Messages

6196

EOS Bodies / Re: *UPDATE* 5D Mark III - February 7, 2012 [CR2]

« on: January 30, 2012, 09:21:42 AM »

A 7D sensor scaled to FF at 46MP would have better image performance than 5Dmk2 in every aspect.

Fine.  The prototype 120 MP APS-H sensor scaled to medium format at 495 MP will outperform a 7D sensor scaled to FF at 46 MP.  It will probably outperform any other imaginary sensor, too.  Who cares?

6197

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400mmL IS

« on: January 30, 2012, 08:18:53 AM »

I'm not sure if either of you can dismiss the other party as any kind of "legend" or myth, but I personally doubt it really commonly is a dust magnet. Lack of a filter could be a cause of dust for at least some unenlightened people. Others might be unfortunate. No two lenses are the same and all that.

+1.   I'm sure there are people with 100-400's that have dust, and people with no dust.  I don't know that I'd call it an urban legend, but it's a popular lens and things do get blown out of proportion on the Internet.  Try an experiment - search Google for 'your car make/year' and 'transmission problems'.  You'll get hits - probably lots of hits.  Assuming you've never had such a problem, your initial reaction will probably be, "That's BS."  If you have had such a problem, those results will confirm for you that it's a pervasive issue.  The real question is, if you had run that search before buying that car, would you still have bought it?  If you say 'no', expand that concept - if you had done that search on every car you had been considering, you'd be taking the bus to work.

6198

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Flip out displays -- why the resentment?

« on: January 29, 2012, 10:10:03 PM »

You won't find it on high end cameras because it's a cheap, gimmicky consumer crutch. Real photographers don't want it.  Real photographers don't need it.  Real photographers can compose shots perfectly with their eyes closed.  If you want a lazy crutch, get a cheap point and shoot. Or stop whining and be a real photographer - take that wide Canon-branded strap off your high-end camera, tie it around your eyes, and just shoot away. 

 

6199

Lenses / Re: All primes... But what zoom?

« on: January 29, 2012, 09:36:44 PM »

... the 24-105 is better, especially since the long end delivers pretty decent results as far as background blur goes - more or less a wash compared to f/2.8 at 70mm.

I think statements like this are a bit misleading. Yes, if you're at the same distance to your subject, 105mm f/4 actually gives shallower DoF.  Heck, at the same subject distance, my 100-400 at 400mm and stopped down to f/22 is shallower than the 85L at f/1.2. But it's not the same picture at all. A head/torso shot at 70mm becomes a tight head shot at 105mm, and as soon as you back up to match the framing at 70mm, you've negated the effect of the longer focal length on DoF with the opposing effect of greater subject distance.  So, for the same framing (with the same sensor size), it all comes down to aperture, and f/2.8 is wider than f/4.

Which means if you want shallow DoF, a fast prime will beat a zoom.  Since the OP already has the fast primes, and wants versatility, I think (personally) that the 24-105 is better for that.

6200

Lenses / Re: All primes... But what zoom?

« on: January 29, 2012, 07:39:07 PM »

If your main reason is versatility, the 24-105L is the way to go.  It's a broad focal range, wide to tele, and has IS. 

I've got a good assortment of zooms and primes.  Of them, if I'm going out with one lens, it's the 24-105. If I'm taking two, it's often the 24-105 and 70-200 II.  I've considered the 24-70, and if they release a MkII I'll get it, mostly for around the house. But the 5DII + 24-105 is an excellent and versatile combo.

6201

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400mmL IS

« on: January 29, 2012, 05:55:27 PM »

The whole dust issue in the 100-400mm is an urban legend.

+1. But, of course, the 17-55mm does have a dust problem.  Mine doesn't, but they all do.  So sayeth the Internet.   

6202

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400mmL IS

« on: January 29, 2012, 04:58:20 PM »

The 400/5.6 is only 20% less than the 100-400 here in the US. FWIW, I don't have a speck of dust in mine - FYI, the 100-400 has weather seals at the switches and zoom extension/focus ring, i.e. it lacks the mount gasket but is otherwise a sealed lens (it's cousin the 28-300L has the mount gasket and is billed as 'weather sealed').

6203

EOS Bodies / Re: *UPDATE* 5D Mark III - February 7, 2012 [CR2]

« on: January 29, 2012, 01:39:00 PM »

jumping in wayyyy at the end of this thread

no, i haven't read all nine pages!lol

but... referring to the new pics out of africa (aperture academy - possible new 5d3) - seems to me there are TWO cameras in those pictures

this one (same basic layout as 5d2/7D) and this one (totally new arrangement)

has there been any speculation on what the second camera is??

Wow well spotted mate. I didnt even notce the straps are different.

Well done!
 
+1

Well done, indeed.  You two are about the 56th and 57th, respectively, to post about 'discovering' this on CR alone.

6204

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400mmL IS

« on: January 29, 2012, 01:35:35 PM »

There have been rumors of a new 100-400mm for several years. So far, there have been two patents published (about a year apart, IIRC).  Still no new lens.

I'd skip the TC on a 70-300L; won't work at all with a Canon TC, and the optical quality of the 3rd party TCs isn't as good.

Personally, I'd like a 400/5.6L IS, wouldn't mind a new 100-400mm, but I'm quite happy with my 100-400mm now.

6205

EOS Bodies / Re: New High-End DSLR Later in February [CR3]

« on: January 29, 2012, 01:29:35 PM »

Its funny... The CR3 is for NOT on FEB 7....

Hey i give you another CR3... Not on FEB 6 nor on FEB 8

My thoughts exactly. The post title says late Feb, no further explanation in the body. So, is the "late Feb" CR3, or just the "not Feb 7th"?

6206

EOS Bodies / Re: *UPDATE* 5D Mark III - February 7, 2012 [CR2]

« on: January 29, 2012, 10:02:36 AM »

I read the 1DX specs as being 45 active and 16 assist points - which ties in nicely with what you are saying

Sorry, you read wrong.  They are all 'active' although the number that act as cross-type varies with the lens attached, and of course, a C.Fn can limit the number of selectable points.

6207

Lighting / Re: ND filter better than High Speed Sync on a very bright day?

« on: January 29, 2012, 09:29:37 AM »

Yes, you can use an ND filter instead of HSS. I use B+W 3-stop (72mm for my 'holy trinity' of primes - 35L, 85L II, 135L), and 77mm for f/2.8 zooms (not as necessary there).

But...you still have the same problem - an ND filter blocks flash as well as ambient, so you can still have too little flash power.  Still, for fill flash it works ok, better than HSS, I think. If you really want to overcome the sun and control the light, you need an ND filter and even more flash power - monolights, or lots of Speedlites.

6208

Lenses / Re: Canon 16-35mm L IS USM - Need ND Filters, recommendations ? Question

« on: January 29, 2012, 09:21:55 AM »

Neuro - you are correct and clairvoyant.  My plan to acquire this lens was to wait for the 5D Mkiii.  So it appears sticking with a straight ND is the way to go.  I was just informed Hoya does not make an ND400 in the US for an 82mm size so seeking out substitutes at the moment but not a Filter holder type such as Cokin, prefer a screw on.  Open for recommendations for a 9 or 10 stop screw on for 82mm ND.

Question: (perhaps absurd), the glass on the 16-35 mkii does not go edge to edge.  can you use a step down ring from 82 to 72 on an APS-C and/or FF camera?  I have a 72mm ND400 at present.   I suspect the answer is "no" and there is a reason - thanks in advance

Schneider Optics (parent company of B+W filters) makes an 82mm screw-in 10-stop ND filter, that's the one I have.  The only US distributor, AFAIK, is 2filter.com (link); they're in NH, mine arrived the day after I placed the order.

A step-down adapter and smaller-than-82mm filter will mechanically vignette. Anything thicker than an 82mm F-Pro mount will vignette.  Note that to complete the weather/dust sealing on the 16-35L II, a filter is required.  Personally, I use a B+W XS-Pro MRC UV. 

6209

Lenses / Re: Canon 16-35mm L IS USM - Need ND Filters, recommendations ? Question

« on: January 28, 2012, 10:21:03 PM »

As long as you plan on sticking with an APS-C body, an 82mm variable ND would work.  The IQ takes a slight hit relative to a high-quality standard ND, but a good quality vari-ND will be fine.

However, if you plan to go FF, you might want a couple of standard ND filters instead.  Personally, I find that a 3-stop and a 10-stop meet my needs; I have 72mm and 77mm 3-stop and 77mm and 82mm 10-stop filters, all B+W. The 10-stop adds some warmth, which can be corrected by adjusting the WB in post.

The reason I suggest avoiding the vari-ND if you go FF is uneven polarization.  At angles of view wider than 24mm (on FF; wider than 15mm on APS-C), a polarizing filter cannot evenly polarize the entire field - skies are banded dark/light, for example. A vari-ND is a CPL stacked on a linear polarizer - that uneven polarization translates to a 'Maltese cross' artifact, worse at wider angles and greater polarization (darker setting on the vari-ND). 

6210

EOS Bodies / Re: Lotto Winner Cameras?

« on: January 28, 2012, 09:29:35 PM »

Who needs a camera this good and this expensive?

Anyone who wants one and can afford it...