There is also another comet I the morning sky called lovejoy. It's a little brighter right now than iSON.
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.
Hello, long time lurker and first-time poster!
I have a question regarding the 1DX. Currently I own a 5d2 and a 5d3, both gripped and nearly a dozen L-lenses and I use these bodies almost always together on an assignment. Through the CPS-program I was glad using a 1DX for a month and it blew my mind for how accurate this thing really is in low light (80% of my work environment) across the whole AF area and the output of the images are simply outstanding! Man what a magical camera this is! I'm back using the 5d3 now, even though the images and the controls are very similar but it is a lot harder to get the keepers I want (and slower/tracking to focus). I never knew the difference would be this big for me and I find myself missing the 1DX tremendously.
Now to my question and the need vs want dilemma. Even though I could afford the 1DX now, but it will hurt my pockets deeply and I would rather use those funds for traveling and taking more pictures! The price is a little too high for me and seeing the camera is out for quite some time, do you think there would be pricedrop in the near future? I considered to buy it second hand and I see quite some good deals but my insurance cannot guarantee full service so that is a problem. For me the near future is in and around Q1 2014 where I have a shitload of assignments piled up until the summer and a camera this capable could be really useful in those situations.
I used to use the venerable 100-400 for wildlife and bird shots. After I bought the 70-200 f2.8 II I started to use that, coupled with the 2x III extender, for the same purposes. I had read mostly negative reviews about extenders, but, to my amazement, the images I get out of this combo are nothing short of astonishing. IQ is equal, or even superior, to the one produced by the 100-400. Autofocus speed, however, takes a hit, which is visible. Still, that to me seems to be a bit faster than the autofocus speed on the 100-400. I'm tempted to use the combo, instead of the 100-400, now, but its weight discourages me to do that, if I'm shooting without a tripod. What do you guys think?
Funny..I was just reading and researching on this subject.
Is there not an official Canon screen replacement...vs this 3rd party one the OP was talking about?
Where are you? You are welcome to use mine.
South Lanarkshire, just below Glasgow in Scotland.
Wow, I wasn't expecting so many great responses!
It's true I've only shot with a few primes (the Canon 100L & 200L, and Sigma 35 Art), so my experience is limited in that regards. But like I said, I rarely zoom in and out in between the widest and longest ends of my zooms, so it seems only logical that I could benefit from the lighter weight and faster aperture of primes; granted I'd be losing out on the convenience and versatility of my zooms if I choose an either/or scenario.
So I think what I'll do is purchase the 40 pancake and 85 II for now and see how I cope with not being able to zoom. I actually returned the 24-70 II a few weeks back (forgot to update my sig) due to $ constraints, but I grew very fond of it while I had it. This is why I'm in a position to make a switch now.
If I go with the 24-70 II again or the 24 II, I'd buy it reburb from the Canon store (as I did with my 70-200 and will do with the 40 and 85 as well). Or, for the cost of a 24-70 II, I could buy the Tamron equivalent AND the Sigma 18-35. Basically, I have about $3800 to spend and I'd have that much more if I sold the 70-200 to reconfigure my kit. IDK, all your input has got me really thinking and torn whether this is the best decision, and unfortunately the closest camera store with any of these lenses in stock is over an hour away
I currently have the exact same setup -- 5D3, 300 2.8L IS MkI and I am currently looking for a 2xIII. I PM'd another CR person several months back -- username "Harv" -- and he had sent me some samples of pics with that rig and I have to say they were totally crisp and clear.
Based on Harv's examples, image quality looks fantastic and at about 1/2 the cost of a used 600mm but with all the maneuverability of the 300.
It is sharpness and AF quality that is my main concern with the combination - I know the 300 is sharp but it's how much the 2 X III TC effects it.