stillbound
-
Posts
322 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by stillbound
-
-
all you have to do is google the companies and you will see all you need to see...
-
not sure why you would think it's a joke...canon had a 200 1.8 till a few years ago. I think there was a 1200 at one point also...not sure about that one.
The canon reps said the 200 2.8 would clock in at around 4g's (like nikons version of that lens) and probably mid year 2008
JC
www.pbase.com/josephwcarey
-
i think one of the big problems and I have heard this about the 40 in a few places is that "it's not as sharp...the color isn't as rich" etc is that the 40D does not have as much in camera processing as the 20 and 30 did...this camera was obviously aimed more at the pro end of the prosumer market and they expect you to do a little work on your images...
-
The IS 18 - 55 was released a month ago...that lens does exist. Not that it makes up for the rest of this...the answer to that is that if you really believe models have perfect skin and that bottles of bud look like that then you are crazy...
Marketing and advertising are all about what Looks best...not what is best
-
the thing is that even with all my complaints...I won't change unless they show me a consistent falling down over the next two years. If they blow me away with the next 5D or if the rumored 7D comes with the specs that are floating for it then I am happy again and will live with it. I just don't see enough from the company saying that it realizes it is the biggest and supposedly best.
Add to the list and this is BIG - the keeping out of features through firmware and the quick update of cameras such as the 1dII N and then giving no relief to those customers that put the money into the older versions...for example of the firmware issue - keeping spot metering out of cameras and having people hack it in showing it was hardware enabled and software disabled....
-
OK - here goes again
Canon corporate arrogance = 1. putting out 24-70 2.8's that need to go to the factory two or three times each to get them to be sharp. 2. 16-35 2.8 that while better than the first version still pales in comparison to the nikon 14-24 2.8 (which is a more sensible range since it matches up to the 24-70/24-105). 3. Putting out a 10mp poor focusing 1dIII that doesn't offer significantly better IQ or ISO performance over the 40D or d300 at nearly three times the price. never mind that the IQ of the almost 3 year old 5d (at half the price) and the d3 (at about the same price) is much better. 4. Pricing lenses like the 70-300 IS at 70 dollars more than the equivalent nikon while the lens suffers from "creep" and just feels cheap. 5. Letting the 70-200 2.8 IS be "outsharped" by the 500 dollar less f4 version. 6. making the entire efs series incapable of working on full frame cameras. Kinda hard to ask someone to put a grand on a lens that is not L and will only work on two cameras (meaning the two newest 1.6 cams) at any given time. The only lens that was really necessary to be on a different system was the 10-22 and they could easily have adopted a system similar to nikons that uses the middle of the sensor rather than telling us to eat poop on it...
Bunch of different things in addition...just the tip of the iceberg
-
Colin...
that is the problem right there that you so eloquently stated it "it is a difficult beast to tame" The nikon system is dead on exposure wise out of the box every time...add the fact that you can wirelessly control the flashes from the camera with no extra pieces and it that much better.
Their are many things I love about my canon gear but the flash is not one of them...and you are the ONLY person I've ever heard say not only didn't think it was bad but was actually good.
-
Cls is the nikon flash system which is and always has been superior to ours. Aside from that the d200 is inferior to the 40 so I'm not sure what you would be gaining there...
If you said you were going to trade up to a D3 then i would think you had an idea worth exploring but the set up you described is in no way superior to the canon stuff...
I sell this stuff for a living and while that doesn't make me an expert it does mean I have more exp with their stuff then most of you...
The nikons are nice...I have been very upset at the corporate arrogance that canon has shown...but in the end...our 3 year old camera still produces images with IQ equal to or just barely perceptibly less than their new camera at twice the price...
Do your thing but when canon unleashes the new cams that will certainly be aimed at crushing the upswell of nikon support in digital slrs...the d3 will again be a step behind
-
I'd vote for the 135/2 or the 200/2.8 - reasonable size and cost with excellent image quality. The other tilt shift lenses are not L for some reason and will generally not give you the same quality that you are getting out of the 24. If you are making money then I suggest getting the best tool for the job even if it means saving a bit longer to get it
www.pbase.com/josephwcarey
JC
-
even stranger is that the 70 - 300 costs more than double the 75 - 300. I always wondered why they couldn't just build the same lens with and without IS (which the 18-55 IS proves doesn't cost as much as they have claimed in past) instead of having the better glass in the IS version...
JC
-
in regard to the mamiya - the camera really is not that great. Small screen, super (and I mean super) slow response and writing times...
And at the end of the day it is 2g's more in price plus all the lens costs etc...
With all that said i am interested to see real life results from the III
-
D3 and....?
in Nikon
What it comes down to is this -
I've had the D3 in my hands not just at shows but other times...it is an incredible camera. I'm not allowed to talk about what I do or how I have had it so I just want you to know that I've actually used it and it slams.
As for the arrogance of canon - I had a 1D I and own a 1D II - which was worth the upgrade as it was close to twice the camera for less money. The 1D 3 is not twice or even 50% more camera (I know this is opinion - but it is MY opinion) than my Mark 2. Amongst other issues is Canon knowing what Nikon had in store for these two cameras from Nikon and still only making the Mark 3 and the 40D 10MP. I am not MP crazed but there is a difference between 10 and 12 or 14 (which is what the 1 should have been, 14 for the 1mk3 and 12 for the 40D)
The entire rollout of these cameras has been very "nikonesque" in what we used to use as a negative for you Nikon while Nikon put the 300 out on time and the 3 will be out later this week.
More arrogance is 20 years of EOS with a flash system that has not worked while you guys have had entry level slrs (the D70s and above) with commander mode and dead on exposure out of the box in the hands of photographers that know what they are doing...
Add this to the fact that they have been caught in the past leaving things out of bodies (such as spot metering) with software rather than hardware - meaning the camera was fully capable but to force your hand to a more expensive camera they kept that feature locked out with firmware.
Another (really piling on here huh...sorry) is lenses like the 16 - 35 2.8 which was horrendously soft in the edges. I paid a good amount of money for that only to have canon replace it and basically say thanks for your money - send us more for one that really works.
There is more - but in the end Nikon seems to be at least on the right page and striving to move ahead while I know canon has the tech to really outshine nikon (at least on this round of cams they could have) they CHOOSE not to...and that is arrogance. Saying "we are canon" and people will buy our stuff no matter what...
-
D3 and....?
in Nikon
Going to finally do it - giving up on Canon and the corporate arrogance that
permeates the company.
i'm going to get a D3 and want to know all you nikon guys recomendations for
lenses. I am buying an 85 1.4 and a 50 1.4 and wanted to know what you guys use
as a fast wide prime...20ish
Also - does anyone happen to have taken any images with the (mostly) unavailable
24-70 2.8 vs the 28 - 70 2.8?
thanks in advance
JC
-
when b/h takes your money that means you are going to get the camera unlike some other places that run "lists" and you never know if you are going to get it...B/H won't take an order till they have a confirmation that the item is going to come in.
Good luck
-
the only problem being that it is 2g's...out of reach of the "average" 40D shooter.
If the number could be dropped to f4 or even 3.5 the cost would go down signifigantly...sigma used to make a 14 3.5 and they have a 14 2.8 on the way both of which are far cheaper than the Canon...
JC
-
not much different than the nikon 10.5 and those seem to last pretty well
-
yes...and then you happily chopped off 35mm from that range with your suggestion....as you said the "the OP specifically said "I am happy with the range of the 17-85mm" so I dealt with lenses that covered more closely that range
-
anyone that has actually shot a concert knows that the 17 - 55 (or any lens in that range) is pretty useless unless you are against the stage or you like to crop. And even if you do get close (in the pit so to speak) the pics have that strange "looking up your nose" look that is not flattering or dramatic (90 percent of the time)
I am in the school of carrying the 85 1.8, the 50 1.4, and save for a 135 2. All sharper, faster, etc. The first two together will cost less than the 17 55 2.8 while the third is just an amazing lens that will cost you a few more dollars.
The other issue is that the tamron probably has a better range if you really "need" a zoom and if you have the money to spend on the canon 17 - 55 then you should just grab the 24 - 70 canon which is probably best of the 3 zooms...
JC
-
could be panning in IS 1 but it could just be that the 200 prime is far sharper...especially wide open than the zoom.
JC
www.pbase.com/josephwcarey
-
I could be really wrong here but when shooting sports I generally try to shoot at the fastest shutter that my aperture will allow since i have control of the aperture and it more directly controls the "look" of the image later through the depth of field. For most things 1/500th is fast enough but if I can shoot faster due to good light conditions trust me I will...
-
I've noticed Bueh's anti sigma bias in the past and wonder what that is based on...
As for me - I believe that sigma makes most of the best third party lenses with the 80 - 400 being nice but a bit slow focusing for my taste.
-
I personally think the tokina 10 - 17 is about the coolest thing for fisheye wanting 1.6 folks...
great image quality and a super close focusing distance make for a lot of fun shooting...
JC
-
Canon announced this lens along with the 40D, the 18 55 II, and some other things...
I own a 70 200 2.8 IS but mostly shoot with my primes at this point...
for vacation if this lens lived up to the early hype I was hearing it seemed
like a great lens to carry on a 40D...the early results said it was just as
sharp as the 70 - 300 IS (which is pretty sharp for consumer glass)...at a great
price (rumored to be 300ish)
Any news?
-
Just wondering if anyone has had a crack at this lens yet? Is it noticeably
sharper/have less light fall off than the first version?
thanks
Has anyone dealt with "FotoConnection", "Broadway Photo"?
in Canon EOS Mount
Posted
the biggest problem with amazon is that they don't know anything about cameras...
For shooters they are fine - I agree but the fact of the matter is that the industry is driven by people that are hobbyists at best and those are the people that can greatly be helped by speaking to a photographer/salesman at a place like B/H.
JC