Messages

181

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Bought a 5D Mark iii Today (YAY)

« on: June 08, 2012, 04:34:08 PM »

The kit lens is excellent, and you will love it. 
 
Once you get a FF, focal lengths are suddenly more limited, so you might be looking for longer focal lengths soon. 
 
Fortunately, there is a good assortment of older Canon telephoto lenses that perform reasonably well on the 5D MK II, so don't be afraid to pay $100 for a old 70-210mm f/4 zoom, its a old push-pull design, but will fill a gap until you can afford a top of the line lens.  I gave mine to my daughter and she loves it.  Another one, a 100-300mm lens can often be found for $100, and its respectable even though not spectacular.  I have had several of both, that came with old film bodies bought on Craigslist.

Are you talking about the 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM?  Or the 100-300mm f/5.6 or 5.6L?  I have the former and find the image quality at 300mm to be quite poor.  The focus speed, build quality and IQ at <200mm are quite decent for the price, but I think the IQ of this lens is the worst of all the Canon xxx-300mm zooms they have made.  I have considered selling it to buy the 70-210mm f/3.5-4.5, 70-210mm f/4, 100-300mm f/5.6, or any of the 75-300mm lenses.

I also just picked up the Tamron 200-400mm f/5.6 for $100, and while the image quality is much better than the 100-300mm USM, the focus speed is nearly unusable, so I might just list it on eBay and make a little profit from the flip (they normally go for $175-250).

182

EOS Bodies / Re: Is the DSLR in danger of becomming an endangered species?

« on: June 06, 2012, 09:14:22 AM »

I would like to see what Canon could do with a camera somewhere in between a G1X and the S100 in terms of sensor size, overall dimensions, and weight.

Looks like Sony is the first one out the door with a camera like I described (the new RX100).  It's pretty amazing to see it along side competitive cameras and how it is just about the size of the Canon S100, despite having a sensor over 4 times larger (Nikon CX format) and having a good range fast lens (28-100mm f/1.8-4.9).

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/sony-dsc-rx100/4

183

Lenses / Re: Buying/Selling/Renting Lenses

« on: June 04, 2012, 01:06:04 PM »

I wouldn't dismiss Ebay so easily.  I tried selling an item (ef-s 17-55) for the first time last month, and it took me about an hour to set up the page.  Assuming you buy it used/refurbished and sell it for the same price, you'd lose about 12% due to Ebay/Paypal fees, which would be covered by a 2-3 week rental.  You could do better on other sites, but at least there is some protection with Ebay.

I would not take this advice.  Reason being is that if you are new to eBay and have no feedback (or very little feedback) you will not get the same selling price as more established and trusted sellers.  My auctions go for good prices because I time the close of the auction well, have excellent feedback (100% and 90 star rating), and have very well lit and detailed photos in the auction.  If it weren't for my good feedback, my auctions would probably close at prices 20-30% lower.

184

EOS Bodies / Re: Is the DSLR in danger of becomming an endangered species?

« on: June 01, 2012, 05:49:56 PM »

I was thinking yesterday about how small APS Elph cameras were back in the 1990's (with APS-H sized 'sensors') and put a table together to see just what kind of cameras they were able to cram into these small packages (most importantly physical dimensions, weight, and lens - FL, zoom, and aperture).  Here's what I put together, information obtained from Canon Museum website:

Model	Lens	Size	Weight	Released
ELPH	24-48mm f/4.5-6.2	90 x 60 x 27 mm	190 g	May 1996
ELPH 490Z	22.5-90mm f/5.6-8.9	120 x 65 x 47 mm	290 g	June 1996
ELPH 10 [AF]	25mm f/6.7	110 x 63 x 43 mm	180 g	November 1996
ELPH 260Z	30-60mm f/4-7.8	113 x 59 x 38 mm	175 g	July 1997
ELPH Jr	26mm f/2.8	90 x 60 x 24 mm	125 g	September 1997
ELPH 370Z	23-69mm f/4.5-9.9	95 x 65 x 32 mm	205 g	March 1998
ELPH LT	23mm f/4.8	85 x 55 x 35 mm	115 g	September 1998
ELPH 2	24-46mm f/4.2-5.6	87 x 57 x 25 mm	181 g	March 1999
ELPH LT260	26-52mm f/4.2-6.7	93 x 63 x 30 mm	150 g	March 2000
ELPH LT270	24-65mm f/4.5-8	95 x 64 x 35 mm	180 g	February 2001
ELPH Z3	23.5-54mm f/4.8-7.6	98 x 50 x 33 mm	150 g	March 2002

Compare that to a few modern digital cameras:

Model	Lens	Size	Weight	Lens Equ.
G1X (3/2"sensor)	15-30mm f/2.8-5.8	117 x 81 x 65 mm	534 g	28-112mm
S100 (1/1.7" sensor)	5.2-26mm f/2.0-5.9	99 x 60 x 28 mm	198 g	24-120mm
ELPH 320HS (1/2.3" sensor)	4.3-21.5mm f/2.7-5.9	94 x 57 x 21 mm	145 g	24-120mm
ELPH 530HS (1/2.3" sensor)	4-48mm f/3.4-5.6	86 x 54 x 20 mm	163 g	28-336mm

Back in the APS film days that absolute best zoom was a 4x (490Z - 29-117mm equivalent with a very slow f/5.6-8.9 aperture).  Nowadays we have smaller, lighter cameras with 12x zooms (see 530HS).  In comparison the G1X looks huge, despite having a smaller 'sensor' than all the film cameras.  Small, light cameras can be made with larger sensors, but at the cost of zoom range and maximum aperture.  I highly doubt most amateurs would want to give up zoom range for a larger sensor (most of whom would not understand what the larger sensor or aperture would mean in terms of DOF, IQ or high ISO noise).  I would like to see what Canon could do with a camera somewhere in between a G1X and the S100 in terms of sensor size, overall dimensions, and weight.

Slightly off topic post, but I figured it was kind of related to the subject.

185

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: What if you started from scratch again? Total Loss...

« on: May 29, 2012, 01:36:25 PM »

This weekend I actually did an inventory and added up the total, depreciated, used value of all my equipment, and came up with $1850.  Quite amazing, considering I have only paid out-of-pocket about $650 for all of it.  Seeing the total value of my kit makes me think insuring it would be a good idea.

I would probably get a 40D or 5D Mark I and other used items and start building up a similar kit to what I have now (except update to a 70-200 f4L or f4L IS).  A Nikon D600 (or the Canon equivalent surely to follow shortly thereafter) would be very tempting.

186

Canon General / Re: Official Discontinued List

« on: May 23, 2012, 02:17:43 PM »

Of the 14 lenses Canon released in the first year of EOS (1987, the 28mm f2.8 was one of them), only 3 are still being made.  All the lenses released in 1988 (8 totel, 24mm f/2.8 was one of them) have been discontinued.  Here's a list of the oldest lenses Canon still makes (all designs from 20+ years ago):

15mm f/2.8 Fisheye (1987)
50mm f/2.5 Macro (1987)
135mm f/2.8 Soft Focus (1987)
35mm f/2.0 (1990)
50mm f/1.8 II (1990)
TS-E 45mm f/2.8 (1991)
TS-E 90mm f/2.8 (1991)
100mm f/2.0 USM (1991)
20mm f/2.8 USM (1992)
85mm f/1.8 USM (1992)

187

Lenses / Re: Shooting Cooking Videos: How to clean and protect lenses?

« on: May 22, 2012, 05:08:23 PM »

I will preface my posting by saying I have never filmed any cooking.

Just some random thoughts:
- Use sealed L lenses (will help prevent ingress of steam, which could lead to fungus and other damage)
- Get an EF 100mm L Macro IS or EF 180mm Macro (for their long MFDs for closeup shots and awesome H-IS system - in the case of the 100mm)
- Always use UV filters
- Get LensCoats for any lenses you use, to help keep the body of the lens clean (and provide one more barrier)

188

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L Officially Discontinued?

« on: May 15, 2012, 04:35:59 PM »

I guess that's one way to force you to buy the more expensive of the 2 lenses...  but it was inevitable.

Isn't this exactly what happened when Canon transitioned from 70-200 IS I to 70-200 IS II for $500 more?  A short period of time where both were available, then suddenly v. I went out of stock, never to return.

189

Lenses / Re: What's the best deal you've ever gotten on a lens?

« on: May 11, 2012, 01:22:29 PM »

Just took delivery of a 50mm f/1.8 I from eBay listed as 'untested' for $59 shipped.  To my surprize, the lens is in like-new condition without a single imperfection on the body or lenses (amazing, considering this lens hasn't been in production since 1990) and is functionally perfect.  I'll sell my 50mm II on CL for $80, and actually profit from the upgrade.

190

Technical Support / Re: Orange cone ruins photo

« on: May 07, 2012, 06:56:46 PM »

...many of my pictures were affected by the hi-vis green shirts that they gave to all the participants.  The shirts also REALLY threw off the metering...

Yikes, that's almost as bad as the top LCD light leak. 

This was not a complaint, neuro, only a statement of fact.  I love my camera and don't fault it.  No reason to be judgemental and sarcastic.

As for mdm041's suggestion, I tried that exact method this year, but the lighting changes by the minute since marathons start near dawn and go til mid-day (and it was partly cloudy, so the sun kept coming and going).  Many shots were better this year than last, which I am happy about, but I do not blame my camera for my own inexperience with sports photography and skills that fall short of its ability.

191

Technical Support / Re: Orange cone ruins photo

« on: April 30, 2012, 03:14:55 PM »

I photographed a few friends in the St Louis Marathon last year, and many of my pictures were affected by the hi-vis green shirts that they gave to all the participants.  The shirts also REALLY threw off the metering, resulting in quite a few under exposed photos (I was using Av then).



EDIT: This isn't the worst example, but I wanted to protect the innocent, so I used a picture without faces.

192

EOS Bodies / Re: More Full Frame Cameras on the 2012 Horizon? [CR2/CR1]

« on: April 27, 2012, 04:59:43 PM »

...I'm sure Canon has had a high MP sensor in development for quite some time now...

Like the 120MP APS-H sensor (August 2010)?
http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/08/canons-120mp-aps-h-sensor/

I'm sure Canon could do anything up to their most-dense 1/2.3" in a full-frame camera, but it'll all depend on what consumers (in the general sense of the word) demand, or what Canon can convince buyers they desire (and of course how much said device will cost to produce).

193

Lenses / Re: What's the best deal you've ever gotten on a lens? I'll start...

« on: April 26, 2012, 04:16:48 PM »

Got a couple more yesterday I'd like to add:

EF 35mm f/2 - $177 shipped (accidentally listed on eBay as FD mount)
EF 12 Extension Tube & Canon EF 1.4x TC - $85 shipped (seller thought it was just a EF 12 tube)

194

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: switching bodies

« on: April 24, 2012, 11:06:27 AM »

The flange distance is shorter on Canon than Nikon (44mm and 46.5mm, respectively).  So even if you could mount a Canon lens on a Nikon body at the flange, it would be like you have also inserted a 2.5mm extension tube as well, making infinity focus impossible. 

Now mounting a Nikon lens on a Canon camera is easy, if the flange-to-flange distance of the adapter is 2.5mm then the lens will be able to focus throughout the entire range for which it was designed.

195

Lenses / Re: Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC Available for Preorder

« on: April 20, 2012, 12:01:03 PM »

No no no.

Canons zoom in the wrong direction.  Nikons and Tamrons zoom correctly.

And yes you British and Aussies and Japanese drive on the wrong side of the road 

I'm going to thread-jack for a moment to share what my curiosity caused me to find:

I knew many of the first zoom lenses were of the push-pull variety, so I went searching for early twist-zoom lenses.  It lead me to find that the manual focus lenses by Nikon were originally the same direction as Canon, such as:

1967 Nikkor 50-300mm


It looks like they stayed consistent with that directionality throughout the manual focus era.  Then in 1986, with their first twist zoom AF lenses, the Nikkor 35-105mm, 28-85mm and 35-70mm, they decided to change direction:





So, Canon is the correct direction, and Nikon decided to screw it up in the 1980s, after decades manufacturing lenses the right way.