Messages

4096

Technical Support / Re: Tripod for moving subjects

« on: June 26, 2012, 01:55:25 PM »

They're usually used for longer lenses, but a gimball head is the right design to freely track a moving subject.

4097

Lenses / Re: ND filters

« on: June 26, 2012, 01:24:49 PM »

I use a 3-stop ND (B+W #103) for shooting with my fast primes (35L, 85L, 135L) in bright sun.  If you stop down, 3 stops is usually sufficient to get long exposures for moving water; sometimes I'll stack on a CPL which darkens by another ~1.75 stops.

4098

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 1D X - ISO test + RAW files

« on: June 26, 2012, 12:12:24 PM »

See what I mean?  It's beginning already, and DxO probably doesn't even have one yet...

4099

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 1D X - ISO test + RAW files

« on: June 26, 2012, 10:42:10 AM »

3.
likely to generate long threads full of flames, trolls, and endless - and pointless - discussion and churn.

4100

PowerShot / Re: G1X notes

« on: June 26, 2012, 10:41:23 AM »

So it's not really a compact camera anymore but a midsize. And if I'm taking a midsize camera, I expect better pictures for it.

That's my issue with the G1 X - if I want small, I want small, meaning the S100 or the new little Sony with the 1" sensor.  If I can't get small, frankly, I don't see a lot of difference between the G1 X and a dSLR.

4101

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: upgrade to a 7D?

« on: June 26, 2012, 10:38:37 AM »

I do a lot of night time, night time HDR, panoramic photography and just wondered if the 7D would be up to the job for this.  I often do long exposures, in a few shots i've done 20-30 minute exposures on a beach at night and while the 550D was good it wasn't quite perfect, so I wouldn't want to upgrade and lose that performance i have currently.

The one area where I know it will help is my sports photography.  I shoot most sports, football, rugby, golf, motor racing, aqua sports (kite surfing, jet skiing, motor boat races)..So I'm 100% it will fulfill it's purpose on that front.

Anyone using a 7D who maybe can advise?

The 7D and 550D use the same CMOS image sensor - you'll get exactly the same low-light performance from the 7D as your current camera (but yes, the 5DII/5DIII would be better).

For sports, the 7D is the way to go...

4102

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 1D X - ISO test + RAW files

« on: June 26, 2012, 10:33:48 AM »

It will be interesting to see how it measures up at DxO!

Define interesting...

4103

Lenses / Re: 40mm f2.8 STM - Lens Hood?

« on: June 26, 2012, 10:25:49 AM »

Did it 'come' with it or were those items separate purchases? Because mine comes tomorrow and I bet you it is only a lens in a styro and cardboard box.

In many Asian countries, Canon sells all lenses - even the non-L ones - with the hood and pouch included.

4104

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS [CR2]

« on: June 26, 2012, 06:52:48 AM »

But I expect I would use it 99% at 400 so why not the prime

Have you shot with one enough to know if your expectation is valid?  It's likely close, at least.  For me, about 15% of shos with the lens are at 150mm and shorter.  So, why don't I have the prime?  IS and physical length.  At 400mm on APS-C (I almost always use my 100-400 with my 7D, since if you're focal length-limited, APS-C is a better choice), you need approximately 1/640 s for a decent handheld keeper rate.  Over 50% of my shots with the lens are slower than 1/640 s (mostly 1/250-1/500 s), so I'm getting a lot of benefit from the IS.  Also, the 100-400mm gets you to 400mm with a lens that's nearly 3" shorter (when retracted) than the 400mm f/5.6L prime - that means the zoom fits in my Lowepro Toploader 75 AW whereas the 400/5.6 prime would not, similarly for many other bags. 

4105

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: The 5D Mark III & SD Memory Cards

« on: June 26, 2012, 06:15:05 AM »

The Mark III takes SDXC cards which are rated at 100MB/sec - 300MB/sec.  So really SDXC cards should not be a major bottleneck. I completely understand that if you are writing to two cards that speed will suffer.  I'd like to see some real numbers with top-end CF and SDXC being written to at the same time.

SD card speed is not the bottleneck in this case - the camera doesn't support the higher speed UHS-I class.  It's like plugging a USB3 HDD into a USB2 port, you're limited to the slower speed.

4106

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: The 5D Mark III & SD Memory Cards

« on: June 25, 2012, 08:20:38 PM »

I consider cripping when they take a working feature and take it away

Ahhh...so you mean, for example, the fact that AFMA was a feature of the 50D, but not of the 60D.  Or is AFMA neither a bell nor a whistle?

Yep you are right in this case about the function being removed - does that mean it could be restored by firmware? if so then it is crippled

In this case we are talking about the SD card which is being touted as being crippled - are you saying it is?

Yes, AFMA is firmware only, would have been free for them to implement (in fact, they probably had to actively remove it from the 50D firmware as they modified it for the 60D).  Crippled, indeed.

Not necessarily the case for the SD slot, that souds more like a case of re-using the already developed part(s) from the 1-series, without bothering to update the Sd slot for the already-available UHS standard.  I think it would have been relatively low-cost for them to do so, but they chose not to.

4107

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: The 5D Mark III & SD Memory Cards

« on: June 25, 2012, 07:27:44 PM »

I consider cripping when they take a working feature and take it away

Ahhh...so you mean, for example, the fact that AFMA was a feature of the 50D, but not of the 60D.  Or is AFMA neither a bell nor a whistle?

4108

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS [CR2]

« on: June 25, 2012, 07:24:10 PM »

I don't get the hype about this lens. 

Wow, that's a lot of misconception there, to be charitable...or trolling, to be uncharitable. 

There is already a 70-300L out, which does have 100mm less, but you can get that with a 1.4x TC for cheaper than this 100-400 is supposed to be.

Do the Canon TC's work with the 70-300L?  In case you didn't know, they don't.  3rd party TCs do, but the newer ones will not AF, and regardless, that option is pretty inferior, optically.

Or maybe you're suggesting no one needs that extra 100mm?  If you don't fine - say so.  Personally, I do...

For every f/2.8 70-200 II owner, this 100-400 lens is just pretty useless. 

Ok, I own both, and a 2x TC.  Does that make me an idiot?  Do you own both?  If so, maybe that makes you an idiot.  If not, then how do you know the 100-400mm is useless?  Maybe having both would give you the opportunity to test the 70-200mm + 2x against the 100-400mm, in which case you'd find out that the 100-400mm @ 400mm f/5.6 is optically better... 

First, you're blowing away 100mm worth of f/2.8 super high IQ goodness
Then, if you need the reach, just add a TC and you got it with probably similar IQ.

This makes no sense at all.  They are different lenses, and no, adding a TC doesn not give simliar IQ.  Decent IQ, yes.  IQ that will do if you don't have the 100-400mm with you, or if you're shooting in the rain and need a weather sealed combo.  But not similar.

What any 70-200 II owner needs is a 200-400 f/4 and not this rubbish.

So...you're going to give everyone the $8,000 (estimated) to make up the difference in cost?  Apparently, you're very generous, and you're independently wealthy, or being a doc in the former Soviet union pays a lot more than I've been led to believe.

If you dont have a tele lens at all, 100-400mm gets you covered nicely in once package, but if you have a 70-200, it's kinda useless.

I think you said that, already. A 200mm lens is no different than a 400mm lens?  Or a TC is a magic tube that doesn't degrade the optics at all?  Consider...if the current 100-400mm beats the 70-200 II + 2x TC at the long ends, how would a 100-400mm designed to the current Canon trend (24-70 II, 70-200 II), with the newest coatings, etc., compare?  Answer: it would blow the 70-200 II + 2x out of the water.

But you must be right.  A new 100-400mm lens is useless.  Canon is stupid for spending R&D funds on one, and they'll never bring one to market because no one will ever buy one.

4109

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: The 5D Mark III & SD Memory Cards

« on: June 25, 2012, 06:58:17 PM »

Why do people think that Canon cripple a model rather than not give it all the bells and whistles?

Two words: auto focus.  Or is that just one word?  Call it product line differentiation, reduction of R&D/manufacturing costs to maximize profit, whatever...crippling, by any other name...

4110

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: The 5D Mark III & SD Memory Cards

« on: June 25, 2012, 06:26:57 PM »

Unfortunately my own theory about why the SD is crippled is more annoying. Because SD can be cheaper and nearly as fast as CF, which would move the 5D3 closer to the 1dx than canon marketing wants.

No proof, but certainly reaonable based on other behavior.

Wait, wait...  You seem to be suggesting that Canon would intentionally cripple a camera model?!?