Photography Lab THIS SPACE OPEN FOR ADVERTISEMENT. YOU SHOULD BE ADVERTISING HERE!
A place to display digital masterpieces, enhance photography skills, photoshop, and share photo tips with one another... |
 | | 
10-19-2009, 11:00 PM
|
#126 | | I *heart* Revscene.net very Muchie
Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 3,496
Thanked 34 Times in 20 Posts
Failed 15 Times in 2 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by Senna4ever  Yes, but the X200 doesn't play 1080p video at full resolution, as the screen is only 1280x800. | How do I make run smoothly then? I have a GeForce 9200m GS with 256MB dedicated video memory and it's still choppy. Plus I got 4 gigs of ram and 2gb CPU 
__________________
Formerly known as Goodoldcivic.
| 
|  | |
10-19-2009, 11:08 PM
|
#127 | | VLS Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Vancouver
Posts: 16,351
Thanked 2,591 Times in 832 Posts
Failed 61 Times in 19 Posts
|
I dunno...the X200 is known for its speed though. 2 Ghz may not be fast enough to run 1080p, while the X200's 2.4Ghz may be just enough.
__________________
2007 Volvo V50
Taken by ex: 2005 Toyota Prius.
R.I.P. 1997 Lexus ES300. 
R.I.P. 1989 Acura Legend Coupe LS.
| |
| | |
10-19-2009, 11:10 PM
|
#128 | | I *heart* Revscene.net very Muchie
Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 3,496
Thanked 34 Times in 20 Posts
Failed 15 Times in 2 Posts
|
FML...
__________________
Formerly known as Goodoldcivic.
| |
| | |
10-20-2009, 02:18 PM
|
#129 | | Blood tests positive for LOL mod
Join Date: May 2002 Location: World
Posts: 12,999
Thanked 1,263 Times in 325 Posts
Failed 83 Times in 18 Posts
|
Guess what! http://gizmodo.com/5385717/canon-5d-...video-at-24fps
Everybody complaining in the 1D Mark IV comment thread that there won't be any more video firmware updates for the 5D Mark II is kinda wrong: Canon is enabling the 24fps and 25fps 1080p video recording that's found on the 7D and 1D Mark IV, bringing it about up to par. Update's due sometime next year, though no firmware switcheroo's gonna deliver the 1DMkIV's low-light sensitivity. [Planet 5D via Canon Rumors]
| |
| | |
10-20-2009, 11:28 PM
|
#130 | | I contribute to threads in the offtopic forum
Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,764
Thanked 281 Times in 96 Posts
Failed 64 Times in 25 Posts
|
Tomaz do you have a 5DMII now?
__________________
Nikonian
| |
| | |
10-20-2009, 11:30 PM
|
#131 | | VLS Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Vancouver
Posts: 16,351
Thanked 2,591 Times in 832 Posts
Failed 61 Times in 19 Posts
|
He's had one for quite some time now.
__________________
2007 Volvo V50
Taken by ex: 2005 Toyota Prius.
R.I.P. 1997 Lexus ES300.
R.I.P. 1989 Acura Legend Coupe LS.
| |
| | |
10-21-2009, 04:40 PM
|
#132 | | Blood tests positive for LOL mod
Join Date: May 2002 Location: World
Posts: 12,999
Thanked 1,263 Times in 325 Posts
Failed 83 Times in 18 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonjour43MA Tomaz do you have a 5DMII now? | Since April
| |
| | |
11-05-2009, 05:43 PM
|
#133 | | I am grateful grapefruit
Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Vancouver
Posts: 4,094
Thanked 831 Times in 392 Posts
Failed 83 Times in 11 Posts
|
hey, has anyone used the 15-85mm that the new 7D is released with? i've been tryin to find some reviews of it online. thinkin of upgrading to it. there's a website that's splitting the 7D kits here, and selling them for a bit cheaper... around £450...
i have a Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 right now, but i'm tryin to think whether or not the extra reach and the IS would be worth it.... can't afford the bloody 18-55 f2.8. might look into the new tamron EF-S mount with VC tho.
| |
| | |
11-05-2009, 05:50 PM
|
#134 | | I *heart* Revscene.net very Muchie
Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 3,496
Thanked 34 Times in 20 Posts
Failed 15 Times in 2 Posts
| http://www.revscene.net/forums/photo...99977p209.html
Scroll to the part where I posted 3 pics of my cats. They were taken with the 15-85mm IS lens. That lens is freakin' sharp as hell. Definately worth the money. Don't bother with the 17-55 f2.8.
__________________
Formerly known as Goodoldcivic.
| |
| | |
11-05-2009, 06:13 PM
|
#135 | | I Will not Admit my Addiction to RS
Join Date: May 2004 Location: Vancouver
Posts: 566
Thanked 4 Times in 2 Posts
Failed 0 Times in 0 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by niforpix | Please don't insult the 17-55 IS  I have this lens and you would enjoy the F2.8 in low light  and it is sharper than the 15-85
| |
| | |
11-05-2009, 06:16 PM
|
#136 | | I Will not Admit my Addiction to RS
Join Date: May 2004 Location: Vancouver
Posts: 566
Thanked 4 Times in 2 Posts
Failed 0 Times in 0 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by Senna4ever Yes, but the X200 doesn't play 1080p video at full resolution, as the screen is only 1280x800. | I have mine hooked up to a Dell 30" ultrasharp monitor via displayport (through ultrabase). So yea...it runs 1080P with no problems.
| |
| | |
11-05-2009, 06:18 PM
|
#137 | | I Will not Admit my Addiction to RS
Join Date: May 2004 Location: Vancouver
Posts: 566
Thanked 4 Times in 2 Posts
Failed 0 Times in 0 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by niforpix How do I make run smoothly then? I have a GeForce 9200m GS with 256MB dedicated video memory and it's still choppy. Plus I got 4 gigs of ram and 2gb CPU | I use a program call Zoom Player. Plays 1080p with no problems. In fact, Quicktime works fine too. It might be the codecs that you have installed.
Last edited by tallshorty; 11-05-2009 at 06:24 PM.
| |
| | |
11-05-2009, 06:23 PM
|
#138 | | I *heart* Revscene.net very Muchie
Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 3,496
Thanked 34 Times in 20 Posts
Failed 15 Times in 2 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by tallshorty Please don't insult the 17-55 IS I have this lens and you would enjoy the F2.8 in low light and it is sharper than the 15-85 | Not really insulting it. I know it's a great lens. But it's also $200 bucks more. So if one doesn't care to have a f2.8 vs f3.5 and wants that extra reach, than 15-85 is the way to go 
__________________
Formerly known as Goodoldcivic.
| |
| | |
11-05-2009, 09:10 PM
|
#139 | | VLS Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Vancouver
Posts: 16,351
Thanked 2,591 Times in 832 Posts
Failed 61 Times in 19 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by tallshorty Please don't insult the 17-55 IS I have this lens and you would enjoy the F2.8 in low light and it is sharper than the 15-85 | No, it isn't. The Canon 17-55 isn't bad, but the 15-85 is sharper overall, especially in the corners. The one area where Canon is lacking compared to Nikon is the wide to tele zoom lenses.
__________________
2007 Volvo V50
Taken by ex: 2005 Toyota Prius.
R.I.P. 1997 Lexus ES300.
R.I.P. 1989 Acura Legend Coupe LS.
| |
| | |
11-05-2009, 09:11 PM
|
#140 | | Rs has made me the woman i am today!
Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Richmond
Posts: 4,335
Thanked 5 Times in 4 Posts
Failed 0 Times in 0 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by J____ u'll need a quadcore and decent vid card to play those movies smoothly outta the 7d and 5dmk2. Plays smoothly on macbook pro or even the normal macbook. gdamn pc.... but i still wont convert! hahahaha | apple macbook pro ftw! My 2007 mbp C2D can still keep up with those 1080p vids . Can't say the same for friends who have PC laptops from that year, lol.
| |
| | |
11-05-2009, 09:24 PM
|
#141 | | VLS Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Vancouver
Posts: 16,351
Thanked 2,591 Times in 832 Posts
Failed 61 Times in 19 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by MikesJo apple macbook pro ftw! My 2007 mbp C2D can still keep up with those 1080p vids . Can't say the same for friends who have PC laptops from that year, lol. | That's because most PC laptops don't have the specs the MBP have/had. I just bought a 17" 3.06Ghz MBP and it just flies through 5D mkII RAW files in Lightroom, not to mention 130MB 65MP Phase One TIFF's. It's amazing what this thing can do.
__________________
2007 Volvo V50
Taken by ex: 2005 Toyota Prius.
R.I.P. 1997 Lexus ES300.
R.I.P. 1989 Acura Legend Coupe LS.
| |
| | |
11-05-2009, 10:51 PM
|
#142 | | I *heart* Revscene.net very Muchie
Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 3,496
Thanked 34 Times in 20 Posts
Failed 15 Times in 2 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by Senna4ever No, it isn't. The Canon 17-55 isn't bad, but the 15-85 is sharper overall, especially in the corners. The one area where Canon is lacking compared to Nikon is the wide to tele zoom lenses. | Oh sh*t... I didn't know that since I've never used the 17-55. I'm glad I bought my 15-85 then. I love it  Posted via RS Mobile | |
| | |
11-05-2009, 11:27 PM
|
#143 | | OMGWTFBBQ is a common word I say everyday
Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Vancouver
Posts: 5,387
Thanked 3,065 Times in 1,309 Posts
Failed 45 Times in 25 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by Senna4ever No, it isn't. The Canon 17-55 isn't bad, but the 15-85 is sharper overall, especially in the corners. The one area where Canon is lacking compared to Nikon is the wide to tele zoom lenses. | The 17-55 is also f2.8 constant, while the 15-85 is 3.5-5.6 through it's range.
85mm and f5.6 does not make for good low-light performance. I would rather have 55mm and f2.8 and crop.
__________________ Quote:
Originally Posted by PeanutButter Damn, not only is yours veiny AF, yours is thick AF too. Yours is twice as thick as mine.. That looks like a 2" or maybe even 3"? | | |
| | |
11-05-2009, 11:39 PM
|
#144 | | I *heart* Revscene.net very Muchie
Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 3,496
Thanked 34 Times in 20 Posts
Failed 15 Times in 2 Posts
|
^^ I guess it all depends what you use it for. I find I don't really shoot at 85mm much so that wouldn't matter for me. I am most between 15 and 50mm, but it's good to have that extra reach.
__________________
Formerly known as Goodoldcivic.
| |
| | |
11-05-2009, 11:51 PM
|
#145 | | I Will not Admit my Addiction to RS
Join Date: May 2004 Location: Vancouver
Posts: 566
Thanked 4 Times in 2 Posts
Failed 0 Times in 0 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by Senna4ever No, it isn't. The Canon 17-55 isn't bad, but the 15-85 is sharper overall, especially in the corners. The one area where Canon is lacking compared to Nikon is the wide to tele zoom lenses. | I'm don't know what your source is but that is not true according to these reviews:
15-85: http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/46...3556is?start=1
17-55: http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/42...is_50d?start=1
The 17-55 is consistently sharper (at center and corners) than the 15-85 looking at the MTF charts even at F2.8 (except at 50mm). But when stopped down to F4, it is sharper at all focal lengths from 17-55
Last edited by tallshorty; 11-06-2009 at 12:03 AM.
| |
| | |
11-06-2009, 01:00 AM
|
#146 | | Rs has made me the woman i am today!
Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Richmond
Posts: 4,335
Thanked 5 Times in 4 Posts
Failed 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Oh it's an EF-S, shitty.
| |
| | |
11-06-2009, 01:57 AM
|
#147 | | VLS Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Vancouver
Posts: 16,351
Thanked 2,591 Times in 832 Posts
Failed 61 Times in 19 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by tallshorty | My source is my first hand experience, and from the examples I've seen, The 15-85 is sharper overall, but the 17-55 does have the advantage of a fast, constant aperture. The copy of the 17-55 I tried was shit compared to the copy of the 15-85 we have, and definitely worse (not by much) than the Nikon 17-55 f2.8. Would I use the 15-85 professionally? No, in that case I would use the 17-55 for sure, but the 15-85 is a great walk around lens.
__________________
2007 Volvo V50
Taken by ex: 2005 Toyota Prius.
R.I.P. 1997 Lexus ES300.
R.I.P. 1989 Acura Legend Coupe LS.
| |
| | |
11-06-2009, 02:01 AM
|
#148 | | VLS Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Vancouver
Posts: 16,351
Thanked 2,591 Times in 832 Posts
Failed 61 Times in 19 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by MikesJo Oh it's an EF-S, shitty. | Yup, both 17-55 & 15-85 are EF-S. For FF, the 24-70L & 24-105L are the equivalent lenses.
__________________
2007 Volvo V50
Taken by ex: 2005 Toyota Prius.
R.I.P. 1997 Lexus ES300.
R.I.P. 1989 Acura Legend Coupe LS.
| |
| | |
11-06-2009, 11:02 AM
|
#149 | | Blood tests positive for LOL mod
Join Date: May 2002 Location: World
Posts: 12,999
Thanked 1,263 Times in 325 Posts
Failed 83 Times in 18 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by Senna4ever Yup, both 17-55 & 15-85 are EF-S. For FF, the 24-70L & 24-105L are the equivalent lenses. | 24 is not wide enough!
| |
| | |
11-06-2009, 12:08 PM
|
#150 | | I *heart* Revscene.net very Muchie
Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 3,496
Thanked 34 Times in 20 Posts
Failed 15 Times in 2 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by Mananetwork 24 is not wide enough! | For FF it is.
__________________
Formerly known as Goodoldcivic.
| |
| | | |
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
| | |
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:14 PM.
|
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
