November 23, 2014, 07:41:42 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 - Canon1

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 23
1
It's pretty irresponsible for rumor sites to post this acting like it's a credible source. CR and other sites have actual insider info from credible sources to base their posting on.


Uh huh... And CR sources are ALWAYS credible and CR has NEVER been wrong.

 All the rumor sites are guilty of making claims without much truth to generate page hits, even CR.  AF least CR ranks the rumors.

2
Post Processing / Re: POLL: Do you need to fill the histogram in post?
« on: November 21, 2014, 07:11:46 PM »
Don't get me wrong, most of my images end up with a relatively balanced histogram, I just don't need a histogram to "see" when a properly exposed image with well processed highlights and shadows.   ;) My workflow is not hindered by this approach.

3
Post Processing / Re: POLL: Do you need to fill the histogram in post?
« on: November 21, 2014, 05:52:03 PM »
I use the histogram when shooting, not editing. I make sure that images are exposed properly in the camera, but after that the histogram does not get any attention.

Personally, I am creating images that an hang on the wall, not histograms. I edit each image based in the image...

4
Lenses / Re: 70-200 or 100-400 conundrum.....
« on: November 20, 2014, 07:41:21 AM »
Based on what you have said, I would suggest the 70-200 f2.8ii.

It's a spectacular lens with the 1.4, but just ok with the 2x, so don't assume it's a great 400mm option.

If you intend to be at 400mm whenever this lens is on, than the 100-400 would be a better choice. (You mentioned this as occasional, however in my experience, the more reach you get... The more reach you want)

Both would be a great choice, however there is something to be said about canon's f2.8 lenses (prime and zoom) from a performance and iq standpoint... Just awesome.

5
Canon General / CR Forum Etiquette
« on: November 14, 2014, 06:16:58 PM »
It really seems like there is a lot of hostility here among forum members. I really can't believe some of the stuff people say to each other here. Good debate is productive, but some of this stuff is...

Before this, I've  never seen a group of people who all share the same passion as one another be so brutal to one another.

There are even many posters here with thousands of posts who used to be wonderful sources of information who now resort to the same childish behavior.

I challenge everyone to grow up a little, and recognize that there are tons of people here, beginners and pros alike, who all share this common passion of photography. Think of the discussions we could have if we left the bull s#%t behind.

I hope the admins don't sensor this post. My intent here is not to slam CR or further inflame members, but to encourage people to try to be civil and productive. This is a great community and resource.

Happy shooting,

6
Lenses / Re: Preorder: Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II
« on: November 14, 2014, 12:34:06 PM »
The reason Roger is more trusted than you is because he wouldn't have said he got one good one out of four, he would have said he tested six (he would have tested the two you didn't) and he found two to be off, and those two were from the same batch.

I wrote the following in my first post about this: "2 copies were very soft at 400mm, 1 was decent and 1 was super sharp." Which is a fact and the only point that I wanted to make was that there were QC issues with the old 100-400. I didn't elaborate on when and where those copies were tested until you insinuated that the pick was completely random and therefore labelled my post as untrustworthy. I then gave more details, but how does that change my original statement? You buy a new lens and chances are that you get a bad copy. With the old 100-400, chances were quite high. After all, at one point in time, 4 buyers bought a 100-400 from my camera store. One got a perfect lens (that was me), another got a decent lens and 2 got lenses that were really bad. You may find this ok, but I don't.

Don't get sucked in Aichbus.  Sometimes people here have nothing better to do than argue for the sake of arguing.  I reviewed three copies of this lens when i bought one and all three (after calibration to the body) varied significantly.  For me, the three copies were "poor", "ok" and "very sharp".  This particular lens model has had a long known history of significant sample variation.  It's the only lens that I have seen where every reviewer mentions sample variation as being a significant problem....

7
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7D Mark II Owners first thoughts
« on: November 12, 2014, 08:49:48 AM »
I returned mine due to front focusing issues.  Volleyball players' arms and hands were in focus instead of the torso or face.  It was a frequent occurrence.  It may be something correctable by AFMA but FOCAL isn't working yet with the camera.

Reikan FoCal works perfectly for this camera.  It is not able to analyze the RAW files in real time , but you can take all the test shots manually (shooting in JPG) and run these through the program. I have already calibrated my 7D2 to my lenses and it made a big difference.

8
Lenses / Re: Preorder: Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II
« on: November 12, 2014, 07:12:54 AM »
Frankly, I never understood the attraction of ordering a product before it is reviewed. Is being the "first kid on the block" one of the motivations?

As a general rule, this is a good policy. However, with this lens I think ordering is a safe bet. Does anyone doubt this lens will be anything less than stellar?

That's a good point ... Canon's recent lens releases have been great, even if expensive. It's a good sign when we can fully expect a new lens to be awesome. Still, I will wait for reviews (and possible sale prices) mostly because I'm in no great need for this.

One reason to wait is that early adopters often need to deal with manufacturing issues that have not been worked out yet.  The 24-70 f2.8 II had some funny noises when zooming as an example.  Canon quietly fixed this without really acknowledging a flaw, so later models (like mine) were not affected. 

9
Lenses / Re: Preorder: Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II
« on: November 12, 2014, 07:08:20 AM »
WOW... Canon Germany has just corrected the MSRP on their press release website ... down from € 2,499 to now € 2,199 ... still 160 Euro too high compared to US pricing and taking into account 19% VAT tax.

http://www.canon.de/About_Us/Press_Centre/Press_Releases/Consumer_News/Cameras_Accessories/The_EF_100-400mm_f4.5-5.6L_IS_II_USM.aspx

not really - considering the last time i checked canon isn't a us company - so factor it back to the yen

All currencies are all relative to each other....  So it is valid to compare $$ to €€....

10
Lenses / Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II
« on: November 11, 2014, 10:35:46 PM »
Agreed. This thing looks like it will be a beast.  I have the 2xII (not the newest) but I'm wondering how much difference there really is between the two.

Optically, there is not much difference, however the electronics have seen a big upgrade and AF is much faster on V2 Superteles with 5D3, 1DX (7D2?), Etc...  Not sure if this would apply to this new 100-400, but I suspect so. 

11
Lenses / Re: Why don't Canon make lenses for other mounts?
« on: November 10, 2014, 05:13:09 PM »
Sigma makes camera bodies??  :o

12
Lenses / Re: Is the new 100-400L II going to be a push/pull after all?
« on: November 10, 2014, 05:11:01 PM »
Seriously though, to the OP... It's a definite maybe...

13
Lenses / Re: Is the new 100-400L II going to be a push/pull after all?
« on: November 10, 2014, 05:06:00 PM »
Pull.  ;)

14
Lenses / Re: Is the new 100-400L II going to be a push/pull after all?
« on: November 10, 2014, 04:58:15 PM »
Yes

15
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7D Mark II Reported Issues
« on: November 10, 2014, 09:55:27 AM »
"Try turning on the function on that says keep searching when AF impossible.  If the scene is very out of focus apparently the phase difference is larger than the AF sensors can see, so the camera does not know what to do."

I just saw this on another forum...

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 23