November 24, 2014, 04:49:14 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 - jdramirez

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 170
1
Canon General / Re: Does Canon really deserve this?
« on: November 23, 2014, 02:48:28 PM »
Yes, yes and don't forget trolls who do not even own Canon equipment.

I may be the only guy posting here under his real name, but for all I know, this could be two dudes in their underwear and their 55 sock puppets each deployed to do battle against each other and one of them started the war with this post.

My fake name I give at bars is Evan Sosa... though poor Evan has had very little fun lately.

2
Canon General / Re: Does Canon really deserve this?
« on: November 23, 2014, 09:39:48 AM »
WOW!
Please stop awarding Canon with human like attributes, Its A Corporation! Canon have no feelings, can not be sad, has no shame or any other feelings, unlike the small mom and pap corner stores killed by Walmart or thousand small farmers before that etc. Where were you than? What kind of culture is this that very intelligent adult humans spent time and resources to conduct crusades to glorify a brand name? Please go take some pictures with a CAMERA no matter what the logo and do something good for other human beings in the season of Thanksgiving instead.
Thank you and bless you all.

Well... per Citizens United...

3
Canon General / Re: Does Canon really deserve this?
« on: November 22, 2014, 08:04:19 AM »
I think Canon has been quite conservative lately and the criticism is not entirely of base. The dynamic range conversation is stupid, but I acknowledge Canon lags behind in that department.

I'm a little annoyed at the number of bodies they put the 18mp sensor in, t2i, t3i, t4i, t5i, t5, sl1, 60d, 7d, and the mirror less... seriously... if you do portrait or landscape, there hasn't been a rebel worth upgrading to because it is all the same camera... unless you rely on auto focus. 

Other than a few video/live view break through, it is hard to say they are revolutionizing the industry... also, after today I will have 4k video in my phone, but not in my $3000 slr.  I don't want Canon handicapping gear because it will eat into the sales of other high end gear.

Having said all that, I'm more than happy with my 5d mkiii.  I love the 600ex rt system, and their lenses are a work of art... so I'm happy... though I understand why others might not be.

4
Lenses / Re: In praise of the 40mm f/2.8 STM
« on: November 21, 2014, 11:36:16 PM »
I bought the 40mm for my daughter because I didn't like the 28-135 I bought her... and I think she misses the zoom.  But I've used the 40mm here and there and I do like it... super light, nice focal length, solid wide open... the only problem I have with it is that I never use it... like never.

I took a cursory look through my catalog... and I didn't see a single really good shot with the 40... so maybe, for me, I just like the idea of it... but the actually product... well... I guess not enough.

5
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 6D or 7D mkII?
« on: November 21, 2014, 12:31:46 PM »
I shot sports with my 60d & I primarily used my center af point...

How much cash do you have... because the  t3i  plus kit lens is worth $375 if you sold it...

I'd personally lean towards a 7d used for sports... maybe for $650, & a 6d for practically everything else.  The best all round camera by Canon is the 5d mkiii (revised from typo before where I said mkii), and if you can't afford that, then you are stuck with two bodies

1200+650-350= $1500... otherwise. Just be happy with your t3i.

6
Lenses / Re: Deal on Sigma 50 1.4 Art gone already?
« on: November 21, 2014, 12:22:24 PM »
Missed it apparently. What was the deal?

Hundred bucks off, so 849... not bad.

7
Lenses / Re: Deal on Sigma 50 1.4 Art gone already?
« on: November 21, 2014, 11:13:09 AM »
I thought that deal was supposed to be active for a few days....

Send an Im to Helen oster and she probably can give you a better picture of whether the deal is still alive.

8
Lenses / Re: Really bad GAS
« on: November 20, 2014, 09:25:46 PM »
I've been mulling this over for a while, but I'm considering the 200 f2.  Attach a 1.4x and I'm at 280 f2.8... not quite 300 f2.8, but not bad either.

With a 70-200 f/2.8 IS II in tow already, why the fascination with the 200 f/2?  The 300 f/2.8 IS II is so much better than either 70-200 or 200 f/2 IS at 280.  Just curious...

I remembered.

I can probably afford the mk i version of the 300 f/2.8... so that's the one I'll compare.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=458&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=2&LensComp=249&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=1

And with the 1.4x, the 300 still wins... but it isn't a blowout victory.  The 300mm f/2.8 mkii is closer to a blowout...

But, what the 300mm can't do is shoot at f/2... and that extra stop of light means and 1 less stop of iso.

I'll still use the 70-200, but I do shoot some sports where there is quick movement, but at specific locations... volley ball for instance.  The serve is always from the same location... the net is always at the same location, though the players obviously move up and down the net.

Ditto with tennis.  I just like having the flexibility of f/2, f/2.8, and f/4... I know the stand alone primes are better individually, and I can use the converters on them... but I generally don't shoot at f/5.6 unless I have to... so give me 400 f/4 v. 600 f/5.6...

though I may be capricious about the whole thing... so I might change my mind tomorrow.

9
Lenses / Re: Really bad GAS
« on: November 20, 2014, 06:38:41 PM »
My understanding is as follows... when SImilarly framed, the dof changes because you are farther from your subject, but I don't subscribe to that because I often have to crop.


Adding in a crop body gives another 1.6 factor.  Thus we get 300 f/2.8 to 960 f/5.6 f/9.  Both of the shots below were handheld.

I fixed that for you.   ;)

Great shots, BTW.



I need a little help understanding the f/9.  The 300 + 2x TC reports f/5.6 on both my 5D3 and 7D2.  This is what I think I have with my 1.4x and 2x teleconverters:

Lens:  300 f/2.8, 420 f/4, 600 f/5.6
5D3: Same
7D2: 480 f/2.8, 670 f/4, 960 f/5.6 (FF equivalent)

How does the f/9 come into play?

Regards, Jim

10
Lenses / Re: Really bad GAS
« on: November 20, 2014, 10:24:54 AM »
I've been mulling this over for a while, but I'm considering the 200 f2.  Attach a 1.4x and I'm at 280 f2.8... not quite 300 f2.8, but not bad either.

With a 70-200 f/2.8 IS II in tow already, why the fascination with the 200 f/2?  The 300 f/2.8 IS II is so much better than either 70-200 or 200 f/2 IS at 280.  Just curious...

I'll respond later, provided I remember to do so.

11
Lenses / Re: Really bad GAS
« on: November 20, 2014, 09:20:25 AM »
I've been mulling this over for a while, but I'm considering the 200 f2.  Attach a 1.4x and I'm at 280 f2.8... not quite 300 f2.8, but not bad either.


12
Lenses / Re: 70-200 2.8II or F4 for Zoo Shoot
« on: November 19, 2014, 05:44:01 PM »
If you will rent a 70-200 lens, choose F2.8II. Will make much difference in the minimum shutter speed, and will also help blur the railings and fences that surround the animals.

This is the best answer you have received so far.
Last year I went to shoot the tiger cubs at the zoo. They were fun to shoot but F/2.8 II was a must because of the chain link fence and the position you I had to shoot from. I also had my 300mm F/2.8 with me which even worked better when the tigers were far enough away.

I hate fences... so much.  I was shooting at f/1.2 and that damn fence was still there. 


13
Lenses / Re: 70-200 2.8II or F4 for Zoo Shoot
« on: November 19, 2014, 12:11:10 PM »
I've owned all of the Canon EF 70-200mm lenses, and currently have the f/2.8 MK II, merely because I use it in extreme low light.  Otherwise, for outdoor use or carrying around, my f/4 IS was my choice. 
 

The f/4 IS lens is wonderful, and plenty good wide open.  You will not have a need for f/2.8, so why carry that monster around?

It really depends on whether he will be shooting in indoor facilities. Honestly, if he opts to do two lenses, I would lean to the f4, but one alone, I'd lean towards the f2.8.... but one stop of light is just that, one stop... even with the 6d... that's why I suggested the 50 art.8x more light than the f4... reptiles , mammals and birds.... oh my.

14
Lenses / Re: MY GAS. ILLNESS COME TO VISIT ME AGAIN.
« on: November 19, 2014, 10:47:48 AM »
Your Mk I is more than adequate for your 2-3 times a year use, especially as you think it sharp enough. Why don't you donate the price of the Mk II to a suitable charity, like one for ebola, instead. Think of the satisfaction you will get from that. You could also sell off your unused lenses and donate the cash raised for a worthy charity as well. It will cure your GAS and do some good.

Not to be a dissenter, but it is easy to be charitable with other people's money.  Why don't you sell your Mercedes and buy a nice Honda coup, and give the difference to xyz... easy answer, because I don't want to.


15
Lenses / Re: MY GAS. ILLNESS COME TO VISIT ME AGAIN.
« on: November 19, 2014, 09:45:24 AM »
I'm curious how much cpw makes... we all know we can negotiate directly, so going through them is more a convenience so we don't have to make several calls.

http://www.canonpricewatch.com/product/03872/Canon-EF-200-400mm-f4L-IS-USM-Extender-1.4x-price.html

Per Canon price watch, street price is 9849.99.

If you pay with a credit card that gives you 1% back, your final it the door price would be 9851.5... I've never bought the street price... do you have to pay cash/check.  Would you get a discount for paying cash?

I used CPW-street price twice. An authourized dealer(very-well-known dealer) contacted me through phone. We completed the transaction within few mins. I used my American Express both transactions.

$10K is quite a bit of cash to carry around JD... :o

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 170