Messages

1

Lenses / Re: Canon 70 - 200 f2.8L version 2

« on: May 18, 2013, 01:52:39 PM »

Get the MP-E 65mm. Or the TS-E 17mm.  Wait...you don't want to shoot macro or architecture?  Well then...what do you want to shoot?   

2

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: F/8 Autofocusing impressions

« on: May 18, 2013, 01:35:42 PM »

Further to what Doug stated, it's always been possible to 'trick' Canon's f/5.6 AF points into focusing with an f/8 max aperture, with pin taping or a TC that doesn't properly report.  Canon did not allow the functionality because it wasn't completely reliable.  Their recent firmware, possible coupled with higher density line sensors on the 1D X/5DIII (which is how the past 1-series bodies achieved f/8 AF), allowed them to enable it with confidence.

I also suspect they built the capability into the 1D X/5DIII sensor, but left it disabled in firmware until later.

OK, and now for my next dumb assumption ... at f/11 the focus needs to be less accurate than at f/2.8 due to the greater depth of field (front & back) of the former over the latter.

Correct.  The smaller the baseline of the sensor, the less accurate. But, the narrower the selected/available the aperture, the deeper the DoF and the more inaccuracy tolerable in terms of focus.

3

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: F/8 Autofocusing impressions

« on: May 18, 2013, 01:10:29 PM »

...because what I can't understand is if the 6D can AF down to -3EV, then it should also be able to AF with an f/11 lens (in bright daylight, that is).

Because it doesn't work that way.  The f/5.6 limit isn't all about the amount of light, it's about the incoming rays being phase-separated with enough resolution to determine focus.  An f/2.8 point has a physically wider baseline (separation between the two sensor lines) on the AF sensor than an f/5.6 point. 

4

Lenses / Re: When is the New 100-400 Coming?

« on: May 18, 2013, 10:14:02 AM »

<p>The new 100-400 does indeed exist and is being actively tested, however Canon is in no rush to announce the lens. We’re told that the current 100-400 still sells at an amazing clip and outpaces the 70-300L by a 4 to 1 margin.</p>

This is an astounding number if true.

Good Lord, people. If you want lower prices and/or better lenses, quit buying these lenses to simply keep up with the Joneses. And, quit listening to fanbois.

By all means...don't buy a great zoom lens which offers 400mm with IS, delivers excellent IQ, and costs only $1500.  That will force Canon to release a better version costing at least $1000 more (and incidentally driving up the cost of the current version by a few hundred dollars). 

5

Lenses / Re: Infra red filter - question

« on: May 17, 2013, 08:22:04 PM »

Something like the B+W IR Black (093) filter, or some other brand on IR Pass filter.

6

Lenses / Re: Infra red filter - question

« on: May 17, 2013, 07:24:43 PM »

If using a dSLR, it needs to be modified for IR imaging.  There's an IR cut filter on top of the sensor, there are outfits that remove them for you.  Then you need a filter on your lens to block the visible wavelengths.

7

Software & Accessories / Re: question for RRS/Acratech (high-end) ballhead users

« on: May 17, 2013, 01:21:21 PM »

FWIW, their 'travel tripod' the TQC-14 is rated for 25lbs.  The RRS owner has a video of him hanging from it and swinging under the legs - when I got mine, I just had to try it, and it supported my ~180lbs.

8

Software & Accessories / Re: question for RRS/Acratech (high-end) ballhead users

« on: May 17, 2013, 09:54:58 AM »

My RRS BH-55 doesn't move when tilted down in the drop notch with a 600 II, even if I push on it.

9

Lenses / Re: Can someone explain the Canon 50mmL f/1.2 "backfocus problem" ?

« on: May 17, 2013, 08:13:10 AM »

The focus shift can only be a problem if you focus too close. I have used two copies of he 50L, and I have never noticed any focus shift problems.

Yes, the problem is more evident at or close to the MFD.  But just because that's "too close" for you, doesn't mean that's true for everyone who uses the lens.   One could also say, it's only a problem if you shoot too stopped down - Someone who always shoots wide open would also "never notice a problem."

10

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: F/8 Autofocusing impressions

« on: May 17, 2013, 08:05:15 AM »

I've used my 1D X with a 600/4 II and 2xIII to track birds in flight, sometimes handheld. It does fine.  However, when shooting small birds in thickets (branches in front of and behind subject), where the bare 600 II locks onto the bird easily, with the 2x it hunts a bit - in that situation, it behaves a lot like the bare 100-400L.

Did you use spot single point or regular single point focus for this test?

I've tried both, spot AF does not offer a significant improvement. It certainly does help for birds in thickets without the TC in place, though.

okay... is the same for the 7D?

The 7D cannot autofocus with an f/8 combo.

11

Lenses / Re: +18 AFMA out of the box....return?

« on: May 17, 2013, 08:00:11 AM »

Sorry jdramirez, that doesn't really make sense to me.

AFMA is used to correct for manufacturing tolerances. Tolerance means that nothing can be made to an exact value but it can be made for sure within certain boundaries. Canon knows these boundaries for their lenses and cameras. I believe when they allow AFMA to be set from -20 to +20 it should be enough to correct worst case scenario. I don't know that for sure but it would be logical from my point of view.

E.g: The maximum amount a camera can be "off" would be +/-10 and the maximum amount a lens can be "off" would be +/-10 so a correction of +/-20 would be sufficient.

In this case the lens is probably off -9 and the body -9 (so they are both around their extremes) but you can correct it by using +18. Due to the known tolerances your next body will not be off more than -10 so correction should always be possible.

That would be true if manufacturing process was perfect. It's not. Tolerances aren't absolute, to make them so would be prohibitively expensive.  A common manufacturing practice is 3σ, which basically means ~3 out of every 1000 products that leave the factory will not fall within the tolerance range.  Of course, if you get one of those you may not even notice it, but if you've got a lens on the other extreme, you might.  If you do notice it (in time), Canon will fix it under warranty - doing so is cheaper than tighter adherence to tolerances in manufacturing.

12

Lenses / Re: EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x Urgent advice.

« on: May 17, 2013, 06:55:46 AM »

For F's sake, can you dummies stop replying to this guy!?? What is wrong with some of you people??? He is making a fool of the CR forum, and you idiots actually post a reply...? Nice going! No wonder there's some folks posting stuff like this here every now and then, cause there sure are are enough suckers with nothing better to do than to write the oh so valued opinion on matters Canon... Jeeeeez!!

13

Lenses / Re: Canon Tele lenses vs Nikon tele lenses ( both with converters )

« on: May 17, 2013, 05:21:11 AM »

All this to fluorite or not.....

The nikon 800 f5.6 (latest tele from nikon)

''The AF-S NIKKOR 800mm f/5.6E FL ED VR is a marvel of NIKKOR optical design. The lens is comprised of 20 elements split into 13 lens groups. The front and second elements are fluorite (a lightweight mono-crystal optical material), which provides superior optical characteristics and reduced weight for balanced handling.''

Looks like nikon is also going to fluorite from now on

But Mikael/ankorwatt says that Nikon's SuperED glass is just as good as fluorite optically, and stronger, too. Why would Nikon need to use fluorite at all, much less state that it "provides superior optical characteristics"?   

14

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 70D & EOS 7D Mark II

« on: May 17, 2013, 05:10:36 AM »

Sales drive revenue. Revenue drives profit. Profit is a major driver of share price and shareholder value.  Share price and shareholder value determine whether a public company thrives, survives, or fails.

Betamax was better quality than VHS.  VHS sold better. Betamax failed and was abandoned.

On a more DSLR related note, Olympus came out with 4/3 format. It was going to be a worldwide standard. Many things about thier cameras were ahead of what the Canon and Nikon crop bodies offered at the time. They had beter user interface, beter weatherproofing, arguably better sensor performance, and faster autofocusing..... and where is it now? ( 4/3... not micro 4/3 ).  Sales sucked, product not stocked by retail stores, death spiral, gone.

I don't think you're paying attention.

Look at the sales figures for MILC cameras (Mirrorless Interchangable Lens Cameras).

And if that market was a dead end that was dying then why would Canon have released the EOS-M?

4/3 dSLR, not m4/3 MILC, is what was stated.  The most recent 4/3 camera is the Olympus E-5, a 'pro' body almost 3 years old that no one expects will be replaced. It's #3,139 in Amazon's sales ranking.  The 'consumer' line of 4/3 cameras (E-xxx) stopped with the E-600 in 2009. Panasonic and Leica tried the format, dropped it over 6 years ago.

So, who's not paying attention?  You, dilbert.  But at least you've figured out we're talking about cameras, not lenses, this time.  Bravo.

15

Lenses / Re: +18 AFMA out of the box....return?

« on: May 16, 2013, 10:52:21 PM »

There's no problem with a big adjustment, per se, as long as it's 20 units or less.  The problem is when you change upi your gear.  If your lens needs +18 on your current body, what if you get a new body that is off in the same direction - now, 20 units of adjustment isn't enough.