Canon vs Nikon (Do you want to be the TF?) thread)

monk3y wrote in post #10753690
hey Adrian, nice photo on your blog,it doesn't look like you at all.. you look so innocent there

24-70 VR? what's wrong with the current one?

See how dark it's getting?

^ I like that first shot Stealthy. Where did you go?

ISO 100,000 or whatever is pretty funny adrian

Lazuka wrote in post #10753795
24-70 VR? what's wrong with the current one?

I don't know yet lazuka, I don't own one hahaha I just want the VR version

Lazuka wrote in post #10753949
ISO 100,000 or whatever is pretty funny adrian

its ISO 65000 hahaha

wow Stealthy, that's how tall you are on that 1st photo? hahaha

monk3y wrote in post #10753959
I don't know yet lazuka, I don't own one hahaha I just want the VR version

its ISO 65000 hahaha

actually it was at 104,000 or whatever the max setting was

Lazuka wrote in post #10754010
actually it was at 104,000 or whatever the max setting was

my exif reader says 65535 though.. wow!! that's max ISO hahaha...

he said in the other thread that it was a firefly watching cruise, I was able to do it once..and yet its super duper dark... for you to be able to see the fireflies in the mangrove trees.. much like a christmas tree.

that photo is Crazy, now what kind of NR software could clean that up? :p

Mastamarek wrote in post #10751695
hello everyone, hope its a good one for ya! and Stealthy, welcome back from teh dead ^_^

EDIT:
ya 24-120 looks good but I'll wait for reviews. thats a huge focal range covered. Lets wait and see how it performs.

Uhm....Canon has a 24-105 f/4 thats perfectly good and the old 24-120 was a good lens as well you know...theres no reason the new one shouldnt be any good..

How much is the Canon 28-300?

About double. I know it's an "EL" lense though... which makes it "gooder".

I'm actually really interested in the 28-300. I know it won't be great, but I know 2 people who had/have the 28-300 L and like it as a walk about lens (despite the weight).

I might have bought the Canon version if it weren't for the price. Going to disney land with that lens or on a tour or something, would be good. You don't need huge quality, but being able to go from wide to a longish tele in one lens would be pretty handy.

I'll wait for reviews.

You have an excellent point..if the Nikon can deliver decent performance throughout the range it could be a VERY nice little walkaround...and the price as you said isnt that bad against the Canon

Yeh it was the max setting. Still it can see in the freakin' dark dudes.

I am 6'4" but I was standing on a platform.

Stealthy Ninja wrote in post #10754085
Yeh it was the max setting. Still it can see in the freakin' dark dudes.

I am 6'4" but I was standing on a platform.

I need to change my chrome exif reader.. hahaha it says 65535 only.

well Adrian, we ain't the dark side if our cameras can't see in the dark

Hey look, samples of the 28-300

http://www.bobkrist.co​m …28-300mm-f3-5-5-6g-ed-vr/

I'm pretty impressed..the colors look good too...i like what he said about the perfect 4-lens setup Though id frack the 85 f/1.4 for the 70-200 f/2.8 VR instead...

i can shoot in the dark too!

can't believe you guys save these kind of photos on your computer hahaha j/k

Good evening Kenji, those are not dark enough scenes,but those are dark photos (from my uncalibrated monitor of course). hehehe

monk3y wrote in post #10754315
can't believe you guys save these kind of photos on your computer hahaha j/k

Good evening Kenji, those are not dark enough scenes,but those are dark photos (from my uncalibrated monitor of course). hehehe

THey were done at night! lol they're a little dark cause its dark xD