466
Canon General / Re: Canon \
« on: September 22, 2011, 08:42:47 PM »
Wouldn't worry too much about it. After all, this is CanonRumors, not CanonCameraRumors.
May 23, 2013, 01:28:34 PM
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.
467
EOS Bodies / Re: Nikon unveils V1 and J1 Mirrorless Cameras
« on: September 21, 2011, 03:01:40 AM »
Not quite what I was expecting. Seems more of a Pentax Q competitor for the Japanese home market.
468
United States / Re: Upgrading lenses
« on: September 20, 2011, 02:12:30 AM »
Depending on how dark it is, I will often use a 50/1.8. If I was doing more night sports photography, I'd consider the 135/f2 or the 70-200/2.8. Nice balance between reach and speed.
But I'd worry that the percentage of keepers probably wouldn't that much different to your 55-250. For mere mortals, shooting at night is hard!! So why bother changing - just use what you've got.
Another interesting question might be "fast lens vs better high ISO capability of a full frame camera". This is something that I'm trying to weigh up myself.
Also, as mentioned, see if you can use a flash.
Then, if you want to get really creative, you could even buy a cheap flash trigger and locate your flash at a different point down the field closer to the action. In fact, you could set up multiple flashes covering the same area. They don't have to be Canon flashes, just the cheapest high power ones you can find (Of course, Canon ones will work better...). Then, when the action moves into your flash zone, just shoot away. Haven't tried this myself, but I read about it often and apparently it works well.
But I'd worry that the percentage of keepers probably wouldn't that much different to your 55-250. For mere mortals, shooting at night is hard!! So why bother changing - just use what you've got.
Another interesting question might be "fast lens vs better high ISO capability of a full frame camera". This is something that I'm trying to weigh up myself.
Also, as mentioned, see if you can use a flash.
Then, if you want to get really creative, you could even buy a cheap flash trigger and locate your flash at a different point down the field closer to the action. In fact, you could set up multiple flashes covering the same area. They don't have to be Canon flashes, just the cheapest high power ones you can find (Of course, Canon ones will work better...). Then, when the action moves into your flash zone, just shoot away. Haven't tried this myself, but I read about it often and apparently it works well.
469
EOS Bodies / Re: A New Entry Level Full Frame Camera? [CR1]
« on: September 18, 2011, 11:56:46 PM »
Six to Seven years ago, everyone was talking about the demise of crop bodied cameras. People were very optimistic that the cost of producing sensors would continually fall and that FF cameras would become a lot more affordable. Maybe Canon have developed some manufacturing efficiencies (or benefits from increasing volume) and this is the start of that? Maybe its time to start offloading EF-S lenses onto "non-CR" people?
In any case, as long as it had some weather sealing and at least 5fps, I'd be very interested in a bare bones 5Diii at the right price (approx $1800-$2000). As the price increases above that point, the little man inside my head will probably start saying "its only a little bit extra to get something a lot better". Hopefully, by then, rumours of a "much improved" 5Div might start surfacing and I can hold onto my money for a few more years.
In any case, as long as it had some weather sealing and at least 5fps, I'd be very interested in a bare bones 5Diii at the right price (approx $1800-$2000). As the price increases above that point, the little man inside my head will probably start saying "its only a little bit extra to get something a lot better". Hopefully, by then, rumours of a "much improved" 5Div might start surfacing and I can hold onto my money for a few more years.
470
Macro / Re: Canon 100mm USM MACRO (not L / IS)
« on: September 18, 2011, 11:31:35 PM »
I've got the earlier non-usm 100mm macro. Talk about hunting in low light - I can barely get mine to autofocus indoors. But the image quality is fantastic.
471
Canon General / Re: "Old Lenses" and "Digital Camera Compatibility"?
« on: September 14, 2011, 11:34:59 PM »The problem is most pronounced in wide-angle lenses.
+1. It depends on the lens, but recently I've been using a lot older MF lenses with an Olympus EPL-1. My 24mm lens which I normally consider superb is very average. But as move towards the telephoto end, the results improve dramatically.
My 17-40 also seems to work better with film than digital. I've often wondered if this is for the same reason.
Just because your lens is compatible with a digital camera, it doesn't necessarily follow that it is optimized for digital. Over the last ten years, many lenses have had minor design tweaks to make them work better with DSLRs.
472
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 'Rep' tells BBC that "fewer megapixels are better"
« on: September 13, 2011, 01:34:55 AM »I would hate if my 50mm wasn't actually 50mm...
A 50mm on an APS-C sensored camera is still a 50mm. You need to free your mind from such restrictive thought paradigms!
473
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Tempting Fate Being "Mirrored"?
« on: September 12, 2011, 05:02:21 AM »
I've just returned from the World Rally Championships in Coffs Harbour, Australia. Everyone had a camera, and for a motor sports event, there was a surprising amount of camera talk and discussion. I'd say that nearly one third of families had a DSLR and Canon was easily the most popular. No surprises there - Canon is No. 1!!!
What do I learn from events like this? Firstly, there is a good, general understanding of the benefits of different types of cameras. Just like you don't bring a knife to a gun fight, most people appreciate that a phone isn't the best for fast action. Its just that a small percentage of people don't care - They're just happy being at the event and they'll rattle of a few photos to show friends and family what it was like.
Secondly, many people that aren't into photography are still interested in why a DSLR performs better. I lent my camera to a few people throughout the event for a couple of passes and they were surprised by the vast difference in focus speed and frame rates. Potential future customers? Possibly.
Therefore, will compact users ever buy Canon or Nikon? Yes - of course they will. As with any other purchase, they'll weigh up the pros and negatives. But right now, if you want a camera that is more durable, performs well in low light, is better for sports, for fast focusing, then you are going with a DSLR. The majority of people contemplating an expensive camera purchase understand this. Are these benefits of a DSLR worth the extra cost, complexity and weight? Everyone has their own answer.
Therefore, my opinions...
What about compacts? In five years time, this market won't exist. Phones are already good enough.
What about mirrorless? The future is looking bright. As an owner of one myself (Olympus EPL-1), I can confirm that the image quality is at least on par if not better than a 30D. I'd suspect that it is comparable with modern DSLRs too. It is a fraction of the weight and is significantly more enjoyable to carry around. Sure, focus is a bit slower, but not dramatically so. Battery life is also woeful with about 300 shots / charge. But for an everyday use camera that will produce better results that your phone, why wouldn't you choose one?
My family camera prediction? People looking for a simple, light weight, lower cost, quality image camera will choose mirrorless. People looking for more robust performance will stick with a DSLR. Canon is the market leader in DSLRs, and there is no reason for this to change.
The end result is that Canon will lose sales by not being in the mirrorless market. But will this impact on their overall profitability given that they will retain the higher end of the market? Only a Canon exec would know the answer.
What do I learn from events like this? Firstly, there is a good, general understanding of the benefits of different types of cameras. Just like you don't bring a knife to a gun fight, most people appreciate that a phone isn't the best for fast action. Its just that a small percentage of people don't care - They're just happy being at the event and they'll rattle of a few photos to show friends and family what it was like.
Secondly, many people that aren't into photography are still interested in why a DSLR performs better. I lent my camera to a few people throughout the event for a couple of passes and they were surprised by the vast difference in focus speed and frame rates. Potential future customers? Possibly.
Therefore, will compact users ever buy Canon or Nikon? Yes - of course they will. As with any other purchase, they'll weigh up the pros and negatives. But right now, if you want a camera that is more durable, performs well in low light, is better for sports, for fast focusing, then you are going with a DSLR. The majority of people contemplating an expensive camera purchase understand this. Are these benefits of a DSLR worth the extra cost, complexity and weight? Everyone has their own answer.
Therefore, my opinions...
What about compacts? In five years time, this market won't exist. Phones are already good enough.
What about mirrorless? The future is looking bright. As an owner of one myself (Olympus EPL-1), I can confirm that the image quality is at least on par if not better than a 30D. I'd suspect that it is comparable with modern DSLRs too. It is a fraction of the weight and is significantly more enjoyable to carry around. Sure, focus is a bit slower, but not dramatically so. Battery life is also woeful with about 300 shots / charge. But for an everyday use camera that will produce better results that your phone, why wouldn't you choose one?
My family camera prediction? People looking for a simple, light weight, lower cost, quality image camera will choose mirrorless. People looking for more robust performance will stick with a DSLR. Canon is the market leader in DSLRs, and there is no reason for this to change.
The end result is that Canon will lose sales by not being in the mirrorless market. But will this impact on their overall profitability given that they will retain the higher end of the market? Only a Canon exec would know the answer.
474
Lenses / Re: 17-40L bad copy?
« on: September 07, 2011, 11:33:56 PM »
When I use my 17-40 while shooting film, the results are sensational. On a 30D, the results are as described above - a bit soft. My 10-22 walks all over it. I'm confident that it is due to how the lens mates with the camera body and small differences in manufacturing tolerances. Micro adjustment probably would fix this up. Although, it seems odd that so many people have the same complaint.
475
EOS Bodies / Re: Having Multiple Camera Systems
« on: September 07, 2011, 06:49:11 AM »
Although you are missing something on the wide end, your suggested Canon kit isn't too bad. As general advice, a wide angle zoom, a fast prime and telephoto zoom would be fine for most people. However, if you are taking a lot of photos in low light, I'd echo some of the other replies and suggest you consider a faster prime instead of (or in conjunction with) the 70-200. That being said, the 70-200 is only just over one stop slower and has the advantage of being a zoom. You have to weigh up the versatility and reach of a zoom vs marginally noisier photos.
Also, as mentioned, the 70-200 is a big, big lens. The other lenses mentioned (85 / 100 /135) are substantially smaller and lighter. This has a big impact on its usability and your desire to take it anywhere. You do feel conspicuous carrying such a big lens around. (You'll also get some odd looks taking pictures of children at a park or party even when they are your own children.....or is that just me??) But it is a great lens. Many photographers (amateurs and professionals, male and female) love this lens for outdoor portraits. I'd love to have one, myself.
There are a few comments on the complexity of dslrs, how $4,000 is a lot to spend etc etc. But if you can afford it, why not buy "L" lenses. They are better built and just feel better to use. Personally, I say just go and do it. If it turns out that you've made a bad decision, there is a very active second hand market and the lenses retain most of their value. You might lose a small bit, but it won't be the end of the world.
I went the cheap option myself, with the 50/1.8 and the 70-200/4. Along with a 10-22, I'm set for most things that come up. This won't give you quite the same low light capabilities or background blur, but would free up some funds for a flash and other accessories and is an option to consider.
On using two systems, I'd suggest starting with the 600D first. It is the more versatile of the two cameras. I'd only consider the Panasonic if it becomes clear that the Canon doesn't perform in a particular area that is important to you and you believe that the Panasonic is better. But apart from the weight and size, the 600D should be superior in every other aspect and you may not feel the need for two systems. Save your money until you know that you need it.
But if you are looking at m4/3, the new Olympus 45mm is getting good reviews and should be compatible with the Panasonic.
Also, as mentioned, the 70-200 is a big, big lens. The other lenses mentioned (85 / 100 /135) are substantially smaller and lighter. This has a big impact on its usability and your desire to take it anywhere. You do feel conspicuous carrying such a big lens around. (You'll also get some odd looks taking pictures of children at a park or party even when they are your own children.....or is that just me??) But it is a great lens. Many photographers (amateurs and professionals, male and female) love this lens for outdoor portraits. I'd love to have one, myself.
There are a few comments on the complexity of dslrs, how $4,000 is a lot to spend etc etc. But if you can afford it, why not buy "L" lenses. They are better built and just feel better to use. Personally, I say just go and do it. If it turns out that you've made a bad decision, there is a very active second hand market and the lenses retain most of their value. You might lose a small bit, but it won't be the end of the world.
I went the cheap option myself, with the 50/1.8 and the 70-200/4. Along with a 10-22, I'm set for most things that come up. This won't give you quite the same low light capabilities or background blur, but would free up some funds for a flash and other accessories and is an option to consider.
On using two systems, I'd suggest starting with the 600D first. It is the more versatile of the two cameras. I'd only consider the Panasonic if it becomes clear that the Canon doesn't perform in a particular area that is important to you and you believe that the Panasonic is better. But apart from the weight and size, the 600D should be superior in every other aspect and you may not feel the need for two systems. Save your money until you know that you need it.
But if you are looking at m4/3, the new Olympus 45mm is getting good reviews and should be compatible with the Panasonic.
476
Software & Accessories / Tablet Computers - yes or no??
« on: September 01, 2011, 04:50:13 AM »
Hi. Does anyone use a tablet in conjunction with their photography? I'm thinking of picking up a new laptop and am wondering if a tablet is the way to go? I like the idea of the lighter weight and good battery life. I do a bit of travelling and my main photography uses would be to download files from the camera or memory cards (CF & SD), to view the photos, upload some onto the internet and act as another backup storage facility. I can do any serious processing when I get home on a computer with more grunt. Just wondering if anyone else does this? Do you find that the processors are fast enough? Do Canon cameras mix well with Android and iPads? Are there any that you would recomend? Or would you stay clear of tablets for the time being and stay with a laptop? Thanks.
477
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Lens Mug - Giveaway
« on: August 31, 2011, 01:52:39 AM »A little hand that comes out of the camera and smacks you in the face when you don't use the rule of thirds.
A little hand that comes out of the camera and smacks your subject in the face when they: -
move just as you press the shutter button
Aren't smiling
Are smiling
Blink
Aren't paying attention to you
Or when you just want a "surprised" look.
There are so many uses for this, I'm surprised Canon hasn't implemented this earlier.
478
Canon General / Re: An article Canon should read.
« on: August 30, 2011, 10:52:43 PM »
Apple has combined great products with excellent marketing and now have a very loyal customer base. As a company, it has done exceptionally well over the last 15 years. But to ascribe this success to altruistic notions means you've just been suckered in by their marketing. Apple is a profit making beast, just like every other large company. Its just that Apple is a "cooler" brand than most of its competitors.
An interesting article about Apple that has been popular is Australia for the last few days...
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/apple-cult-really-makes-me-shudder/story-e6frg6ux-1226123118856
The other thing is that it generally doesn't matter who is first to market with something. What matters is how well you implement it. I think it is generally accepted that Apple products aren't entirely new inventions. But they've hade some top people who have figured out how to make things work better. If there is a lesson to learn from Apple it is that you can't ignore new advances, better ideas for usability and ergonomics, better menu layouts and integrating new technologies.
An interesting article about Apple that has been popular is Australia for the last few days...
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/apple-cult-really-makes-me-shudder/story-e6frg6ux-1226123118856
The other thing is that it generally doesn't matter who is first to market with something. What matters is how well you implement it. I think it is generally accepted that Apple products aren't entirely new inventions. But they've hade some top people who have figured out how to make things work better. If there is a lesson to learn from Apple it is that you can't ignore new advances, better ideas for usability and ergonomics, better menu layouts and integrating new technologies.
479
Canon General / Re: Panasonic, I love you!!!!!
« on: August 29, 2011, 05:58:34 AM »
Everyone knows that Canon reached the peak of technical perfection in 2004. If you do a DXO Mark comparison between the 20D and the 60D, the results have barely moved. But in the real world, is anyone going to argue that they prefer the lower resoltion of a 20D?
I see this discussed all of the time. I know that many people get very irrate over higher megapixels, but I've never understood why. I'm not very technically minded and I don't understand a lot of this discussion (what's a 24-bit delta sigma converter???), but if Mr Canon produced two cameras with the same dynamic range and noise, but one had 8mp and the other 18mp, who wouldn't take the 18mp?
If Canon wants to take the 5Diii to 30+mp, go for it! I don't see any down sides.
I see this discussed all of the time. I know that many people get very irrate over higher megapixels, but I've never understood why. I'm not very technically minded and I don't understand a lot of this discussion (what's a 24-bit delta sigma converter???), but if Mr Canon produced two cameras with the same dynamic range and noise, but one had 8mp and the other 18mp, who wouldn't take the 18mp?
If Canon wants to take the 5Diii to 30+mp, go for it! I don't see any down sides.
480
EOS Bodies / Re: Exposure Compensation
« on: August 29, 2011, 04:30:37 AM »
My experience with Canon cameras is that the automatic exposure settings are usually very good. However, I sometimes have to take things into my own hands. The typical cases have already been listed, but one that I am always wary of is photographing people wearing black, I will usually reduce the exposure slightly or photos tend to be overexposed.
Some cameras do tend to over or underexpose. If it is consistent, its not a problem - just dial in some exposure compensation and you're away. But if the exposures are all over the place, then that can be a real nuisance.
As mentioned, if you can explain what you are photographing and the adjustments you are making, we could probably be more helpful.
Some cameras do tend to over or underexpose. If it is consistent, its not a problem - just dial in some exposure compensation and you're away. But if the exposures are all over the place, then that can be a real nuisance.
As mentioned, if you can explain what you are photographing and the adjustments you are making, we could probably be more helpful.