Messages

46

Lenses / Re: Which telephoto lens has the fastest AF

« on: December 13, 2011, 03:50:29 PM »

If your needs require a certain range, you are sort of stuck. 
if you need 400mm, but the 300mm has faster AF.  are you going to get the 300mm and slap on an extender/tc?

47

Lenses / Re: Is Canon EF 24mm f/1.4 L II USM Lens too wide for FF?

« on: December 13, 2011, 12:57:26 PM »

I suggest you surf through this group so you can decide whether this lens suits your needs
http://www.flickr.com/groups/24l/

48

Lenses / Re: Is Canon EF 24mm f/1.4 L II USM Lens too wide for FF?

« on: December 13, 2011, 12:26:01 PM »

yes, you can shoot 6-7 people or 100 with a 24mm.  The problem is how much room do you have.
you are not giving us enough information to decide if the 24mm works or; we don't know if you only have 3 feet between you and the 6-7 people or 20 ft.

49

Lenses / Re: New Fast Telephoto Suggestions

« on: December 09, 2011, 05:19:07 PM »

if by aviation you mean taking shots of flying planes, then 300mm will not be enough.
If you mean, going to air shows and taking shots of planes on the ground 200-300 might be enough.
like others suggested the 100-400 is a good option.  I have one and glad I bought it.  I shoot motorsports, sports,

50

United States / Re: Prime lenses you currently own or on your wishlist.

« on: December 02, 2011, 06:25:20 PM »

28mm 1.8
50mm 1.4
35mm L 1.4

51

Lenses / Re: Lens filter for L sealing

« on: December 02, 2011, 04:19:02 PM »

make sure you get a multi coated filter.
I once bought a non-multi coated and completely ruined my night shots during a vacation.

52

Lenses / Re: Zoom for new 5D Mark II -- 24-70 or 24-105

« on: December 01, 2011, 03:18:47 PM »

no kids of my own but plenty of nephews and nieces.
I have a 24-70 L 2.8. Some say it's heavy. I tell them, hit the gym.
At 2.8, it's not super sharp all around. Set it between 4-5.6 and I can catch the fastest of my rug rats, I mean nephews or nieces.
Some argue that the 24-70 lacks IS; I tell them, work on your technique and skill.
The 24-70 I consider a great walk around lens. I do miss some of the reach from my previous 28-135, but that's less than 5% of the time(maybe even less).
With the 24-70 I don't need a flash.  If you get the 24-105, you may need to get a flash for indoor/darker places.

53

Lenses / Re: Battle of the 50mm's - 1.8, 1.4 and 1.2L

« on: November 23, 2011, 01:15:48 PM »

I borrowed a 50mm 1.8 from a friend and I loved it.  EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE THIS LENS even if it's for a crop sensor camera.  It's not expensive and it's one of the best bang for the buck lens out there.
My girlfriend eventually surprised me one x-mas with a 50mm 1.4.  I LOVE THIS LENS.  It's about 3.5-4 times more expensive(I think).  For indoor, no flash, night time shooting it's fantastic.  Although on a crop sensor, it's the equivalent of 80mm so it has its set of challenges.
If budget is tight, get the 1.8.  Buy a used one and if you don't like it, you can sell it for the same price.
I eventually bought a 35mm L 1.4 for indoor night time shooting.  FANTASTIC!!! On a crop sensor it's a little over 50mm.

54

Lenses / Re: Retail Markup. How much do stores really pay for the equipment they sell us?

« on: November 22, 2011, 03:42:10 PM »

Now that I can start to buy, thanks Mt. Spokane.

15% is still pretty good.  Certainly not the same as saying (we make no money)  15% is $150 profit on every $1,000 moved.  Customer pays the sales tax, every expense is a write-off, and they more than cover the overhead on the accessories and then some.

I wouldn't be surprised to hear even slightly larger % margins from some sellers, not including those bonuses you mentioned.

What about things like price changes in the MSRP?  Aren't they guaranteed by Canon when the MSRP lowers?  I could have sworn they were.

expenses are not write-offs. Expenses are deductions.
both write-offs and deductions will be paid from the gross margin.
15% margin (any margin) on the item needs to pay for all other expenses. Which means, if you have a profit of $150 from a $1000 camera, you still need to pay rent, taxes, fees, employees, advertisement, etc, etc.

55

Canon General / Re: Is anyone awake in Canon HQ?

« on: November 10, 2011, 06:49:38 PM »

Save the "pixel quality" and "sensor noise" arguments for the summer BBQ parties.

those two points are two of many reasons that separates the 5d from A77.

Pixel Quality is a huge factor in picture quality.
Ignore sensor noise; are you seriously saying you don't care about noise?

56

EOS Bodies / Re: Dear Guys at Canon...

« on: September 01, 2011, 04:03:06 PM »

OP, your post comes across as this.
Nikon blah blah good more blah blah.
Canon blah blah not perfect more blah blah and I am still going to buy Canon.
If I were, which I am not, a Canon exec your post does not make a case for me to speed up my timeline.

57

Lenses / Re: 70-200 2.8 L IS II + Extender III vs. 100 - 400 L // Comparison?

« on: August 10, 2011, 03:20:05 PM »

if it's an option for you, rent as needed.
I bought a used 100-400 for a great deal so I don't mind that it comes out to play only 3-5 times a year sometimes even less; it has not come out of the bag and box not even once in 2011.

58

Lenses / Re: 70-200 2.8 L IS II + Extender III vs. 100 - 400 L // Comparison?

« on: August 10, 2011, 03:17:22 PM »

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/400v400.shtml

59

Lenses / Re: EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 USM L IS

« on: June 27, 2011, 05:30:51 PM »

@Heidrun
 a constant aperture requires complex design; read: not cheap
Canon has a 100-400 4.5-5.6
Canon has a 200-400 coming (but not your suggested 5.6)
Having a 3rd option in this range (your suggested 200-400 5.6) would "crowd" this range with possible cost of cannibalizing sales of the 300 and 400 primes.

60

EOS Bodies / Re: A grateful end to the DSLR video "revolution"

« on: June 15, 2011, 02:22:30 PM »

every change brings a new set of challenges.
Previous to all this evolution, pros were the ones with the skill and money to buy the equipment.
Now there are millions of amateurs that have very good equipment.  Some are awful at shooting and some are not bad and some are very talented.
Video/photo customers will and have been hiring bad amateurs; in essence gambling their once in a lifetime opportunity. 
It's only a matter of time before these god awful amateurs go out of business because talented is not something you can develop. Not everyone has "the eye" to shoot.