Messages

61

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: a digital photography noob has a question about image quality

« on: January 31, 2013, 09:47:45 AM »

Buy a few 16-32 gb SD cards and no need to worry about back up devices. Having said that USB external harddrives are cheap and can connect to your notebook.

The kenko is pretty good... almost as good as the Canon. One advantage you get with the kenko is that it does not have a protruding element, so you could almost use it with any lens, whereas the Canon is limited on which lenses it can be used.

62

Landscape / Re: Beautiful sunsets

« on: January 30, 2013, 01:26:26 PM »

Not exactly sun set... but felt like it

63

Canon General / Re: Why did you choose Canon?

« on: January 30, 2013, 10:18:58 AM »

Not sure how I got into Canon... but what keeps me is the 70-200 F/2.8 mk. ii

64

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: a digital photography noob has a question about image quality

« on: January 30, 2013, 10:08:31 AM »

I am amazed that so many posters here are trying to recommend to the OP to keep the 5D3 which is so much more expensive and way in excess of his needs. Too many users in this forum are gear heads. The gentleman stated that he couldn't tell the difference with his test shots. He knows enough about photography to understand the impact of lighting and lenses on the results. And I am sure he understand the differences with features etc. His main concern was IQ! Yet he was expecting something different - its a real eyeopener if you ask me.  We assume that everyone has the desire to pixel peep and find the most discernible difference while forgetting that photography is an art and a pastime not something to keep our wallets empty. I say to the OP to SEND BACK THE 5D3 and stick with what works for a little money and go from there. Later down the road if you want the performance or 61 focus points etc you could buy the 5DMk4 or something better. In the end i think this guy knows something that us gearheads dont!

+1

If he cannot see the difference then let him be... He is getting good pics with the 650, great. Let him spend the extra cash on some nice lens if he wants to.

65

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 6D or 5D Mark III

« on: January 29, 2013, 01:39:59 PM »

You know if you need the 5d3's AF capabilities or not. If you do then by all means buy it and be happy.

If you don't... then probably you have no need for it and in that case, save yourself some cash, and buy a nice L lens to go with your new 6D.

If the 6D was released in march 2012... I'd probably own that and not the 5D3 (which is overkill for a hobbyist like me).

So it boils down to what you are shooting.

I saw your portfolio (nice shots by the way) and you don't need a 5D3 to shoot those beautiful sunsets... a 6D will do just fine... hook it to your ipad and compose away!

66

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon's Roadmap for 2013 [CR2]

« on: January 27, 2013, 08:40:46 AM »

7 D II in the 2. half of 2013 -> 

Yeah, more time to save I 'spose!

In another forum they suppose >2500$ for the MK 2.     I hope they will be wrong with this rumor

Surely they wouldn't price it above the 6D?

They would not want to limit themselves by what size sensor they put in the 6D... other functionality also affects price... not just sensor size.

I am of the opinion that the 6D should have been named the 8D... this would have allowed them to up price the 7dii.... but they can always break the rules of pricing smaller model numbers less than larger numbers...

They will break naming conventions if they see it makes them more money...

67

Portrait / Re: We, The Photographers......Self Portaits..a Who's Who on CR

« on: January 24, 2013, 10:59:10 AM »

I think a front portrait is more impressive  

Here is mine.
TE=140

Do you have trouble breathing? Your right turbinate exhibits mild edema.

68

Lenses / Re: 2013 - The Year for 400mm Lenses? [CR1]

« on: January 17, 2013, 05:05:02 PM »

I would appreciate a 100-400 2.8 :-)

You must be a back surgeon.

 

Or a back Surgeon Married to a Chiropractor.

69

Lenses / Re: I want a 135mm 1.8 IS L

« on: January 16, 2013, 04:25:03 PM »

Where's RLPhoto? He is ready to ditch his Holy trinity member for this baby

70

EOS Bodies / Re: 6D is amazing... Review and image samples coming soon...:)

« on: January 16, 2013, 02:40:45 PM »

6D should be considered as 1point AF camera

That's a bit of an exaggeration.  I've used the outer points on Canon's xxD cameras going back 10 years.  They do work, but not as well.  They are not cross type, so they are limited in direction and accuracy.  It doesn't mean they don't work at all.  They work, but they don't offer the latest, best, most accurate AF.  Yes, cross-type points are much better.

Yeah Dylon, I am forced to go with the loyalist on this one; your comment did sound like an elitist snub 

71

Lenses / Re: Question about variable aperture

« on: January 16, 2013, 10:27:36 AM »

Thanks Neuro: Does it mean that the 70-200 mk.ii could possibly do 70mm @ f/0.98 ? (200/2.8 = 71.4, and 70/ 71.4 = 0.98) Since the lens element is large enough?  So the lens potentially could be a Variable 70-200 f/0.98 -2.8L ? If they so chose to build it with similar glass elements?

Chuck Westfall answers that in the link above (the answer is 'no', BTW).

What Chuck seems to be saying is that they design it this way. Not sure it fully answers my question. Chuck is saying that the Iris changes (becomes larger when you zoom to 200mm) .... well don't make it go larger, just let it sit there at 71mm when we zoom at 70mm, not make it go smaller when we go to 70mm. I am sure it is not that simple as i made it out... but I am curious what happens if they do not vary the "virtual" iris at all?

Agreed, I read Westfall's response and I don't think he ever answers the question. He "explains" how constant aperture lenses work – sort of; but he doesn't answer the question posed to him, which seems to be: why not a variable aperture lens with 2.8 at the long end and f1 at the short end.

I deleted my post since I was not sure if i would get hammered for questioning Chuck... I remain unsure though. It seems they are playing with the definition of the aperture/ F-Stop conventions. In this case with the aperture being behind what he called the tele-converter, does not play with the classical definition of the F-Stop as it applies to irises and the aperture being up front...

72

Lenses / Re: Question about variable aperture

« on: January 16, 2013, 10:08:52 AM »

A variable aperture zoom lens costs less fixed aperture zoom lens because it means the glass elements can be smaller.  Minimally, a lens elements must be sized to fill the iris diaphragm with light.  The diameter of the iris diaphragm is (focal length / f-number), e.g. a 200mm f/2.8 lens has an iris diaphragm of 200 ÷ 2.8 = 71.4mm...and thus, a 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom must also have an iris diaphragm diameter of 71.4mm at the long end, although a smaller diameter is needed at the 70mm end of the zoom.

An easy example to see this is the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS zoom - at the long end, the diameter of the iris diaphragm (and thus, the glass elements needed to fill it with light) is 71.4mm (same as 200/2.8 - twice the focal length, 2-stop narrower aperture).  If that lens were to be a 100-400mm f/4.5 lens, the diameter would need to be 88.9mm to support 400mm f/4.5.  That's closer to a 400/4 or 200/2 in element sizes than the current lens, so figure probably ~$5K for such a lens.  Not exactly a consumer-friendly price like the current 100-400...

Thanks Neuro: Does it mean that the 70-200 mk.ii could possibly do 70mm @ f/0.98 ? (200/2.8 = 71.4, and 70/ 71.4 = 0.98) Since the lens element is large enough?  So the lens potentially could be a Variable 70-200 f/0.98 -2.8L ? If they so chose to build it with similar glass elements?

Sort of reminds me of how Audio amplifier manufacturers cannot feasibly build a perfect voltage amplifer that doubles wattage when the impedance is halved as theoretically it should. so lets say a 100watt amp into 8 ohms should do 200 watts into 4 ohms. So what they end up doing is over building/ under speccing their amps . So in this example they will build a 130 watt into 8 ohm amplifier and this gives about 200 watts into 4 ohms, and they call it a 100 watter...

73

EOS Bodies / Re: 6D is amazing... Review and image samples coming soon...:)

« on: January 15, 2013, 03:56:58 PM »

Ironic.... a shot of a nice FF body and delicious L lenses taken with a POS or cell phone cam 

We await your high ISO shot samples.

74

EOS Bodies / Re: Is the 5D Mark iii a considerable enough upgrade from the 5D Mark ii?

« on: January 15, 2013, 03:53:40 PM »

Why not consider the 6D if you are a hobbyist? From an IQ/ISO perspective, it is on par or better than the 5diii offering lower high ISO noise. It can also focus in much darker situations with it's center point.

However the 5diii has several features that appeals to professionals. I am not a pro and if I had a choice as a hobbyist with it's ipad integration, I'd own a 6D instead of a 5diii and save $1500 to plonk on some nice lenses.

as everyone else says... it depends what you shoot.

75

Canon General / Re: Hey Canon, I've got cash to burn, but...

« on: January 15, 2013, 02:40:51 PM »

Wow.  $500 + shipping to remove the AA filter.  What level of improvement could be expected after that investment?  And how would it affect the resale value I wonder?

Wondered the same thing... they do say they are swamped, so perhaps there is a premium associated these days? But before making any decisions, I need to see the difference of before and after the AA and see if it is worth $500.

Thanks for posting though RL.