Messages

1

Lenses / Re: Best Value "Normal" Lens for 6d?

« on: December 10, 2012, 06:53:55 PM »

Another vote for the 24-105L  I don't actually own the lens because I haven't used a DSLR as a walk-around camera since getting my hands on a Fuji XPRO1.  I have borrowed a friend's copy on a few occasions and it is generally a very versatile/sharp lens, a perfect street sweeper.  If you like primes the current 35 1.4L is a beauty, but if you feel inclined to wait for the new version, check out the 40 2.8 pancake like some have suggested. 

2

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Am I the only one without 5D3 Problems?

« on: December 10, 2012, 06:45:25 PM »

I switched from Nikon to Canon (am I the only one doing this too LOL) last spring before wedding season and did some research online... Really dug the specs on the 5D3 as well as the 600EX-RT flash system. 

I made the jump and sold my Nikon kit which consisted of a D3s, D700, 3x SB-900, 24-70G, 70-200VR1, 14-24, and 50 1.4  I ended up buying a 5D2, 5D3, 5x 600 EX-RT, 35L, 85 1.8, 135L, 70-200L IS1, and 17-40.  I really haven't looked back since and shoot 85% of the time wielding two bodies with the 35L and 85 1.8. 

Here is what I love about the 5D3

The 600 EX flash system has changed the way I shoot, at any point during the day of a wedding I will have at least one additional light firing off-camera.  What a wonderful system.  It works flawlessly in group mode when I want to light up a reception hall with 2-3 lights.  My only gripe is that it doesn't work the same with the 5D2.  Canon claims it is the processor, but I think they just want to sell more new cameras 

The 5D3 files I have shot look indistinguishable if not slightly better than my old D3s as well, which is a blessing given the smaller size.  The ability to shoot smaller RAW files has also been a charm.  During the reception and other boring parts of the day, I shoot away in mRAW as very few wedding clients need a 22MP file.  Despite a smaller file size, I like to perfect WB and exposure (which usually needs very little tweaking)...

The focusing system is incredible in my opinion.  People complain about it being confusing, but once you sit down and really put all the different focusing patterns and modes into practice, I rarely get an OOF shot even with a prime at ~f/2.  Granted my keeper rate is much higher with the 70-200 f/2.8 IS, but I think that is just a function of focus speed with primes vs zooms, not anything to do with the camera.  I did notice the camera focused a little slower with the 600EX AF assist beam, so I did a little test.  I have my DOF preview button set to switch between SERVO>ONESHOT when I hold it down.  I noticed that the camera focused much faster in SERVO mode without the AF assist beam (which it doesn't use anyway) even in very dim lighting.  Now even in ONE SHOT, I only use the AF assist beam when it is absolutely pitch black which is almost never these days since video guys always have their annoying video lights on heh.  From my experience using zone focusing/tracking, the 5D3 tends to get "thrown off" by objects in the background much less than any of my Nikons, even the D3s.

Perhaps the one "awful" thing about the 5D3 is the dark AF points in low light.  My Nikon cameras always had a red square and it made moving AF points around in low light a breeze.  I have learned to adapt to how my 5D3 works in this regard, but I am hoping for a FW update to remedy this at some point.  Not keeping my hopes up, but it would be nice.

As far as dynamic range, maybe my exposures are just really nicely lit because of how often I use the off camera flash system.  I don't really ever need to push or pull my RAW files more than 1EV, so maybe I'm not seeing this lack of dynamic range so many people have complained about.  There are certainly merits to having more dynamic range, heck I wouldn't argue against it.  For landscape and studio shooters, I'm sure the D800 is a better choice, but right now the 5D3 is the best camera I have ever used for a wedding, right ahead of the D3s.

So overall I really have nothing bad to say about the 5D3.  I view it as a baby D3s.  I shot just over 35 weddings this past season and it took only a couple jobs (second shooting for another studio in April) to get fully accustomed to the Canon controls.  I actually prefer how ISO is changed on Canon bodies and I never even have to take my eye away from the finder.  Despite some minor quirks here and there, the overall value of the 600EX-RT system more than makes up for anything I could complain about. 

Am I just oblivious to problems or a lot of people just suffering from "the grass is always greener" syndrome because of the rave reviews the D800 gets on websites like DXO?

3

EOS Bodies / Re: Memory Cards--What is the absolute best?

« on: December 10, 2012, 06:24:24 PM »

I've experienced a dead/corrupt card with both SanDisk and Lexar, but only one of each over the past several (5+) years.  It is really a tossup, like an earlier poster said, whichever major brand goes on sale.  Don't buy the Hoodman stuff unless you really need a steel SD card lol.  They are way overpriced and the money saved can be better spent on other gear you need.

4

Lenses / Re: Canon 50mm 1.8iii... L... Real or fake?

« on: December 10, 2012, 06:19:30 PM »

Looks like a metal mount version (which sell for around $150-200 on eBay) with a nice DIY paint job.  You can still tell that this isn't a USM lens and I can't imagine Canon releasing a L lens without USM.  A refresh on the 50 1.4 with better optical performance would be nice, but L treatment? Probably not.  It would also be great to see a 50 1.8 III with USM and a metal mount for ~$225, similar to what Nikon has done with the G versions of their 50mm offerings.

5

Lenses / Re: Nikkor Vs L Lens

« on: December 10, 2012, 06:09:40 PM »

Newer stuff is always more expensive... It is always important to consider inflation as well.  Think about the Nikon 600 f/4L VR, it was introduced in 2007 at around ~$9800.  In 2012 dollars that comes out to $10,933.18 which is still less than the Canon lens, but much closer.  Add in some of the advantages of the Canon model such as lighter weight and this makes sense. 

Here are some other examples. 

Look at the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR (version 1), it usually sold for around $1699 and was introduced in 2003.  Take inflation into account and you get $2,135.91.  Again slightly under both new 70-200 offerings from both Canon and Nikon, but pretty darn close.

The Canon 24-70 was introduced in 2002 for about 220,000 yen.  At the time ~125 yen was equal to 1 USD, making the lens $1750.  Once again in 2012 dollars that is $2,250.17, just about on par with the price of the new 24-70LII.  Be happy you aren't paying $3000 for it, which would be a more accurate price in terms of what the dollar is worth against the yen now.

Let's be conservative and say the Canon 35mm f/1.4L sold for $1200 in 1998 when it was released (It may have been more or perhaps less, some insight on this would be nice), well the new Nikon 35 1.4G retails for about $1650... What do you get when you adjust $1200 in 1998 to 2012 dollars? $1,702.95

Neither brand is really more expensive, the newer products from both manufacturers tend to be more pricey.  The biggest reason isn't R&D or some crazy new technology either. 

The USD is just worth less and less as the years go by.

Addendum: Think about your grocery bills.  You are paying more  now, but the food isn't making your body healthier.  Inflation is the pits.  Gas prices which have been manipulated over the years also impact food prices, so there won't be a totally direct correlation like there is in camera gear... heh