Random Thoughts... [Photographic Edition]

Now where have I heard that before... :p
Well this time, the guy claims that he actually has the lens. That's one step further than before. :yes:

EDIT: on another note, from a Canon guy reviewing the Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8:
Still very much in the 'first impressions' vein, my next attempt to make [the lens] look bad saw me shooting at ISO400 with the Canon 5D balanced on its Arca mount on the chopping board: wide open at a distance of less than 1m (about three feet). I know it's wrong, but this lens just brings out my inner Ken Rockwell.
:lol:
 
Last edited:
I guess this is the right place for this...
A few months ago I decided to put together a little test video with my t1i shortly after I bought it. The result was nothing truely amazing but I liked it none the less.

I like the opening scenes, and some others, even without a tripod - or maybe because you didn't use one and the focus was... a little inconsistent. I think the hand held movement and focus helped convey the wintery, windy feeling.

Now should I get an X3 (500D) or X4 (550D)? :(
 
550D is amazing value for money. I'd get that.
 
Get the 550D.
The performance in high ISO is worth the difference.
 
I feel like I just watched "Lord of War" :hmm: :lol:

I can see what you're trying to do, but:

1. Use a tripod
2. The music selection is great, but it doesn't match video because the video is ... mediocre, at best.

Sorry :dunno:

EDIT: frick, man! You're in Nova Scotia! Set your camera on a tripod by a shore with a light house or something, shoot a bunch of sunsets, take some different angles, put it in slow motion and fade between each capture.

I know the video is pretty mediocre, I wasnt really going for anything great :p At the time I didn't actually have a tripod but I do now.My comp just isn't great for rendering hd video thats why I Havent really done anything else since this was made.
 
Get the 550D.
The performance in high ISO is worth the difference.

Do you have an idea where I could find some sample pics? I searched and found Canon's samples but they were all at 100/200.

I like the fact that it has an external mic input, and the faster burst. Most of the other features don't do much for me.

I don't like that it can take less frames per burst (only 6 RAW).

I've saw one page that had them listed at the same price in dollars, but here in Japan the 500 is $700 and the 550 will be $1000 (sales start 26 Feb). That's quite a difference in price.
 
Last edited:
What's the maximum sized print for a 2711x4093 pixel image and 72dpi? I'm thinking of making a poster
 
That's 11megapixels, I've printed 8mp images at 75x50cm (30x20 inches) looking absolutely great.

You could go even bigger without any trouble.
 
What's the maximum sized print for a 2711x4093 pixel image and 72dpi? I'm thinking of making a poster

Look here and calculate:
Depends on the print resolution you consider to be a "good quality" print. 300 DPI is the standard in high quality. Just take your linear resolution and divide it by the 300 to get the maximum print size in that resolution. Divide the print size into the linear resolution to get the print resolution.

ie.:
3456 / 300 = 11.52 inches
2304 / 300 = 7.68 inches

So, about 12 x 9.

That said, I've printed 18x12 from a 6MP image (~150 DPI) and it looks really good.
 
Please drop a line or two about how you liked it when you're done with the 35/2 D. I have one, and I'm not very happy with it.

Anyway, I established contact with the dealer, and the 50mm 1.2 will be on its way soon. :banana:

I wasn't too happy with the 35 f/2 D. Camera would overexpose when using it, putting it onto my camera was a pain, and it didn't AF.
 
I wasn't too happy with the 35 f/2 D. Camera would overexpose when using it, putting it onto my camera was a pain, and it didn't AF.
Thanks for the feedback! I was more talking about optics, but there we go. Technically, my lens works flawlessly in all regards.

I know that some of the earlier builds are known for bleeding oil from the aperture blades and thus failing to stop down when taking a photo. That obviously leads to an overexposed shot, which probably is what happened with your lens. The only gripe I have is IQ, which is by no means bad, but could be better for a dedicated prime in my view.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the feedback! I was more talking about optics, but there we go. Technically, my lens works flawlessly in all regards.

I know that some of the earlier builds are known for bleeding oil from the aperture blades and thus failing to stop down when taking a photo. That obviously leads to an overexposed shot, which probably is what happened with your lens. The only gripe I have is IQ, which is by no means bad, but could be better for a dedicated prime in my view.

If you're talking optics, the lens seemed alright, but I think it could be better.

The bleeding oil issue might have been why it overexposed, although it did seem like a later build.
 
Top