Messages

1

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: LCD Protector

« on: May 01, 2013, 04:06:12 AM »

Reading previous threads there seems to be a reluctance to use screen protectors.  I find that my rear LCD screen has smudges on it - in the upper left corner where my nose presses against the screen.  And occasionally I find a small scratch on the LCD (okay, the screen protector on the LCD screen).

There are 2 types of screen protectors - film and glass.  The film is available for the 1DX while the glass is not (at least not at B&H). 

Any other recommendations?

I use AEGIS glass screen protectors made by Giottos. Looks like there's one for the 1DX:

http://www.amazon.com/Giottos-Screen-Protector-Digital-Cameras/dp/B00B1WAZ8S
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/889602-REG/Giottos_sp8320_AEGIS_Pro_Glass_Screen.html

2

EOS Bodies / Re: 21mp Sensor in the 7D Mark II? [CR1]

« on: April 18, 2013, 08:30:59 PM »

18 MP. 21 MP. 24 MP. Even 15 MP.  Frankly, I don't especially care.  If it does a full stop or more better in terms of high ISO noise performance for RAW images vs. the 7D, a 7DII will be interesting to me. If not, no interest.

+1

Exactly.

3

Lenses / Re: I need a 24mm focal lenght Lens.. is the 24mm f2.8 IS right for me?

« on: April 16, 2013, 10:25:40 PM »

I have the 24 2.8 IS and love it. IQ is the best of all my lenses at 24mm. I have the 16-35 II, 17-40, 24-105, and EF-S 17-55. I've just ordered the 24-70 2.8 II which I'm sure will rival the 24 2.8 IS, but I'll probably keep the latter for when its diminutive size matters.

4

Landscape / Re: San Francisco Sunrise to Yosemite Sunset in a Day

« on: April 07, 2013, 11:59:58 PM »

Excellent! Quite a day. I appreciate how the photos juxtapose with one another: sunrise to sunset; and shallow-water rocks covered in fog & mist and the other with snow & ice. Nice!

5

Lenses / Re: 40mm f/2.8 Wow what a lens

« on: March 20, 2013, 12:37:00 AM »

Wonderful photos! You've inspired me to use mine more often.

Just one minor suggestion... maybe better to crop out the car in #4?

6

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 100D Detailed Specs Appear

« on: March 18, 2013, 05:40:01 AM »

I think Canon dilutes thier lineup with too many of the same cameras. Why would a consumer buy this vs the T4i for the same price? What's different about this and the T4i (maybe I missed that)?

You'd be surprised with how many people make a buying decision based on size alone. I'm thinking that since Canon did not make such an impact on the market, with their mirror less cameras, they might be trying something different ... who knows, it might click.

You know, this goes against the flow here but I'm more interested in this camera than the eos M. 

Just to clarify, I own the 5DII, 5DIII and up till recently the 7D.  I also own a Lumix LX3 as a pocket camera. Professional gigs aside, I've stopped using the LX3 for social and personal events in favour of my 5DIII with the 40mm pancake.  I would be interested in making this setup even more compact with a smaller body.  It interests me more than the eos M and I love the quality and size of the pancake. 

I guess I won't know how small this is till I feel it in my hands but if it does come to fruition and it's to my liking, I might wait till the price cools and be up for it?

Count me as someone else going against the flow here. I also own the 5D2 and 5D3 and coincidentally, I too have sold my 7D (and am eagerly awaiting the 7D2!).

I'm an ultra runner (marathons, 50k's, and am working on my first 50 miler) and often bring along a camera during my training runs. I've used the Powershot S95 and G12 because of their smaller sizes, but have recently brought along a T4i for better image quality. As you can imagine, size matters when trail running for hours at a time, so if Canon releases a smaller DSLR with comparable image quality, I'd get it in an instant. Every little bit helps.

It's funny that people pooh-pooh cameras based on specs alone. The thinking is that if a camera appears compromised, then it is "pointless", as one person commented. One size does not fit all, both literally and figuratively...

7

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Amazon vs B&H for purchase?

« on: March 03, 2013, 10:20:36 PM »

Doesn't really matter (as long as you're buying direct from Amazon, not a 3rd party even if fulfilled by Amazon).

I'm curious about your caveat for 3rd party vendors fulfilled by Amazon.

I'm in California where Amazon started collecting sales taxes late last year. Goods from out-of-state vendors fullfilled by Amazon, however, are not taxed. So when pricing is in my favor and provided that the 3rd party vendor is an authorized Canon dealer, I have made purchases in this way. So far, I have not had any problems. Are there any potential problems out there that I'm not aware of? Thanks.

(Btw, I'm aware of California use taxes.)

8

Software & Accessories / Re: Circular polarizer for the 16-35

« on: February 25, 2013, 10:45:10 PM »

Yes, the XS-Pro has front threads.  I have the Slim, I don't use the cap but then I only put the CPL on during active use, and take it off before putting the lens away.  I normally keep an XS-Pro MRC UV filter on it (needed to complete the weather/dust seal).

Thanks again neuro. I thought about that as well, i.e. not really needing a cap for the CPL since it wouldn't be on all the time. Still, it would be a nice option to have as I can see myself carrying around that configuration for several hours at a time.

I just placed an order for the XS-Pro MRC UV filter. Thanks.

9

Software & Accessories / Re: Circular polarizer for the 16-35

« on: February 25, 2013, 10:01:07 PM »

I've got it, do you want to buy it?

I mostly bought the 16-35 for low light situations - indoor and out, so I'm thinking about forgoing a polarizer for that lens altogether. (Man they're expensive!) I also have the 17-40, and have the corresponding 77mm polarizer, so for landscapes, I may continue to use that lens where f4 is generally fine.

At some point, I'll get the 24-70 II, so I'll have to revisit the 82mm polarizer again.

Thanks!

10

Software & Accessories / Re: Circular polarizer for the 16-35

« on: February 25, 2013, 09:53:48 PM »

That one (standard mount for CPL, which is ~7mm thick) will cause a slight increase in optical vignetting (<1 stop wide open).  You'd be better off with the Slim or XS-Pro mount. 

There will be banding on blue skies at wider than 24mm (assuming you're using it on a FF camera), but it's great for waterfalls, increasing saturation in foliage shots, etc.

Thanks neuro.

Yes, I'd be using it on a full-frame camera (forgot to mention). I was trying to avoid the slim mount because of the flimsy filter cover. I have already used one of those on a 10-22 in the past and was not particularly fond of it. Does the XS-Pro mount have filter threads that would accommodate a lens cap?

11

Software & Accessories / Circular polarizer for the 16-35

« on: February 25, 2013, 09:06:41 PM »

I'm looking to purchase a B+W circular polarizer for my new 16-35 lens. Does anyone know if this particular one shows vignetting at the wide end?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/10890-REG/B_W_66_016117_82mm_Kaeseman_Circular_Polarizing.html

Also, how bad is the banding? Is it better not to use one, or do the benefits outweigh the banding problems?

Thanks!

12

Lenses / Re: Looking for new lens for vacation

« on: February 21, 2013, 05:00:53 AM »

I would say, just bring a 24-105.  It's good enough in the quality department and gives you both decent wide angle and a little telephoto.  My second choice would be the 24-70 f4 IS and my third the 30mm 1.4. (This is assuming you are leaving the two zooms you own at home, which is what I think you are saying.)

+1 on the 24-105.

Since you're considering the 24-70 f4 IS because it is smaller/lighter compared to the 24-70 II you already have, I would get the 24-105 since it is just slightly heavier (2.5 oz) than the 24-70 f4. You get a little more reach and arguably better optics than the 24-70 f4, especially in the 35-50mm range:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=823&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=355&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0

As for the 35 f2 IS vs. the Sigma 35 1.4, I think you answered your own question. Since you generally want more DOF at a place like Disneyland, you probably won't be using 1.4 too much. As you said, you usually sit between 5.6-10 when photographing your family. I'm also thinking lots of stationary poses which would be good for IS and low-light hand-holdable shooting. Also, while not 1.4, f2 is plenty fast when you want to compensate for motion blur, especially since you can safely crank up the ISO on your 5DM3.

If portability is your primary consideration, you could get the 40mm 2.8 pancake. Great optics, tiny, and inexpensive! In fact, I would bring it along as a backup. It easily fits in your pocket.

Have fun!

13

Lenses / Re: What's the best deal you've ever gotten on a lens?

« on: February 17, 2013, 10:08:50 PM »

35mm 1.4L refurbished for $922
300mm 2.8L IS new for $3580

Awesome lenses!

14

Lenses / Re: Is your midrange gear insured?

« on: February 16, 2013, 08:36:44 PM »

I have a State Farm personal articles policy that covers most of my camera gear at full replacement cost. At first I covered everything, memory cards, batteries, etc. but then realized that I would never make a claim for the small things if I happened to lose them. When my agent told me that her brother had a similar policy and that State Farm cancelled his policy when he made too many loss claims, I decided to only insure items costing over $300.

I've had the policy for about 5 years now and have only made one claim for a broken 580EX that I dropped. They basically paid for a new 580EXII. When I made the claim, they asked if I had gotten an estimate to repair it, which I did. Canon's estimate was a minimum of $150, so State Farm just sent me a check for what I originally paid for the 580EX. I later got the flash repaired for $150 and have kept it since I could always use another flash with 5 camera bodies.

As my collection of camera gear has grown, my annual insurance cost has doubled from around $150 to $300 per year. Is it worth it? I think so. Although I've only had one loss, I gain peace of mind and feel that I don't have to baby my equipment (although I am careful with it). I also know that if I'm ever in a situation where I'm in a confrontation with someone for my camera gear, I'd just hand it over knowing that I'd get brand new updated versions of my equipment without a problem. I would however, kindly ask for the memory cards.  How ironic, in that that's one of the things I don't insure. 

15

Lenses / Re: Anyone Want an Improved 16-35mm over the much requested 14-24mm?

« on: February 13, 2013, 03:42:28 AM »

I agree.  I'd take a 16-24 or 16-28 as well.  I don't really like the fact that a 14-24 can't take filters unless you are looking at 6x6's which are insanely expensive.

+1

If the extra 2mm on the wide end means it can't take filters, I'd much rather have an improved 16-35 or a 16-xx over a 14-24.