December 20, 2014, 08:34:08 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 - jdramirez

Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 175
151
Lenses / Re: Another EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II Mention
« on: November 05, 2014, 08:39:47 PM »
Please allow me to quote Douglas Adams:

"Curiously enough, the only thing that went through the mind of the bowl of petunias as it fell was ..."

If you will complete the sentence you will have my comment for this rumor  ;D ;D ;D ;D

I'm sure someone else responded... but I believe it was...

Oh... not again. 

or some variation.

152
From what I recall of the provide thread, I still have to lean towards the 6d.  Outside of birds in flight, which you can track with the center af point, but not as well, I think your better value is the 6d and the 24-70... though, I'm personally waiting for the stigma 24-70 f2... Is
If that ever actually happens.

153
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1dc = Free beer
« on: November 04, 2014, 02:18:51 PM »
I was in Puerto Rico drinking at a bar of a casino... playing with a shorty 40 & my mkiii... and I had to pay full price for my crappy Puerto Rican beer... But it was alright...

154
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Deal: X-Rite i1Display Pro $149 at B&H Photo
« on: November 02, 2014, 09:37:53 PM »
Tempting...

I bit... but that's because I have 2 monitors, a 23/24 inch led viewsonic montor and a 39" led panasonic tv... and they both look really off... so as of late, I haven't been adjusting the color... just the contrast, cropping, grain... etc... and so hopefully it's fine... but frustrating.

Unless something has changed you'll need each display on its own display adapter even if your adapter can drive more than one display; as I understand it most adapters only have one lookup table for all their outputs.

Jim

I'm going to ignore one of my monitors.  So the adjustment for one should be universal for both... That's my plan at least.

155
Lenses / Re: 70-200 2.8 II or 100 2.8L and 135 2 and 200 2.8
« on: November 02, 2014, 09:25:51 PM »
And speak of the devil... I sold the 70-200mm f/2.8L USM.  So that's a plus.  Still not sure about the 300L

156
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Deal: X-Rite i1Display Pro $149 at B&H Photo
« on: November 02, 2014, 09:22:38 PM »
Tempting...

I bit... but that's because I have 2 monitors, a 23/24 inch led viewsonic montor and a 39" led panasonic tv... and they both look really off... so as of late, I haven't been adjusting the color... just the contrast, cropping, grain... etc... and so hopefully it's fine... but frustrating.

157
Lenses / Re: 70-200 2.8 II or 100 2.8L and 135 2 and 200 2.8
« on: November 02, 2014, 06:49:40 PM »
I'm not 100% sure I agree with not selling A for B. I continuously go upward in quality... so I presume that has something to do with it. 

Sold 75-300mm             Bought 55-250mm
Sold Canon XS               Bought Canon 60D
Sold Canon 50mm f/1.8  Bought Canon 50mm f/1.4 (though this might be the most questionable upgrade)
Sold 60D                       Bought 5D mkiii

And there are a ton more examples... but the onl time I regretted selling something was when I sold my 100L IS macro.  I missed it so much that I bought it again... but I sold my original for my than I paid... and then I purchased the new 100L for less than I sold the original for. 

The only lens I have lost money on was the 24-105mm which I bought... sold... bought another... sold that... bought another... sold that... bought another... the last three time making money on the lens... but I'm still underwater as a whole on the lens... which is annoying. 


158
Lenses / Re: 70-200 2.8 II or 100 2.8L and 135 2 and 200 2.8
« on: November 02, 2014, 06:34:53 PM »
I have learned the hard way in more than one hobby not to sell item A to buy item B.  New item B is not always an improvement, requiring repurchasing item A at a net loss.

It's not quite like that... I bought a 70-200mm f/4 L USM for $400... I'm looking to get $500 for it, I bought a t5 and kit lens for $300... I'm looking to get $400ish for it... and a 75-300mm for $60 that I'll flip as well.

Then I have some money tied up in Amazon, Best Buy, and rebates... all in all, it's quite convoluted, but buying and selling have become a secondary hobby to my actual hobby. 

159
Lenses / Re: 70-200 2.8 II or 100 2.8L and 135 2 and 200 2.8
« on: November 02, 2014, 11:37:22 AM »
While we are having this conversation... I'd like to take it right off the rails.

I have a 70-200mm f/2.8L mkii and a canon 1.4 TC mkii.  So that gives me 98-280mm @ f/4... So I have an opportunity to buy a 300mm f/4L is for $700... but my question is do I need that for $700?  I'm thinking no... Sure I will have 420mm @ 5.6 with the tc... but I'm not sure I need that...

Thoughts?

You mentioned you like to buy & sell lenses. For $700, I think you should buy it and resell for small profit.

Otherwise, the 70-200mm f2.8 IS II + 1.4x  III is very good combo.

that was my thought too.  I could list it at a fair price and then just use it until it sells... a free 3 month rental where I actually make money at the end of the deal... but... and here's the stinker of it all... I'm leveraged to the hilt at the moment.  Sure we have the money, but I keep my camera fund money separate so I don't have to hear any crap from the Mrs.

So if I sell 1 thing... only 1 thing... then I'll have enough to get the lens... but until then... I'm dancing with the devil of inventory. 

160
Lenses / Re: 70-200 2.8 II or 100 2.8L and 135 2 and 200 2.8
« on: November 02, 2014, 09:38:19 AM »
While we are having this conversation... I'd like to take it right off the rails.

I have a 70-200mm f/2.8L mkii and a canon 1.4 TC mkii.  So that gives me 98-280mm @ f/4... So I have an opportunity to buy a 300mm f/4L is for $700... but my question is do I need that for $700?  I'm thinking no... Sure I will have 420mm @ 5.6 with the tc... but I'm not sure I need that...

Thoughts?

161
Not working ;(

Click on the x-rite i1 (2nd one down)... add to cart... check your cart and the discount should be there. 

162
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Deal: X-Rite i1Display Pro $149 at B&H Photo
« on: November 01, 2014, 11:49:19 PM »
Scotchy scotchy scotch.

I would recommend the 16-year old Bushmills (not the 10, or 21 - only the 16-year old).

Not scotch, but one of the best whiskies in the world! Cheers!  :P

I was having some Johnnie Walker black... not a special occasion, so the blue is spared.  And it was good... and then I decided... I'm off to bed shortly... if I fall asleep at the couch, I don't want it the scotch to go to waste... so I poured myself some bourbon... some jack daniels (I couldn't remember the name... so I'm pretty close to calling it a night)... and my oh my... that is a different level of smooth... kinda like sand paper is a bit rougher than silk... but it's wet... and on the rocks...

As for scotch... I prefer glen livet... just a preference... but l'm out.  So I make do.

163
Lenses / Re: Why don't Canon make lenses for other mounts?
« on: November 01, 2014, 11:28:20 PM »
I read that through a scotch laden haze... but it made sense...

Also, look at sigma and their issues with AF consistency.  Canon doesn't give them their secret recipe, so Sigma reverse engineers it... and only somewhat effectively. 

So if canon made lenses for Sony or Nikon or pentax, or even sigma... what happens if they don't share the Colonel's secret recipe... then the Canon brand is hurt as well as their reputation.

I have no issues with recommending either a Canon or a Nikon to a beginner... but it doesn't take much for someone to sour on a brand... because they heard a few bad things.  I still haven't bought a Sigma lens even though I have had a boner for both the 35mm art and the 50 art... so there's that to consider.

When Canon adds a lens to their stable, they add characteristics of the lens to their firmware.

For example, let's say you are shooting with a 1DX and Canon comes out with a 200-600F5.6 lens. The lens would report itself as such to the body, and the body would say "I don't know you, but I will treat you like a 100-400" and the camera would focus the lens. Then Canon comes out with a firmware update for the 1DX and the focusing characteristics of the lens are in that firmware. Now the 1DX knows that if the AF sensor is X distance off that it has to drive the AF motor for time Y and it now focuses the lens faster with less hunting.

The problem with a Sigma (or Tamron) lens is that Canon does not put other manufacturer's characteristics into the Canon Firmware. Sigma (or Tamron) have to cheat and tell the camera body that their lens is whatever the closest Canon lens is to their characteristics. The AF can never be as good as a Canon Lens.

164
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Deal: X-Rite i1Display Pro $149 at B&H Photo
« on: November 01, 2014, 11:21:37 PM »
Scotchy scotchy scotch. 

165
Lenses / Re: Why don't Canon make lenses for other mounts?
« on: November 01, 2014, 10:57:01 PM »
Also, look at sigma and their issues with AF consistency.  Canon doesn't give them their secret recipe, so Sigma reverse engineers it... and only somewhat effectively. 

So if canon made lenses for Sony or Nikon or pentax, or even sigma... what happens if they don't share the Colonel's secret recipe... then the Canon brand is hurt as well as their reputation.

I have no issues with recommending either a Canon or a Nikon to a beginner... but it doesn't take much for someone to sour on a brand... because they heard a few bad things.  I still haven't bought a Sigma lens even though I have had a boner for both the 35mm art and the 50 art... so there's that to consider.

Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 175