Messages

436

EOS Bodies / Re: Here's the Canon EOS Rebel T4i/650D

« on: June 06, 2012, 10:07:33 PM »

3. Function dial has a different texture--no lock, great!

Wouldn't be so sure about that...it just might be more recessed than the previous locks, and thus harder to see. Seeing as they've included the lock in everything lately, I'd imagine it will still be there.

437

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 Pancake

« on: June 06, 2012, 09:58:51 PM »

Yep I'm inclined to agree on the 30mm argument, but not EF-S. Could be the 40mm is the first of a small pancake parlour of Canon glass.

PW

Well EF-S would be the only way a 30mm f/2.8 gets released. Seeing as it would be crazy for Canon to release an EF 30mm f/2.8 non-IS lens for <$200 just weeks after releasing an EF 28mm f/2.8 IS for like $7-800. Nobody would buy the IS version.

438

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: apple to make digital point and shoot cameras

« on: June 06, 2012, 05:23:43 PM »

It'd be weird to see Apple entering a market they are subsequently squashing by producing P+S level results with their iPhones. Why have two devices when one does 95% of what you need. I could see them producing an upper level iPhone, where the iPhone 5 does normal stuff, and the slightly larger iPhone 5+ (or 5X if we want to take the Canon Rumors route) that allows you to operate it like a P+S as well.

And the iPhones already get rid of the concepts of exposure; there's no Av or Tv mode, you press a button and a picture happens. No modes, no settings, just a picture. I think they'd do very well at the low end of the market, pretty much destroy the <$200 P+S's, as they have with mp3 players.

439

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 40 f/2.8 Pancake

« on: June 06, 2012, 04:41:33 PM »

hopefuly a mirrorless FF which accepts EF-S lenses.

You do realize that's basically impossible. EF-S has an image circle that fits a crop sensor, on a full-frame sensor, you'd end up with a vignette covering the difference between a crop and full-frame sensor.

Now, you could probably technically use some of the lenses at certain focal lengths (just like I can use my Tokina 11-16 at 16mm on full-frame), but the image quality would suffer, and you can't base an entire system around the notion of hacking together solutions.

Some examples
http://shphotography.wordpress.com/2008/07/18/5d-sigma-30mm-14/
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/tutorials/efs-10d.html

440

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 40 f/2.8 Pancake

« on: June 06, 2012, 04:36:16 PM »

Starting to look like f2.8 is going to be the standard minimum for non L primes.... 

This could mean two things, Canon pushing people into buying top end primes for anything less, or alternatively realignment of the ranges to have f2.8 "cheap" primes, entry level L primes and moving the current top range primes up the price list.

Based on the 24mm and 28mm, I'd go ahead and say the former...neither are "cheap" primes or anywhere close to it. That said, if f/2.8 is the standard for their primes, they'll stop selling primes. If the 17-55 does f/2.8 and IS, there are limited reasons to get the 24mm adn 28mm primes. And if you need low-light for cheap, you'd get the 50mm f/1.8 over the 40mm f/2.8.

441

Lenses / Re: Which lens lineup for 5D3?

« on: June 06, 2012, 04:31:48 PM »

Tamron 70-300 VC

I think you'd be really disappointed with this lens on full-frame, especially one that has an awesome AF system. Its slow to focus and while the IQ is nice for crop (especially at its price), I don't think it'll hold up to full-frame. If you do go Set #1, I'd either trade the 70-300VC for the 70-200 F/4, and you can decide whether your macro lens or 70-200 lens needs IS more.

Your set 2 basically trades a wide portrait lens and IS for your macro for an awesome tele zoom...if you shoot more macro or wide portraits than you would portraits/action/etc, then it might not be worth the trade. Otherwise, Set 2 covers pretty much all of your needs.

442

Lenses / Re: 01 error for lens on 5d3

« on: June 06, 2012, 04:21:02 PM »

My other lenses don't have a problem though.

Any advice?

Send it back. You paid a lot for a new lens for it to work...it should work. Since you've ruled out most of the possibilities, its probably defective. I wouldn't risk screwing up your return by using the eraser method, etc on brand new contacts.

443

EOS Bodies / Re: New Full Frame Camera in Testing [CR1]

« on: June 06, 2012, 04:16:39 PM »

Yet, I think there's little doubt there is significantly more demand for the D800 models versus the 5d3.

I see this posted a lot, and yet I've never seen anything confirming it. I've seen posts that retailers are saying they are selling 10:1 on the 5dIII v D800, and vice versa. I think both nailed their target audiences well, its just a matter of which audience is bigger (studio/landscape v wedding/street/event)

That said, it'd be cool to see a high MP camera from Canon in case I ever want to rent one. Likewise, I'd really like to see what a lower MP D800 would be like. If the sensor is that great at high MP, maybe it could do some magical things for low-light at 20-22MP

444

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 40 f/2.8 Pancake

« on: June 06, 2012, 04:02:40 PM »

If there's an AF/MF switch, I assume there's a motor

Yep, that's what I was thinking.

And I still don't know what to make of this. If it means the mirrorless will have EF mount, awesome. If not, then its just a strange lens. Too slow to be worth it over the 50mm f/1.8 (and probably more expensive)...not much cheaper than a 35mm f/2...no IS to make it like the 24 and 28mm lenses. It doesn't really fit obviously within any strategy area. Just seems like they wanted a pancake lens for the sake of having one.

445

EOS Bodies / Re: where to sell canon gear, I'm moving to Nikon

« on: June 06, 2012, 03:40:17 PM »

+1 FredMiranda.com

Yep. Costs you $10 to be able to do it, but with all the gear you want to move that's nothing. Its basically Ebays listing fees. You might sell them higher on Ebay, but by the time the fees come out, I doubt you get more.

You'll get the most money on Craigslist, but, you'll also get a ton of scam emails and probably have a few people flake out on you. I'd post it on FM and Craigslist and go with whichever nets you more. Has always worked for me

446

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4X [CR2]

« on: June 06, 2012, 12:32:33 PM »

Unfortunately that's too expensive for most of us ! that's why a new version of the 100-400 L IS is absolutely needed

Yeah, although that too will probably be $2000-2500 if the price increases are consistent.

447

Landscape / Re: Post Your Best Landscapes

« on: June 06, 2012, 09:51:53 AM »

Capitol Reef National Park scenic drive.

Nice, really love the road leading your eye all the way back

Here are a few of my recent ones

448

Landscape / Re: Sunset @ Steveston Richmond BC

« on: June 06, 2012, 09:45:15 AM »

Nice shot, the lines working to the middle with the boats are nice.

Only thing I might do differently (and this would depend entirely on how the boats were arranged) would be to put the horizon higher in the frame, closer to the rule of thirds line. That would let the reflections occupy the lower half, and you'd have less blank space at the top...but, it would also probably cut off the one boat, which might not work. It would depend on the boats and where you could set up the camera, which isn't always as convenient on a dock.

449

Lenses / Re: What is you wedding kit?

« on: June 05, 2012, 04:54:14 PM »

24-70
70-200 f2.8 IS II

Yep, that's about as common a kit as you'll see for a wedding photog, simply for its ability to cover a huge focal range and handle low-light relatively well (especially now with the 5dIII). And then they'll have their preferred portrait lens (50, 85, etc) to when they have time to change a lens and pose a shot.

450

EOS Bodies / Re: *UPDATE* Canon Rebel T4i/650D on June 8 [CR3]

« on: June 05, 2012, 02:04:12 PM »

Your welcome. My first practical experience with the issue was taking waterfall shots on a 50D at F22 with a polarizer to get a slow enough shutter speed to blur the water. I couldn't figure out why since I was using a tripod and shutter release they weren't sharp.

Yeah, I've encountered the same thing, though I often find I am happy with f/16 or f/22 over an ND filter and the resulting vignetting