July 26, 2014, 03:20:41 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
1
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

2
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".

3
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

4
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.

5
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.

6
Lenses / Re: The Next \
« on: May 22, 2014, 12:25:46 PM »
I first rented the 100-400 lens about 4 years ago for rugby. Really fell in love with the lens. Kept hearing about the new lens that was "about to be released" so I waited. I have waited for so many years I am pretty sure if the price is a typical Canon price then I will just drop this as a must lens for me. I will have to try out the tamron 150-600 instead. I am not a pro, so if I get a decent quality build I would be fine with the images that I have seen released. I know tons of professionals never buy non Canon lenses for their cameras. Maybe canon is fine with that, with their current price structure however they will miss out on a large market for their lenses.

Good post.  A year ago I would have lined up to spend 2K'ish on the alleged 100-400 L replacement.  Maybe I would have gotten better IQ than on the old one which I sold but I'd still be limited to 400mm for bird shots and would still be shooting only ducks and herons

So I took a chance on the Tamzooka by preordering. It wasn't to save $$ really. I have thousands of shots I never would have gotten before. At 400mm, even 500, my subjective eval says....it's a tie w/the old Canon 100-400.  Now that I can shoot smaller birds, I'm at 600mm most of the time, and yes, I keep it on F8, need to bump up my ISO to 800 or 1250 depending on light. I have no problems w/autofocus, etc

I realize that the 100-400 is used for subjects other than birds...eg sports, other wildlife etc and that a real sharp one might be worth paying double the cost of the Tamzooka.  The only thing I would pay a premium for is
compactness...someone comes out w/a D.O. lens in the 200 500 range...that doesnt weigh a ton.  Of course, judging by the cost of the 400 DO, it would cost more than a BMW>>>>>

7
Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: Third-pary Grip. Safe?
« on: May 06, 2014, 01:05:59 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

8
Lenses / Re: EF 400L f/5.6 vs. Tamron 150-600
« on: April 28, 2014, 08:48:59 PM »
if the key is to get the shot, only one of the choices goes to 600mm w/o a teleconverter.  I have more "winners" by far with my Tamron 150-600 than I ever had with my 100-400L, 300 f4 L + TC, etc etc

My experience as many tests have shown is that at 500mm the Tammy outperforms the 100-400 at 400. At 600mm  I never shoot under F8 and am happy with it.  The 400 5.6 L is great too, but again, it's only 400, no IS/VC, etc

My only dislike of the Tammy is the weight, I personally must use a monopod or tripod to keep it steady. But I couldnt even get a 600mm F4 out of the case if that was my other choice.

9
someone in this threat complained that the lens is a dust sucker.   I was shooting at beaches and wetlands for two weeks. Lot's of sand hit the camera/lens. Back from the trip and cleaned the exterior thoroughly. Nothing got inside that I can see. I did keep a 95mm B&W MRC filter the lens to protect front from sand and spray.  I note that the tamron has a rubber gasket at the base of the mount.

As mentioned before, no problems at all. except maybe a few missed BIFs as per usual poor user technique. 


10
I am returning from 10 days shooting birds in Florida with tamron 150 600. I have done this for 12 years.  My previous kits were the 20 40  and 60d bodies with 100 400 l or 300 L usm 4.0 with 1.4 x  t.c. I rarely did BIFs.

Coupled with my new 70d, a monopod and tripod with acratech gv2 head for BIFs I can say that the sharpness and pct of good shots for me has made a huge leap.  In addition to wading birds and shore birds I got many song birds and BIFs of osprey and waders flying  back and forth to nest.

No problems at all. Shot mostly bet 400 and 600 at 7.1 or 8.

I feel I already got my money worth

11
EOS-M / Re: Is the canon eos-m a dead end system?
« on: February 16, 2014, 11:55:13 PM »
I bought the EOS M in July when it went on sale, added the 18-55 EF M lens and a sunpak flash.

What I got is the exact same IQ as I get in my 18mp SLR's in a much smaller package.  It's a "carry around" camera for when I can't carry around the D series or Rebels. Or it's  a 2nd body for wide angle shots when I have a long  telephoto on the 60 or 70D. Now I can make sure I am ready for a quick landscape w/o carrying around the weight of two SLR's, or resorting to my Samsung Galaxy phone.

I would not buy the adapter because I don't see the point in having a big lens on a tiny body it's past the point where it's light to carry easy to slip into a small case.

maybe a 18-100  or 15-85 ish lens  would be useful but i don't know if I'd invest in one as long as I have my other SLRS

What I would like to see is an M III with a pop up flash and an EVF.    However, that would increase size and cost.......making it compete with the Rebel SL1, at least in my eyes. 

I considered buying other mirrorless systems but stuck w/Canon to keep life simple..have been using EOS for as long as it existed and am too lazy to learn new controls and menus

12
Another Photo, Sir------We, as Photographers, Must run super fast, for our healthy body----Ha, Ha, Ha.
Enjoy
Surapon

Humans are the slower than all bears, lions, etc. If they're sufficiently close to you, you cannot outrun them.

With black bears (found typically in California, Arizona, etc), the best defence is being loud, aggressive, etc, in return. They're not very brace but their brains are instinctively wired to chase anything that runs.

Two guys are out hiking and they see a grizzly bear about to charge. One guy starts running away and the other says "Don't you know you can't out run a bear".  The first guy turns around and says 'True, but I just have to out run you."

13
I don't think photography gave me any injuries, other than a shrunken bank account. But I have herniated disks in neck, arthritis in elbow and hands, etc etc.  Working at a day job that had me crunching numbers on the PC 50 hours a week didn't help.

So, the only work arounds I have are
1. Don't carry anything around neck, unless it's my tiny EOS-M
2."Limit" time in the field...not easy when you are having a good time. as a non pro I can take time out
3. Limit time on the PC staring at every pixel in every image...not easy either
4. I've been using the Ekla Beach Rolly to get my equipment from the car to wherever I'm goinghttp://www.outdoorphotogear.com/store/eckla-beach-rolly-gear-cart.html
5. As a bird photographer, being careful not to crane my neck(pun intended) looking at treetops for too long. Take a break every few seconds
6.When choosing equipment, all things being equal, buy/bring the lightest you can
7. Find someone younger/stronger who needs a photography lesson and in return will carry everything!!!!

14
Lenses / Re: DxO ... a little help please!
« on: February 13, 2014, 03:19:55 PM »
So since some of you are willing to explain wtf these charts mean to those of us who have never seen them, can you give a very basic explain. of this chart?
  Obviously the darker green the better, the more uniform the better, but what does the square area mean? Is it the frame of the image area? eg, darker in the middle is sharper, lighter around the edges, less sharp?
Yes, that it exactly right.  The rectangle is the sensor area and darker (green, vs. yellow or red) and more uniform is better :)

In this case, the Tamron puts in a pretty good showing considering the price difference.

thanks.  I compared it to the 100-400L in 70D crop body and the tammy looks pretty good at 400.

15
Lenses / Re: DxO ... a little help please!
« on: February 13, 2014, 02:18:00 PM »
So since some of you are willing to explain wtf these charts mean to those of us who have never seen them, can you give a very basic explain. of this chart?
  Obviously the darker green the better, the more uniform the better, but what does the square area mean? Is it the frame of the image area? eg, darker in the middle is sharper, lighter around the edges, less sharp?

Pages: [1] 2 3