March 05, 2015, 11:26:01 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 - wayno

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 16
Lenses / Re: 16-35 I vs. 17-40
« on: September 01, 2013, 06:02:11 PM »
I believe the 17-40 is superior to the 16-35 version 1. The 17-40 is also supposedly very much in the same ballpark as the 16-35 II, with the exception of the stop and a fraction more wide angle.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 6d Highest Usable Iso?
« on: August 31, 2013, 11:31:33 PM »
If you look at the ISO comparisons on TDP the 6D is about half a stop better. Definitely not one full stop, but a good improvement.
However, I got a used 5D2 for a little over $1K (low actuations, good condition). Considering how good the 5D2 still is, I would look around the secondary market for a while before settling on a 6D, especially if you're just looking to upgrade from crop.

I've handled a 6d and ergonomically I find it less handy than my 5d2. The 5d2 has some annoying functional limitations but as far as IQ goes, it's awesome. I was under the impression though that the 6d was a bit better than less than a full stop, ISO-wise... But I guess the figures don't lie.

EOS Bodies / Re: 12 Step Program for Focusing
« on: August 30, 2013, 11:05:46 AM »
Back button focus and servo mode. Improved my action shots focus no end.

Lenses / Re: Bought 24-70 f/2.8 II -Soft, owners, please advice
« on: August 27, 2013, 03:46:55 PM »
Subjectively, my 24-70 II looks better than what I'm seeing here. I reckon your lens is a bit off.

Thanks for your reply - whats your in-camera sharpening setting (in picture style) ?

Factory default. But I only shoot RAW. The 24-70 II is a strong, sharp, contrasty lens. You should be impressed - I was. That said, I haven't shot it in JPEG

Lenses / Re: Bought 24-70 f/2.8 II -Soft, owners, please advice
« on: August 27, 2013, 03:12:12 PM »
Subjectively, my 24-70 II looks better than what I'm seeing here. I reckon your lens is a bit off.

Technical Support / Re: Wedding shooter - DO NOT TRY THIS, UNLESS
« on: August 21, 2013, 09:09:13 AM »
With the soundtrack it had a touch of "Evil Dead" about it for those brief few seconds...

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM Art Reviewed
« on: August 13, 2013, 03:54:44 PM »
"Mounts on full frame..." Intriguing

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: I killed a Samyang!
« on: August 13, 2013, 01:34:37 AM »
I dropped mine four feet onto brick paving and it's still perfectly fine. Go figure!

EOS Bodies / Re: A Canon 44.7MP DSLR at the End of August? [CR1]
« on: July 26, 2013, 04:21:57 AM »
They can sell a lot of $6000-$7000 cameras to enthusiasts, $10,000+ is harder to do.

Don't professionals use cameras any more, or are professional photographers now so poorly paid that the really nice gear is for the rich hobbyist?  ???

I think there's a lot more truth to that statement than most would think.

Lenses / Re: 17-40 Replacement
« on: July 18, 2013, 04:44:20 AM »
I thought the 17-40 was a really good lens... Until I got the 24-70 mk2. I think of it as very capable now but it doesn't have the X factor of the 24-70 mk2- which I suspect is not dissimilar to the Zeiss 21...

Gregory Crewdson comes to mind...

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 40D to 5D Classic. Good upgrade?
« on: June 27, 2013, 04:35:12 PM »
Yes. Although I would try desperately to scrape funds together for a 5d2 if you can.

Lenses / Re: If You Could Have One 1 Lens...
« on: June 23, 2013, 09:41:30 PM »
My 24-70 II.


Agree. Versatility and excellent optics.

Am I missing something or the Fuji X100S Image quality is on pair with full frame cameras regarding high ISO performance, despite the fact that is using an APS-C sensor.....

This camera is really that good?.... in real life situations?

I have one and I really like it. Noise is very good and even a bit attractive at 3200. It kills my 5d2 for noise and also AF in the dark. It is excellent in that regard. IQ is better on the 5d2 overall ie the look and texture of the image and I'd say its approximately equivalent to the 7d/Rebels etc. That evaluation is of course, subjective.

Despite the fixed focal length, out and about its a very versatile camera.

Lenses / Re: Is the 16-35 L II worth its price?
« on: June 09, 2013, 04:25:41 PM »
Speaking again of sunstars/starbursts, I've always liked the tight glow of the 17-40 f8 stars and whilst the 24-70 II f8 stars look amazing, they're very, very distinctive and tend to stick out of an image more than the atmospheric glow exhibuted by the 17-40. Coming from a 10-22 originally, the starbursts on that we're quite messy in comparison to both of the above, with the bursts usually accompanied by dollops of off-centre flare and sometimes specular mini flares.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 16