in: hammer; hammer > 2008-10-10;
| # Posted 2008-10-12 02:57:52 | |
| j-man: | Did you use a filter on the lens, or was this post-processing? |
| # Posted 2008-10-14 03:21:13 | |
| Bash: | The colours look just like that in Caledon today, even without post-processing. |
| # Posted 2008-10-14 09:18:29 | |
| hammer: | It looked just like that. This has been a great year for colour. Don't forget the U. :-) |
| # Posted 2008-10-14 09:47:46 | |
| Bash: | Hammer, on the other hand, *never* looks like that (i.e. standing on a cliff edge, smiling). He must have been photoshopped in. |
| # Posted 2008-10-14 17:52:07 | |
| wilsmith: | Looks great!
What new lens did you get? The 18-200? 24-105? Or something completely different? Whatever it is certainly seems to produce results! |
| # Posted 2008-10-14 20:21:57 | |
| Bash: | I believe Hammer ordered the new Canon 18-200 IS lens that is on my wish list as well. Hammer, have you used it enough yet to decide whether you're totally happy with it? |
| # Posted 2008-10-15 02:44:18 | |
| hammer: | Yeah I got the 18-200 IS lens and I'm very happy with it. I need to download my photos from Ottawa on the weekend but so far it seems like a good purchase.
Bash, I went on a high ropes course in the Gatineau too so I'm getting over that fear of heights slowly. |
| # Posted 2008-10-15 03:39:20 | |
| j-man: | Are all you guys Canon people? Is that because you are "Can"adian? |
| # Posted 2008-10-15 04:35:52 | |
| hammer: | CANadians don't define themselves by what we are but rather by what we aren't so we are
NON American ;-) |
| # Posted 2008-10-15 04:36:33 | |
| Bash: | We are, but it's funny you should ask that because I've been wondering today whether the Nikon D700 has enough advantages to pull me to the dark side. |
| # Posted 2008-10-15 04:45:21 | |
| hammer: | That would make you KONadian (and poorer). |
| # Posted 2008-10-15 07:18:29 | |
| Bash: | No kidding! Mike Van Den Bosch got a D700, and his shots are looking awesome. The things that interest me vs. the Canon options (EOS 50D and 5D) are: full-sized sensor (5D only), built-in flash (unusual in a high-end camera - 50D only) and only 12 MP, which actually has some advantages. However, I do have some Canon accessories that may impact the decision... |
| # Posted 2008-10-15 08:12:14 | |
| j-man: | Well, the D700 is flat out sweet, as is the 5D. If you have either, you probably CAN't complain. |
| # Posted 2008-10-15 08:13:10 | |
| wilsmith: | The D700 is verrrrry nice. I do like the full-frame and weatherproofing, especially. And the high ISO capabilities sound great - some days you just need that to speed the shutter up and freeze the action.
However, at only 12 MP, you really don't get much room to crop, and sometimes you just need the extra pixels to maneuver.... And the price is quite steep - for that you can buy TWO 50D's or a 5Dmk2. The latter also has the high ISO, full-frame, and weatherproofing, but no built-in flash (I prefer available light anyway, but that's just me). The 50D's have great AF (already the 40D is great, IMHO) and as high a frame rate as most of us will ever need. If they were weather-sealed, they'd be nearly perfect. But given their price ($1300 vs $3000 for the D700), that leaves a lot of spare change to put towards some great glass, which Canon has in spades. If I was starting again from scratch, Canon vs Nikon would be a tough call. But since I already have Canon toys, then it would have to be a really compelling reason to make me switch camps. CANadian I shall remain.... |
| # Posted 2008-10-15 08:31:48 | |
| hammer: | >CANadian I shall remain....
But we are becoming more American with our Republican government tonight... |
| # Posted 2008-10-15 09:10:16 | |
| Bash: | Thanks, Wil - more things to think about. I don't use the built-in flash a lot, but there are times when a fill flash makes a portrait against a bright background possible, and if I'm in the outdoors, I won't have my external flash, so it's nice to have that option. I guess the pros who use the 5Ds would never take their camera backpacking!
The megapixels are an interesting question. As a techie geek, I'm inclined to think higher numbers are better, but I'm finding some dissenting opinions. More pixels on the same sensor size means smaller pixels, which are less sensitive to light, more susceptible to noise and have a smaller dynamic range. That, combined with the storage space issues of more MP, makes me feel that 12 MP vs. 21 MP is not necessarily as huge a disadvantage as one might think. (Unless you do a lot of cropping.) Hammer, sounds like you're watching the same TV show that I am... |
| # Posted 2008-10-15 21:28:59 | |
| j-man: | If I were starting today I would also be torn. But, once you buy into one of these platforms, you are kind of stuck. They are both very good. (I am talking about cameras.)
I do very much like the built-in flash. I think I will wait until Nikon comes out with a full-frame with video capture and weatherproofing. I don't care so much about MPs at the moment--12 is pretty good--but Wil has a point. |
You must be logged in to add a message