September 02, 2014, 10:23:14 AM

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 - KyleSTL

Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20] 21 22 ... 28
286
Lenses / Re: Lenses that inspire you?
« on: July 27, 2012, 11:22:26 AM »
Seems like there is a consensus that those who own 200mm f/2L IS lenses are inspired by them.  For anyone who wants inspiration (and doesn't mind owning a lens that is in less-than-pristine condition), it is available in 7/10 condition at lensrentals for $4400 shipped:

http://www.lensrentals.com/buy/canon/canon-200mm-f2l-is-serial-number-13206

287
Lenses / Re: Lenses that inspire you?
« on: July 26, 2012, 05:18:23 PM »
I've been a firm believer that upgrading one's gear usually doesn't improve one's photography. However, I recently picked up the Canon 85 f/1.8, and I must say, this lens has definitely improved my work. Why? Interestingly, it's due to more than the image quality. Yes, it's a great, sharp lens, but it's really not head-and-shoulders above some of my other lenses.

So if the image quality of the lens isn't leading to noticeably better images - what's changed? Inspiration. For a number of reasons, when I shoot with the 85 I feel inspired.

First, the focal length. I spent most of last year shooting with a 50mm, so the focal length is a little longer, and it inspires me to shoot from different perspectives.

Second, the feel. The size and weight of the 85 on a 5D feels just right to me. It's light enough to not wear me out after a full day of shooting, but it's also solid enough that it doesn't look or feel like a toy.

Third, the image quality. There's no denying, this is a sharp, impressive lens. It may not produce quite the background blur of the 85 f/1.2, but the image quality is still pretty awesome. If I nail the exposure, focus, and composition, I can be quite sure that the lens will do the rest.
The 85/1.8 is a pleasure to use; great value, too. Nicely-built, and it gives great bokeh. I enjoyed it on my 7D, and I still enjoy it on my 5D3. It just feels nice!

Next on my list are the 2X TC and then the 85/1.2. That second one might take a few months though.

I just paid for a used EF 85mm f/1.8 from Lensrentals and I am anxiously awaiting its arrival.  For $290 it was the lowest price I've seen for this lens, and thanks to a Feb 2011 contest here at CR (thanks, Craig) in which I won a $50 GC, I only paid $240 out-of-pocket.  I'm looking forward to trying it out.

288
EOS Bodies / Re: A New 100-400 & Coming Announcements [CR2]
« on: July 25, 2012, 09:07:12 AM »
...We still think a bunch of new lenses are coming down the pipeline from Canon. How many? By our count we hear at least 6 new lenses for the EF & EF-M mount before the end of 2012...

Care to name the 6 lenses you've heard mentioned?  Does this include the 200-400mm f/4 that was previously mentioned as 'in devolopment' and is currently in use in very limited quantities at the top sporting events.  I'm guessing the 100-400mm replacement is also included in that number, what are the other 4?

289
On a very loosely related note, why do most europeans transposes commas and periods in numbers (I know that sounds very US-centric, but that's where I'm from)?  Shouldn't we all be saying "eff one comma four" - f/1,4?

1,200 = one thousand two hundred in my book (not one and two tenths with 3 decimals of certainty)

290
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon EOS M System Announced
« on: July 23, 2012, 02:12:19 PM »

I believe all the EOS flashes are compatible with the EOS-M, and vice-versa, per B&H website info.
Thanks for that - I wonder why they just didn't go with the 270EX2 for this camera - the new flash looks just like the 270ex2.

In shape, yes, but looking at the specs page reveals a much different story:

90EX
Dimensions - Approx. 1.7" (W) x 2.0" (H) x 2.6" (D) / 44.2 (W) x 52.0 (H) x 65.0 (D) mm
Weight  - Approx. 1.8 oz. / 50g NOTE: (assuming without batteries)

270EX II
Dimensions - 2.6 x 2.6 x 3.0 in./ 65.8 x 65.2 x 77mm
Weight - 5.5 oz./155g (without batteries)

Much smaller, much lighter, still powered by 2 AA batteries (CORRECTION: 90EX is powered by 2x AAA batteries, 270EX II runs on 2x AA), can function as commander as well.  No zoom head, and much lower power flash than it's bigger brother (GN 9 @ 24mm vs. GN 22 @ 28mm).  It is even less powerful than the built-in flashes on Rebels (GN 13 @ 28mm).  Interesting offering, the 24mm and weight make it pretty unique.

EDIT: Also, check out the relative size of the hotshoe for scale, and note that the 90EX has a plastic shoe.





Does the EOS M camera have MFA?  That would be a big factor for me for using it as a backup.

Doubtful, the 50D was lowest model to have it. Would be nice though.

Why would it need AFMA?  It is basing the focus on phase and contrast on the sensor.  Isn't the reason for AFMA that the AF module in DSLRs are not located on the sensor?

EDIT: Sorry didn't see that trowski already addressed this issue.

291
Lenses / Re: New 17-55 coming soon?
« on: July 20, 2012, 05:15:25 PM »
If anything, the lens feels like it should have an update since the 15-85 got introduced. I would like the range to start at 15 also.

I think the 15mm wide end would be a good reason to update this, it was rumored back in Feb 2011 (CR1) that a 15-60mm f/2.8 IS USM was in the works:

http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/02/ef-s-15-60-f2-8-is-cr1/

If this lens was to materialize, I would expect MSRP in the $1500+ range (based on Canon's pricing strategies lately).

292
EOS Bodies / Re: Mark III price dropping
« on: July 19, 2012, 02:11:08 PM »
... As to ebay charging over 10 percent, I just sold off my Nikon D800 and 24-70mm f/2.8 G, and the ebay fee was 2.8%.

May I ask how you have eBay fees that low?  Are you a power seller?  Ever since I sold my first item years ago my fee has always been 9% of sale price and shipping price (and another 2.9% to Paypal for the transaction fee).

I think the higher priced items take a lower %, either that or they charge a certain % on the first $1k, and then the % drops every $1k after that, I can't remember.  But in combination with the Paypal fees it really adds up.

He must have done a fixed-price listing which is a tiered system, and drops from 7% (up to $50) to 2% (over $1000).  I've been an eBay seller all these years and never bothered to thoroughly read through the fee structure.  This might change how I list things in the future.

293
EOS Bodies / Re: Mark III price dropping
« on: July 19, 2012, 01:37:01 PM »
... As to ebay charging over 10 percent, I just sold off my Nikon D800 and 24-70mm f/2.8 G, and the ebay fee was 2.8%.

May I ask how you have eBay fees that low?  Are you a power seller?  Ever since I sold my first item years ago my fee has always been 9% of sale price and shipping price (and another 2.9% to Paypal for the transaction fee).

294
That said we should note that some have never had the need or desire to shoot handheld 28mm f/2.8 at 1/6th second.

What about:
Waterfall photographs without tripod
Cityscape night shots with crowd movement (again, without tripod)
Longer panning shots

There is value in handholding exposures > 1/10 sec, even if some people refuse to believe it.  Brian Carnathan (the-digital-picture.com) has a 1 sec handheld exposure with the 15-85mm IS on his review (including a 100% crop), you can't tell me the stabilization didn't have a significant role in creating that image.

295
EOS Bodies / Re: New Product Announcement Invites for July 23, 2012
« on: July 10, 2012, 12:24:21 PM »
... The shutter release on my 40D is becoming increasingly erratic.

That's an easy fix if you are brave enough to open it up, and are comfortable with a soldering iron.  I've fixed 4 or 5 bad shutter buttons.  Unless of course you're talking about the shutter itself dying, in which case it is a considerable amount of work to remove and replace.

296
Lighting / Re: Fauxtographer Ruins Olympic photos.
« on: July 02, 2012, 10:43:12 PM »
Agreed with everyone else.  The outrage over the photographs is not in any way an over-reaction.  They are some of the most poorly composed studio shots I've ever seen.  Clearly the photographer does not know how to look at the whole frame and know what is included and excluded.  The wide angle shots are clearly the result of inexperience.

Wow!  Those pics are horrid (especially the Phelps one).  I'm no expert, having owned a DSLR for a mere 4 months, but I'm pretty sure even I could do better than that with a 7d.  I expect perfection from an Olympic photographer.  This is why they are called "professional."  OMG the one with track and field star Merritt, seriously.  I guess low expectations have moved into photography.  These horrid photos have motivated me to kick serious @$$ with every pic I take.

edit:  wow, check out Kevin Jairaj's photos of the team
http://www.uspresswire.com/search/fulltext/jairaj%20summit/page1

Kevin did pretty good with the exception of lens choice for the headshots with the glittered background.  What was he using?  35mm?  The noses looks outrageous.  Should have been 85mm or 135mm prime to keep composition and background compression the same throughout.

297
the whole EF-S lens thing is really a non issue for the following reasons

1) lets be real there are a total of 2 EF-S lenses worth having that are affected the 17-55 and the 15-85
the rest are blown away by EF lenses

I don't think I can buy this argument.  first of all, you left out the 10-22.  All three are high dollar S lenses which equal or approach L optical quality in a less expensive build quality.  serious APS-C body users will have one and usually two out of the three 
Quote

3) when people are using the crop for reach arguement they are NOT talking about EF-S lenses they are using longer EF lenses and often L lenses

well this point is not valid either because when people use the crop for reach argument along with the EF-S lens question they are talking about preserving their camera body's ability to function at WA and UWA FOVs with their existing glass.  Look up the price of the 10-22 and the 17-55, and then imagine the migration to a FF body,  making that investment suddenly useless.  Thats big evidence in favor of an APS-C 7D2, and 70D bodies.
Canon is certainly able to produce cheap, FF AF lenses.  They did it for 13 years before ever releasing a single digital body.  Who's to say that Canon couldn't or won't produce a decent 24-85mm non-L IS, or 20-35mm, or 18-35 non-L given the right body to go along with it.  There are tons of reasonable quality used lenses on the market (20-35mm f/3.5-4.5, 24-85 f/3.5-4.5, 28-105mm f/3.5-5.6, both 70-210mm lenses, 75-300 IS, 70-300 IS) that would go well with an affordable FF camera if/when released, and I'm sure Canon could do better after such a camera is made.

298
TTMartin and unfocused are singing my tune.  If Canon released a 60D body with a FF sensor in it, I would be all over it.  Furthermore, it would probably push down the selling price of the 5DI, due to lower market demand.  A $500 5DI sounds awesome.  It would also probably affect the 5DII market since it would almost definitely have 9 cross-type AF sensors (from the 40D, 50D, 60D, and T4i) and a newer sensor and Digic 5, etc of the latest generation.  I hope the D600 comes out soon, since we're likely to see a reply from Canon shortly thereafter.

299
Lenses / Re: EF-S 18-135mm IS STM vs EF 28-135mm IS
« on: June 15, 2012, 11:56:22 AM »
I bought a 28-135mm used (from the original owner who is a local wedding photographer) about a year and a half ago, and since I got the 17-85mm I haven't used it much.  My 28-135mm has great center sharpness, but the left side of the frame is pretty soft (on a crop sensor).  I would not plan on using this lens if I upgraded to a FF camera without sending it to Canon for calibration (which could be easily justified since I only paid about $110 for it).  YMMV

I would say the 18-135mm is a much more useful range, and is likely to be as sharp or sharper than the old 28-135mm design (1998).  Since the STM motor is a new thing, there aren't any reviews on it yet, but I am guessing it will be just about as good as USM.

300
In the Canon system the EF-S stands for short back focus...

Actually, the -S in EF-S stands for small image circle.  Yes, I know Wikipedia says it stands for short back focus, and Bob Atkins and lots of other sources do, too.  But they're wrong.   :o

Citation?  I know incorrect information gets disseminated pretty rapidly and thoroughly on the internet, but do you have any citation for the correct abreviation?

Because I said so...   ;)

If you look at the Canon Technical Report for the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM, you'll see the notation, "*The "S" in "EF-S" comes from "Small image circle.""

Also, if you look at p. 128 of EF Lens Work III (it's in section 7, The Basics of Interchangeable Lenses...), there's a notation that, "* Some of the EF-S lenses does not employ a short back focus optical system."  (yes, that's grammatically incorrect, but correctly quoted)
Thanks for the information.  I am continually impressed with your knowledge of the Canon EOS system, and photography and optical systems in general.

Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20] 21 22 ... 28