Messages

526

Lenses / Re: Lesson learnt on flare.

« on: May 07, 2012, 01:41:24 PM »

I think your photos look pretty badass. Would they be better without flare? Maybe, but who knows.

If they were in video form you'd have cinematographers drooling...that's perfect video flare. Personally I like the flare, adds a nice element to the grittiness.

he answer is to just spell it differently - your pictures don't have "flare," they have "flair." ;-)

ha, nice.

527

Lenses / Re: Canon Refurb Store ... Not Such A Good Deal

« on: May 07, 2012, 01:38:47 PM »

Well, the refurb store is great when they have coupons or if you are doing Canon Loyalty. Within the last month, they have had 15% off and 20% off deals on all those lenses, which has made some of them really great prices. And Canon Loyalty knocks 20% off all the camera bodies, and now you can apparently also get 20% off a lens if you are buying a body.

It's not usually a good deal if you need the lens instantly, but, if you're deal hunting, they are great. Just got my 430ex for <$200 shipped a few weeks back, when its $250+ everywhere else

528

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Shutter speed during video???

« on: May 07, 2012, 09:00:59 AM »

2. I'd probably start with my 135 lense, and aim for f4.5-5.6. You really want the ISO to be below 1600 for the best look, but i'd go as high as 5200 if I planned on down scaling to 720p. If you find that you can get a lower ISO than 1600, I'd close down to f8 first, then drop ISO as far as it will go. [/url]

I agree with most of this except the ISO part. In video, you want to be working in multiples of 160, as that is the native ISO of the video DSLR's from Canon. So, ISO 160/320/640/800/1600 are your go-to's, and skip every other option. ISO 800 has less noise than ISO 125, for example.

http://www.photographybay.com/2011/05/01/proof-that-multiples-of-iso-160-work-best-on-canon-hdslrs/

If you need to go lower to get a shot, it seems that all the ones below 1600 are just noisy in general, so go with whatever works. But, for the 100-1000 range, stick in the multiples of 160 for best results.

529

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: The 5D Mark III Fix

« on: May 02, 2012, 02:00:01 PM »

My Mark 5DIII is in the mail on the way and you are telling me that I also get two FREE pieces of tape with IT!!! I so have to get ready for this.

They've actually raised the price to 3499.99 to offset the price

 

And what about the long term as the glue from the tape begins to dissolve and to spill at the electronics? The repair is short-term, but in the the warranty period should not be anything wrong with that, and after the warranty is no longer a problem of the manufacturer, but a buyer. 

You do realize that this tape already exists in other parts of your camera. And that the computer or phone you typed this message on also has a similar type of tape. Especially if it's a Mac. God help you if you try to take apart the newer ones, they have tape everywhere. Oh, and your house/apt. That thing has tape ALL over its wires.

LensRental took about a D7000. Multiple times they mention tape, including parts where the tape shields things

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/04/d7000-dissection

530

EOS Bodies / Re: Evolution towards video - away from stills?

« on: May 01, 2012, 02:07:03 PM »

Are you serious?  I feel like it's the exact opposite with the 5DIII, the video was only slightly improved but the stills side was improved tremendously.  It really is an amazing still camera, world's better than the 5DII.

I was gonna say the same. The "video improvements" on the 5DIII are basically you have a choice of codecs, and some better low-light handling, but, that is also a stills improvement anyway. On the stills side, you got better everything; AF, fps, low-light, the list goes on. Image quality isn't just a function of the sensor. The camera and lens can be as sharp as they want, with a crap AF system, your IQ sucks cause they are blurry. Likewise with the bump in fps.

And until we actually see the T4i, it's hard to say its just a "video update". Especially since the T3i was basically just a screen update compared to the T1i to T2i shift.

531

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Rebel T4i [CR2]

« on: May 01, 2012, 11:18:41 AM »

So, did you read the rest of my post?  I asked the same question you did - if canon has to take the rebels upscale to distance themselves from the mirrorless - what does that do to the xxD line?  7D is already a mini 1Dmkiv for less than $2k.

I did, but I didn't want to leave too long a post. I think that's why we are hearing that the 7D might not get updated. In a way, Canon spread themselves too thin...too many options that are hard to differentiate and upgrade, especially with other companies pushing them. Also, the 7D is so reasonably priced for what they could have charged. I think the 70D will go back to what the 50D was, a nice body with some weather sealing, it'll have the FPS a sports guy needs, MFA, etc. And then maybe down the line Canon will push a 7Dii at a higher price point (think $2000+) with Dual Digic V and 8-10fps. But, the 5DIII can handle sports, it just lacks the APS-C reach for those lenses. Not sure how they'll handle that

What's made Canon so smart these last 6-8 months is how many people they got to buy T2i and T3i's because of sales, while Nikon sat on their defined retailer pricing. Means they can make a lot of money off lenses in the future. And right now, they are well ahead of the mirror less guys in the lens department. I know I didn't buy the A77 or NEX's (despite needing a small, light body) because my lens options were maybe 1/10th what they were for Canon.

532

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Rebel T4i [CR2]

« on: May 01, 2012, 10:52:02 AM »

Yes, but the t4i has to be updated compared to the t3i, else why call it the next generation of rebel?  The t3i has a 3.7 fps burst rate.  Is it that big of a leap to give it 6fps? It would best the new Nikon offering.

Yes, that would be a huge increase, nearly doubling the fps. It would best the 60D, the 5dII, and put itself in line with the 5dIII or 7D...which are pro bodies that sell at more than double the price.

Remember, the Ti cameras are entry level; the point of crippling them a little is that people who need features (faster fps, lower iso, weather sealing, great AF) upgrade to a line that has them. If they make the T4i  better than the 60D and give it features that make it even close to the 7D, they'll have destroyed any upgrade path in the APS-C line. Who would buy a 60D if the T4i had a new sensor, did 6fps and had 19pt AF? Or a 7D for that matter? And what they'd have to upgrade the 60D/7D to to get sales back would be insane; they'd basically be an APS-C version of the 1DX, and for <$2000? Not happening.

I'd say new sensor, Digic V, little better fps (4-4.5), maybe slightly better AF system, and they'll use a variation of the video AF that Nikon has used for a while. And nobody who wants good video will use it, because the Nikon AF for video is terrible; similar to pressing the shutter button and letting it hunt. Their last update was a flip out screen, I'm not expecting miracles.

533

EOS Bodies / Re: More Full Frame Cameras on the 2012 Horizon? [CR2/CR1]

« on: April 30, 2012, 03:42:20 PM »

No video  (i personally never take video) 

So put this camera where the 7D use to be at 1500, now when the 5DX comes slot that at like 2500 and then drop the 5D2 completely or price ijt at like 1200

No video instantly kills the market for that camera, and makes it impossible for Canon to sell it cheap. You want them to use a sensor they've already made (keeps cost down), in which case, video costs them nothing to add in. I can put video on a 50D, which wasn't sold with it, so it's clearly just a firmware/software addition. There may be a few hardware pieces to make it look better, but ultimately, it's cheap if not free. But, having it means way more people buy the camera, which means the cost of manufacturing is cheaper for Canon (offsets R&D, etc over many more consumers). Taking it out would definitely not offset the sales loss.

I agree that the body would have to be 60D like, the AF would probably be the 7D one, but I don't think they can put 6FPS in it, even if the camera can handle it. It'd have to be the same FPS as the 5dII. Even then, it probably still retails for $2k. I'd basically expect a 5dII with very slight improvements that allow them to be manufactured cheaper.

534

Lenses / Re: Am I equipped to rip?

« on: April 30, 2012, 12:44:54 PM »

Personally I'd go for the 24-105 f/4L IS USM over the 24-70 unless you really need the f/2.8 for the DoF. Even in a dim, dark environment with the 5d3 you can get usable ISO 6400+ which will compensate for the stop or so you lose in the f-stop, and the IS can help with hand-holding at the slower shutter speeds you might have to use.

Also, if he's doing video work and general photography (I read that as travel, etc), the 24-105 is going to be better due to the reach and the IS. The IS is a big help for hand-held video, and the extra reach is nice.

And if you have a 5Diii, worrying about low-light isn't as big an issue.

535

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: What do you recommend? 7D 60D T3i T4i

« on: April 30, 2012, 11:05:52 AM »

This puts the sale price near the middle of the standard pricing of the 60D and the 7D. Is this a too good to pass up price drop? Thoughts/suggestions?

I made this same choice a while back and ended up with the 60D. Unless you need the enhanced stills side of things (8fps, better AF, weather sealing), you're throwing away money on a 7D that could have gone to lenses. And I can tell you that, having used the T3i and 60D, the 60D is way easier to hand-hold when you need it. Also, if you end up putting a lens with any weight on the front, the 60D feels more balanced.

You can get a 60D body for $640+tax refurbished through the Canon Loyalty Program. Last I had heard, they were also giving the same 20% discount on refurb lenses when purchased at the same time as the body. They've been out of stock on most lenses, but that is an option.

Basically, you free up $4-500 for lenses instead of getting the 7D body that has the same tech for your purposes. Also, the 7D doesn't have Magic Lantern, and things like focus peaking, etc become incredibly important for video. The T3i doesn't do ISO intervals of 160 natively like the 60D, but, you can put ML on the T3i and get that.

Your choice should basically be between the T3i and 60D, and then its just a matter of whether it will be on a tripod or rig all the time, or if you might do some hand-held stuff. I'd spend the extra few hundred dollars on a 5dII ($1500 through Canon Loyalty) and get the low-light ability before I'd buy a 7D in your case. Especially if you are doing indoor work with the theater.

536

Lenses / Re: Canon Rebates

« on: April 30, 2012, 10:31:10 AM »

I placed an order with Adorama this morning for a body and a lens that should've doubled my lens rebate. Any idea why this is not taking into effect on their site? I called up Adorama and the CSR didn't hear about the double rebate program. Any suggestions?

They have a specific order style for it "Buy Together and Save", make sure you are purchasing it through that link. It should be on the page of all the bodies, with blue text and some interlocking squares as the icon. Maybe if you mention that promo name it'll click for the rep.

Seems to be doubling the rebate when I look at the links for the 5dII

537

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 50mm f1.4

« on: April 26, 2012, 02:49:30 PM »

Which begs the question, are the new 24 and 28 IS lenses for video specifically? I don't see them being useful for stills...

Yes, that's pretty much the only excuse for making them so slow. Also, 50mm is one of the primes that is in a normal cinematographers bag, so, I'd be you'll see a 50mm IS prime at some point. 35mm and 85mm would be the others.

538

Lenses / Re: Canon Lens prices in the US

« on: April 26, 2012, 02:36:49 PM »

More likely the rebates that just ended in the last month or two.

Plus the holiday sales in general are gone. It's a historical trend really. Lenses go lower in price before the holidays, and right before summer. In between those times, they rise back up towards retail so the "sales" seem better each time. You'll see this happen with the new rebates probably...lenses will be cheaper come June.

http://www.canonpricewatch.com/product/00592/Canon-EF-50mm-f1.2L-price.html

539

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Tamron introduces 24-70mm f/2.8 with IS

« on: April 26, 2012, 01:32:52 PM »

Hmm... then what about the 17-55 f/2.8?  It is even wider than the 24-70 (not considering the crop factor, of course), and has IS! 

Would servicing the full frame sensor with IS make that much of a difference?

Yes and no. The 17-55 only has to cover the EF-s image circle, thus it can be smaller. Think of the lenses that micro 4/3rd's companies make; they are tiny. That's because they fit an even smaller sensor and image circle. They probably could have made the 17-55 smaller by a decent amount.

But, I'm also not sure I fully buy the "IS makes a lens larger". In the 70-200 f/4 case, those lenses are the exact same size, and only about 50g difference with and without IS. Same is basically true of the 70-200 f/2.8's. Also, the 24-105 is about the same size as the 17-55. So, I'm not so sure that IS on the 24-70 would amount to a huge size or weight difference. It would probably kill a lot of 24-105 sales though...

540

Lenses / Re: 70-200/70-300

« on: April 25, 2012, 02:08:15 PM »

There's no tripod collar with the 70-200 f4 either, but it's not so heavy that it's a must have. The 70-200 f4 IS very sharp, very light and compact, has a constant apperture etc. I've heard the 70-300 L is nice also, but I have only used the 70-200, which is a super piece of glass. Cheaper to buy new and much easier to find used.

Yep, the 70-200 is fairly easy to find used, as a lot of people upgraded to the newest 70-200 f/2.8.

The Digital Picture Comparison shows the 70-200 as being slightly sharper across the frame, but it's subtle and probably not enough to be visible in actual pictures. And, you get 200mm f/4 instead of 200mm f/5. But, if you think you'll use 200-300 a lot, then the 70-300L might be more worth it.

You can use 1.4 teleconverters on the 70-200 f4 but not the 70-300L.

Well, a 1.4 teleconverter basically turns it into the 70-300L; you get 280mm f/5.6. So, I'd say that's ultimately a moot point, especially because I'd rather not use a TC if possible