December 22, 2014, 03:45:53 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 - J.R.

Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23 ... 102
Site Information / Re: Extend the "Last Edit:" marker time?
« on: December 11, 2013, 12:34:35 PM »

That's what I was talking about.

Site Information / Re: Extend the "Last Edit:" marker time?
« on: December 10, 2013, 07:41:12 AM »
What I really like about this site is that it allows to edit the user posts indefinitely and delete them if wanted. Just one idea: It would be nice to extend the time a bit until the "Last Edit:" marker appears.

The reason is that at least for me as a non-native speaker I often find myself editing the post somewhat because after reading it again after a 1-2 minutes or so I think "Hey, that doesn't sound right". Because I'm not editing the actual content I then sometimes delete the post and re-post it to prevent it marked as "edited" - I don't know if I'm the only one doing that. Yes, I admit I could carefully use the "Preview" option, but it usually only dawns on me after reading it in the whole context after "Post".

Funny you didn't edit this post  :P

I run into the same problem being another non-native English user here on CR. It seems silly that a post is edited within a few minutes of making it and others are bound to suspect what one's motives are for doing so. Nevertheless, I end up doing it quite often for almost exactly the same reasons as cited by you above.

A minimum time frame before the "Last Edit" appears with the post would be a nice idea!

Edited this post just for kicks ...

Cheers ... J.R.

Lenses / Re: Patent: Canon EF 300-600 f/5.6 w/1.4x TC
« on: December 06, 2013, 02:36:05 PM »

<li>Teleconference insertion</li>

I like the idea of being able to insert a Teleconference. If we all get one, then we could confer over each shot.

+1  I teleconference when shooting with my 600 II, but I have to use my iPhone and BT headset for that - having a built in option means one less accessory to carry.   ;)

Yeah what an awesome feature...  And people say canon isn't innovating...  Take that Sony!  :D

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: The Unthinkable: Swapped out 5D3 for 6D
« on: December 06, 2013, 12:26:51 PM »
Well all this talk about the 6D AF in extreme low light...  What the hell are you guys shooting that requires AF?

Lenses / Re: Patent: Canon EF 300-600 f/5.6 w/1.4x TC
« on: December 06, 2013, 12:18:23 PM »
It just getting better and better with Canon lenses.


I need to start 2nd job ;D

Probably $ 24,000... How much moonlighting can you do???  :o :o :o

Lenses / Re: Make it stop! (Photo pun not intended)
« on: December 06, 2013, 12:07:45 PM »
Wait...  I have an idea.

Why don't you tell your wife about all this stuff you are buying?  She will put a stop to it!

WARNING : your wife may hit you over the head with one of your bigger lenses if you heed my advice :D

Lenses / Re: Make it stop! (Photo pun not intended)
« on: December 06, 2013, 12:00:29 PM »
I guess I can't be of any help to you right now. I'm ordering a 300 2.8 II today ...

The only way to cure the "GAS" is go bigger and faster or STOP visit CR site ;D

I'm getting a battery grip for one of my 5D III, since I can't afford 1D X.

Congrats JR

It's a beautiful day in California, I'm going to test drive my 300mm f2.8 IS II at local zoo today.

No more visit local Sony Store until Jan 2014 ;D

Thanks Dylan and all the best with the new lens. Waiting for the pics.

Cheers...  J. R.


Not arguing, but thinking aloud that 300 should be enough with planning for a smaller package.

Sure, depending what and how you shoot. However, IMHO,  more buyers than not will buy the A7/A7R and end up shooting zero.  I suspect it will be bought by wealthy hobbyists, most of whom don't shoot much anyway. 

I believe that if one a person is taking more than 300 photos on a vacation while walking around is being trigger happy.

Not really when on a vacation with kids.  I recently shot over 300 while my kids were having a great time at the beach.  Maybe if you are travelling alone one would shoot less.

In the net result probably I didn't have 300 great shots but I got a few very good ones,  some of which are framed and put in my living room. 

I don't care how many I shoot, so long as I get some shots that I want.  Landscapes...  Yes I plan for it and get them right in a few attempts.

Lenses / Re: Make it stop! (Photo pun not intended)
« on: December 04, 2013, 09:16:38 PM »
I guess I can't be of any help to you right now. I'm ordering a 300 2.8 II today ... 

I have both for the time being.  I got the 600mm first because I thought everything was shifting to full frame and was looking to replace an 800mm.  Like others have said, for birding, I think the 600mm II + 1.4x III is the best option.  If the birds are stationary, then the 600mm II + 2x III will also work nicely (super sharp). This is not a lens you want to travel that far with though, since it is big volume wise.   Also hiking around with it is cumbersome at least for me.  So that is something to consider.  I mainly use the 600mm II on a sturdy tripod and a full gimbal head. 

The 500mm is lighter on paper, but in my hands it does not feel that much lighter.  It is however, much smaller in volume.  So would be much easier to take on a plain or even to hike around with.  Still not sure I want to hike around with it much.  If you think you might be sticking with a crop sensor body (7D, 70D and maybe the next 1.6x body) then I might suggest you strongly consider the 500mm.  If not for the slight weight savings and size differences, then for the price difference.  The 500mm + 1.4x on a 7D is more than enough focal length for birding. 

I also have the 300mm f/2.8L IS II and would choose to use that, if I am going to be hiking around looking for subjects to photograph.  I'd use it without hesitation with the 2x III.  It is much lighter than either the 500mm and 600mm and it is super sharp even with the 2x III on it.

Don't know, if that helps you any.  You might even consider a nice used 800mm f/5.6L IS that can be had for around $8500 these days.

Best of luck with your decision.  If you decide on a 500mm II, I might have one for you :-).

Kind regards,
Jason S.

Thanks Jason, I would readily buy a used lens but given the fact that I'm in India,  it is not an option.  The superteles don't come up for resale all that many times. Buying from the US isn't such a great idea because imports attract a customs duty of 30%. A new super tell lens, in India, turns out to be the same if not cheaper.

Carrying the lens in the wild...  I'd take a couple of sherpas for that instead of breaking my back with either supertele.

I'll go for the 600 next.  The 300 should be here within a week.

I have the 600 II and I am very happy with it. I use it with the 1.4xIII extender most of the time. If you´re not used to long lenses, you´ll be surprised to how many times you´ll say 840mm isn´t enough.

I had the 400 f2.8L IS II, but the 600 gives that extra level of sharpness at 840 vs. the 800 I could get by combining the 400 with the 2xIII extender. And with the 600 I can also go to 1200mm. But practically that is only usable on fairly stationary subjects. I combine the 600 with the 200-400 f4L IS 1.4x. A phenomenal lens you also should consider.

The 600 is a big lens and I actually find the size of it more of an issue than the weight. But from both a reach and optical quality perspective, it is awesome, but so is the 500 II.

Thanks Eldar,  the 200-400 didn't come to my mind at all.  :o.  I think it makes good sense to get the 200-400 after the 600 for wildlife shooting where a zoom is much more handy than a prime.

I've decided to plan on these two lenses next.  For the moment 300 2.8 is being ordered today :)

The smaller size of the 500 II would make it easier to travel with, especially by air.  As you say, the most significant differences are the cost and the 100mm of focal length.  I'd say the 500mm would be better for wildlife and birds, whereas the 600mm is better for birds and wildlife.  Since the latter more closely matches my interest, I went with the 600 II.

Thanks...  I'm more into birding than wildlife so a 600 should be better. I guess a combo of the 300 and 600 should work fine for wildlife and birding. 

If Birds are your thing then the 600mm. You need as much reach as you can get.
So it depends on what your subjects are if any advantages apply.

The 500 will be lighter and a bit shorter and because of this a bit more portable.
It will be easier to hand hold as well.

Thanks...  I'm an old school type shooter who likes to shoot with a tripod.  I plan to shoot with a wimberley gimbal head. 

I do enjoy birding and I guess you are right, the 600 should be better there.

Lenses / Which supertele? Any reason for 500 over a 600 except the price
« on: December 03, 2013, 09:31:33 AM »
Hi Guys,

While I am presently saving up for a 300mm f/2.8L II (almost done), my mind is dwelling on its bigger cousins and I am not sure which to get first. I plan to get a 300 and a 500/600 next year in any case so it is basically an issue of which one to get first.

I can probably get the 500mm by early February next year if I do decide on it and the 300 can follow up later. However, a 600mm will be a step too far right now and my wait will probably be longer.

Of course the biggest differences between the two are the 100mm of FL and $$$. Can you guys please advise whether there is any other reason to buy the 500 over the 600?

Thanks in advance for your help!

Cheers ... J.R.

Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23 ... 102