October 30, 2014, 02:34:42 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.

Messages - rs

Pages: 1 ... 22 23 [24] 25 26 ... 45
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Smoking flash
« on: September 08, 2013, 05:06:51 AM »
I was shooting an event yesterday, and there were the typical crowds of people taking photos with phones, compacts and DSLR's. At one point during an indoor part of the event, something caught my eye about a guy taking photos next to me. I'm not sure if it was a weird spread of the light from his flash or what, but something made me watch him take the next shot. He was shooting with a rebel of some sort, and as the internal flash fired again, a very noticeable amount of smoke came out of it.

He was wearing a baseball cap, and that was pushing the spring loaded flash back almost home, yet the flash still fired - presumably at full power due to ETTL and minimal subject illumination, and it was mostly projected into a confined black plastic area. I made sure to tell him what happened, and he then sniffed the flash and confirmed it smelt of burning. The flash itself looked fine from my half second glance at it, and I didn't have time to look in the area which I guess was burning.

I know using a crop camera in auto mode while wearing a baseball cap isn't something everyone does, but it can't be too uncommon. It wasn't hot either (inside a tent at about 15 to 20 degrees). If any Canon engineers read this, how about fitting a simple position sensor to detect if the flash is fully up, and only then allow the flash to fire?

I was planning on getting the Kenko 1.4 because I have a 70-300L and the Canon won't fit on it, but the Kenko will.

I have a 5DIII and 6D. Anyone's experiences with the Kenko?

I'm planning to get the Kenko Teleplus PRO 300 DGX 1.4x AF Teleconverter.
The Canon 1.4x TC will work and AF with the 5D3, but only the long end of the zoom will be available to you:


EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: If you plan to upgrade your camera, read
« on: September 07, 2013, 05:26:10 PM »
Hi there,

I feel it's a waste of money upgrading from one Canon rebel to the next rebel or even a 60D to the 70D.
I suggest that you upgrade only to a larger sensor body.
It is just a waste of money to buy another camera having the same size sensor IMO.

Upgrade your glass instead.
Does this mean that should you already have a FF body, it's a waste of money buying another, no matter what improved features it has? Medium format is the only upgrade path?

With that lens lineup, a lack of action shots and the need to cope with challenging light, my vote is for the 6D

The question shouldn't be about the "1dx for books?", it should be "Where can I find a machine that flips through the pages at 12 pages pr second. ::) ::)
Or 'how do I use iBooks?'

Lenses / Re: A Big Lens Announcement in September? [CR1]
« on: September 01, 2013, 07:02:43 PM »
With the 70D's dual pixel AF and the push for video, why not update these two with STM AF?

If you'll forgive me for a bit of poetic license with the abbreviations, I'd prefer the lenses' AF motors to retain their Ultra Speed Movement instead of being made Slow To Move.

I'm a stills shooter so I prefer USM for my own work, but I can see Canon going down that Stills To Movies road at full crawl  ;)

Lenses / Re: Recommend a 1.4x and 2x for my non-L lenses?
« on: September 01, 2013, 06:49:54 PM »
For all my non-L lenses, or should I say all lenses which won't accept the Canon TCs. Such as: 24-105/4, 70-300/DO, etc. Just for the so-called "emergencies" when you need some reach.
It varies from lens to lens, so if you want people with hands on experience to answer, best to say which lenses  :)

The general rule for Canon extenders is they're meant to work with all the white L lenses and nothing else, but like most rules, there are exceptions. The 70-300L is a white L which isn't supported (but it will work from 270mm onwards), the 180L is black but it works, the 400/4, while white it isn't L, but it works, and there are non L black lenses such as the TS-E 90 which work.

Incidentally, your 24-105 is an L lens  ;)

Lenses / Re: A Big Lens Announcement in September? [CR1]
« on: September 01, 2013, 06:33:48 PM »
Canon has just announced price cuts on the EF-S 17-55mm 2.8 and the EF-S 10-22 wide angle. Could be a sign, or it could be coincidence. Certainly both lenses could use an update/upgrade.
Both are <10 years old, and really, an update/upgrade would mean they'd cost as much as their L equivalents, maybe even more. Unless Canon is churning out an EF-S 10-22 f/2.8, no point in updating the current model, which is a solid lens.
With the 70D's dual pixel AF and the push for video, why not update these two with STM AF? IS on the 10-22 would also help video shooters. And a bit of an optical refresh never goes amiss - as good as these two lenses are, they were both introduced when APS-C cameras had 8MP.

Last time time around, you were just looking at photographing regular text books. As I said then, why not just buy these 'regular books' as e-books?

1.5 to 2GB of data for a book with your current method, plus all the time taken to get there, and the PP needed to be able to just get on and read it. Compare that, plus the cost of a 1D X and lens to suit to spending a couple of dollars on an e-book which weighs in at under 1MB?

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D3 or 1Dx
« on: September 01, 2013, 06:09:57 AM »
While I am waiting for the 1Dx shipment to arrive I was just pondering if I would find uses to keep the 5D3 or if it was likely to not see the light of day again if I should sell it while there was still a little bit of market left in the resale value.
Do you ever see yourself wanting to use two bodies to save swapping lenses so much? If so, the 5D3 is more than a perfectly capable 2nd camera!

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Micro Four Thirds to EF
« on: September 01, 2013, 05:58:54 AM »
No chance, unless someone makes a 2x TC with a MFT lens mount at the end.

Two reasons why an optics free adapter couldn't work:
1) the flange distance (distance between the mount and the sensor) of MFT is 19.25mm - EF is 44.0mm. An adapter the other way (EF lens on MFT) simply needs to bridge that gap - 24.75mm thick. For making an MFT to EF adapter, you can't make a physical adapter a negative thickness.
2) the image circle size difference. MFT has an image circle size of 22.5mm diagonal, whereas EF has an image circle size just over 43mm diagonal. If there was a way to mount a MFT lens at the correct distance to maintain focus on an EF body, you'd only get a small circular image in the centre of the frame.

If someone did make a 2x TC MFT to EF adapater, your 17/0.95 would be a 34/1.9, and your 25/0.95 would be a 50/1.9. Just get a 35/1.4 or a 50/1.8, 1.4 or 1.2!

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D3 or 1Dx
« on: September 01, 2013, 04:13:05 AM »
The 1D X has 90% of the resolution of the 5D III both horizontally and vertically. I can't think of any real life situation where that minor resolution difference makes or breaks a photo.

Better AF, FPS and high ISO all go towards more than bridging that inconsequential resolution deficit.

Lenses / Re: A Big Lens Announcement in September? [CR1]
« on: August 31, 2013, 05:10:36 AM »
Does canon read cr?
Canon has somewhere in the region of 200,000 employees. Some of them will read CR (I've spoken to Canon sales reps who do), but as to whether the people who have any say about product direction read it, your guess is as good as mine.

Lenses / Re: A Big Lens Announcement in September? [CR1]
« on: August 30, 2013, 07:50:25 AM »
So let's start dreaming...
A 100-400 F4 constant, with build-in 1.4 converter (which keep the f4)..  for less than 2500 $.

could go well with a 7d markII
Yeah, and it could easily be the same size/weight as a nifty fifty. While they're creating such a technically simple lens, what about making the TC 4x which magically retains the f4 aperture?  ???

Or how about just taming down the design by letting the 1.4x TC obey the laws of physics by reduce the f4 aperture to f5.6 when engaged, and for simplicities sake, start at a more conservative 200mm at the wide end. It'll be cheaper, lighter, optically better, and physically possible. And while they're at it, why not call it the EF 200-400mm f/4 L IS USM Extender 1.4x?  ::)

Lenses / Re: prime focal length choices
« on: August 28, 2013, 10:22:43 AM »

Personally, I went with the 35L, 85L II, and 135L (the classic 'holy trinity' of fast primes).

I beg your pardon OP but could I add a question to everyone here (in reference to Mr. Neuro's statement, may be he will also jump to share his understanding/opinion here).

Why does not this "holy trinity" include the 50L? Alright, 85 is 50mm more than 35 and 135 is 50mm more than 85. So they are equally spaced. That may be one logic (not a very strong one though). But is there any other reason to exclude 50L? We could have an "unholy foursome" (ok that did not come out right)....

It is true that 35>85>135 has 50mm in between. But it may be a better "spacing" to look at the field of view ratios. 135mm film is 24*36mm; so a 2:3 aspect ratio. The ideal spacing would be to have your focal lengths a factor 1,5 apart. That way the vertical FoV is the same as the horizontal FoV of the next lens in your series. An ideal series would look like (starting at 24):

24>36>54>81>122>182>273       with a bit of rounding:
What set of primes would you recommend for someone shooting large format square film?  ;)

Pages: 1 ... 22 23 [24] 25 26 ... 45