1
Lenses / Re: Can the 70-200 2.8L II IS replace my 100L and 135L?
« on: May 22, 2013, 05:49:59 AM »
yes.
June 18, 2013, 04:50:03 PM
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Pages: [1] 2
2
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: M RAW or "full" RAW on a Canon 6d?
« on: May 14, 2013, 12:42:18 PM »...Also, why would full raw, with larger files sizes be faster in burst mode than M RAW?...i'm using full raw, for the reason that m raw can not be processed with dxo software.
i would use full raw under most other circumstances as well, except emergencies (running out of memory-cards when shooting, pp.), though the storage-costs are affordable & i'd rather have the additional resolution. i do not see the disadvantages of the full resolution raws.
3
Lenses / Re: Migration from zooms to primes...your suggestions?
« on: April 04, 2013, 04:03:28 AM »
dont.
stay with your optics.
a) upgrade the 24-70 + 70-200 to the II-versions, it's worth the money!
b) add a 14mm (if you need it)
c) get a 50mm
d) get a 100mm macro
changing optics on the job sucks if you have 2 do it too often.
you don't have 4 bodies, do you?
stay with your optics.
a) upgrade the 24-70 + 70-200 to the II-versions, it's worth the money!
b) add a 14mm (if you need it)
c) get a 50mm
d) get a 100mm macro
changing optics on the job sucks if you have 2 do it too often.
you don't have 4 bodies, do you?
4
Lenses / Re: Quick macro question!
« on: December 24, 2012, 01:04:08 PM »
if you're looking for a lens for this macro-area, the canon mpe opticsmight be the better choice, tough we here are talking about magnifications bigger then 1:1 - or even microscope with according adapter. the 100/macro won't get you to the point.
5
Lenses / Re: Should I sell my 70-200L vii for the 85mm 1.2?
« on: October 21, 2012, 04:47:06 PM »
no. of cause not.
6
Lenses / Re: 70-200 f/2.8 II + 2X converter versus 100-400 f/4.5-5.6
« on: October 20, 2012, 02:33:22 PM »
I recently (12 month ago) had a similar issue.
I do own an 70-200 2.8 IS MKII.
I do NOT own a 2x-konverter
After some rental of the 100-400 I decided to go for the 100-400 instead of the 2x-konverter for the following reasons:
- quality of the 100-400 better then the 70-200 + 2x kombination
>>>please make shure that you've checked the site:<<<
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=113&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=0&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0
- price (in germany, 1 EUro = 1.3 USD approx):
2x-konverter only: 500 Euro / 100-400 optics: 1.400 EUR
of cause a big difference, but at the 100-400 you get a complete optics which you'll be able to sell for some money as well later.
- handling: i personally do not feel comfortable to frequently change the lenses on location, the converter adds some chances to get dust in the system.
summarizing:
the 100-400 is a affordable (somekind) good optics which deliveres excellent results.
the 70-200 + 2x is a good workaround which deliveres good results.
Please keep in mind that automatic lens-correctsions (dxo-software, pp) might not be available for the 70-200 +2x-kombination.
My recommendation is the 100-400, if you already do own a 70-200.
if not the 70-200 of cause is first.
even then in my eyes the 100-400 is the better invenstment.
but of cause, it's the money that counts.
I do own an 70-200 2.8 IS MKII.
I do NOT own a 2x-konverter
After some rental of the 100-400 I decided to go for the 100-400 instead of the 2x-konverter for the following reasons:
- quality of the 100-400 better then the 70-200 + 2x kombination
>>>please make shure that you've checked the site:<<<
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=113&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=0&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0
- price (in germany, 1 EUro = 1.3 USD approx):
2x-konverter only: 500 Euro / 100-400 optics: 1.400 EUR
of cause a big difference, but at the 100-400 you get a complete optics which you'll be able to sell for some money as well later.
- handling: i personally do not feel comfortable to frequently change the lenses on location, the converter adds some chances to get dust in the system.
summarizing:
the 100-400 is a affordable (somekind) good optics which deliveres excellent results.
the 70-200 + 2x is a good workaround which deliveres good results.
Please keep in mind that automatic lens-correctsions (dxo-software, pp) might not be available for the 70-200 +2x-kombination.
My recommendation is the 100-400, if you already do own a 70-200.
if not the 70-200 of cause is first.
even then in my eyes the 100-400 is the better invenstment.
but of cause, it's the money that counts.
7
EOS Bodies / Re: What will happen to 5Dii prize when/if entry full frame (6D?) is announced?
« on: August 27, 2012, 10:36:32 AM »
nothing.
8
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Sorry 5D3, Insufficient Value
« on: April 23, 2012, 02:04:39 AM »
can't tell about the MII-version yet, but:
baught a MII in 2010 for 1900 EUR, sold it last week for 1300 EUR with 100000 klicks, makes 25 EUR/per month or less then 0,01 EUR/per click. Sounds like quiet good value to me, overall. don't understand the complaints.
The 7D is something different, from img-quality (critical for me) not an alternative.
baught a MII in 2010 for 1900 EUR, sold it last week for 1300 EUR with 100000 klicks, makes 25 EUR/per month or less then 0,01 EUR/per click. Sounds like quiet good value to me, overall. don't understand the complaints.
The 7D is something different, from img-quality (critical for me) not an alternative.
9
Lenses / Re: 70-200L IS Mk I with 2x extender
« on: April 14, 2012, 02:26:05 AM »
I recently had a similar desicion (70-200 MKII) and went for the 100-400, not for the extender (III-version), for the following reasons:
- If looking at the price (Extender rougly costs 1/3 of the 100-400 in Germany), the value of the 100-400 is much better. I can resell the 100-400 for a resonable price, as soon as I can afford the new 200-400.
- For my type of work adding the extender to 70-200 on the fly takes to long, is to complicated and dirt might get into the optical system.
- I'm quiet pleased with the optical quality of the 100-400 (on a 5DII), it's much better then 70-200L IS Mk I + 2x extender (almost as good as the 70-200L IS Mk II + 1.4x) . AF is fast (on a 5DII).
- Depending on which sport we are talking about (outdoor) the 100-400 might be ok/fast enough. For indoor sports both the 100-400 & the combination above maybe not are the first choice regarding speed/aperture, but they at least are resonably priced.
Summarizing/my Advise:
Get the 100-400, it's a good lense and the far better investment.
- If looking at the price (Extender rougly costs 1/3 of the 100-400 in Germany), the value of the 100-400 is much better. I can resell the 100-400 for a resonable price, as soon as I can afford the new 200-400.
- For my type of work adding the extender to 70-200 on the fly takes to long, is to complicated and dirt might get into the optical system.
- I'm quiet pleased with the optical quality of the 100-400 (on a 5DII), it's much better then 70-200L IS Mk I + 2x extender (almost as good as the 70-200L IS Mk II + 1.4x) . AF is fast (on a 5DII).
- Depending on which sport we are talking about (outdoor) the 100-400 might be ok/fast enough. For indoor sports both the 100-400 & the combination above maybe not are the first choice regarding speed/aperture, but they at least are resonably priced.
Summarizing/my Advise:
Get the 100-400, it's a good lense and the far better investment.
10
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Deciding on an upgrade
« on: January 31, 2012, 12:49:07 PM »
my recommendation maybe would be not to upgrade, but:
wait for the powershot G1x.
you can always carry it with you, what maybe in this case is the most important.
for me the G12 is the only camera i always have with me.
i'd expect the image-quality of the G1X t.b. much better then your current combination.
7D & 5D here in my eyes are quiet overdone.
safe the money & spend it for an aventure-trip with the kids.
wait for the powershot G1x.
you can always carry it with you, what maybe in this case is the most important.
for me the G12 is the only camera i always have with me.
i'd expect the image-quality of the G1X t.b. much better then your current combination.
7D & 5D here in my eyes are quiet overdone.
safe the money & spend it for an aventure-trip with the kids.
11
Software & Accessories / Re: TIFF or JPeg for storage
« on: January 31, 2012, 05:56:45 AM »
My storage-system
(all on different HDD, no DVD-backup)
a) RAW
b) TIFF
c) JPEG
If I would have to decide between TIFF and JPEG, TIFF would be my chioce though I've experienced that this format is more stable vs. read-/write-errors, both of HD and optical media. (please see attached sample of a HD read/write-damaged JPEG). I've never had any issues like this with TIFF.
Asuming that you do the editing itself in RAW or TIFF (JPEG would decrease the photo-quality with every time you safe the file) I do not see a critical/visible tiff/jpeg difference in quality at least for prints up to 20x30cm (based on my equipment: 5DII...).
(all on different HDD, no DVD-backup)
a) RAW
b) TIFF
c) JPEG
If I would have to decide between TIFF and JPEG, TIFF would be my chioce though I've experienced that this format is more stable vs. read-/write-errors, both of HD and optical media. (please see attached sample of a HD read/write-damaged JPEG). I've never had any issues like this with TIFF.
Asuming that you do the editing itself in RAW or TIFF (JPEG would decrease the photo-quality with every time you safe the file) I do not see a critical/visible tiff/jpeg difference in quality at least for prints up to 20x30cm (based on my equipment: 5DII...).
12
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 5D Classic/Mark 1 - Still worth the buy now?
« on: January 15, 2012, 06:59:04 AM »It was the little things that annoyed me about the 5D1. Each one not that big, but they soon added up. There was no usable auto-ISO mode, .....Very good comment: the MII is the better camera in handling, image quality, pp. AF seems t.b. similar in my eyes. I exchanged my 5d MI vs a MII recently and am very happy with this step. Here in Germany the price-difference ain't big enough to justify the MI. As well: think about the price you'll get, when you resell the body later.
You questions:
5D MI vs. 7D: for me clearly the 5d, because of lowLight-capabilities & overall image-quality. had both of them, sold the 7D soon.
5dMI vs. MII: if you're a CPS-member and if you can life with the limitations the older camera has (see quoted comment above), safe the money and go for the MI, you'll be happy with it. Make shure it doesn't have too many exposures. Check if the mirror-fix is done. Bring it to CPS for cleaning regularily. Don't pay more then 50% of the MII-street-price.
If you're NOT a CPS-member I'd rather recommend the MII, you'll have to pay more, but the flollow-up-costs (sensor-cleaning-kits, mirror-fixes, shutter replacements (maybe)) might be higher then the savings on front.
Both 5Ds are exellent cameras and the MI regarding image-quality still not out of date.
13
Canon General / Re: Will the new Sonys force Canon to rethink?
« on: August 20, 2011, 01:40:30 AM »
No. Sony? Which new Force???
14
Lenses / Re: 70-200 2.8 L IS II + Extender III vs. 100 - 400 L // Comparison?
« on: August 11, 2011, 04:32:58 AM »I have the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II and the Mk II....vary that with the popups menus for focal length and aperture).Thank you! Very useful information and link!
15
Lenses / Re: 70-200 2.8 L IS II + Extender III vs. 100 - 400 L // Comparison?
« on: August 11, 2011, 04:28:48 AM »I had a 100-400 at the same time as 70-200 2.8 L IS II + Extender II ...... Don't get me wrong, it's a fantastic lens.Thank you for your feedback, summarizing: is there a way to describe the optical difference (regardless weight, pp)?
Pages: [1] 2