April 17, 2014, 07:13:31 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 - AvTvM

Pages: 1 ... 22 23 [24] 25 26 ... 52
346
Lenses / Re: If You Could Have One 1 Lens...
« on: June 24, 2013, 02:10:44 PM »
easy! :-)

APS-C: EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS
"FF": EF 24-70/2.8 L II

347
Canon General / Re: How ready is your camera gear usually?
« on: June 24, 2013, 04:39:28 AM »
1. "Standard scenario" < 1 min
Bag (Thinktank Retrospective 20) is always ready: 7D w/grip, 10-22, 17-55, 70-200/2.8, 580EX II + spare batteries for cam and AA (flash + everything else), spare CF cards, filters (circ pol, ND 8x, ND grad 0.6, 0.9), flashlight, laser pointer, business cards, pen, 1 transparent plastic bag ...
then just grab bag, wallet, mobile phone, car keys, house keys - and out the door!
2. Additional Tripod? Stored close to bag <1 min
3. Special task, different lenses needed? stored next to bag in hard case -> quick repack < 5 min.
4. Access on foot longer than 30 min + tripod required? -> re-pack everything into backpack (Kata 3N1) < 10 min.
:-)

348
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Weak LP-e6 battery
« on: June 22, 2013, 09:00:07 AM »
I suspect these batteries would benefit from calibration.  Apple has recommended periodic calibration of the LiPo batteries in their laptops (charge to full, drain to empty, recharge to full).  The LC-E4N charger can run a calibration cycle, and the 1D X tells you when one is needed.

Possibly. But ... original Canon LC-E6 charger for LP-E6 does not offer anything other than "regular charging" cycle. It can neither discharge nor calibrate.

I don't know whether third-party chargers with calibration cycle capability are available. Based on a bad experience with a defect third-party battery for Canon (NB-2LH ripoff) I will personally not again experiment with third-party batteries or chargers for Canon cameras.

My 3 LP-E6 batteries are all down to only 1 "health bullet" after 4 years of use in my 7D [somewhat more than 30k klicks] although I mainly used 2 of them in the battery grip and the third one only as spare, rarely used. But so far all 3 work OK.

349
EOS Bodies / Re: Beginning of a new Canon starting with 7D Mk II?
« on: June 22, 2013, 08:42:09 AM »
The sensor may not be strongest feature of Canon's line up, but is it the limiting factor?  As long as they can improve performance by tweaking other parts of the camera, they may not work on a new sensor.  Once they do, it will trickle their line up from 7D II (possible 1Dx2) down to 70/80D, and eventually to the rebel.
I am sure that they want to keep as much common within the crop body lineup to maximum efficiencies.  Differences in the bodies will be based upon electronics, not the sensor

No!
* Canon's age-old APS-C sensor design IS a huge limiting factor
* Canon's APS-C sensors suck big time by today's standards [resolution and DR] 
* Canon absolutely needs to bring their APS-C cameras AT LEAST to the level that Nikon is offering for a yera already (D7100)
* Canon will not get away this time by merely  improving other features - as necessary and welcome those might be in their own right.

350
Lighting / Re: Radio Triggering-- 600ex-rt + 430exii + ??????
« on: June 16, 2013, 05:58:14 AM »
Wow, thank you all for your comments. After reading all of your comments and insight, I think it would probably be the most simple to sell the 430 and buy another 600.

You might want ot considerb alson buying a ST-E3 radio flash trigger. 1x ST-E3 and 2x 600EX will give you a  system with 2 off-camera flashes, without any need for 3rd party stuff.

I wish Canon would come out with a 450ex-rt or something of that manner and it actually would not surprise me if they did.

Yes, it is a shame Canon is still not offering a less expensive radio-capable flash [450EX-RT] and no cheap little radio receivers for our existing 580 II and 430 II flashes. As long as Canon does not offfer a true radio-flash system [600EX-RT, 450EX-RT, ST-E3-RT and RT-receiver] that allows seamless integration of my fairly new and not inexpensive Speedlites, I will hold off buying.   

351
Lighting / Re: Radio Triggering-- 600ex-rt + 430exii + ??????
« on: June 15, 2013, 06:20:41 AM »
...
I have the 600ex-rt and 430ex ii and was wanting to begin using them for radio triggering. I shoot a 5Dii and 60D.
BEST option: something fairly inexpensive, and capable of transmitting ~80ft
... Any thoughts?

yes.
1. short-term: sell 430EX II and get another 600RT AND an ST-E3 in addition. Unfortunately NOT inexpensive, but the only solution that will give you a coherent radio-wireless ETTL flash system with 100 feet reliable range AND without any third-party crap involved.

2. To get FULL functionality out of the wireless flash system inluding HSS and without 1-stop hit on max. X-Sync time, will require replacing both camera bodies (5D II and 60D) with 2012+ Canon cameras (1D-X, 5D III, 6D, 700D, 100D ?, EOS-M].

3. Unfortunately even then wireless 2nd curtain sync or control over the flash-zoom-reflector setting will NOT be possible.

4. Unfortuantely all other solutions include third party gear and do not deliver the entire bundle of radio-wireless functionality plus 100% reliability either.   

5. Please don't shoot me. I am just the messenger of bad news. Blame Canon.

352
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS
« on: June 13, 2013, 12:31:45 PM »
The inference is that a push-pull lens is not 'properly sealed.'  However, for the similarly-designed push-pull 28-300L, Canon states that the, "Tight seal structure ensures excellent dust-proof and drip-proof performance."   So there's no reason we couldn't get a properly sealed push-pull 100-400L...


Don't know how difficult it may be to weatherseal push-pull zooms. Not interested in those.

What I am observing however, is that Canon is withholding wheathersealing in anything other than expensive Luxury products. In reality, wheathersealing of DSLRs and lenses is really simple and does not cause significant additional R&D and production costs. As demonstrated by Pentax over and over again. All it takes is a few O-rings in the right places:

That's what cheap kit-lenses look like at Pentax these days:


http://www.photoscala.de/Artikel/Pentax-K-50-Wetterfest-und-robust [and sorry, got it in German only at the moment]

353
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS
« on: June 13, 2013, 12:03:47 PM »
at least in the patents one can see by how much Canon (and other lens makers) screw us by providing the focal lengths written on the lens!  >:(

no need to waste research on yet another boring, slow, consumer 70-300.
Just get on with that 100-400 II. 

354
Lenses / Re: 70-200 Choices
« on: June 12, 2013, 01:25:59 PM »
At risk of nesting quotes...
+3 on the 135L - also works great with the 1.4x extender

Yes, it is a great lens. But it might be too long in the studio and it may not be flexible enough when covering vraious concerts at various venues ... and putting on and off a teleconverter is definitely no option in a concert situation. ;-)

355
Lenses / Re: Sell non L primes to get 24-70LII
« on: June 12, 2013, 11:59:55 AM »
I have a a 24-105L a 28mm/1.8 50mm/1.4 and 85mm/1.8
I'm thinking of selling the 24-105, the 28mm and the 85 mm and just buy the 24-702.8II and have the 50 left
...

Yes. I would do the same.

356
Lenses / Re: 70-200 Choices
« on: June 12, 2013, 11:56:05 AM »
Second hand 70-200 F2.8 L IS will be at that price as well, you can find a lot of those from everyone who didi the upgeade to the version II.

+1
I would definitely prefer a used, but well-kept 70-200 IS over a brand-new 70-200/2.8 non-IS. At concerts IS really is an asset.

357
EOS Bodies / Re: Beginning of a new Canon starting with 7D Mk II?
« on: June 12, 2013, 06:01:50 AM »
How much more technolgy should cameras have before they become "boring" because they do too much for you?

well, Canon can still go a VERY long ways from my current 7D until I would find more technology and capabilities "boring". Most of it is even invented already and would be dirt cheap to implement. :-)

e.g.
* twice the resolution AND 3 stops better DR at all ISOs - especially at ISO 100 and up to 25600 [=Nikon D800]
* Hybrid AF with contrast and phase-AF on image sensor ... working 10x faster and more accurate, especially in tracking moving objects 
* WIFI and GPS built in
* EX-RT radio wireless flash commander built in
* working Eye Control AF v2.0
* in-body IS working in tandem with IS lenses for a total effect of 5 or 6 stops stabilization
* invisible IR-laser AF illuminator built in
* fully functional and customizable Auto-ISO [Nikon D800]
* 2nd curtain sync for speedlights in wireless ETTL mode [Nikon]
* better batteries lasting 1000 shots ... between  -10 and +40 degrees celsius
* mirrorless FF body the size of a pack of cigarettes [Sony RX-1] with lens mount and EVF
* "Retina"-EVF [350 dpi +]
* a series of tiny hi-IQ, fixed focal pancake lenses between 20/2.8 and 75/2.8 IS [like 40/2.8]
* EF-S or EF-M 50-150mm f/2.8 IS in black and half the size of a 70-200/2.8 II :-)
* Canon cameras without any video capability - "for stills only" at a significant price discount -25% 
* ...

I could easily go on for 2 full pages ... without getting bored ... ever!

358
That's silly. I am not a big Adobe fan, but upgrade to LH 5 buys much quicker environment (LH4 simply sucks in comparison to LH3 for speed) ...

pure speculation!Or do you have hard data showing LR 5 really is faster than LR 4?
I do not expect LR 5 to be faster when e.g. batch exporting a stack of 300 pics from RAW to jpg.

All in all LR 5 is a very minor update. No really new functions. Everything can be done in LR 4 just as well. Possibly some time savings for easy-to-fix standard tasks - e.g. upright tool.
 
Improved slide show and photo books ... well a few may like that. I have not once used those 2 modules in 4+ years of LR usage.

359
I purchased a student/teacher license of LR 4 in March 2012 @  Euro 75,- and also have PS CS5 (student/teacher) but don't use PS at all. Looking at the new features in LR 5 I do not see anything that makes me update, not even at academic license prices, so I'll hold-off for now. Depending on whether or not there will be a perpetual license for LR 6 or only the subscription model, and whether or not better alternative products will be available by then, I will decide again a year from now.

So skipping a minor upgrade and using LR 4 for 48+ months means a monthly cost of Euro 1,56 which I deem adequate and acceptable given the functionality of LR 4 and my usage of it. :-)

360
EOS-M / Re: FF EOS-M?
« on: June 09, 2013, 10:17:50 AM »
Therefor for serious use I postulate some things which have to be happened until a Replacement of the mirror makes seriously sense:

- adequate electronic wysiwig-viewfinder
- permanent autofokus in the quality of the actual systems, incl. sensitivity under low ligh
- compatibility-bridge to the existing system
- new body-desing to bring serious advantage to the user.

On all four points above ... micro-4/3 is check, check, check & check. Mirrorless technology is here, now and fully usable. Conclusion? Canon is falling behind, as is Nikon, with only their lenses keeping the (obsolete) cameras afloat.

+1  exactly!


re. size/weight advantage of mirrorles vs. DSLRs: yes, tele-lenses and tele-zooms like a 70-200/2.8 L IS will be the same size and weight and their use will almost nullify the size/weight advantage of a compact FF-mirrorless.
BUT unless totally specialized in photography of certain sports or wildlife, most photographers will not use tele-zooms or long tele lenses ALL the time on their cameras. Actually, many photographers will never use such lenses. Probably 99% of all images are captured using focal lengths between 24 and 100 mm. These lenses especially wide-angle for a FF camera body with a short flange back distance could be considerably smaller than current EF-lenses. Point in case is the Leica M-system and its "surprisingly small" (fixed focal) lenses. And contrary to common belief, adding a ring-USM AF drive would mean very little additional weight and bulk, since movable lens mass is quite small in these lenses. IS would ideally be in-body IS. Viewfinder image on an EVF can be stabilized by purely electronic means. Using a few clever algorithms and ample procesing power, legacy EF (tele) lenses with IS would work in tandem with the in-body IS to give up to 5 or even 6 stops total stabilization effect. 

That would finally yield a really small and light kit for the many occasions when we want to go small and light without sacrificing anything in performance, speed, ergonomcis and IQ compared to a good but big DSLR. The only limitation would be available tele-range in native-mount. Only when we need more tele range will we then pack and carry a simple and cheap-to-build extension tube adapter without optical elements plus any existing EF-lens (tele/zooms). But only then. Not all the time.

This is what I am waiting for. My current 7D plus EF-S and EF lenses is my last DSLR-based system. I want and will "upgrade" as soon as I get a Canon EOS 5D-M with a mirrorless body only slightly larger than a Sony RX-1 - to accomodate a built in Hi-End EVF. With a new sensor with ultra-fast in-plane phase-AF of course and an image processing pipeline that at least fully matches the current Nikon D800. Along with in-body IS and built-in WiFi, GPS and EX-RT wireless flash radio commander ... these radio components can be had ridiculously cheap and small. Price? Clearly below a 5D III, since it is so much cheaper to make a mirrorlss body without all the hi-precision mechanical cr*p in it - mirror, sub-mirrors, large and expensive glass prism etc. And, Canon - please aslo do away with that mechanical shutter and start using fully electronic shutters with X-sync all the way to 1/8000s.

And put an "as large as possible" fully FF-capable lens mount up front. Along with a number of "as small as possible" FF pancake AF-lenses (think of the EF 40/2.8) between 20mm and 85mm [20/2.8, 35/1.8, 50/1.4, 85/1.8). Make them AF-only. Forget about those manul focus rings and gears. I don't ever use 'em. That way, it will be smaller, lighter,  easier to fully weather-seal and lower cost. And for conven ience two hi-quality, ultra-compact "folding" zooms: a tiny 17-50/4 kit zoom and a 50-150/2.8 even smaller than the former Sigma 50-150/2.8. And the EF-adapter. That's all I need. :-)

Pages: 1 ... 22 23 [24] 25 26 ... 52