Topics

1

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Old gear on offer, please help me decide

« on: March 22, 2013, 06:22:02 AM »

After the disappointing Canon announcements I'm looking to invest my cash not in a new but an older Canon.

What I got offered:

EOS 1Ds MKII
EOS 5D MKII modified for Infrared without Low pass filter but plenty of lens filters to allow adaption
EOS 1D MKIII

I use since 3 years my EOS 60D and initially wanted to have a second body with APSC, minimum X0D comfort and a clean ISO for lowlight situations as high as possible. Looks like I will have to wait some longer for the 70D announcement and even if they announce it I would not buy it soon because I want to wait for the 7d MKII to be announced to decide which one is the better choice (fearing that the 7D MKII might be the last high quality APSC offering from Canon ) So I can invest a little now and save for the APSC body later this year presumably Winter 2013.

Still I need a second body right soon so I checked for the above mentioned alternatives. The modified 5DMK2 and the 1DS MKII are almost same price, the 1d MKIII is just half of that.

I used to have a 5D which is no longer available to me but I still have a complete lens line up for the APSC and the full format.

The last time I shot with my own EOS 1 was half a live ago in the analog age.
What I do not know:
How expensive is it to change a low pass filter. Is a used and modified 5D MKII worth to be compared with a used 1Ds MKII? (Assuming both are in good conditions)

I have not used APSH sensor format (last time to use this format was with my Canon APS IX). I know that EFS lenses will not cover the complete sensor but can EFS lenses be attached to the EOS 1d MKIII or will the mirror slap against the lens?

On paper I know that the 5DMKII has a much higher ISO range and a higher resolution than the 1Ds MKII but how is it with noise? The large pixels of the 1Ds MKII should be helpful?

I know about the behavior of the 5D MKII but not about the 1Ds MKII or 1D MKIII. Do they come with AFMA?

Finally lenses:
My usual battle order when leaving the primes at home was
Tokina 11-15 2.8
Canon 17-55 2.8
Sigma 50-150 2.8
Sigma 120-300 2.8

If I change to APSH/Full Format + the 60D as the backup body it would be
Canon 17-35 2.8
Canon 28-70 2.8
Sigma 120-300 2.8
Sigma 14mm 3.5

That means more L glasses, less stabilization, more weight and a little less flexibility in the ultra-wide area
Worth the effort?

Regards

2

Reviews / Hands on preview for 100 and 700d on dpreview.com

« on: March 21, 2013, 06:48:14 AM »

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/03/21/canon-eos-100d-rebel-sl1-hands-on-preview

3

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Question for techies, Port of call: 2.0 crop factor

« on: March 14, 2013, 05:47:01 AM »

I"m using a 5D and a 60D, the later as a kind of tele converter to my lenses.
Now there is the talk of a smaller than Rebel form factor which still connects to EF and EFS.

What would be the maximum sensor size possible if you want to use EF and EFS lenses but desire to achieve a 2.0 rather than the 1.6?

Carying a somewhat smaller camera just for the sake of having a small camera does not apeal to me... but a body that makes my 120-300 2.8 become a 240-600 2.8 would be a dream.

4

Lenses / lens question for the math geniouses

« on: February 19, 2013, 04:24:39 AM »

Over the last month I'm trying to get rid of the "Edelschrott" aka "Noble Glas Garbage" in my lens stable and turn more and towards the L lenses. With no L crops and me usualy using a 60D I gain a lot of reach from those glases with the 1.6 crop factor. But... I'm usualy not going for reach but for shallow DOF.

It seems that my initial idea about optics from the analog age is not covering the whole reality. I always thought if I bring the subject close to the lens, have the background far away from the subject, the lens as wide open as possible and the lens as long as convinient for the job I end up with a very shallow DOF. That means with nothing else changing, the longer the lens the more shallow the DOF

Now I use for example the EF 135L at F:2.0 I can mount it to my 5D and or 60D and I get the same AE of 200/1 Second at 2.0. So the crop does not cost me any light while extending my lens to  216mm.

If I mount the 70 200 L on my 5D I of course do not loose any light as well if I change the zoom from 130mm to 200mm at 2.8, however the DOF changes quiet a lot (gets more shallow)

The change from 135mm on the 5D to 216mm on the 60D however does not generate this effect (shallow DOF)
It actually looks more like I have now a wider DOF. To get a simmilar wide DOF with the 135mm still connected to the 5D I would have to change to F:3.5 or 4.5

All my friends say that is because FF gives a more shallow DOF than Crop anyway however I believe that this is not a fact of the sensor's build itself but of the distance of the lens towards the sensor.

If I'm not mistaken than 1:2.0 on the 135mm describes the relation between the diameter of the first optical element of the lens and the effective length of the lens 65.25/135 in this example. Putting the lens on a crop camera extends its effective length to 216 but does not change it's front element so we have now a 1:3.456 lens (which fits to my observation with the DOF on the 5D either by rule or incident)

Now to my question: How can the crop change the F number in regards to DOF but not in regards to the speed of the lens?  And applied to the rest of the universe does this mean I need not only to convert the mm up but also the DOF capabilities down by 1.6 on all EF-S lenses?

5

Canon General / Selecting my gear

« on: February 11, 2013, 05:13:51 PM »

Ladies, Gentlemen

I need some help with a decision. I'm an Amateur using Canon cameras since the Age of the EOS 600 RT und currently use the 60D. Depending on the trips I do I usually carry 2 to 4 lenses with me. My minimum configuration is usually the Sigma 17-50 1:2.8 OS HSM and the Sigma 50-150 1:2.8 HSM. Depending if more wide or more reach is required I add the Tokina 11-16 1:2.8 or on the other extreme the Sigma 120-300 1:2.8 HSM. My Kids have reached the age where I can not only use their free luggage when entering the plane but also make them carry a lens around so I this time I’m flexible for a one month Thailand/China trip.

My issue is that all my Sigma lenses seem to be way too weak for the stress I put them through. With the exemption of the Sigma 50-150 1:2.8 HSM (Which is from handling and Feeling the nicest piece of crop lense I ever owned) 5 of my 7 Sigma lenses had gone into issues with the zooming mechanism. Cost just a few bucks on the 17-50 but was a pain with the 120-300. Of course A 17-50 which locks in 17mm because it doesn’t like the rough ride in a Chinese Coach while being in a proper lens bag does not increase my trust in Sigma for the future.

I have ordered but not received  yet a used 16-35 1:2.8L and a 24-70 1:2,8L both the old Version with the 72mm filter. Taking These two with me on the trip means to swap the compact but lousy build 17-50 and it's IS against heavy metal and a little bit more reach but occupying 2 Slots in my camera bag.

From my live in the analog age I have left the 135 1:2.0L and the 200 1:2.8L

I need to have some reach with me on my trip. So my third lens could either be one of the two primes above or I could go in Beijing into Wukesong Camera city and shop at the myriad of used equipment sellers for the usual suspects like the 70-200 IS either in the 1:2.8 or 1:4.0 Version.

I have no experience what it means to carry the 16-35, the 28-70 and one of the 70-200 a few days through Chinas summer. Shall I go for one of my primes or buy a zoom? (I usually have some Budget for new (old) gear when I go on a trip so the fact if I spent money or not is not the most important)

Every advice is welcome of course especially from those who think outside the box.
If you think the complete lot of the gear is wrongly chosen then please suggest something different.