February 01, 2015, 05:45:21 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 - Eagle Eye

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9
1
This sounds like a real cracker jack conference call where no one from Canon was actually involved. Introduce more cameras than last year? Let's see, they introduced two cameras last year and two SLRs are about to be announced, so it's a little late for that discussion. Obviously a Rebel is going to arrive. Addressing factors that contributed to lower sales, apart from the market? Umm... there were no factors. Canon maintained its hegemony in dSLRs even as sales across the board constricted.

2
EOS Bodies / Re: More About the EOS 5DS & EOS 5DS R
« on: January 30, 2015, 09:25:06 AM »
I suspect this camera is going to under-spec but outperform the D810, and performance at ISO 100 is what matters to me. More than a few times I took a hard look at the D800. Canon glass kept me in place, not because of investment but because of the EF mount and Canon's consistent forward progress with lenses. When I started shooting full frame, Nikon didn't even have a line of pro-grade fixed f/4 lenses. Nikon caught up option-wise, but I see the EF mount as more capable of handling the advanced lens designs necessary for digital 35mm to bridge the gap to medium format.

3
EOS Bodies / Re: Bingo! New Canon 5Ds has 50.6 MP new rumored specs
« on: January 30, 2015, 08:46:29 AM »
Yeah, these stats are a HUGE letdown. No EF lens compatibility? No aperture priority mode?! I'M OUT! Oh, wait. These aren't the full stats? I guess I'll wait for the full specifications before criticizing it for lacking features it will obviously have.

4
I'm confident most people won't agree with me, but I think my biggest mistake was starting out with L-glass for my 20d when I upgraded from an FD body in 2005. I expanded the L collection over time and went full frame with the 5d Mark II in early 2009 to get the most out of my lenses. Started shooting weddings to justify the cost, which was a horrible experience. If my whole kit got jacked tomorrow, I'd buy a used 40d, a 10-18mm, an 18-135mm, and a pair of pancakes. Along those lines, I bought a used but pristine 40d last night with 11,000 shutter actuations. I'm giving serious thought to just storing my main landscape kit and focusing on the 40d with a couple primes for the next year. I enjoyed photography the most in the years I shot with an A1 and a bag of primes.

5
Lenses / Re: Upgrading lenses for college student
« on: January 24, 2015, 10:14:41 AM »
I would avoid the 28-105 or 28-135 because neither is wide angle on your Rebel. If you shoot landscapes, you'll miss the 18mm focal length your current lens offers. I agree with the suggestion for the EF-S 10-18mm. STM is compatible with your XT. I've shot with the 10-18 on a 20D, which is slightly older than your camera. But since you're talking about selling your kit lens to do this upgrade, you could instead upgrade to the newer 18-55 STM lens ($100). The optical formula and build quality is far better than the kit lens on the XT. One step above that would be the 18-135. There's a newer STM version that is even better image quality ($300), but the original ($120) is very good, much better than the 17-85.

Personally, if I were building an inexpensive kit, I'd start with the 18-135 STM, then add the 40mm pancake instead of the 50mm 1.8 (40mm is slower but more flexible as a walk-around prime on a crop sensor than the 50 and has a more robust feel for roughly the same price). Then I'd add the EF-S 10-18mm for ultra wide angle, then the 24mm pancake for a wider angle prime. This means only two filter sizes: 52mm and 67mm. This whole lens setup runs $800 with good deals; less if you buy used.

6
So there is zero zoom creep on the 70-300. It is absolutely rock solid. They put a lock on it to hold it at 70mm - not necessary. I've had it pointed straight down on an extension tube with a UV filter, step up ring, 77mm Lee adaptor, Lee holder, 3.0 ND filter, and 105mm polarizer all mounted with no zoom creep. It's not going anywhere. As for the tripod collar, I had one on my 70-200 and have one now on my 70-300. I think it's necessary for both. You can get away without it on the 70-200 on most of your shots in windless weather; you'll need it every time at 300mm.

I think it really comes down to whether you'll use 300mm. Before I had the 70-300, I really only shot up to 200mm, throwing the extender on a handful of times. I went to the 70-300 after reading some articles online about using 300mm in landscape work. I wouldn't go back. Some of my best shots from the last six months were at 300mm on the 70-300.

7
I started with the 70-200 f/4L and a 1.4x II extender to get close to 300mm for landscape. I loved the weight of it and image quality was top notch. Ultimately, I wanted IS and made the short hop up to the 70-200mm f/4L IS. Only slightly heavier, but otherwise completely comparable to the non-IS version. This summer I made the jump to the 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS. I decided to jump because I wasn't liking my shots with the extender and attaching it was cumbersome. I wanted to just have the reach there. I spent a little time on the Digital Picture website comparing image quality at the different f-stops between the 70-200 and the 70-300. Ultimately, it looked to me like the 70-300 was a little softer wider open and little sharper stopped down, certainly so at 300mm compared to 70-200 with the 1.4x II or III. LenScore numbers support this as well, for whatever that's worth. I decided image quality between the two was a wash and that the extra weight of the 70-300 compared to the 70-200 with extender was worth the convenience. I haven't shot with the 70-200 f/4L IS since I made the switch, though I can't quite bring myself to unload it. One thing to consider: 70-300 needs a UV filter on the front to complete the weather seal. I'm pretty sure this is not the case with the 70-200s. Factor that into price. With a high quality UV filter, image quality remains a wash, in my opinion. Also, neither lens comes with a tripod collar. Somewhat optional with a 70-200; absolutely necessary with an extender or the 70-300. Factor that in as well. If you need the reach of 300mm for landscapes (and it's a great focal length for landscapes), I think the 70-300 is worth the ounces over the 70-200 and extender.

8
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Confirms Development of High Megapixel Camera
« on: December 24, 2014, 04:15:40 PM »
I could also see Canon rolling out an upper line of prime L's, 82mm filters and increasing from there, maybe up to 105mm. These would have the resolving power and frame coverage to handle a sensor resolution and sensor size push into medium format, 30x45 or something. Canon would essentially be redefining "pro" glass in their non-tele line-up and be able to charge $5-10K for it. Pro sports photographers are already throwing that kind of money down. High-end wedding photographers would certainly be able to afford glass like that. And I could be wrong about the science of the mount, but my understanding is that Canon shifted from FD to EF precisely for future capability enhancements. This would potentially put Nikon in a place where to compete on the lens front, they'd have to develop a new mount system that would not be backwards compatible. Anyone know more about the FD to EF switch?

9
Software & Accessories / 70-300L in Lowepro Trekker
« on: December 18, 2014, 08:23:09 AM »
Anyone have a 70-300L and a Lowepro Pro Trekker 300? Will the lens fit vertically (front or rear of lens facing opening) into the bag with at least a rear cap and low-profile filter on?

Anyone know of a rear lens cap that is lower profile than the Canon cap? I've heard Sigmas are a little shorter. Thanks in advance for dropping some knowledge.


10
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon mirrorless: Status?
« on: August 18, 2014, 11:45:16 AM »
Nikon stock is rapidly approaching junk levels, they don't have as many other divisions that can prop them up.

Sorry, what do you consider "junk levels?" There is no such thing as "junk stock" and if there were such a thing, a stock with a 590.7 billion dollar market cap and a 12.5 P/E ratio would certainly not be one of them. Nikon is nowhere near its lowest stock price. Just because its stock has been on a slow steady marginal decline for a few month does not mean that Nikon is in any kind of long-term trouble.

11
Software & Accessories / Re: Insurance is an accessory right? :P
« on: August 10, 2014, 02:33:34 PM »
I'm insured through USAA, $14,936 in coverage at $242 a year. Covers any loss, including theft. It doesn't cover normal wear and tear, acts of war, nuclear incidents, fungus, or intentional acts by the owner. It also does not cover the equipment at the time the equipment is being used for a paid assignment or going to or from a paid assignment. Insurance is well worth the cost, in my opinion.

12
Reviews / Re: NIKON Releasing a Medium format DSLR 50MP
« on: August 01, 2014, 07:04:05 AM »
Actually, you're confused. Nikon is going to announce at Photokina that they're releasing a camera with an EF mount, "designed to work with the best lenses in the world," according to my sources at Nikon Djibouti. That's what that picture is showing. Amazingly, the EOS 7D II will also be EF lens compatible.

13
I've used it. No problems at all. They set me up with their guy at a store that I buy from all the time anyway. It was a smooth transaction. Same guarantee and return policy as with any purchase, they just don't include the "$150 of free extras" advertised on the website, like the cheap tripod and undersized camera bag. I will use CPW every lens and camera purchase from now on. I had no concerns about return policies, and they told me exactly what is was getting before I handed over payment. In my case, completely new in box, US warranty, no lens removed or anything.

14
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 50 f/1.2L Goes Missing at Canon Germany
« on: July 31, 2014, 08:55:20 AM »
I highly doubt the 50 f/1.8 is going anywhere. It is a top seller, yielding dependable profit margins. I'm confident we'll a 50mm f/1.4 IS this year in the $600 range. Most pros I know love the 50mm f/1.2. It is not designed to be a sharp lens. The copy I sold last month produced gorgeous portraits. If you want a sharp lens, try something designed for sports, not something designed for portraits.

15
My test setup:
5d Mark II, tripod mounted, 18" away, EF 16-35mm f/4L IS, shooting at f/8, B+W 77mm XS-Pro 007 front filter, Lee wide-angle adaptor, Lee holder with two slots, 105mm ring, and a B+W Extra Wide KSM Circular Polarizer.

My results were the same; it vignettes ever so slightly at 19mm and is completely clear by 20mm. Removing just the 77mm XS-Pro 007, I have the same ever-so-slight vignetting at 17mm and it's clear at 18mm.

If you want the maximum usable range on your 16-35mm with the CPL attached, get the Extra Wide CPL from B+W and remove the protective front filer: vignette-free from 18-35mm. If you insist on keeping the protective front filter on, just understand that you're limiting yourself to 20-35mm.

As has been mentioned, you can always carry a second Lee holder with only one slot. I've got no vignetting at 16mm with B+W 007, wide angle adaptor, Lee holder with one slot, 105mm ring, and the B+W EW CPL. You'll just have to decide between long exposure and balanced lighting.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9