July 30, 2014, 04:15:59 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
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.

287
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).

288
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.

289
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.

290
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.

291
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.

292
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.

293
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.

294
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.

295
Close, but EF-S lenses will not work on FF cameras for another reason.  In the Canon system the EF-S stands for short back focus, meaning that the rear element is able to protrude further into the camera body that a 35mm lens.  This is only allowed by decreasing the size of the reflex mirror.

well that is not close.. it is exactly what i have quoted from bobatkins an written in my first reply.

no need to repeat it :)

That's exactly what I was thinking  :P

Sorry for the repetition, I did not read the quoted text.  What astro said about lens compatiblity between Nikon and Canon has nothing to do with DX/FX or EF/EF-S compatibility, only with FBD, which is a different story entirely.

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?

296
If 7D2 is going to be full frame so yeah going to upgrade with those rumored specs!
IMHO, the only way a FF sensor on 7D2 would make sense, would be If they also gave it a crop sensor mode.  Something to allow current APS-C shooters with lots of EF-S lenses continue to use their glass.


that is not possible with the EF mount and EF-S lenses.... or is it?


Well 7D to 1100D have already EF and EF-S mounts so why not?


they are not FF.
the APS-C sensor has to cover a smaller image circle.

you can adopt nikon lenses on canon cameras but not the other way around (flange distance). so it´s not always a bi-directional compatibility.

Quote
The "S" in EFS stands for "Short back focus", which means the distance between the rearmost optical surface of the lens and the film (or in this case the digital sensor) is shorter than that of a normal Canon EF series lens. A shorter back focus does have some advantages when designing wide-angle lenses, but there's a limit to how short it can be in an SLR lens since it can't be so short that the SLR mirror hits it when it flips up. The lower limit on the size of the mirror depends on the size of the film (or sensor). Medium format SLRs need a big mirror, 35mm SLRs need a smaller mirror and SLRs with a digital sensor smaller than a full frame 35mm frame can use an even smaller mirror.

Since the sensor in the Digital Rebel is only 22.7mm x 15.1mm, smaller than the 24mm x 36mm full frame 35mm frame size, the SLR mirror can be (and is) smaller, so it can use a lens with a shorter back focus than full frame cameras, hence the EF-S lens.


http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/tutorials/efs-10d.html



Close, but EF-S lenses will not work on FF cameras for another reason.  In the Canon system the EF-S stands for short back focus, meaning that the rear element is able to protrude further into the camera body than a 35mm lens.  This is only allowed by decreasing the size of the reflex mirror.

In the Nikon system, they kept the mount and specifications for intrusion the same for their 'DX' lenses.  Therefore, you can mount any DX lens onto an FX camera (full-frame).  The only difference is DX lenses will not project an image on all parts of the FX sensor due to the smaller image circle.  The D70 is an example of a Nikon camera with a mirror the same size as a 35mm film camera, despite having a smaller sensor size.

If you tried to mount an EF-S lens on a full-frame or 35mm camera, the reflex mirror would either prevent the lens from mounting, or would break the mirror when the shutter is pressed

297
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Bought a 5D Mark iii Today (YAY)
« on: June 10, 2012, 12:37:26 AM »
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).

 
I was replying to the OP, he noted that he was on a budget.  You are welcome to the Canon 75-300mm lens, if you think it is great, go for it, I'm not going to knock someone for their choice of lenses, we all have to make buying decisions that are right for us.  The 100-300 is weak at 300mm, but its strong at 100-200mm, and its cheap.  It and the 70-210mm f/4 which is better, both pickup where his 24-105mm L leaves off.  A 200-400mm lens leaves a gap for him to fill.
 
Obviously, we would like to recommend top lenses, but if he is looking for a place holder to extend his focal length for now, the 70-210 would be my first recommendation.
 
Here is a cat photo with my 70-210mm f/4 taken a few years back with my 30D or 40D.  This is a 100% crop at 200mm and wide open aperture.
 

 
 

Impressive shot. Have you owned any of the other lenses I mentioned?  If I do decide to sell off my telephoto zooms, I would like to get the best bang/buck replacement (since they are all in the same price range) and I would value your opinion on the choices.

if the long zoom needs to cost less then i'd get 55-250 or tamron 70-300 vc over the ones you mention

Except that the 55-250mm is an EF-S lens that will not even mount on the 5D3.

298
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).

299
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

300
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.

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