Messages

61

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 6D viewfinder too big ?

« on: April 23, 2013, 08:43:48 PM »

I prefer the larger, brighter viewfinder on the 6D and 7D compared with the smaller, dim viewfinder on the T2i Rebel I started with.   But, to each his (or her) own.  As others have suggested, an eyepiece extender may help.

62

PowerShot / Re: SX50 outperforming 5DIII +100-400mm

« on: April 19, 2013, 06:08:36 PM »

AlanF, I went to Best Buy today to check this beast out, per your recommendation. Yes, it's much smaller/lighter than my 5D3 and even appreciably smaller than my T3i--but it's much larger than my S90 (my main travel/back-up camera). Since I'm looking to upgrade my 10MP S90 to the newer 12MP S110, I'm wondering how the S110's larger 1/1.7" sensor compares to the smaller 1/2.3" sensor found in the 12MP SX50. Do you have any feel for how one would perform relative to the other in low-light/high-noise environments? I love the idea of having a 50X zoom, but hate the thought of losing pocketability. These trade offs are inevitable, I know, but a definitively better sensor on one vs the other might make the decision easier. Thanks.

+1

I tried out a SX50 today at Best Buy and also was a little surprised at its large size for a P&S.  Smaller than a DSLR, but much, much bigger than my S100.  It's depth makes it not pocketable.  The G15 and G1X are a much more portable size.   Focus speed was very slow at subjects in the store, but I imagine it would be much faster outdoors in better light.

None of that takes away of its very good optical capabilities for a bargain price.  My wife is looking for a new P&S and I was hoping to convince her to get a SX50 (so I would have access to a camera with 1,200mm reach...).  But, I don't think she will like the bulk.  Oh we'll, I may have to buy one for myself.

63

Lenses / Re: Lens recommendation please

« on: April 19, 2013, 05:40:13 PM »

I find a standard zoom pretty indispensable, but not everybody does. 

You have the 40mm pancake, so adding an 85 and 70-200 would be a nice combination - but limits you to 40mm at the wide end.  I frequently use my 24-105mm at 24-35mm for landscapes, so personally, would not be content with this set, but it may work perfectly well for you.

Since your budget is limited, I suggest a 24-105mm which is an excellent value and a very good general purpose lens.  Your 40mm gives you some low light capability and if you can afford a 70-200 f/4 as well, you would be good to go.

64

Lenses / Re: 24-105 &/or 24-70

« on: April 19, 2013, 01:14:28 PM »

I'm debating the same thing.  I own a 24-105 and am relatively happy with it, but from reading the reviews and hearing testimonials here, its clear that the Canon 24-70mm 2.8 II and Tamron 24-70 2.9 VC have superior IQ and sharpness.  While this is just a hobby, I'd like to have the best equipment possible for what I shoot the most (landscapes, family and portraits).

Since I have a 70-200mm 2.8 II and 85mm 1.8, I have the 70-105 range covered (albeit with a lens change...).  The vast majority of my pictures with the 24-105mm are landscapes at the wide end (24-35mm), with a scattering of shots at various other focal lengths.  Not that many between 70 and 105.

I think I'll probably pull the trigger and purchase one of the 24-70's at some point, but I need to figure out which one first.

Good luck with your decision.

65

Lenses / Re: First Trip to the UK should i take a 70-200mm

« on: April 18, 2013, 10:23:35 AM »

I suggest taking it the 70-200 even if you leave it in the car/hotel safe at times.  70mm on the long end gives you pretty limited reach.  Another (lighter) option to the 70-200 would be a 135L if you have one.

66

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Upgrade from 400D with a low budget

« on: April 17, 2013, 06:10:22 PM »

I have the money to sell my 400D + 15-85 and buy a 6D with an used 24 - 105, but my wife will kill me

Having a happy wife is more important than a better camera .  Sounds like you should hold off on any purchases for now.  Your 400D should take some good quality low-light pictures with you 50 1.8 or 15-85mm and 430EXII flash. 

If you stay with your current camera for now, I'd suggest some small purchases to enhance your flash photography.  You can pick-up a 3' E-TTL cable to get your 430EXII off-camera, and a inexpensive soft box or flash diffuser for around $50-60.  Bounce flash is OK, but off-camera flash is better

67

PowerShot / Re: SX50 outperforming 5DIII +100-400mm

« on: April 17, 2013, 05:54:10 PM »

Thanks to Alan, Mt. Spokane, Don and others for all the picture comparisons!

I seldom need more reach than my 70-200mm on my 7D, but occasionally I wish I had a 600mm or 800mm for some distant wildlife.  Having a SX50 around will cover that infrequent need without having to spend $$$ for a long range tele lens I seldom use.  If I buy it as a gift for my wife, it will kill two birds with one stone!
 

68

Lenses / Re: what lenses for what shoot

« on: April 17, 2013, 05:28:00 PM »

Thanks for all the info

I plan on going to Las Vegas, Bryce canyon, Yellowstone, Red Rock Arches, Grand Canyon. Should be able to get some great pictures.

Some of the best scenery in the US.  Be sure to stop at Zion National Park as well, its in SW Utah between Las Vegas and Bryce NP.  Enjoy!

69

Lenses / Re: Speedy Manual Focusing?

« on: April 17, 2013, 05:21:20 PM »

The EG-S is great and I leave it in my 5DMkII all the time. Viewfinder brightness is comparable to that of the 7D and I don't ever find the viewfinder to be too dark. IMHO these FF camera's should come with the EG-S as standard.

How does the EG-S screen work exactly?  I'm only familiar with the split prism manual focus screen.

Is the EG-S difficult to install?

Thanks!

70

Lenses / Re: what lenses for what shoot

« on: April 17, 2013, 04:18:27 PM »

Your 18-55 and 55-250mm lenses will cover most of your outdoor, landscape and wildlife shooting needs well.  I'd leave the 75-300 at home, its image quality is not as good as the 55-250 and it lacks image stabilization. 

Three years ago, I took a T2i, 18-55 and 55-250 along our trip to Yellowstone, Glacier and other sites in the northern Rockies and was very happy with the pictures.  I found the 55-250 was long enough to get some great shots of bears, elk and moose.

Also take the 50 1.8 if you think you will be taking any indoor, low-light shots.  Your zooms will not be good for that type of shooting without flash.

While you should be very happy with the lenses you have, if you are considering any additional lens purchases, consider an EF-S 15-85mm or EF-S 17-55mm.  Both have "L" lens image quality and will be a nice step up from your 18-55 kit lens.  Of the two, get the 15-85 if most of your shooting is outdoors in good light and consider the more expensive 17-55 if you do a lot of low-light photography.

71

Lenses / Re: One lens for vacation

« on: April 17, 2013, 03:51:33 PM »

50mm is an excellent general purpose lens.  Probably a better choice than your 70-200 if you are just taking one lens. The 70-200 II is also really large and heavy.  If you plan to do a lot of walking, the extra weight can take away from the enjoyment of your vacation.

If you are thinking about purchasing another lens, a 24-70mm 2.8 zoom would be an excellent choice both for your vacation and almost everything else.  The constant 2.8 aperature will allow you to take great portraits and family shots in low light without flash.  Both the Canon 24-70mm 2.8 II and Tamron 24-70mm VC would be excellent choices.  The Canon 24-105mm 4.0 is another option, but will not be as capable in low light indoor settings as the f/2.8 lenses.

The 135L f/2 is an awesome lens and I recommend it as a future addition to your kit.  That said, its probably not an ideal choice if you are just taking one lens on a trip.  It has a 3 foot minimum focal distance and you usually need to be much further away from you subject than that to get more than just their face in the frame.  Not ideal in small rooms or tight quarters.

72

Lenses / Re: I have just lost confidence with Canon Rumors & B&H

« on: April 17, 2013, 03:05:06 AM »

I saw the headline "new bigger savings from B&H". The lens I purchased yesterday, the 24-70 f2.8 ii is now $2099 vs $2049 I paid yesterday. How is this better??? My attempt at posting this earlier was blocked.

I see your point.  I've been watching prices and hoped to see a price below $2,049 for the 24-70 f2.8 II when I read today's headline.  But, the 24-70 isn't on today's list of discounted lenses.  That said, $2,099 is still a decent price. 

Congrats on a great price for a great lens!  Enjoy.

73

Lenses / 24-70mm upgrade?

« on: April 16, 2013, 10:46:24 PM »

I've been debating adding a f/2.8 standard zoom to my kit to use for lower light and indoor family and event photography.  I currently have the following lenses that I use on my Canon 6D:

24-105mm 4.0 L
35mm 1.4 L       
50mm 1.4
85mm 1.8       
135mm 2.0 L     
70-200mm 2.8 II L

I normally use my 35/50/85/135 primes for low light photography and they do a great job, but I find myself often wishing I had a fast standard zoom to avoid frequent lens changes or missing shots with the kids who are moving faster than I do.

I use the 24-105 for most outdoor and landscape shots.  Its a good lens, but after extensive use this winter, I'm a little disappointed with its IQ, distortion at the wide end and I don't think colors are rendered quite as well as my other L lenses.  So, if I buy a 24-70, It will probably become my primary landscape/outdoor lens as well and I may sell the 24-105 at some point.

Budget isn't a major consideration.  I have the money available for the Tamron lens now and can have the money for the Canon II in a month or two. 

74

Lenses / Re: Lightweight lens for backpacking and bicycle touring

« on: April 16, 2013, 09:03:05 PM »

7D is a heavy camera.  How about bringing a T4i

Or an SL1, even smaller and lighter.

75

Lenses / Re: need help consolidating my lens collection

« on: April 16, 2013, 09:01:36 PM »

The 50/1.8 and 28-135 aren't really worth keeping in your collection, IMO. Your plan leaves you with no UWA lens - are you ok with that (how much do you shoot the 10-22mm between 10-15mm)?

The 70-200 II is great for portraits on FF, but you might consider a fast portrait prime (85/1.8, Sigma 85/1.4, 85L, 135L).

+1 on both suggestions.  The 50 and 28-135 are inferior to similar lenses in your kit.  Sell 'em.  You can use that money towards a portrait prime.