August 30, 2014, 02:29:27 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.


Messages - KitsVancouver

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6
1
Lenses / Re: Camera setup for dental clinic
« on: July 17, 2014, 12:50:56 AM »
Thanks for all your suggestions, guys! I talked to current residents today, and most of them use crop Nikon bodies with Nikon 105 micro/macro lens and a macro ring flash. Sorry for a silly question, but would 100mm L macro lens fit into a Canon's crop body, like 7d or 70d?

Please let me know if anybody has a good copy of 100L.

They probably have crop bodies because no one told them the difference between crop and FF. 

Yes, the 100L will fit on any Canon body with an EF mount.  It will fit on both the 7D and the 70D.  The crop body does give you some more working distance. 

If you are going to use the camera for photos other than dental, then you should consider a FF body. 

I wouldn't look at cost too much as you can write off all this gear. 

2
Pricewatch Deals / Re: SanDisk Sale at B&H Photo
« on: July 16, 2014, 04:39:18 PM »
Oddly, I've found that my old Firewire card reader is faster than any USB 3.0 card reader I've ever tried. 

3
Lenses / Re: Camera setup for dental clinic
« on: July 16, 2014, 03:55:13 AM »
Hello guys, I hope you all are doing great. I need a camera+macro lens+macro ring combo to photograph teeth and other stuff in the mouth in dental patients. So, I have two options and I need your help.

1. I have an old 5di which I can use in the clinic. But I need macro lens and macro flash. For a lens, I'm deciding between 100mm f2.8L and non-L. How good is the quality of the non-L lens, which is much cheaper than L one? What macro ring would you recommend besides the one Canon makes ($500)?

2. Get a crop camera, 60mm f2.8 EF-S and macro ring. How good is 60mm f2.8 lens?

I don't need top quality of the pictures, but it should be at least very good. All other people in the clinic use Nikon :o

Thanks!

Just noticed your user name.  I'm assuming you're a periodontist in which case, you're looking at mostly cosmetic.   Definitely get the 100L.  You might want to consider getting a tripod but that could scare some of your patients. 

4
Lenses / Re: Camera setup for dental clinic
« on: July 16, 2014, 03:51:57 AM »
Hello guys, I hope you all are doing great. I need a camera+macro lens+macro ring combo to photograph teeth and other stuff in the mouth in dental patients. So, I have two options and I need your help.

1. I have an old 5di which I can use in the clinic. But I need macro lens and macro flash. For a lens, I'm deciding between 100mm f2.8L and non-L. How good is the quality of the non-L lens, which is much cheaper than L one? What macro ring would you recommend besides the one Canon makes ($500)?

2. Get a crop camera, 60mm f2.8 EF-S and macro ring. How good is 60mm f2.8 lens?

I don't need top quality of the pictures, but it should be at least very good. All other people in the clinic use Nikon :o

Thanks!

Are you looking to take photos more for restorative or cosmetic dentistry? 

If you are looking for cosmetic photos, then live view isn't that useful.  Most patients are going to be happy with before and after photos as long as you get their veneer colours to match well.  The problem with veneer colouring is often educating the patient on the changing colour of their non-veneered teeth.  Some patients after getting a veneer, implant, etc will still not be happy with the colour after the tooth is done. 
If you are looking for cosmetic photos for a portfolio, then that's a different matter and probably a much bigger discussion. 

Restorative dentistry photos are really tricky.  I've seen a bunch of dentists buy the G-series dentist kit and rarely take it out of the aluminum box. 
As for live view...you're never going to use it because it's only useful on a tripod.  One thing to keep in mind is that with the 100L, you will still need to be quite close to get shots inside the mouth in which case, your depth of field is going to be very very shallow.  Definitely get the L 100mm macro because of the IS. 

5
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II [CR1]
« on: July 14, 2014, 08:17:16 PM »
Canon could sell a million of these if they don't hold back and just give us sports/wildlife people a great lens at a decent price.

1998 -2014, after 16 years you would think that this newer version would be much improved on what was already a decent lens.

I have to wonder if they're trying to protect the Big Whites. The 400f5.6 prime has arguably superior IQ to some of the old big whites, and upgrading something like that might look a little unbalanced.
Maybe they wanted to wait until they had all the version II supertelephoto lenses out before releasing a budget option that performs on a similar level.

Just out of curiousity, how do would you define, "on a similar level"?

6
Lenses / Re: World Cup started - no sign of 100-400L Mk2
« on: July 12, 2014, 02:55:58 PM »
Never had much credence in the views held by some that this mythical lens might appear in Rio - but still early days etc. Miracles could happen.

Ultra secretive Canon treat their loyal expectant customers with contempt.

The least that the Canon hermit kingdom people could say is no replacement planned at all or replacement planned for 2015, 2016....2020 or whatever.

Going back on topic a bit.  I don't think a 100-400 is a lens that would be in hand with top photographers as it's really a budget L lens.  I'm not a professional, but I would imagine that world-class photographers will use the best.  The 100-400L is a compromise for size and cost. 

7
Software & Accessories / Re: Gimbal head or not for Tamron 150-600
« on: June 12, 2014, 06:27:06 PM »
IMO, you need support for both stability and easy of use.  I've not held that Tamron, but looking at photos and the weight of the lens, a good ballhead will easily provide enough stability.  As far as ease of use (panning, movement, relieving weight), a gimbal will really help, but for the size of that Tamron, I think it's overkill. 

I purchased the Wimberley II for my 200-400 which is a bigger lens than the Tamron.  Even with the 200-400, I could have gotten away with a ballhead.  The main advantage with the gimbal for me, was easy of movement and peace of mind (you don't have to worry about locking the ballhead really tight to prevent flop). 

This is less of an issue and some will laugh at me for saying this, but that Tamron will look a little odd sitting on a big gimbal.

It's not just the weight of the lens...That Bigron extends out quite a bit and factor in that big hood.  Center of gravity shifts depending on where you have it extended.   Hence gimbal over ballhead in this case.   PLUNK !

Actually, a changing center of gravity works AGAINST a gimbal.  When you set up your gimbal initially, you set it for forward/backward weight distribution and (on the Wimberley), you also set it for up and down weight distribution. If the lens shifts forward and back, your Wimberley won't work the way it's intended to. 

Even when I have the shoulder strap on/off, I need to readjust for the difference in weight distribution. 

8
Software & Accessories / Re: Gimbal head or not for Tamron 150-600
« on: June 12, 2014, 02:39:20 PM »
IMO, you need support for both stability and easy of use.  I've not held that Tamron, but looking at photos and the weight of the lens, a good ballhead will easily provide enough stability.  As far as ease of use (panning, movement, relieving weight), a gimbal will really help, but for the size of that Tamron, I think it's overkill. 

I purchased the Wimberley II for my 200-400 which is a bigger lens than the Tamron.  Even with the 200-400, I could have gotten away with a ballhead.  The main advantage with the gimbal for me, was easy of movement and peace of mind (you don't have to worry about locking the ballhead really tight to prevent flop). 

This is less of an issue and some will laugh at me for saying this, but that Tamron will look a little odd sitting on a big gimbal. 

9
Lenses / Re: Canon 70-200 USM IS L (not Mark II)
« on: May 20, 2014, 10:44:04 PM »
The Mk II is markedly sharper than the Mk I.  I had two copies of the Mk I to choose from and was never really happy with it's sharpness when shooting wide open.  The only other lens I have right now that isn't very sharp is my 16-35 MkII (but the 17-40 was worse). 

Many people were and continue to be happy with the Mk I, but I'd bet  that those people
1) haven't tried a Mk II,
2) can't afford a Mk II,
3) aren't any kind of pixel peeper whatsoever
4) some combination of the above   

10
Lenses / Re: Canon 600mm f4 IS II Vs Canon 200-400mm w/1.4x TC
« on: March 10, 2014, 05:21:20 PM »
For Guilin, you definitely want an UWA.  I would take either my 16-35 or my 17 TSE. If you take one of the boat rides, you will miss many shots without an UWA. 

Make sure your dishes and cutlery on the boat are clean too.

11
Lenses / Re: Canon 600mm f4 IS II Vs Canon 200-400mm w/1.4x TC
« on: March 09, 2014, 09:24:35 PM »
And now Dylan a tough question. Actually a very tough one: Does your wife know? Does she even  know about this poll?  ;D ;D ;D

If the size and color is same as my 400mm f2.8 IS II, she couldn't tell the diff. That why I ruled out Tamron ;D

I'm not sure how often you go birding, but even shooting big bald eagles from across a river bank, 400mm is too short.  In order to fill the frame with just the bird, I had to use a 2X extender with the built-in 1.4x extender.  It was almost enough for me to go buy a 600mm but I would almost feel guilty having a lens I only used once or twice a year. 

12
Lenses / Re: Canon 600mm f4 IS II Vs Canon 200-400mm w/1.4x TC
« on: March 09, 2014, 08:40:51 PM »
The point I am making is that I believe the 2 canons are the best but the tamron is very close behind and will give you undiferentiaded results under most conditions so anyone on a budget should take a good look at it.

Anyone on a budget doesn't have a choice but to choose the Tamron.  Someone with (truly) the budget, is going to pick the Canon (nine times out of 10).

In that case I must be in a minority of 1 out 10.  If you have the strength and like using monopods or tripods then go for the Canons if you have the cash - you will get the ultimate quality. But, if you want to use hand held and like a light package for hiking and birds in flight etc, then those great lenses are just too heavy.  I could not handle them.  I would rush out and buy a Canon 200-500 f/5.6 that beats the Tamron, and pay the price.
I believe you are.  I would be surprised if it was even 10% of people who would prefer the Tamron.  Let's just pretend everyone (on this forum) wins a free lens at the camera store and they have a pile of Tamrons and a pile of Canons.  I really really really doubt that given the choice, very many people are going to walk out with the Tamron.  Because I deal with contracts and by nature, "paranoid", I would even say that the choice would not change much if you told them they could not sell the lens.

You might as well ask suppose somebody offered you a 100 carat diamond studded solid gold mounted Sigma 50-500 or a plain Canon, which one would they take? That situation is just as unlikely as everyone on this forum being offered what you would suggest. If I was given a 200-400mm Canon I would never use it. And that is a fact, not a let's pretend scenario. But, if someone were to offer me a 200-400mm free of charge, I would of course accept it - that is human nature.
The point in question is whether the Tamron or Canon is preferred, ceteris paribus. 

The only reasons I can imagine for buying the Tamron over the Canon are price and weight/size.  You already said you don't want a big lens so you've explained that your utility formula places a higher value on size/weight.  Because this forum is full of gearheads and guys who care about IQ, I still believe that at least 90% of those on this forum would choose the Canon over the Tamron if they could afford it. 

You can go buy the Tamron.   :P 

13
Lenses / Re: Canon 600mm f4 IS II Vs Canon 200-400mm w/1.4x TC
« on: March 09, 2014, 01:05:35 PM »
The point I am making is that I believe the 2 canons are the best but the tamron is very close behind and will give you undiferentiaded results under most conditions so anyone on a budget should take a good look at it.

Anyone on a budget doesn't have a choice but to choose the Tamron.  Someone with (truly) the budget, is going to pick the Canon (nine times out of 10).

In that case I must be in a minority of 1 out 10.  If you have the strength and like using monopods or tripods then go for the Canons if you have the cash - you will get the ultimate quality. But, if you want to use hand held and like a light package for hiking and birds in flight etc, then those great lenses are just too heavy.  I could not handle them.  I would rush out and buy a Canon 200-500 f/5.6 that beats the Tamron, and pay the price.
I believe you are.  I would be surprised if it was even 10% of people who would prefer the Tamron.  Let's just pretend everyone (on this forum) wins a free lens at the camera store and they have a pile of Tamrons and a pile of Canons.  I really really really doubt that given the choice, very many people are going to walk out with the Tamron.  Because I deal with contracts and by nature, "paranoid", I would even say that the choice would not change much if you told them they could not sell the lens. 

14
Lenses / Re: Canon 600mm f4 IS II Vs Canon 200-400mm w/1.4x TC
« on: March 09, 2014, 03:55:14 AM »
I only shoot birds once a year (eagles) so I don't really need the reach that often.  I wanted to take photos of my 5 and 3 year old kids so I got the 200-400.  For anything other than birding (and some other niche things), I would think the 600 is too long. 

The lenses really are quite different. 

15
Lenses / Re: Canon 600mm f4 IS II Vs Canon 200-400mm w/1.4x TC
« on: March 09, 2014, 03:51:29 AM »
The point I am making is that I believe the 2 canons are the best but the tamron is very close behind and will give you undiferentiaded results under most conditions so anyone on a budget should take a good look at it.

Anyone on a budget doesn't have a choice but to choose the Tamron.  Someone with (truly) the budget, is going to pick the Canon (nine times out of 10). 

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6