August 31, 2014, 04:52:26 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 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 26
61
Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM
« on: September 17, 2013, 04:43:30 AM »
The color rendition from this lens is just so good to look at.  :)

How good is this lens at portraits? Moarrrr please, ;D like angox's.

Portraits?  You'll never go wrong with this lens.  It's just a little bit hard in my case because it's a little bit long for an APS-C when used for portraits and the AF is slow relatively if compared to 50mm F1.8 II (for portraits).

I have been following this thread for a while, and appreciate a lot of the photos in this thread, well done to many fine photographers. I have the Canon EF 100mm macro USM (non-L).

What was written above (which I've highlighted in red font) isn't my experience. My 100mm macro's AF is definitely quicker to focus than both copies of my Canon 50mm f/1.8 II - on either of my Canon DSLR's: 7D or 350D. Not as quick as my 70-300mm L, but it's not bad... better than eg a few Sigma telephoto zooms I've used.

If I limit the AF (ie so it doesn't search through the 'macro ranges') - the 100mm AF's quite snappy, at any subject distance- particularly on my 7D, but even on my 350D. I hated the slow, grindy, inaccurate AF of the 50mm f/1.8, so I got rid of both copies.

Here are a few recent macro photos I made with my 100mm nonL lens.
Note - there is also a Canon 100mm macro non-L, non-USM.... but it's quite old and not so many of those around anymore.
(PS - I have some great portraits with my 100mm macro lens too....)

62
Landscape / Re: Milky Way
« on: September 05, 2013, 11:07:47 PM »
Great photo. I also really appreciate how the light pollution actually highlights the horizon.

The fade between yellow-ish (light) and black/blue (stars) is not too obtrusive, imho.

Well captured!  What was the camera you used?  I'm guessing a FF (perhaps 6D or 5DmkII or 5DmkIII?)

Paul

63
Lenses / Re: Canon EF-S 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS STM Announced
« on: August 22, 2013, 12:39:50 AM »
So excited about this!
The previous version is great, and all the other STM lenses have been getting stellar sharpness reviews.

+1

My thoughts exactly (and I wrote the same a few minutes ago on the 'pre-order' thread about this lens and the new PowerShots.

64
Pricewatch Deals / Re: EF-S 55-250 IS STM & PowerShot Preorders
« on: August 22, 2013, 12:36:48 AM »
Well done Canon!

All the new STM lenses have so far been impressive, and I trust it's the same for the 55-250mm IS STM.

And, I think Canon has released a great set of PowerShots - covering various users' needs and preferences.  Exciting times!

Paul

65
Lenses / Re: New Lens Announcement Tonight [CR3]
« on: August 21, 2013, 10:08:31 PM »
Optical upgrades?!?! The old 55-250 is already a pretty solid piece of work optically. I can't wait to see how it could improve. I mean, if it gets much better, it would practically eliminate the need to go to an L in that range.

I wouldn't go quite that far:  http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=456&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=738&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Yeah, the L lens is five times as much, but it is in a whole different league optically.


Not really, if you compare them both on an APS-C body then the L lens is just barely better than the 55-250.  On the other hand compare the 55-250 vs the 70-200 is ii at 200mm both on crop and you'll see a world of difference.

Wow - I've never done that before, but that seems really odd to me.  I don't know why the image quality from the 70-300L should be that different between the FF body and the crop - I have not seen that to be evident in actual use.  Something seems wrong there.  I seriously doubt the 55-250 would look that much better on a FF body if it were capable of being mounted there.

The results of lens resolution tests on The Digital Picture (TDP) have recently been discussed on this forum:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=16229.0
and
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=10289.0

The results can not be compared between different sensor sizes / camera systems (eg FF vs APS-C).
FF will generally yield sharper results per pixel than APS-C.  Some APS-C bodies can sometimes be an advantage of FF when focal length limited.

Back to the original topic, Canon's 55-250mm lenses are great, but noticeably not as sharp as the 70-300mm L. Yes, I have used both - and I've kept the awesome 70-300mm L.

If there's an improvement for Canon's 55-250mm lens that would be good. Particularly in the AF specs, eg if it would be a STM: awesome! I feel that lens being a non-USM / non-STM lens is its greatest 'weakness'.

Paul

66
Lenses / Re: Yet another call for travel lens advice
« on: August 14, 2013, 01:28:23 AM »
There's another current thread, somewhat similar requirements to yours. Check it out here - there are a number of people (including myself) who've posted advice.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=16411.0

If you need a more portable telezoom, I can also recommend the 70-300mm L over any of the 70-200mm f/2.8 varieties (as the 70-300mm L is lighter, plus gives you more reach). Obviously you loose the f/2.8 advantage... horses for courses.

If you require the 16-35mm for UWA on your FF, yes - then I can understand you'd like to take that too.

Regards

Paul

67
Lenses / Re: What lenses would you bring for this travel-trip?
« on: August 14, 2013, 12:39:58 AM »
When I go for 2 lenses, it's often the Canon 15-85mm and Canon 70-300mm L.
A killer combination indeed, especially if combined with a 10-22 lens (I know you mentioned other brand you just reminded me of my beloved and stolen 10-22).
But the point is that OP has already a FF camera. I agree with you that in this case the 24-105 is the best all round lens(I do own and like it). I would complement it with the 16-35 and 135 (and leave behind all others) to avoid carrying the 70-200 2.8

Hi tron

Thanks for your post and quote of my earlier post.

Yes, I'm aware that the op has a FF, that's why I stated in my post - in his situation I would go with the 24-105mm L (twice mentioning that as a suitable lens).  It's true I didn't explicitly make the connection / compare my 15-85mm on a 7D / APS-C with the 24-105mm on a 5DmkIII (these being quite similar in usability as a go-to zoom lens).

I have used the Canon 10-22mm, and have own a Sigma 10-20mm since 2008 (my copy has v good sharpness & great contrast). Now I have the Sigma 8-16 which is superior in various ways (less CA, slightly sharper in centre - but more noticeably sharper in the corners).  I have often stated on these CR forums and other places that there is a plethora of great UWA lens choices for APS-C DSLRs these days.  And it's very hard to obtain equivalent full frame lenses (esp zooms) which can match the corner sharpness of the best APS-C UWAs.

I would recommend that fiend, the OP, buys a 24-105mm and goes with for most of his photos. Then uses the 16-35mm when he requires UWA photos.  The 135mm L prime is not a bad addition, but it's not THAT much longer than the tele end of the 24-105mm L, of course the 135mm L prime is a few stops brighter - but having 3 lenses rather than 2 does mean less convenience. 

Cheers,

Paul

68
Lenses / Re: What lenses would you bring for this travel-trip?
« on: August 13, 2013, 09:17:59 PM »
I have travelled lots around the world, and taken thousands upon thousands of photos with my DSLRs in various situations.  From several countries within Europe to SE Asia to many parts of Australia (where I grew up, now live and have returned after sevearl years abroad).

Convenience is important while on the go - I want to enjoy my time of walking, travelling, seeing sites, talking with people and yes, also photographing lots. But I would opt for a light & available body with a zoom in most cases than travel rather than feel like a 'fully laden pack horse' with a host of lenses, including too many primes!

In your case, I'd probably opt to buy a 24-105mm L, and use the 16-35mm time to time too.  The 70-200mm f/2.8 II is a great lens, but very heavy to take along. I can see the new 35mm f/2 IS being a great option as a 'street photography' / low light option too.

I use a 7D as my travel camera, and the Canon 15-85mm is my main camera. So yes, it does depend on each individual's photography style, but I would expect that many photographers would find the 24-105mm on a 5DmkIII the most handy combination (or the newer Canon 24-70mm f/4 IS as another travel option).

When I go for 2 lenses, it's often the Canon 15-85mm and Canon 70-300mm L.  A great, and very portable 2 lens travel solution - providing very high quality images. Though in some situations I'll (also) take and use my Sigma 8-16mm (love that ultrawide!) Of course one can use all 3 lenses as such if that is preferred.

When I was on holiday in Thailand some time ago, I used the 15-85mm about 80% of the time on my 7D.

Best wishes.

69
EOS-M / Re: My EF M 11-22 has arrived
« on: August 11, 2013, 08:17:19 PM »
I really like the looks of what Canon is doing lately, REAL innovations (eg dual pixel AF in 70D, improved AF in EOS M, an IS ultra wide zoom - this 11-12mm).     ;)

The EOS M with 11-22mm would make a great IQ 'relatively small' / 'quite-portable' package for landscape (or architecture).    8)

One faint hope (though I very doubt it will happen  ::) ) is that the 7DmkII will have image stabilisation in the body... that way my Sigma 8-16mm would be even more wonderfully useful... boy I would love THAT lens to be stabilised....!

Thanks for the sample photos and user reviews through this thread, folks.

Regards

Paul

70
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: More body upgrade from 40d questions???
« on: August 08, 2013, 06:54:44 PM »
As to the choice between 100-400mm (current or a vII) OR getting the 70-300mm L, it really depends on how much of your shooting is going to really require 400mm.  Obviously with most birds, the more mm the better - so it seems that a 100-400mm would be better.

BUT one must always consider the other factors, eg the 100-400mm L lens IS significantly heavier and bigger, and it makes a huge difference to me in that I can keep my 70-300mm L in my Lowepro shoulder bag with my 7D and 15-85mm attached (or the 70-300mm L attached to my 7D and the 15-85mm next to it).

If I owned a 100-400mm L, I wouldn't be taking that as often on my walks, drives, travels, etc, just because it's much longer and heavier. And I expect a vII of the 100-400mm L would be quite a bit more expensive (at least $2500 my guess). So having 300mm 'on tap' is better than 85mm!

So many 70-300mm L users love its portability and extremely good IQ.  But it's really up to you what you'll want.  I still think my earlier advice of getting rid of your 70-200mm f/4 nonIS and the 70-300mm nonL and replacing it with the 70-300mm L is a good strategy for you.

Then later down the track consider the Sigma 8-16mm if you really like ultrawide.

Regards

Paul

71
"Back in the good ol' days" I programmed my 350D to use the * (AE lock) button as a BBF.

Then, how glad I was when I moved up to my 7D, as it has a dedicated BBF button.  (And it's in the right spot for me).

It also only took me a few hours of shooting to become totally comfortable with BBF instead of shutter button.  I use my personalised and 'Quick menu' settings to set the shutter button back to AF for when I give my DSLR to friends to use / shoot a photo of me with.

Definitely prefer BBF for any situation now. Landscape (no need for lens to refocus when I've nailed the focus and are changing composition, etc). Same with so many other applications, eg macro, wildlife (including BIF), still life, etc, etc.

Paul

72
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Basic Specs [CR2]
« on: August 08, 2013, 02:53:41 AM »
A number of us posted on a thread some time ago (a few months?) - about the time from R&D on new technology and putting into a new DSLR, and the time between initial announcement, to production and final release.

The most knowledgable people (including some CR contributors who work in electronics / R&D) - said that the process would usually take some years with 'new technology', into something like an DSLR.

So, I believe Canon could have a new sensor in the 7DmkII - as well as 1 or 2 other 'great features' (eg improved AF, eg more pts and dual focus LiveView & improved optical focus).

Hoping for such a camera, sometime in 2014!

Regards

Paul

73
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Basic Specs [CR2]
« on: August 07, 2013, 07:59:23 PM »
I still am not buying the rumor that the 70D sensor is the same as the 7D2 sensor.  That only would have made sense if the 7D2 came out considerably in advance of the 70D, and that ship has sailed.   Why a lower trimline body would get such a vital core IQ component that a far better product will get a year later makes no sense at all.

Ditto. It doesn't seem logical for Canon to release a 7D II that didn't bring with it an entirely new set of technology, sensor included, continuing the trend started with the original 7D (do we start calling it the 7Dc for Classic, now? ;P) I also think that, whatever megapixel count is has...18mp, 20mp, or 24mp...the 7D II sensor really needs to shine. It needs to produce IQ better than the 7D and 70D that preceeded it. It needs to demonstrate Canon is still interested in their customers needs, and still capable of competing in a sensor fabrication environment riddled with far more competition and innovation than ever seen in the past.

(Not to mention the fact that a Canon employee mentioned in a DPR interview that they would be doing something interesting and innovative with the 7D II sensor not long ago.)

Double ditto.  Makes complete sense, and I hope it's true the 7DmkII will be achieving a new / better Canon APS-C sensor.

Additionally, if the AF specs at the top of this thread are accurate, that is impressive.  Holding out for a great new 7DmkII to be king of the APS-C field, as the 7D was in its day.

I still love my 7D.

Paul

74
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Using Custom Dial Settings
« on: August 07, 2013, 01:48:02 AM »
I have a 7D, and I LOVE my 3 custom settings on my dial.   8)

This is how I use them:

C1 = landscape (low ISO, single shot, single point AF, aperture f/10, Av mode).

C2 = macro (Auto ISO, aperture f13, single shot, detailed single point AF, 3 FPS, aperture f/13, Av mode). I turn ISO to low if on a tripod and subject is still.

C3 = BIF / sports action (auto ISO, aperture f/5.6 or lower, continuous AF and fast FPS - depending on lens Tv mode of 1/1600)

Then in practice, I use the Av basically as a C4 part of my dial as a f/8, ISO 400 'general setting' - which I can decrease the Av to e.g f/2.8 for lower DOF.  I nearly always set my camera 'back' to that when I turn it off.

Then at times, I use the Tv at another setting (usually around 1/200 or 1/30 for uses - eg panning). And I use often use M (manual) for flash settings.  ;)

I have really enjoyed using the 3 custom dial functions. I really want Canon to get rid of the Green Square (bleh) and Creative Auto (yuk!).   >:(    So then I hope the 7DmkII has 4 or 5 custom settings on the dial!!  :D

The mirror lock up I have as a setting in my custom MENU (as well as other commonly used settings, eg Exposure Compensation, Format, Flash control).  Mirror lock up for those special settings, eg night scenes, certain macros, etc.

 I do also use the Q button time to time, but prefer to change settings with my eye to the OVF.

Regards,

Paul

75
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Information [CR2]
« on: August 06, 2013, 10:43:18 PM »
We seem to have two groups of people arguing....

One group says that FF has the best image quality.
The other group says that APS-C has the best image quality that they can afford.

Both sides are right.

:D  Great summary.....

... though there is (at least now) a third group of people that say "option C please, both the above are true!"

And you (& I) are in that group, Don!
I was outside last night doing something stupid..... trying to hand-hold a 60D with a 400F5.6 and a 2x teleconverter and shoot the ISS as it passed overhead. Surprisingly enough, it worked and the resulting image is 22 pixels across. I'd have loved to have a 1DX instead of the 60D and an 800F5.6 instead of the 400F5.6, but with what I can afford to spend, that's just not going to happen. Like so many of us, I have to settle for the best I can afford.

Wow, that's actually quite cool - taking a photo of the ISS with quite a focal length!

I've seen the ISS - but not ever got close enough to take a photo (maybe I should stand on a ladder next time)...  Plus my 7D and 70-300mm L doesn't have quite sufficient reach :P

Hmmmm... keeping in theme with this thread, I wonder if depth of field is an issue though as you might have focussed on the distant tip of the ISS, rather than the nearest tip - particularly if you couldn't AFMA on the 60D...   ;D

So- would you care to share your 22 pixels? 

Paul

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 26