September 18, 2014, 07:47:14 AM

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.


Messages - lescrane

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
1
Lenses / Re: Official: Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II
« on: September 15, 2014, 01:43:50 PM »
very nice. If I didn't have to pay the mortgage and car loan, I'd order now.  Meanwhile, I'll buy a few lottery tickets and if I win........

2
Lenses / Question for Owners of early run Tamron 150-600 lens
« on: September 13, 2014, 03:22:31 PM »
I read posts on various sites about Tamron 'fixing' autofocus problems by replacing a chip and firmware. Is this true or not? Has anyone here sent back their lens for this?

I got my lens with the first shipment in January.  Generally it  focuses fine on my 70D.  Have had some problems acquiring BIFs in low contrast settings but a)am not an experienced BIF photographer, still have only done this occasionally  b)not sure if this is 'normal' doesnt seem much different than the 100-400's I used to rent

Any feedback would be appreciated.  I don't want to send the lens back for no reason.

3
Quite bizarre. 2 versions of same focal length and announci ng  when they dont even have the weight for the C. Which means tbey still dont have a final prototype.

This doesn't bode well for canons alleged 100 400 L mark ii.  Who's going to pay 2k for that with all these choices that reach 600mm

Tamron as mentioned really dropped the ball on production of th e Tamzooka.  If the sigma c is as good in IQ tamron loses potential sales.  I wonder if tamron will introduce a 2k lens that's a notch up  probably not .

4
Lenses / Re: The New Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II
« on: September 11, 2014, 09:51:04 AM »
my guess is "4 Stage IS" is not 4 stops, but 4 levels of sensitivity or algorithms.  eg, Tripod mode, panning mode, etc etc.  Probably will also be 4 stops...

5
100 oz. Sigma,  68 oz Tamron.


Sigma may be "better" but we're talking heavy here, w/more elements for same speed, focal length.

  Personally, not an option. Hope it works for the younger stronger photographers.

(now I  would love to see canon w/more DO lenses, but don't think it will happen)

6
EOS-M / Re: Anything new on EOS-M3? How it may compare to A6000?
« on: September 04, 2014, 09:55:41 AM »
Question from a newbie here.

Comparing the recent price drop on the M. Are the differences in quality really worth the additional expenses of shifting to a different system sony,fuji,olympus? Considering, that is, if one already has a number of ef lenses.

Hi,

I don't think it's a question of quality, eg I.Q...I'm quite happy w/the images I get from the M..they are pretty much the same as i get from my 70D. I don't think the competitors have anything revolutionary w/sensor performance, I am always going to stick w/nothing smaller than an aps-c

The issue I have w/the M is w/useability...it will never be more than a walk-around or 2nd camera when I can't carry the DSLR...   No EVF, kind of clunky controls when trying to do Exp comp, and I really like a built in flash for fill light,etc.  Only a few fixed ISO settings, very very poor battery life(you must always carry a spare)

 I don't regret the bargain I got w/the M, but am willing to spend more to get more.     Another poster commented that it's not "dead" eg, it's quite alive in Japan, but that doesn't help me here in U.S.A.

7
EOS-M / Re: Anything new on EOS-M3? How it may compare to A6000?
« on: September 03, 2014, 10:29:55 PM »
I have the M and 18-55 EF M.   Recently I considered buying a Tamron 18-200 for it. Then I said I'd wait until an "M3" came out..with a EVF, maybe a flash, maybe a flip screen, etc etc.  Why buy lenses for a dead system?

Then I read about the Sony A-6000, the Fuji and others mentioned by a previous poster. Am going to a local camera show in Nov to compare, right now I'm really liking what I see about the Sony.. I have zero loyalty for Canon anymore, given total lack of innovation across the board. Am stuck with the SLR's because of investment in lenses(many of which are now 3rd party). Stuck may be too harsh...don't see much of a diff w/Nikon.   But w/the mirrorless, clearly Canon has intentionally or unintentionally thrown in the towel.

8
EOS Bodies / Re: My 'OMG EOS-M just £199' one week in review
« on: August 15, 2014, 07:49:44 PM »
I agree w/the overall review.   For me, it was a matter of not being able  to carry 2 SLR bodies around my neck; even one is a challenge now.   I considered many point and shoots, micro 4/3, etc, but did not want to compromise on the sensor size/noise level.   I got the M when it went on sale a year and a half ago for 299.00 USD. 

I am also frustrated at times with not having either an optical VF or EVF.  I would like a pop up flash, but bought a cheap,tiny Canon compat. sunpak.  The M's battery life is really poor, so I carry an extra. I wish I could set in-between ISO's like on my 60D.  Those are the negatives.   As the OP stated, the compactness can't be beat and the IQ is pretty much the same as the Canon DSLRS w/ 1.6 sensor. The menus are also similar to the DSLR's and that's a plus, as I'd rather not start w/another system to learn..

When I see the Sony NEX cameras, and some others like Samung, Fuji, etc I am tempted, but am not willing to make a major investment in body and lens. I have the 18-55 IS and it's very sharp as is the pancake. Am consdering the Tamron 18-200-M if and when the price comes down(a lot) from 499.00.

If an M (xx) comes out w/an EVF option/pop up flash etc, I'd consider it, but am ok for now w/the M as a backup/ walkaround.  I hope they don't ignore the USA market. If it was a stronger camera, they'd get 600.00 for it, they made a mistake and had to cut it in half to sell it to people like me.

9
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Friday Deals: EF 24-105 f/4L IS & EOS 7D Body
« on: August 02, 2014, 10:01:27 AM »
what is "white box"??


10
EOS-M / Re: Next official EF-M Lens
« on: July 31, 2014, 01:47:52 AM »
any reviews of the Tamron 18-200 for EOS M out there?  I'm not finding them...


rt

11
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II [CR1]
« on: July 13, 2014, 03:38:51 PM »
As an aging, broken down baby-boomer, lol, I'm heartened that Canon is paying attention to weight and no longer operating under the premise that heavier connotes better.  They made the 70D lighter than the 7D with most of the features, and the weight on this series peaked w/the 40D.   Now, an "improved" and lighter 100-400 L might be worth the 2K

I have the Tammy/Tamzooka and am happy with it. Can I ever go back to a mere 400mm? Well, I'm using it for birds and if I just intend to do "big birds" as in waders, waterfowl, sure, a sharp, lighter 100-400 would be in my kit that day. But that 600 is great for the little songbirds, even the plovers and other shorebirds.

I guess my calculus for a buy decision would be a)is the new Canon much sharper than Tammy at 400?
b) is it much lighter (that should be a yes)
c) will it have a multiple mode IS..eg, Panning mode, tripod mode, which the Tamron sorely lacks

So if I get 3 yes's, there goes another 2K from my "retirement" fund


addendum: there's been a lot of speculation and surprise at price.  I suspect the existence of decent cheap 3rd party competitors eg, Tamzooka might at least keep Canon from going off the rails as far as price

12
Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM
« on: June 02, 2014, 10:22:39 PM »
my 10-22 is niche lens, very happy with it, but it is fairly heavy.
The new lens..well it does have IS which is less vital on such a wide angle as it would be on a tele., lighter...maybe same IQ?? but  the killer for me is lower zoom range.  22mm at least you are getting towards ""normal wide angle".

13
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS M Vanishes from Canon USA Web Site
« on: May 30, 2014, 01:55:42 PM »
I've always travels with 2 SLRS ...a XXD series and a Rebel  as my "walk around" camera for snapshots or landscapes when my primary shooting is wildlife w/a supertele.   I jumped on the M deal last year and it's been great. Now my M and 18-55EF-M comprise my "walk around".   I keep it in a waist pouch when I'm shooting w/the telephoto and never miss a grab shot w/o having the extra weight and bulk
 
I would consider upgrading and spending 600 'ish only if they could upgrade it w/some of the software of the D series, (eg half ISO stops, let me leave autobracketing ON even after the camera turns off), maybe a faster frame rate, most importantly better battery life.    At first I wanted an EVF, but am now resigned to doing w/o it...Adding the weight, size and cost would not be worth it.  I look at the M as a larger frame, hi IQ alt. to my cell phone,    Also, I do not need the 11-22 super wide, but would love to have something a bit longer... eg 15-85, 18-100 etc to go w/the M

14
Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: Third-pary Grip. Safe?
« on: May 23, 2014, 11:58:13 PM »
I have a cheap 3rd party grip for my 70D. It never "hurt" my camera or stopped functioning.

Only problems..shutter button extremely sensitive, goes off if I just brush it against something or lightly touch it
The button labels poorly printed and have rubbed off after a few months.

At some point I may buy the Canon but I can live w/the no name for a while

Well, after 4 months I dumped my knock off (neewer) and plunked down 175.00 for the real thing.  I had a failure in the field....the main dial of my 70D stopped functioning, but ONLY when the grip was powered on. Pulled the batteries,etc. eventually it worked again.  But not a good thing to happen. Plus I got tired of the shutter button on the grip activating with barely light incidental contact.  I don't regret trying the cheapo, but learned my lesson.

15
Keep your 17-85. You seem to be satisfied with it.

If you get a full-frame camera in the future, then buy the full-frame lens at that time. There may be new ones coming, or you might find a deal when it's relevant. But why spend money on a lens that you apparently don't need, for a camera you don't own?


Agreed.  The 17-85 is a solid lens.  The 15-85 is a step up, but probably not enough to justify the cost.  And if you ever go full-frame later, that's money down the drain.

http://www.juzaphoto.com/article.php?l=en&article=32

Alternatively, you might wait, save up the extra few hundred bucks, and buy a 6D/24-105L kit.  That will do far more for your image quality than any lens upgrade by itself, and it's not a lot more than the eBay prices for the original 24-70 f/2.8 lenses.  And the 24-105 is also sharper than the original 24-70 L f/2.8 even when stopped down to f/4, according to LensRentals.

So IMO, the only reason you should even consider the original 24-70 f/2.8 L is if you shoot a lot of sports and really need the f/2.8.  Maybe not even then.  The increased ISO capabilities of a full-frame body will usually do a lot more for you in terms of usable low-light performance than a single extra f-stop on the lens.

I found that the upgrade from 17-85 USM IS to the 15-85 USM was well worth the cost.  The lens is somewhat sharper, much less CA and I find that those 2mm are a big difference for wide landscapes.   I think the 15-85 is a great value.  before buying a I rented it along with the 24-105 L  and could barely see a difference in tests in overlapping focal lengths.  Can't speak to video at all as i don't do it.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4