Messages

1

Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS Exists as a Working Prototype [CR2]

« on: December 19, 2012, 10:06:33 PM »

I know it's a CR2, but this actually frustrates me (if it's true). I bought the mark II version because it seemed like the replacement for the brick (which I owned). Honestly, professionals need to know what to expect when they make large purchases like this. Canon knew they were going to release an IS version when they sold the non IS and I took the bait totally thinking I made the right purchase. I was shocked that they came out with a F4 version, but now this? It's simply an inconvenience and can end up costing someone a lot of money with the drop in price for what they paid for the mark II in such a short time-frame. So I lose $400 or so and forced to try and find a seller. Thanks Canon.

2

Lenses / Re: The First Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II Review

« on: September 07, 2012, 01:22:37 PM »

Look at the full resolution pictures (http://www.flickr.com/photos/66174868@N02/7948959388/#in/photostream/) of the two lenses on the concrete slab. You can clearly see that the one taken with the mark II has it's focus an inch in front of the original lens!

3

EOS Bodies / Re: Nikon user Swapping to Canon with a 5D3

« on: September 01, 2012, 02:03:27 PM »

The Fred Miranda review doesn't say the D800 is a better camera, just that it offers more dynamic range. Too many people get tunnel vision with DR and shoot down the 5D3 without having used both. I have, and can say without a doubt that I'm glad I have the 5D3. For video the D800 lacks the sharpness on the LCD to tell whether you've achieved perfect focus and it also is choppy with expanded view. Two things that videographers use all the time. (I was using a D800 and 50 1.4).

4

Lenses / Re: Patent - Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS

« on: July 10, 2012, 01:03:08 PM »

12800     I get what you're saying and without a doubt it can be useful for a select few situations. I typically don't run that slow of a shutter to avoid subect movement, not mine. I once went to Pioneer Square in Portland OR and was told by a security officer that I couldn't use my tripod because it was considered erecting a structure. 

5

Lenses / Re: Patent - Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS

« on: July 09, 2012, 03:40:48 PM »

I don't understand why some people whine about this lens not having IS. I can shoot my 135 2.0, handheld at 1/80  without a problem. The focal range of this lens is a no brainer to me.

6

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II Delayed Again

« on: July 05, 2012, 02:01:18 PM »

I was the owner of a V1 24-70 and sold it when the date was set for release on the mark II. I didn't expect it to start shipping the exact day they had posted, but certainly not 6 months late. I've been checking CR almost every day DREADING this notice. I figured Canon's recent track record painted a good picture that I wasn't going to receive this lens, even by the end of July. Photographers and videographers make business decisions based upon new arrivals and I chose to sell something early to stay ahead of the game. In the future, I wish Canon would announce something with a large window (expected to start shipping April-October 2012). Why put a date on something if it means nothing and upsets their customers? I own many primes and will get by, but I wanted this lens for a trip in August and wanted the versatility. 

7

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: The 5D Mark III & SD Memory Cards

« on: June 25, 2012, 12:39:19 PM »

Does this have any effect with shooting video? I bought sandisk 16gb class 10 45mbs cards and haven't tested the 30 min record time.  Anyone have any failures? And am I safer with CF?

8

Lenses / Re: Canon's new 24-70 2.8L II ship date

« on: June 21, 2012, 10:50:34 PM »

Oops  (Thanks for enlightening me)

9

Lenses / Re: Canon's new 24-70 2.8L II ship date

« on: June 21, 2012, 09:52:49 PM »

I bought a 5D3 and have the new 24-70 on pre-order (sold my version 1 many months ago). If you go to http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff  and compare Nikon FF lenses with Canon, pretty much EVERY single Nikon lens is sharper than Canon. I got frustrated when I was like ok, no WAY the 85 1.2 is worse then the Nikon in terms of sharpness, but it's not so. I understand that there's more to look at in terms of build quality/CA/Bokeh/Vignette, but I wanted to see the MTF charts. It looks like the Canon 24 1.4/35 1.4/50 1.2-1.4/85 1.2, e.c.t, lack in terms of resolving more detail than Nikon. I really hope this new version is better than Nikon's 24-70, considering the cost. I'm well aware that Canon has arguably the best 70-200, but was more focused on the other medium range primes. 

10

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: The 5D Mark III Fix

« on: May 04, 2012, 03:47:14 AM »

Is Canon holding a gun to my head and forcing me to purchase? I can see how if a Canon user is heavily invested and wants to keep up with the latest technology, then you are pretty much forced to pay or jump ship to a competitor that has a better price. Now I can see why Canon is capitalizing on that, but for those who are just entering photography and want to get a DSLR camera, who do you think they will choose with the craze over the D800 and if they are on a budget. In the long run, they will be losing out on long term customers because their pricing is higher. No matter what, Nikon is making money off the D800 individually and A LOT in the large quantities being sold. I'm with Canon and hope to stay that way. I have the new 24-70 on pre-order and I hope it's optically better than the new Tamron for the extra 1k. 

11

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: The 5D Mark III Fix

« on: May 03, 2012, 07:16:57 PM »

A non Mickey Mouse fix would be a new design that you would send in your camera  (free of cost) and replace the housing (for the select few that actually care to have it fixed) . Canon doesn't sit around a table developing a new camera and determine that their might be an issue with light leaking in and one person interjecting "we can throw some tape over it" and they would simply move on. But I also get that it's really not that big of a deal and "we complainers" are just complaining. Canon gouged everyone with this Camera and the "fix" you get is an insult. Yes, gouged. I don't see how the 5D3 is more expensive to manufacture than the D800 and $500 will almost get you the new 600EX-RT + $100 

12

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: The 5D Mark III Fix

« on: May 03, 2012, 04:13:27 PM »

"In the year 2000, Audi releaser their Audi TT car. There was one problem. When going at fast speeds the car would lift off and flip, due to it's shape resembling an airplane wing. Audi had to think of a fix. They took your car back if you wanted, and put a spoiler on it. After a while it was costing too much to take all the cars back so they sent out the repair kits. It consisted of a spoiler and two (2) pieces of 3M double sided tape. There were no more problems with the car lifting off, and the spoiler never glued off. And I'm pretty sure it was exposed to the elements as well as heat and cold"


And you would be ok with someone sending out a repair kit to you to fix an issue that could kill someone? This is a pretty extreme comparison, but I appreciate your response. I know that a headlight isn't a wiring problem and tape is commonly used in circuitry. My point is that a Mickey Mouse job like this is a letdown to me as a consumer and what I pay for. So, I shall fall on my sword also.

13

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: The 5D Mark III Fix

« on: May 03, 2012, 03:22:28 PM »

I happen to agree with Steven, and feel that you all were too harsh on him for having a sensible opinion. I think it's a shame that Canon can charge $500 more than the D800 and expect a simple tape job to make everyone happy. It's a flaw in the design of the camera, period. I would be bummed grabbing my 5D3 and thinking about a tape job fix inside the camera every time I did a shoot. It's more about principal and not about functionality. How would you feel if you bought a Lexus with a headlight issue and they fixed it with tape and assured you that you it is as good as new and will never give you a problem? Most would say that as long as Lexus would honor any problems then they would be good with it, but you also would drive around every single day thinking about that stupid tape.

14

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 5D Mark III vs Nikon D800

« on: April 07, 2012, 09:31:03 PM »

First off, if you were a landscape/fashion photographer (or anyone that would consistantly need 36mp) then I wouldn't be arguing with you because you would be shooting at realtively low ISO numbers in the first place. You were the one bragging about the low light capability of this camera which is what most wedding photographers/average shoots would benefit from. You prefer to have good controlled light? Join the club! I'm fully aware that Nikon stated this is a new line geared towards a specific market, but most peole are buying the D800 with the intention of resizing their images to get equal low light performance of the 5D3. You lost me when you said "the reality is that just as you question the need for 36 or 50MP, one may question the need to shoot at ISO 52K". My initial argument was that there is a price to pay for getting equal or similar low light performance, and that's HDD storage. If storage wasn't a concern for me then I would much rather have more mp! Why would someone care to have a sensor that can achieve super high ISO's? Because a better sensor doesn't do anything but make your images look better (not at 52k) and certainly doesn't effect the amount of pictures I can take on a card. Also, I don't know where you're hearing 52k ISO is practical, because all I've heard is to use it in an emergency. Point is, I personally feel that 22mp is more than enough for practically everyone's needs. It's overall a better choice unless you choose to waste 14mp to achieve similar performance of the 5D3 or need the mp.

15

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 5D Mark III vs Nikon D800

« on: April 07, 2012, 01:56:47 PM »

Have fun taking your 75mb file and downsizing it to reach the noise level of another camera. When I see people like Ken Rockwell stating that "if Canon could make a 36mp camera, they would have" It makes me wonder how they could state such a thing. Canon was the first to make a 120 megapixel 29.2 x 20.2mm APS-H CMOS sensor and also the first to make the worlds largest CMOS sensor at 202 x 205.  I think that proves that Canon is more than capable of putting out a FF 36mp sensor. They chose the balance of the 5D3 because it was a versatile (and more practical) camera. I'm impressed with the D800 and especially at the price point, but I would bet that 90% of the people buying it don't need that much resolution. So you have to choose, do I really need that much resolution or do take 36mp pictures that aren't necessary and be forced to use them to get good low light performance.