March 02, 2015, 07:46:25 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 - pj1974

Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16 ... 26
Lenses / Re: EF or EF-S for 7D/70D
« on: March 07, 2013, 07:14:28 PM »
I have used both FF and APS-C DSLRs for several years.  I currently own a Canon 7D and Canon 350D... and have owned both EF and EF-S lenses since I got into DSLRs in 2005.

My current mainstay of "go-to-body" and lens combination is the Canon 7D with Canon 15-85mm. It's vastly superior than the 17-40 in IQ sharpness, focal length range at both wide and tele-end, usability, IS - and at least on-par USM. The only advantage of the 17-40 is a somewhat better build quality (also incorporating improved weather sealing).

When I was considering what lens to use as my walkaround for my 7D, I had owned a good copy of the EF 28-135mm - but it is not as good as the EF-S 15-85mm even at equivalent focal lengths. I have an EF-S 18-55mm (but a non IS version) so that's "ok" the IS version of the kit lens is better  The newer EF-S 18-135mm STM is quite good (better than the non STM one).

Macro-wise, I went with the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM, over above any 3rd party (mainly to do with AF and IQ).  I chose the EF 100mm over the EF-S 60mm, really only due to preferring a longer working  focal length when doing macro photography. I am glad I did... there was a small consideration that if can also use this lens on a FF.

I own an EF 70-300mm USM IS L - which is a truly great lens, and as photozone points out - is superior on a crop body (in terms of using the sweet spot / centre of the lens) - and gaining the 'crop factor' advantage, that is presents a 480mm equivalent image on a APS-C body. But even if this 70-300mm L would have been an EF-S... I still would have bought it!

Finally in UWA land, I own a Sigma 10-20mm HSM EX... which is a great lens. When I was considering UWAs, there was much less choice then than there is now. I went with a new Sigma 10-20 based on a much better price than I could get a new EF-S Canon 10-22mm USM for. My Sigma gives me sharp corner to corner images at the equivalent of 16mm in 35mm format.

Lens wise, I say buy what you can budget / ie what is affordable to you - and what you will use often now. That's my 2cents worth.


EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Information [CR1]
« on: March 07, 2013, 05:57:36 PM »
At this stage I don't necessarily need a replacement / upgrade to my 7D....


That's what they all say at first... keeps the wife from poisoning them till it is too late  ;D ;D

:D  Phew... that sounds scary!  Yes... well in my case I am not married - I'm divorced (but I don't believe photography had anything to do with that). Therefore at this stage I have no reason for poisoning fears when I am considering photography equipment...  ;)

Having written that, I have a secure and decent paying job, and I don't spend a fortune on photography equipment... I prefer to use more of my money for more important things: eg projects to benefit people, etc.

Maybe if I do remarry one day... I'll take more things into consideration... however I'll tackle that when I come to it - and with a degree and background in accounting, I generally don't have troubles with sensible budgetting.   8)

Come-on new technology... it's always a good thing!


EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Information [CR1]
« on: March 07, 2013, 04:23:50 PM »
Nikon would Just love the 7D mk 2 to be 3k, would make the d400 pretty easy to sell ;D (and yes I am a Canon user, but also a realist!!!!!!!)

Canon knows which side of their bread is buttered... for reasons I discussed few posts earlier, it is likely 7D2 will come in under 3K...well under probably.

If Canon priced their cameras based on clueless fanboys drooling over gear while living in their parents' basement playing dungeons and dragons and wondering about Taylor Swift's bra size... we would be living in an alternate universe with Minolta as king of the market ;)

^THIS is gold!!   ;D   LOL.

And I agree, the 7DmkII will most likely come out quite well under $3,000 US (and hopefully in some they can be purchased at lower prices).

I bought the 7D very soon after it came out, so I paid a bit of a premium for that, but I wanted the camera then - and I haven't looked back. It's a great all round performing DLSR.

At this stage I don't necessarily need a replacement / upgrade to my 7D, but if the 7DmkII has features and image quality that really impress me, then I will consider buying it soon.


Lenses / Re: your goto everyday lens and why?
« on: March 04, 2013, 08:05:43 AM »
Canon 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 USM IS on my Canon 7D.

Love that combo... awesome image quality, portable, very versatile with USM & IS - and it didn't cost the earth!


Sounds very promising!!

Hopefully this technology will also 'trickle through' / cross-polinate to stills, as I believe it could really benefit DSLR photos too! :) Any advancement is great news.


Lenses / Re: Lens purchase strategy
« on: March 03, 2013, 10:14:17 PM »
I have attempted to purchase lenses somewhere in the 'middle ground'. I believe the very 'cream a-la cream' (top of the best) of lenses are often priced high, because of the laws of diminishing returns (with regard to image quality, etc). The 'cheapest / basic' lenses generally 'do things ok - but nothing very well.  So the middle ground often works for me (both in terms of functionality, image quality and price).  ;)

Almost 10 years ago I bought my first Canon DSLR 350D, complete with the 18-55mm kit lens - but also had a few other lenses, eg the Canon 28-135mm and Canon 50mm f/1.8   Have since sold those 2 'extra' lenses (still have the kit lens).  I used the Canon 28-135mm most the first few years, it was superior in image quality (and in many other ways-  eg IS, USM, contrast, etc)  to the 18-55mm - though of course 28mm on a 1.6x APS-C / crop body isn't very 'wide'. 

Then upgraded to the Canon 7D, and have the following lenses (and I use all of these extensively):
Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 HSM EX
Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM
Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM
Canon EF 70-300mm L f/4-5.6 IS USM

The only 'future' lens I'm looking for is a new Canon EF 50mm USM fast prime.  (None of the current 50mm primes - either Canon or 3rd party) is really what I want.   ::)

I have upgraded a few lenses - eg Canon 100-300mm USM to the much better Canon 70-300mm L IS/USM, because eg the lack of IS AND the image quality at tele end just weren't good enough. In other instances I bought a 'totally new lens' ("new" in my line-up) - like the Canon 15-85mm which can't really be compared with either the 18-55mm kit lens nor the 28-135mm. Only the 17-85mm is really comparable - but it is not very good IQ at wide end.

The 17-55mm f/2.8 (better for low light- but not the zoom range I like). The Canon 100mm USM macro is another 'special purchase' lens, and one that I decided on after using a friend's copy of this lens, and I was 'sold' as in - what I wanted in a macro lens.  BTW, I keep the 18-55mm kit lens as it's a handy light 'travel option' - eg going hiking with my 350D.  8)

I have achieved thousands photos that I'm very happy with, and many people that I've shared these photos with really appreciate them too... so I explain I've got 'good camera bodies and lenses' - but not 'the best / professional' ones.  It's more about technique, understanding light and being creative & composing well.  I'm very happy with my kit, and as I wrote above, only see a 50mm prime as a future upgrade...hopefully Canon will release a great new (hopefully IS / full USM) prime in the near future. 

Best regards


Lighting / Re: Which flash for a 5d mkIII
« on: March 03, 2013, 09:37:09 PM »
... Then there is the Nissin 866 with a built in sub flash for fill in, a feature I think would be useful. I think both of these have high speed sync which you might want if using for outdoor fill. Price points are roughly 1/4 and 1/2 that of the 600 respectively....

On the flip side you tend to get what you pay for with Canon stuff, and it's really a matter of whether the "shortcuts" of the third party stuff will cause you problems worth spending for Canon...

Some time ago I bought my first external flash... was toying up between Canon's 580EX II and the Nissin 866mkII.  I bought the Nissin (new) and am very happy with it not just because it was less than half the price of a new Canon 580EX II, but because it works very well on my 7D. Note that the original Nissin 866 (not mark II) does not have full compatibility with some of the later features.

The sub flash on the Nissin 866mkII really works well, and when I use it as a remote flash, and also use my Canon 7D's pop up flash to fire too, I effectively have a 'mini 3 flash' system. That is:
 1) using the Nissin866mkII's main (powerful) flash to bounce off the ceiling, or off a wall
 2) using the Nissin866mkII's subflash for some slight fill side light and
 3) using my Canon 7D's built in flash for some direct fill light.

Thankfully I can control each of the 3 flash's output separately, that's cool. Creating some quite interesting possibilities. I realise that the 5DmkIII doesn't have a built in flash (which I would like Canon to change!) - but still, I'm just sharing with you my experience, and being v happy with the Nissin.  The AF assist works very well on the 7D (eg dark room, it will focus on a blank surface).

If money really is no object, I'd probably go with the Canon 600 EX-RT - for the radio technology, which is certainly handy. Otherwise - I can recommend the Nissin - which I've learned to use - and it does very well with ETTL-II being utilised.  Hope you go well with your decision.


Paul :)

EOS Bodies / Re: 7DII and D400 Specs
« on: February 25, 2013, 09:22:03 PM »
There is a part of me that thinks Canon may differentiate the two by offering slightly fewer megapixels but better low-light performance in the 7D, as they have done with the ID-X.

That would make the 7DII a more interesting offering, from my perspective.  If it can come within 1.3 stops of the 1D X (i.e., right at the theoretical difference between APS-C and FF, vs. the currently greater advantage of the 1D X), coupled with a high-density AF sensor (e.g. 41 points with 20 crosses) and improved metering, that'll be an impressive camera...
That would be awesome ... I do hope 7D II will be a 1.3x crop sensor

By 1.3 stops, I believe Neuro meant the ISO performance. 1.3 stops equates to the difference between ISO 256 and ISO 100 - which is the theoretical difference between a 1.6x crop APS-C camera and FF - this is due to the 2.56 times greater surface area (read: light gathering area) of FF.

Canon may change tack, but so far they haven't once changed the size of a sensor in a DSLR line. If a camera comes out named 7D mk II, it's very likely to be 1.6x crop.

Ps - I really hope Canon resist the temptation to take their 1.6x crop sensor up to 24mp. It'll suffer from softness due to diffraction from f6.0 onwards - mount an f5.6 lens on there and you've got little in the way of options. Even the legendary 300/2.8 II with a 2x TC III will underperform, and leave you with just one aperture option if you want to attempt to utilise all of those megapixels. Leave the MP lower, and let those lower processing overheads allow them to push the hardware of the small mirror and shutter to its limits.

"Amen!" to that!

I certainly don't hope (and neither do I see there being any logic or proof) that the 7DmkII will be a 1.3x crop sensor.

But if it's noise performance is within 1.3x (one and third stops) of the 1DX (or 6D) - I would be happy  ;)

No need for 24MP, 18 is fine by me (if they're sharp). I have some great lenses for my 7D - including L glass and some awesome EF-S specific lenses. :)

The 1.3x day is over. Either FF or 1.6x crop for Canon.  Roll on actual annoucements. The rumoured specs for the 7DmkII look spectacular! :D

Happy photo-shooting everyone!  8)


EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Spec List [CR2]
« on: February 19, 2013, 08:37:15 AM »
If these specs are real, I find this an impressive upgrade. As I own the 7D (which I love) - the increase in ISO performance (close to the 5DmkIII) is a particularly attractive feature for me. 61 AF pts and 10 FPS are definitely great, but not essential (I'm quite happy with the 7D's current 19 AF pts and 8 FPS).   ;)

WiFi and GPS are 'nice' but not necessary for my use. Even less important for me are the 'lots of video' features and the dual memory card slots (please keep it CF, I have some great CF cards I want to keep using - plus same battery please while we're at it!)

The 24.1 MP is interesting.. if it has sharp per pixel definition and also has low noise across the ISO range (particularly @ ISO100 & ISO200 for landscapes) I'll be particularly happy!  I do like to crop in various photos, especially for some wildlife.

Cheers! Let's see if this becomes a CR3 and then reality....!! Hope so....  8)


Canon General / Re: Since 7D MkII isn't coming soon.....
« on: February 19, 2013, 12:04:15 AM »
The 7D is a fantastic camera and still very relevant in the Canon lineup.  The 7d is a great match up with any of the EF lenses, especially L glass.  The 24-70mm is fantastic on the 7D, it's only not wide enough if all you shoot is wide... If so, it's still a great walk around lens.  The 17-55mm lens is fantastic on the 7D and the mid range and long lenses are incredible...
I had the 1DIIN and the 24-105. Bought the 7D and the 15-85. Sold the 1DIIN and the 24-105. Bought the 17-55. Sold the 15-85. If I had only one lens, it would be the 15-85. Since I have the 100mm macro and 77mm filters, I kept the 17-55. I does miss the 15mm end though.

I've used numerous Canon bodies, and agree the 7D still has a great place in the Canon line-up. I expect I will keep my 7D till it dies ... It's handling is SO much better than any other Canon APS-C - and while it lacks some of the FF advantages in terms of IQ, often that's only noticed in pixel peeping.

I have several Canon lenses, including L glass, and my 7D is most often paired with the Canon 15-85mm, then Canon 70-300mm L (ie at 480mm in 35mm equivalent).  I also find my 7D great for macro work (with the 100mm) and it handles landscapes / ultrawides well too, eg 10mm (16mm equivalent in 35mm format) sharp corner to corner.

When / if the 7DmkII comes out, I am keen to see what it delivers.  All in all, I'm sure Canon will give us good tools to continue shooting photos.

Best wishes...


Lenses / Re: FoV difference between Tamron 70-300VC and Canon 70-300L
« on: February 18, 2013, 05:32:39 PM »
I suspect that's the case.  There is something a little odd about the design about the Canon 70-300L, though.  For example, if you compare it to the Canon 70-200/2.8L IS II, both have the same specified MFD and maximum magnification (47.2" and 0.21x), but obviously the 70-300mm has a 50% longer focal length at the long end.  Canon mentioned a  The Tamron 70-300 VC, despite not being able to focus as close (55.1" MFD) achieves a higher 0.25x maximum magnification.

The 70-300 L has a 'floating' optical system (the 85L II has this, too).  Canon stated, "As mentioned above, the use of a “floating” optical system means that as the lens is progressively focused closer, other lens elements continually change position to preserve image quality throughout the focus range. (Many lenses are optimized for best quality at or near infinity, and as focused closer, there’s a drop-off in contrast and sharpness… that’s not the case with this new lens)."  It seems something had to be traded for that sharpness when focusing close, and that something translates to maximum magnification, apparent focal length, or FoV at the long end (three ways of saying the same thing, sort of).

That's right!

Though I have not used the Tamron 70-300mm VC, but I've had a few other Canon lenses - and noted that at the same marked mm (eg even lower settings 100mm and 135mm on other lenses - and I think also the 300mm setting on my old Canon 100-300mm USM) - that the 70-300mm L doesn't seem as magnified.

It probably does seem like the 300mm of my 70-300mm at minimal focal distance is around 200 - 240mm-ish (depending on what other lenses it is compared with).

And yet - the good news is compared to several other tele lenses at around 300mm, the Canon 70-300mm L appears very sharp at minimum focus distance. I love it for eg dragonflies, some flowers and other details up close, / even 'tame' birds that allow me to get very near to them.

I was going to get the Tamron 70-300mm after looking at some reviews - even bought a filter to it (to replace my Canon 100-300mm USM) - but then the Canon 70-300mm L came out. I used the Canon 70-300mm L from a camera store (who allowed me to stand outside and try it) - and I was SO impressed... and I was hooked and bought one - got it for a reduced price, already just a few weeks after it was available.  I haven't looked back.

The Tamron 70-300mm  VC looks like a decent more budget oriented option, I was going to get this over the Canon 70-300mm nonL - as that Canon's micro USM AF isn't what I like, plus the lens build was not quite up to scratch - though they are fairly close in image quality at the tele-end....  All the best with your photography, dilbert.



Wow!!! Sounds awesome. I'll definitely enter... particularly as there are few competitions that allow the global village of the whole world to be able to participate! Yay!!!

I love CanonRumors... and as an Australian with a passion for photography, winning a Canon 6D would be like a dream come true.......  Pretty please!!!!!



Lenses / Re: lens recommendation soccer
« on: February 17, 2013, 08:18:27 PM »
I'd recommend the 70-300mm L - which is sharper (especially at the tele end), better AF, more contrast and superior IS and a bit 'faster' than the nonL lens at the same focal lengths.

On a crop body (eg T2i or 7D, etc) - it's effectively a 480mm, which- when having decent amount of MP (18MP) still allows a decent crop.

I find 70-200mm short for such outdoor sports, though of course the constant f/2.8 is handy for stopping action.

Otherwise going for a large prime (eg 300mm f/2.8 or 400mm f/2.8) is going to cost you a lot more money. I love my 70-300mm L for outdoor work... both occasional sports - and great as a walk around wildlife lens too.


EOS Bodies / Re: $1200 7D vs. $1800 5D II?
« on: February 14, 2013, 09:57:07 PM »
5D2 if you regularly shoot and make large prints at ISO 1600 and above. OR if you have certain Canon lenses which really work best on FF (T/S; the fast wide primes like the 35 f/1.4).

7D for everything else.

No matter how many times people insist...just insist...there's a HUGE difference when they pixel peep at 300%, they cannot pick out 16x24 or 20x30 prints at ISO 100-800.

And $600 would make a big dent for lenses, either buying one you need out right, or getting you that much closer to one that's more expensive.


So true. I have used various Canon (& other brand) FF and currently use my Canon 7D as my 'general go to camera' - from landscape to wildlife to macro to occasional 'event' photography.

The 7D is such a capable camera... awesome ergonomics, great flexible - yet not overly complicated AF system, etc, etc.  Ok obviously several other cameras beat it on ISO noise / detail, etc - but often that's just pixel peeping!

And there are just so many great EF-S lenses (dedicated for APS-C) these days... and many EF lenses (normally for FF) - whic use the 'sweet spot'. I cover 10mm to 300mm on my 7D, and it's awesome (35mm equivalent of 16mm - 480mm!)


EOS Bodies / Re: Big Megapixel Camera in 2014
« on: February 07, 2013, 07:11:37 AM »
Interesting about a quicker sideband "refresh" of the 5D line. I wonder if that is because Canon is finally ready to move to a newer 180nm process, and want to get all of their cameras on it sooner rather than later. I, for one, would happily spend a few grand on a high MP, high frame rate, 5D X (or whatever it ends up being called) if it had reduced read noise and competitive DR (i.e. at least 13 stops).
I can see that you want such a product (dont we all), but what makes you think it will be high framerate? "Big megapixel camera" makes me think that it is to be a D800/MF killer for landscapes/macro, and that framerate/AF/high-ISO will be less prioritized.

I think it will be high frame rate because high frame rate is what Canon does better than anyone else. I have also been poring over Canon patents for the last month, and they seem to have quite a number of parallel readout and parallel pixel processing patents for high speed readout of high megapixel count sensors. Canon has also prototyped a 120mp sensor with a 9.5fps readout rate using some combination of block and row/column parallel readout and on-die image processing.

I see no reason why that technology could not be applied to a "measly" 30-40mp FF sensor to achieve at least 6-8fps. I also see no reason why ISO range would have to suffer. High ISO capabilities are not mutually exclusive with low ISO capabilities. On the contrary, high ISO is limited by physics, while low ISO is limited by electronic noise sources. Canons maximum well capacity is already more than high enough to fully exploit 14 bit data, as well as fully exploit 16 bit data...the only thing in the way is their high read noise. That could be solved with a parallel digital readout approach that applies digital noise reduction similar to Sony. If Canon solves the noise problem, they could easily have both quality high and quality low ISO performance.

Thanks for your post, jrista.

Now THAT sounds logical... and promising!

I keep my hopes up.  Currently a happy 7D user, but always looking to technological advances helping my  future photography.


Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16 ... 26