Messages

1

Lighting / Re: PocketWizard Noob

« on: June 18, 2013, 12:59:36 PM »

What if I can only afford one 600 right now?

You could get the 600 now and a long ETTL cord to move it off camera.

2

Lighting / Re: Flash Newbie: Flash Photography Concept

« on: June 17, 2013, 08:50:16 AM »

I often use Av mode for flash stuff for candids, etc, because it does meter for the ambient.  I'll typically set the meter to -1 and then adjust FEC accordingly.  Set the ISO manually high enough so that the ambient is about 1/100-1/200.  Enable HSS on the flash in case you walk into a brighter area and the shutter speed goes past the sync speed of the camera.

It might be worth checking out the manual to see if you can override the max iso of 400 constraint.  Is it only with flash attached, etc?  Perhaps there is a setting to remove it.

Will HSS be required if the shooter walks into brighter area? The "bright" ambient light will take care of the black bars when shutter speed goes past the sync speed of the camera - won't it?

And yes, adjusting the ISO manually is the best bet, instead of letting it stay on auto.

Depends....  The situtation I was talking about is more appropriate when the light levels change a lot.  For example, ISO is set to 2000 and shutter speed of about 1/100 is achieved for indoor work.  You walk outside where there is a lot more light and you want to use the flash for fill.  The fastest shutter speed is the sync speed and not the 1/4000 that is more appropriate, so the shot will be horribly overexposed (if the camera is capped to the sync speed with flash is attached).

Unless I need 2nd curtain sync, I leave it in HSS.  If the shutter speed is less than the sync speed than HSS does not apply and everything operates normally.  If the shutter speed is faster than the sync speed, then HSS does what it is intended to do.  Basically, it's a hedge against a fixed ISO like auto ISO would be.  Otherwise, the bars might not be black, but any linear delineation between "exposure" zones might be annoying.

3

Lighting / Re: Flash Newbie: Flash Photography Concept

« on: June 17, 2013, 07:16:32 AM »

So in conclusion, if flash is mounted, there is no way to automatically get standard exposure in Av mode.
Also it is undesireable to use Av mode, simply because there is no way I can make my Min shutter speed to 1/90 or 1/125. Also Auto ISO is Clipped to 400.

My intention is, I want the camera to automatically get exposure of ambient light 1 stop below standard exposure exposure (given min shutter speed and auto ISO), in different lighting condition. And be able adjust FEC as necessary.

As conclusion There is No Way to do this.

I often use Av mode for flash stuff for candids, etc, because it does meter for the ambient.  I'll typically set the meter to -1 and then adjust FEC accordingly.  Set the ISO manually high enough so that the ambient is about 1/100-1/200.  Enable HSS on the flash in case you walk into a brighter area and the shutter speed goes past the sync speed of the camera.

It might be worth checking out the manual to see if you can override the max iso of 400 constraint.  Is it only with flash attached, etc?  Perhaps there is a setting to remove it. 

4

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 DC Available for Preorder

« on: June 14, 2013, 03:59:34 PM »

I do have a question about its design, though.  It's heavier and longer than the 16-35L II, so is this lens essentially a 16-35 FF UWA design with a speedbooster added?

You need a 1.55x speedbooster (telecompressor) to go from f2.8 to f1.8. If a 16-35/2.8 was fitted with a 1.55x telecompressor, it would become an APS-C 10.3-22.5/1.8.

A better match is a 24-70/2.8 with a 1.55x telecompressor. The nearest rival is another third party premium product, the Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC (just £20 and 15g more) - and that would make a 15.4-45/1.8 VC lens with the same telecompressor built in. Wider, longer, and image stabilised.

Yes, the 24-70 would be required, not the 16-35.  Oddly enough, the 18-35 f/1.8 is similar in weight to Sigma's 24-70 but is about an inch longer than the S24-70, which I found curious, which was why I thought Sigma might have "built-in" the booster to get the fast lens for APS-C.  Chop off the long and wide ends where zooms are typically weakest, optimize the optical formula slightly, and voila!

5

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 DC Available for Preorder

« on: June 14, 2013, 12:44:00 PM »

I started another thread on this when the price dropped yesterday...

Engagdet (not a great SLR source of insight) expected this to be priced in the $2k+ range as it was an industry first.  Cue giggling.

But even I am surprised with the $799 price including the hood.

I personally was expecting this to be coming in around $1,000-$1,200 even though it's APS-C only.  A first is still a first, and I'm not convinced something is so easily 'priced out of APS-C user territory' with so many sports / wildlife guys plugging much more expensive glass on their 7Ds.

Any of you surprised by the $799 figure?  The chatter I've seen on other announcement pages (photo rumors, Petapixel, etc.) has been very positive re: the price.

Sigma is on fire right now with that 35mm F/1.4, so people are taking them more seriously.  I still am bent out of shape that they are using whatever witchcraft they have on crop when full frame people would give their left nut for this -- where is the EF 24-50 F/2.2 for full frame?   

- A

Not too suprised about the price.  Sigma has found a nice spot shy of 1k.  If it were FF, then it'd be 2k or more, depending on it's peformance.

I do have a question about its design, though.  It's heavier and longer than the 16-35L II, so is this lens essentially a 16-35 FF UWA design with a speedbooster added?  If it is, does that imply that a fast FF zoom would be similar is size to a medium format lens?

6

EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS

« on: June 14, 2013, 12:28:08 PM »

So this could possibly turn into an actual product within a year?

Maybe.  There have been rumors that it's being evaluated in the field.  If you don't hear any testing rumor, then year -> years.

7

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 DC Available for Preorder

« on: June 14, 2013, 11:19:24 AM »

Hmmm tempting but I don't want to invest in APS-C anymore. The focal range is interesting as it overalaps Sigma's own 30mm f/1.4 DC HSM A. At this price it seems like the zoom would be the way to go?

Very true, particularly considering the 30mm isn't amazing optically.

I was refering to the new 30, not the old one. It hasn't had much press. Is that because it's not that great?

LensRentals did a quick evaluation of it.  It was similar to the older 30 with sharper corners - center was about the same.  IQ-wise, it is much closer to the old 30 than the new 35 f/1.4.

8

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 2nd Body - your thoughts?

« on: June 14, 2013, 10:33:17 AM »

Unless you have a critical need for a second body now, I'd hold off and wait for this winter.  Hopefully, prices will drop to that level again, or at least close to it.  You could always get the 400 or 200-400 first.  With those big lenses, no one will realize a second body dangling off the end of it!   

For everydays shooting, I'm good with one body. For my daughter school events + others activities, I feel I missing alot of close-up shots for not having 2nd body.

For exp. my 4yrs daughter will graduate from pre-school next fri . All students will be singing and dancing etc....having 2nd body for these moments is very handy.

I don't want to pay another $3200 for a camera that don't use much - hate that

It's nice to have another 5D III though - this camera is just PERFECT for my needs. Will see

Congratulations!  My oldest just had a kindergarten show for the parents and my youngest had a little one at the preschool.  Fun times!

I switched lenses a few times -- it was a hassle, but it was ok.  If I knew I'd have to switch lenses a lot, then I'd borrow a friend's 7D and use two cameras.  Neither of us shoot enough to justify two bodies, but borrowing between friends is much easier than renting.

9

EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS

« on: June 14, 2013, 09:58:09 AM »

If the 100-400 is as good as Canon's recent new offerings, then it should be markedly better than the 70-200L II + 2x III.  Hopefully, it'll take extenders well and give us good IQ at 560mm, which is about as far as we can get with a mobile hand-holdable system.

Hopefully, it'll take them at all.  Lots of people are clamoring for a rotating zoom like the 70-300L.  What if that plus a compact design means the lens loses extender compatibility??  Why would they do that?  Consider...all along the 'barrier' was 400/420mm.  If you wanted longer and still wanted AF, you shelled out the big bucks for a 1-series body or a supertele.  So now that they've put f/8 AF in a 5-series, perhaps they'll take away a 'cheap' 560mm f/8 IS option with good IQ.  Not really trying to be the voice of doom, here, but we all know that Canon giveth and Canon taketh away (AFMA on the 60D, anyone?).

Perhaps... that's the nice thing about being the consumer and in charge of the money... it's our choice.  If the IQ is outstanding and it doesn't take TCs, then it'll be a harder trade.  I currently use the 70-200 II + 2x, but I don't use it that often.  However, I do use the 70-300L a lot at 300.  I'd love to get a supertelephoto at some point, but I can't justify it now.  It's not just about the cost, but mobility with having the larger lens and the support system.  Maybe if the kids get more serious about sports once they get older then I'll be able to convince the wife.  Look hon, I've got the camera, tripod, gimbal head, etc... all I need is the lens!  Plus the supertelephotos are kinda hard to hide.  They stick out like a sore thumb like those conifer cell towers towering 30-60 feet above the treeline.  At least the 100-400 is expected to be "blendable" with the 70-200 and 70-300 surrounded by smaller black tubes.   

10

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 2nd Body - your thoughts?

« on: June 14, 2013, 09:42:01 AM »

Another 5D3 will just add to the muscle memory your probably built already. To me it's seemless to work with them as a pair.

All I need is BigValueInc sale, 5D III for $2500

Yes, that was a very good price!

Unless you have a critical need for a second body now, I'd hold off and wait for this winter.  Hopefully, prices will drop to that level again, or at least close to it.  You could always get the 400 or 200-400 first.  With those big lenses, no one will realize a second body dangling off the end of it!   

11

EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS

« on: June 13, 2013, 11:14:01 PM »

With a FF kit, this would be a tempting upgrade path from the 70-300L to get a bit more reach...

I'd say that will depend on the physical specs of the new 100-400L.  While I'd appreciate a step up in IQ and IS, I find that the current 100-400L delivers excellent images.  But I'm still considering (and will likely purchase soon) the 70-300L as a travel lens.

Regarding 70-300 I will be  interested in your opinion when/if you get it. I already have two 70-200 lenses  (70-200 2.8L IS II and 70-200 4L IS) I intend to keep. A third one in the same more or less focal range would be too much.The f/4  is an excellent travel lens. Light and sharp. In addition I do not like the reverse use of zooming and focusing rings in 70-300 ...

On the positive side I would not have to bring my 300 4L and there are bags that you can put the 70-300 lens vertically - but not the 70-200 f4 - and save a lot of space!!!

Choices...

I'm guessing that if you were to get the 70-300L, then the 70-200 f/4 IS would be the odd lens out.  The 70-300L really does offer very good IQ in a light and compact package.  I can use my smallest camera bag (Velocity 7) and barely shove the 70-300L mounted to the camera and another lens on the side.  You'd lose a fraction of a stop to the f/4, but if you needed shallower DOF or more light-gathering ability, you'd be using the 70-200L II anyway.

If the 100-400 is as good as Canon's recent new offerings, then it should be markedly better than the 70-200L II + 2x III.  Hopefully, it'll take extenders well and give us good IQ at 560mm, which is about as far as we can get with a mobile hand-holdable system.  I'm also guessing that it'll weigh slightly more than the current lens' weight (more elements) and nearly weigh 4 lb (with hood and collar) and close to the current lens' length of 8 and 11 (extended) inches.  If it is, then there is still a place for the 70-300L.  The 70-300L will never be as popular as the 70-200 (ultimate short telephoto) or 100-400 (ultimate mobile reach) but it is an excellent travel lens.  If the 100-400 II is as good as the 24-70 II and the 70-200 II, then I'll probably end up with that one down the road too (currently 70-200 II and 70-300L).  Now, if the 100-400 II weighs less than 3 lb and is closer to 6 inches in length, then it'll make the 70-300L expendable.

12

Lenses / Re: What would you do if you had $2000, a 5DII and no lenses?

« on: June 13, 2013, 05:21:05 PM »

I like to do portraiture, kid sports, travel, and ocassionally macro and landscapes.

If it's in antipation of being able to buy additional lenses down the road, then it's the 24-70 II.  It's a winner over its entire focal length but isn't long enough for sports.

If 2000 was the budget forever, then I'd opt for the Sigma 35, refurb 50 f/1.4 and refurb 70-200L f/4 IS.

13

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: cheap lowlight 30-35mm for APS-C

« on: June 12, 2013, 01:36:16 PM »

Happy fatherhood!

Take a look at the LensRentals comparison of the Sigma 30s.  The new one is better into the corners, but the center remains largely unchanged.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/04/sigma-30mm-f1-4-dc-hsm-vs-sigma-30mm-f1-4-ex-dc

I haven't tried any of the lenses you're considering, but I would suggest the new sigma 30.  If you think the 50 f/1.8 has slow AF, MF is not going to be fun either.  The new sigma 30 is slightly better than the old one but the think that would make it more valuable to me is the ability to dock it.  You'll be able to customize your lens better and hopefully it'll provide more "insurance" via firmware updates in the future if Canon changes its communication protocols.

14

Lenses / Re: IQ and AF-speed only: 70-200 f/2.8L IS II + 1.4X III vs. 70-300 f/4-5.6L

« on: June 11, 2013, 11:27:17 AM »

When it comes to bare lens IQ, the 70-200 II is better.  There is something with the natural vignetting at f/2.8 and colors that help the subject pop.  AF speed is good.  I spend less time post-processing 70-200 II files than the 70-300L's.  The difference in look between f/2.8 and f/4-f/5.6 is noticeable especially for portraiture and sports.

If you want to shoot above 200mm a lot, then the 70-300L comes into its own.  The 70-200L works well with the 1.4x, but then it loses a lot of its advantages over the 70-300L.  For some reason, I don't like the images taken with the 70-300L on the LCD on the back of the camera but I end up liking them when I open them in LightRoom (mostly due to color reasons, so much so that I force myself to chimp less when using the 70-300L).  When comparing the 70-200 II with the extender to the 70-300L, the IQ (sharpness, colors) is similar, but the 70-300L is lighter, more compact, better at 280/300mm and having a wider range (70-300 vs. 98-280) while costing up to a stop in speed.  The 70-300L AF is a little bit snappier than the 70-200 II + 1.4x.

What it comes down to are well known trades between weight, size, how often you intend to use the 200-300mm range, and whether you need to use this for low light applications, where every stop counts.  The 70-300L is one of Canon's best travel lenses, and I would also leave the 70-200 II home when traveling (after lugging the 70-200 II to Disney for a week while trying to watch two young kids).  That we would opt for the 70-300L over the 70-200 II for travel is a testament to how good the 70-300L is because we don't lose much in IQ but we gain a lot in versatility.  However, a lot of us will also bring a fast prime to complement the 70-300L for thin DOF or low light use for portraiture or for indoor applications.  With the 70-200 II, you might be able to skip the fast prime and make do with the f/2.8.

15

EOS Bodies / Re: 5d3 question, can i transfer CF files to the SD internally?

« on: June 10, 2013, 10:40:27 PM »

I would like to be able to save my raw files to cf and small jpg images to sd...  and I haven't gotten that deep into the manual to see if it can do that...  though I guess no.

It can do it.

 Thanks.  I   played around with the settings  and figured it out pretty quickly.   I'm still curious if it slows down the write speed.

It does, but it depends on how you use if.  For a single shot, it doesn't seem to matter at all.  For a burst of 5, very slight.  If you shoot enough to fill the buffer and then continue shooting, then it is very noticeable.