buildings and wide pictures of the roads/parks. I also want to do a bit of street photography too.
I was looking into getting a 50mm prime lens for it but I don't know if that's a good idea or not.
Any help would be appreciated and thanks for reading this post.
Congratulations on your new camera!

Advice? Go out and take photos. Get used to, and get to know yout camera and what you can and can't do with it and the lens you have. Then later on, when you find yourself running into ,imitations, you'll know what you need to add to your kit ...

Good advice. The 18-55mm kit lens is actually pretty good for most suject matter. It was my only lens for a while and I took it and a 550D to Cambodia. When I got back I realized I needed something wider as almost all my shots were @ 18mm. It's much better to buy a lens based on a particular need than to buy a lens first and then try and figure out what to do with it.

With regards to the 50 - what I noticed when I bought the 50mm 1.8 (four years ago), my second lens btw, was that I kept getting blurry shots. I thought at that stage I needed a tripod for that lens but I now know what was causing the blurryiness - a lack of knowledge! You see, with the kit lens you have Image Stabilization so even if the shutter speed gets slow chances are it might still turn out OK. However, with the 50 1.8 on a 550D crop sensor you really need shutter speeds of around 1/100s at least. I wasn't familiar with ISO at that time and had read somehwere that ISO 100 was the best so I ended up keeping it there! Duh! Anyway long story short, once you master shutter speed, aperture AND ISO you'll be able to use any lens.

For street any lens can work because it's what you make of it. All depends if you like to get up close or keep a distance. Again the 18-55 will allow you to experiment and see which end you prefer most. When you get back home analyze your shots to see what you prefer. Then think about an additional lens if you feel the 18-55 didn't cover it.

Yes I agree 10GB is not much ... but it's more than what Dropbox give you! After pestering my friends and camera uploading like a maniac I have around 7GB. But some of that is used up by work. So I'll take this fresh 10GB of free space, thank you very much! Might come in handy.

Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM
« on: June 04, 2014, 12:47:16 AM »
The original Sigma 30mm f/1.4  (non-"Art" and optically identical) version is on run-out special, here in the UK at least, for £279. The "Art" version is £369, which is still cheaper than the EF 35mm f/2 IS at £459 (although I would probably recommend the Canon lens as worth the extra money). None of these is really at the same price point as the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 DX lens, which is why I think that there is still a gap in the market for a Canon equivalent.

I sort of agree when it comes to the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8, but it is very heavy and quite expensive -£629 is quite a put off to the owner of an entry level camera that might have been purchased for half that amount. Whilst a set of fast primes may end up costing and weighing a similar amount, they have the advantage of being purchased over a period of time and not needing to be mounted on the camera at the same time. The problem with Canon's current strategy is that you're forced to use full frame ultra-wides with all the attendant size, cost and speed disadvantages to fill in for non-existent dedicated APS-C wide angles. 

I wouldn't like to comment on the production costs of a 6D versus a X-T1, but one could turn your argument around and point out that the X-T1 currently manages to hold 75% of the 6D's price despite being only APS-C. My guess would be that whatever cost savings can be made on a full frame camera can also be applied to an APS-C camera. Besides, the real cost of jumping up a format size can often be measured in lenses rather than just the body.

I know that one runs into thorny ground with the whole lens equivalence question, but I think that if absolute depth of field and/or low light performance are critical to your style of photography, then you're probably one of the people for whom full-frame-35mm will always make sense. If you're prepared to accept some compromises, sub-frame can make sense; it's just a question of which brand offers the most for the least...

It's too bad the EOS-M is doing as poorly as it is outside of its home market because I think it was Canon's attempt to do what you want:  create a small, mirrorless system that is affordable.  I jumped on the bandwagon during the US fire sale, and I'm impressed.  The 22 f/2 is a treat to use, and the 18-55 IS works well in good light.  M1 has slow AF, but the M-mount design philosophy is sound.  There is no reason why they could not have various M-bodies with various levels of controls and have them share a common mount and family of lenses.  If it had been sucessful, I could see Canon replacing the entire Rebel line in the future with the M system (with a similar system to Fuji).  Unfortunately, the idea has not caught on.

I think the EF-M 22mm lens is one of the best value for money lenses you can get. Essentially we are getting it for free or another way to look at it is you get a 35mm FOV lens with a camera attached to it! That's how I saw it. It's not a perfect camera but it is APS-C and spits out 18MP RAW files. That's good enough for for me at that price. 35mm prime - covered.

For all other serious stuff I use the FF (or both!).

Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM
« on: June 02, 2014, 08:04:36 PM »
I bought my EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM when I bought my Canon 20D (2006). I see no reason to replace it. The minimum focus distance is 9.5 inches (24cm). At 10mm (16mm FF) there is some wonderful barrel distortion, but at 22mm (35mm FF) it's rectilinear and I've used it for products shots and people It weighs 13.6 oz. (385 g.) and uses 77mm filters.

The Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM is lighter at 8.5 oz (240g), the minimum focus distance is about the same at 8.64in (22cm) and it uses smaller, less expensive, 67mm filters. It's also a lot cheaper -- $299.99 vs $649.99  (BTW these are Canon USA prices).

Photography is a lot like shooting, Snipers don't have stabilizers on their rifles and TV News Camera-people don't have stabilizers on their lenses. Holding a rifle/pistol or a camera steady is an acquired skill and fairly easy to learn.

I can see the 17-55 and 10-22 being updated over the next few years.  I remember times when the 17-55 was 1000+ and the 10-220 was 850 new.  Although I only had the 10-22 a short time before moving to FF, I liked the lens a lot.  The overlapping FL range with the 17-55 was handy and prevented a lot of lens changes.

I agree with preppyak in that the lens will be popular with the rebel market.  Sell it as a 10-18/18-55/55-250 combo, and Canon will sell a LOT of these.

Updating the 17-55 and producing a high end constant aperture replacement for the 10-22 (f/2.8?) would be a good start to catching up with 4/3rds and heading off Fuji.  The 10-18 is a good idea from Canon to entice the lower end of the market; what other lenses might sell? EF-M has a 22mm f/2 STM that's perhaps the highlight of the entire EOS-M system, why not produce one for EF-S (granted, it's slightly more difficult to design for a DSLR)? Nikon's 35mm f/1.8 DX lens sells pretty well by many accounts, why does Canon not produce a low price normal prime too? How about a premium 15mm f/2 USM?  Combine this with a 50-135mm f/2.8 and you could start to claim that EF-S is a good choice of system for people that don't want the cost or size of full frame.

At the moment, Canon's message seems to be that if you want anything more exotic that a slow zoom, you need to go full frame. Whilst many will (including you and I!), many others will decide it is not worth the extra price and bulk; they will switch to one of the increasingly capable alternatives.

Low price normal lens that's cheap? Hmmm could that be the 40mm pancake perhaps?

There's nothing wrong with the subscription model. It is a sound business plan and even affordable for the consumer

Our issue - be that a professional company or hobbyist - is that there is no back up system in place in case CC server is down or if you decide to take a break. If you pay a monthly fee you should be able to use the service no matter what.

So right now we still need the perpetual license product as a back up. And then there are sync issues. All less than ideal. If you didn't have a back up version and you the server went down or something you are screwed.

And then there's the uncertainty of the monthly fee. As a business how do you factor in future costs? Next year the monthly fee could be $30 p/m or more. Pretty sure we would all pay the $10 a month if that was all there was to it.

That all sounds like eml58's brother in law.

How does a CC server being down stop your local program working? Adobe have said even if your computer is not connected to the internet CC will run fine for three months without online verification. If you tell them you won't be able to go online for longer they can extend that to 6 months off line, server issues are a red herring.

If the lease fee goes up to a level you are not prepared to pay, don't pay it, use something else. We'd all like a Ferrari but more of us can afford a Toyota, we'd like to eat steak and lobster but can't afford that either, same for businesses. As for we'd all happily pay the $10, well that clearly isn't the case with all the bitching and moaning going on.

So your real argument is, I don't like the price they might charge in the future! Well you could say that about health insurance and gas prices, or any number of other things that are sold to us by corporations.

I probably should have done my homework before writing that comment. It seems they do allow up to 30 days offline usage before the application tries to verify the license. If you're an annual subscriber it's 99 days in offline mode.

It also states that you still have access to your files even if you cancel.

OK, seems like a solid deal now that I've had a chance to think about it and look up my questions. Sign me up for some steak and lobster!

For me, it is based on economics.  I got PS CS6 and LR at a huge discount through an offer through TDP for 325 in 2012.  The cost is a sunk cost because it was before CC.  After CC came out, I upgrade to LR5 for 70.  I'm not a heavy PS user, and CS6 is good enough for me.  I was happy with LR4 but got LR5 as a Christmas present.  I don't foresee getting another LR upgrade unless I replace my 5DIII with a future camera that is not supported with the current software.

My fear is that they will charge 9.99 (or worse 19.99) for LR/PS when all I need is LR, especially if LR is no longer sold as a stand-alone program.  That will result in a higher cost to me than buying yearly LR upgrades.

A steady revenue  is good for the company but not necessary good for the consumer.  It potentially leads the company to be less innovative and rest on their laurels.  PS is mature enough for me that I only feed the need to upgrade every 4 or 5 years (when I build a new computer).  LR is mature enough but they get you on new camera/lens profiles.

You could convert your future files to DNG and they would work just fine on your old versions. One extra step in the workflow though.

There's nothing wrong with the subscription model. It is a sound business plan and even affordable for the consumer

Our issue - be that a professional company or hobbyist - is that there is no back up system in place in case CC server is down or if you decide to take a break. If you pay a monthly fee you should be able to use the service no matter what.

So right now we still need the perpetual license product as a back up. And then there are sync issues. All less than ideal. If you didn't have a back up version and you the server went down or something you are screwed.

And then there's the uncertainty of the monthly fee. As a business how do you factor in future costs? Next year the monthly fee could be $30 p/m or more. Pretty sure we would all pay the $10 a month if that was all there was to it. 

Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 83