Messages

76

Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens

« on: January 30, 2013, 03:10:42 PM »

Personally I've never been that happy with portraits from mine. There is something quite 'technical' looking about images from it that I never get with the 70-200. In that regard, i don't see the advantage of the macro for portraiture except perhaps weight (and focussing distance).

77

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II is a Peerless Performer

« on: January 30, 2013, 03:07:23 PM »

Whilst the IQ is a treat, the thing I find most noticeably pleasing is the handling/weight. The old one was heavy and felt not as 'balanced'.

78

Lenses / Re: Lens suggestions requested

« on: January 30, 2013, 02:22:18 PM »

+1 for some variant of the 70-200
Good for landscapes and portrait although a bit long on the crop sensor for the all round usefulness I get with mine.

79

PowerShot Cameras / Re: The love for AA size batteries

« on: January 30, 2013, 02:25:34 AM »

I remember when the first consumer digital cameras were becoming popular around 1997.  They used AA batteries, and you got maybe 30 - 40 images for a alkaline 4 battery set.  You could get twice that with lithium batteries, but they were 10X the cost.
After a year or so, battery life in new models increased by a factor of two, and by 2000, it was no longer a issue.  I much prefer AA batteries for point and shoot cameras, but for DSLR's, I get along ok with li-on.  DSLR's just consume too much power to make AA's practical.  I still have my Nikon CP-990, it uses AA's, which makes it practical to keep, since buying new li-on batteries every few years would be a issue, and eventually, they would no longer be made.

+1

Wipe the cobwebs off that wallet & pick up a digital camera made in this century!

80

Lenses / Re: Sigma 35 1.4 or Canon 50 1.4 or Canon 24-70 2.8 II

« on: January 28, 2013, 07:13:40 PM »

I'd probably vote for the 50 1.4 or the 24-70 ii. The latter very versatile and the 50 is small and reasonably discreet. I find my 35 a bit too close for street photography but I do love it's all round focal length for posing and close candids. All three are good choices really and all with wildly different budgetary issues.

81

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II is a Peerless Performer

« on: January 28, 2013, 03:52:17 PM »

It's the light fall off and the 'magic' of that aperture combined with that FL that captivates me. Granted I don't use it much but when i do, particularly for child portraits, it makes a huge impression. With the advent of the 24-70 ii, the 24L has become quite a specialized lens but I'm ok with that.

82

Lenses / Re: Lens Help - 17-40 & 70-200 f/4 or 24-70 f/4

« on: January 28, 2013, 03:47:12 PM »

I appreciate the versatility of the 24-105 but having borrowed and used it for awhile, i still find it slow and to be honest, a bit dull. I found myself taking good 'meat and potatoes' shots with it but struggled to produce anything with any real charm. I passed on it, despite its versatility. Obviously YMMV.

83

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II is a Peerless Performer

« on: January 28, 2013, 03:17:11 PM »

I got mine from B&H for $2050

Tested my 24mm F/1.4 II at all apertures against it and the F/2.8 performance and up is better with the 24-70, so I sold the 24mm...

ET

Agreed the 24-70ii is dead good compared to the 24ii but only the prime can render the sort of shallow portraits like no other lens. Enough to keep the 24L? For me, yes. Obviously not everyone's call.

84

EOS Bodies / Re: Where are you EOS 70D?

« on: January 24, 2013, 02:21:53 PM »

I would rather be run over by a bus then believe that Canon would not improve on the 60D, especially after the 60Da.

Methinks you're taking your 60Ds too seriously then

85

PowerShot Cameras / Re: The love for AA size batteries

« on: January 22, 2013, 03:03:38 PM »

Am I correct in understanding that you're basing a camera decision on battery size?

86

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II

« on: January 21, 2013, 03:40:19 PM »

This exact thing happened to a colleague. 70-200 F4 IS over Fleabay.
$500 later at a lens repair place it's good as gold. Overall he ended up about $50 better off than retail. Silence, shrugs from the seller.

87

HDR - High Dynamic Range / Re: Canon 5D mark 3 in-camera HDR shots

« on: January 21, 2013, 03:27:11 PM »

I completely agree. That is what I call good HDR.

88

Lenses / Re: Grey (Gray) Market Advice

« on: January 21, 2013, 01:38:56 AM »

Interesting. In Australia, grey market is increasingly the most cost viable option. On average, lenses are $2-300 more retail and cameras often $4-500 more... We have no B&H.

89

HDR - High Dynamic Range / Re: Canon 5D mark 3 in-camera HDR shots

« on: January 19, 2013, 08:25:10 PM »

Point taken Each to their own. I see some amazing HDR but about 1% of the time. The most amazing HDR for me is when it doesn't look like HDR. So often it has that 'confected' artificial look I find. It becomes a processing look of its own and often due to non-judicious post processing - or people taking too much of a dynamic leap.

But just my opinion obviously.

90

HDR - High Dynamic Range / Re: Canon 5D mark 3 in-camera HDR shots

« on: January 17, 2013, 03:06:05 PM »

None of these shots do much for me. I know it's said if you can't say anything nice at all then don't say it but HDR makes me break those rules every time. The halo around the building, the gamma-ey nasty clouds, the OTT colours etc etc - just not for me. Sorry.

The last one works OK for me though - was that taken with a 24-70ii? Sunburst looks familiar...