1
EOS Bodies / Re: what to do
« on: May 23, 2013, 06:33:31 PM »
What lenses do you currently have? What do you shoot? What's your budget? What limits you most with your current kit?
May 24, 2013, 02:29:06 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.
2
Lenses / Re: stacking up 2x+1.4x (both Mk 2's) on a 70-200 f2.8 L IS & Canon 5d Mark iii
« on: May 23, 2013, 09:03:24 AM »
I had a 70-200/2.8 IS mk I and the mk II 1.4x and 2x TC's - I tried them stacked with my 40D. From what I remember the wide open aperture was reported as f5.6. Even though it went through the motions of AF, it was terrible with loads of slow hunting and very frequently not locking on. The picture quality was awful at any aperture - shooting without any TC's and tightly cropping gave better results.
3
Lenses / Re: Speedboster and AF speed
« on: May 21, 2013, 09:56:56 AM »
If the next EOS M is a 1.6x crop too, the plain EF to EF-M adapter won't give you the full field of view from you EF glass like your 5D III or an NEX with a metabones speedbooster.
As far as I know, AF speed is painfully slow on the NEX/speedbooster/EF glass combo. As the EOS M is no speed demon in AF terms, I can't imagine an EOS M with a rumoured speedbooster and EF glass being any better.
As far as I know, AF speed is painfully slow on the NEX/speedbooster/EF glass combo. As the EOS M is no speed demon in AF terms, I can't imagine an EOS M with a rumoured speedbooster and EF glass being any better.
4
Lenses / Re: Poll: Most Wanted New Lenses of 2013.
« on: May 16, 2013, 02:23:23 PM »Hmm, I saw this lens on ebay: http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/data/standard_zoom/ef_35~135_4~56_usm.html
I think this range would be awesome for indoor sports/martial arts (like taekwondo) on a APS-C camera.
Can one hope for an EF-S 35-135 f2.8-4 USM?
I would buy it in an instant.
28-135?
http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/EF_Lenses/Standard_Zoom/EF_28-135mm_f3.5-5.6_IS_USM/
18-135?
http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/EF_Lenses/Standard_Zoom/EF-S_18_135mm_f_3.5_5.6_IS_STM/
5
EOS-M / Re: Metabones speed booster for the M
« on: May 15, 2013, 02:07:47 PM »
http://www.canonwatch.com/is-metabones-working-on-a-speedbooster-for-eos-m/
Looks like this version is designed for EF mount glass.
Looks like this version is designed for EF mount glass.
6
Lenses / Re: Will Canon ever release a 100-300 f/2.8 zoom? Thoughts?
« on: May 13, 2013, 06:24:58 AM »
A 140-285/2.8 is pretty much a mythical 200-400/4 with a wider AoV and a 1.4x telecompressor built in. Use that as the basis of the price and availability, should Canon come to the conclusion that there is a market for such a lens.
With the 70-200 II and 300 II and most pros having two bodies, I'd have thought there's not much call for such a lens. Especially bearing in mind what the zoom would be likely to cost.
With the 70-200 II and 300 II and most pros having two bodies, I'd have thought there's not much call for such a lens. Especially bearing in mind what the zoom would be likely to cost.
7
EOS-M / Re: Subsequent m naming...
« on: May 04, 2013, 11:36:15 AM »
Canon use the number before the letter such as with the EOS 7D, so how about something along the lines of EOS 100M?
8
Canon General / Re: What's wrong with a grey import?
« on: May 03, 2013, 02:22:36 PM »
http://camerapricebuster.co.uk/mcp.php?n=CanonDigitalSLRs=&mc=1
60D - £585 (£520 after cashback)
60D kit (depends on what lens) from £670 (£605 after cashback)
60D - £585 (£520 after cashback)
60D kit (depends on what lens) from £670 (£605 after cashback)
9
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 50mm 1.4 AF issues question
« on: April 27, 2013, 08:41:24 AM »
I got mine replaced by the retailer as image first copy was front focusing by a huge margin. The second copy nails focus every time - and I have used it on four different bodies, all with equal levels of success.
10
EOS Bodies / Re: Why not higher resolution video?
« on: April 26, 2013, 10:30:03 AM »Pixel binning is a form of resizing, so yes If I took an 18 or 22mp still and resized it to 2 mp, I am pretty sure it would look better and crispier than if I paused a 1080p feed. Maybe I did not explain myself better before.There are a couple of reasons why a single frame from 1080p won't look as good as a 2mp still, and I'm pretty sure a lack of resolution doesn't come into it.
First of all, the video will be compressed very differently from a jpeg - its not just lossy compression of areas of the image, but between frames too. Secondly, when set optimally, the shutter speeds will be very different between the two. Typically with moving subjects, in a photo you'll want them free of motion blur - in a video, to avoid that stuttering effect, a slow shutter speed is needed (because of the slow frame rate) to allow motion to flow from one frame to the next.
The two really can't be compared, but if video ever gets to the point that NHK were on about - 120fps, higher shutter speeds on each individual frame will be optimal, further narrowing the difference between video and stills. However, current broadcast TV is 25 or 30 fps, so no optimally recorded 1080p broadcast TV will be able to freeze frame to create a still image as good as an optimally taken 2mp photo.
11
Canon General / Re: Camera Phone
« on: April 26, 2013, 09:45:12 AM »
To be a compelling replacement for a phone, for me it'd have to be very compact - much smaller/thinner than any large sensor compact, and smaller still than pretty much any small sensor compact. That means the picture quality is greatly compromised anyway. Therefore, what's the reason for me to buy it unless it can also compete head on with the best smartphones in all other areas that they're good at?
The Nokia PureView 808 is a good example of a failed attempt I could image a camera company coming up with - a camera verging on great due to its large sensor, but simply awful in every other respect, largely due to the OS - so next to no-one bought it.
The Nokia PureView 808 is a good example of a failed attempt I could image a camera company coming up with - a camera verging on great due to its large sensor, but simply awful in every other respect, largely due to the OS - so next to no-one bought it.
12
EOS Bodies / Re: Why not higher resolution video?
« on: April 26, 2013, 09:21:16 AM »And if it's not broadcast quality how come I've been getting stuff on telly shot on my 7D, 550D and 600D for the last few years?Sounds great... what sort of programmes do you do?
13
Lenses / Re: 70-200 f2.8 MkI & Mk II and Extenders
« on: April 26, 2013, 09:15:35 AM »
I have the 1.4x TC II and the 70-200 II - image quality even with the mk II extender wide open at f4 is pretty damn close to faultless. I really have no hesitation to use the combo when I need the reach.
I did previously own the 70-200 I, and that lens with the 1.4x TC II was approaching usable at f5.6, but nothing worth mentioning really. I also owned the 2x TC II at the same time as the 70-200 I, and I can honestly say that no matter what, it was impossible to get an image with that combo which was better than using no TC and cropping.
I did previously own the 70-200 I, and that lens with the 1.4x TC II was approaching usable at f5.6, but nothing worth mentioning really. I also owned the 2x TC II at the same time as the 70-200 I, and I can honestly say that no matter what, it was impossible to get an image with that combo which was better than using no TC and cropping.
14
EOS Bodies / Re: Why not higher resolution video?
« on: April 26, 2013, 01:11:04 AM »
All the reasons above, plus how many people have TV's which are 4k or above? How any TV stations can broadcast at such resolutions?
While 4k might become mainstream at some time, it is pushing the boundaries at the moment, so not many cameras record it, and not many monitors/TV's can display it.
Ps - the new GoPro does 4k at just 15fps - no where near fast enough to create the illusion of smooth video.
While 4k might become mainstream at some time, it is pushing the boundaries at the moment, so not many cameras record it, and not many monitors/TV's can display it.
Ps - the new GoPro does 4k at just 15fps - no where near fast enough to create the illusion of smooth video.
15
Lenses / Re: Main difference between 70-200 f/2.8 IS I and II, Non IS, and f/4 IS
« on: April 25, 2013, 07:18:06 AM »
I have owned the 70-200/2.8 IS mk I, and currently own the mk II version. Used at f2.8 (which you'll probably rely on a lot to get the shutter speeds needed), the difference is dramatic. As bad as the mk I is at f2.8, it is acceptable if stopped down to f4 - which begs the question, why not just get the f4 IS instead of the mk I? If used in auto or Tv, it can't open up to soft apertures, plus it's cheaper, lighter, has better IS (4 stops vs 3), and is sharper at all equivalent settings.
While IS isn't necessarily useful for action shots due to the high shutter speeds, it can come in handy for composing. Plus the moment you use the lens for slower moving subjects, or do video, IS will come in really handy.
Even though it's no match for the mk II, the non weather sealed 2.8 non IS is sharper than the mk I 2.8 IS lens.
As video is high up your list, I'd recommend stretching to the 2.8 IS II, and if you really can't afford it, the only other suitable option in my opinion is the f4 IS. If video wasn't so important, questionably the f2.8 non IS instead.
While IS isn't necessarily useful for action shots due to the high shutter speeds, it can come in handy for composing. Plus the moment you use the lens for slower moving subjects, or do video, IS will come in really handy.
Even though it's no match for the mk II, the non weather sealed 2.8 non IS is sharper than the mk I 2.8 IS lens.
As video is high up your list, I'd recommend stretching to the 2.8 IS II, and if you really can't afford it, the only other suitable option in my opinion is the f4 IS. If video wasn't so important, questionably the f2.8 non IS instead.