Messages

1

Third Party Manufacturers / DRe: Looking for an Mirorrless or Compact for climbing/high altitude hiking

« on: May 01, 2013, 05:39:46 PM »

You might find this interesting reading ...
http://lindsaydobsonphotography.com/pets/choosing-the-right-kit-for-nature-photography/

I don't know the photographer and I have almost no experience with the Olympus OM-D but you might want to look into it for your needs.  The  OM-D is weather sealed, and I hear the Olympus 9-18 and Olympus 12 prime are good for wide angle. Not sure if those lenses are weather sealed though, and not sure about fitting within your budget.

2

Lenses / Re: A Walk Around Lens for a Trip

« on: May 01, 2013, 08:01:44 AM »

As a 7D user (and 40D before that), I have to agree with the people who've already cautioned against the 24-105. I'm sure it's an excellent lens, but the question is whether it would be a good focal length range for you on APS-C.  For years I had a 24-70 2.8 (Sigma in my case) because I thought I'd move to a 35mm sensor camera "one day".  I was pretty happy with the IQ (and Canon was too expensive for me), but I just didn't find it a very useful focal length range.  I often wanted either wider or longer, so I carried a 10-20 f3.5 and 70-200 f4 as well ... and I found myself using the 24-70 less and less.  And I also found myself often using the 10-20 but wishing it was a little bit longer, or using the 24-70 and wishing it could go wider ... or doing a LOT of lens swapping.

Anyway, eventually I bought a second hand 17-55 f2.8 IS and haven't looked back.  For travel now, I usually choose one/some/all of 17-55 f2.8, 70-200 f/4 and 28 f1.8 depending on exactly how light I want to travel, what I expect to be shooting and the conditions I expect to be shooting in (wish Canon would make a weather sealed 17-55, or even better would be a weather sealed 15-55+ f2.8 IS!).  Btw I was underwhelmed with the 28 f1.8 at first but I have to say it's growing on me.

In your case, I think the first question is whether you'll be happy with the IQ of a super-zoom and can live with the relatively small max aperture.  My brother has 18-200 and it's not bad in good light and excluding the ends of its range.  If you want better IQ, the 15-85 is worth considering (my sister really likes hers) but there is still the question of whether the max aperture is enough.  The 17-55 is obviously an option although the range is less, or perhaps the 15-85 plus something like the 28 f1.8 for the evenings/indoors (and when you want a more compact kit eg wandering around the streets)?  Or your Tokina, a 28 f1.8 (or similar, maybe 35 f2?), plus something longer?  For something longer, the 55-250 must be worth a considering if you're looking for small and light (I haven't use one so can't really comment). Or there is always the 70-200 f/4 - at least it's smaller than your 2.8!

Of course, so much depends on what you want to shoot / what focal lengths are important to you.  If 24-105 covers the focal lengths you want to use, I'm sure you'd be happy with it.

Lastly, the mirrorless idea (OM-D maybe??) has got to be worth thinking about. I'm sticking with my 7D for now (largely because I like to shoot action sometimes) but the size/weight of the mirrorless stuff makes it tempting!

Good luck with whatever you decide!

3

EOS Bodies / Re: Dilemma: Need new body by May 1st (7d alternatives/successor timeline?)

« on: April 07, 2013, 07:46:21 PM »

Let me throw in an idea from left field - how about selling your current gear and getting ... an Olympus OM-D E-M5 and two or three lenses?

Now, I know this is a Canon forum but before anyone says I'm trolling, hear me out.

Firstly, I've used Canon DSLRs for the last 10 years and I currently have a 7D and a collection of lenses.  I think Canon make great cameras, but I'm trying to focus on they type of photography the OP wants to do and his budget.

Now, from what I've read (and the little time I've spent playing with a friend's OM-D), here's what you'd get with the OM-D
- much smaller and lighter - likely to be a real advantage if you're out of the house and already weighed down carrying all the things necessary for looking after a baby
- probably a bit cheaper, taking into account lens prices
- good build quality with weather sealing - don't think you'd be losing anything there
- an AF system which seems to be pretty good except for tracking fast moving subjects - which sounds like the way the 6D's AF system (and the 60D's too really) is often described - I suspect quite good enough at least until the child is old enough to be running around playing sports
- IQ which may be a lot closer to that of a 7D - and perhaps even a 6D/5DIII(?) - than many of us who are invested in the Canon system would like to admit!

An OM-D plus Panasonic 25 1.4 and Olympus 45 1.8 (remember the OM-D has a 2x multiplier for 35mm equivalent field of view so that's a 50 and 90 in 35mm FOV terms) would be well within the OP's budget without counting the money he'd get selling his 17-55.  The Olympus 75 1.8 and Panasonic 12-35 2.8 are other options to consider.  Plus the Olympus 40-150 4.0-5.6 is fairly cheap and gets good reviews (and compare it with the price of a Canon 70-300 4.0-5.6!).  And the OM-D has in-camera lens stabilisation so IS isn't an issue.

Do a Google search for OM-D v 5DIII comparisons - I expect you'll find it an interesting read, if nothing else.  To give an example, have a look at: http://lindsaydobsonphotography.com/blog/olympus-omd-vs-canon-5d-mkiii-nature-photography/
I don't know anything about that photographer beyond what is on her website, but it gives you an idea of the sort of things a Google search can turn up.

I've been considering selling my Canon gear and making the switch to an OM-D because of the lighter size/weight (I'm feeling a bit sick of lugging around a backpack full of heavy camera gear, especially when I'm hiking), but I like doing some action photography so I'll stick with the 7D for now.  The size/weight of the OM-D is very appealing though, given the IQ is still pretty good.

For what it's worth, if the OP wants to stick with Canon, I agree with the others who've said the choice is between getting a 7D (and keeping the 17-55), or selling the 17-55 and getting a 6D.  In my opinion, the price point of the 7D, plus its ergonomics and build quality, makes it a more appealing package than a Rebel or 60D (although I do know very happy 60D owners).  As for the 6D, I haven't played with one so I only know what I read, but it sounds to me like the only real advantage it would have over an OM-D is IQ but that advantage may be smaller than you first expect, in which case the question is whether size/weight/price of the OM-D is enough to compensate.  Perhaps a critical factor here is how often the OP will shoot in dim light?  It seems the IQ advantage of a 6D (and to a lesser extent a 7D) over an OM-D will be increasingly apparent as the light gets dimmer.

4

EOS Bodies / Re: *UPDATE* EOS 70D is Coming, The Future of Pro APS-C Will Change

« on: February 03, 2013, 08:34:10 AM »

I've noticed I have fewer keeps now with the 5D3 than the 7D. The auto focus seems a little slower, probably due to the shallower depth of field but if I stop it down past f/4 (that's like past f/2.4 DoF on APS-C) the cross-type points turn off and I lost a ton of light! On the 7D I could go all the way down to f/5.6 (that's like f/9.5 DoF on full frame) and still have 19 working cross-type points or just keep it at f/2.8 and get a better light, better focus shot with the 7D.  I just need the better ISO noise so please Canon hurry up!

Couldn't help but jump on a couple of things there ...

As another poster has already said, the number of cross-type focus points doesn't vary when you stop down past f/4.  The way the focus points perform depends on the maximum aperture of the lens you're using, but not the aperture value you choose for a particular shot.

Also, f/5.6 on an APS-C sensor does not give you DOF equivalent to 9.5 on 35mm (full frame) sensor.  The DOF is determined by the lens, not the sensor.  The only sense in which a full frame sensor gives different DOF is when you take into account the FOV.  In other words, if you want two photos with the same FOV, and you're shooting with the same lens, the APS-C camera will need to use a shorter focal length - and DOV decreases as focal length increases.  So, for example, use a 24-70 lens on an APS-C camera and it will have to be set at 30mm to give the same FOV as the full frame camera at 48mm, so if you take two shots with the same FOV (and same aperture value, of course) the APS-C camera will give you greater DOF. But if you take two shots at, say, 30mm the DOF will be same on both cameras (again, assuming the same aperture value was used).

That's my understanding anyway. I'm pretty sure it's right, but happy for anyone with greater knowledge to correct me if I'm wrong!

On another point, I'm a bit confused by what Canon is up to. After I read the initial story about the Maeda interview on DPReview I was thinking Canon saw it this way:  No low end compacts - leave that market to mobile phones.  Small sensors for super-zoom compacts with better low light performance as sensor tech improves.  APS-C sensors for mirror-less ILC cameras which will take the place of the high end compacts and APS-C DSLRs (and I have to say, if there was an M series camera (so relatively small and light) with a good viewfinder (optical is my preference), good control system (buttons/dials/joystick!) and autofocus and high speed shooting like a 7D ... and it could use existing EF/EF-S lenses and smaller/lighter M lenses ... that would be tempting! Any reason it couldn't be done?  And 35mm sensors for DSLRs, which will be limited to the pro/semi-pro/high end enthusiast levels (however you might define those levels, but you get the idea).  But then the follow up info on CR seems to suggest maybe there will be more APS-C DSLRs ...??