August 30, 2014, 06:19:12 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 - jasonsim

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 15
Lenses / Re: Things to get when you purchase a 600mm?
« on: November 18, 2013, 12:27:48 PM »
I'm late to this thread and sure many have covered this well, but here is what I have for my 600mm II:

1.  Lenscoat
2.  RRS replacement foot
3.  Don Zeck from cap
4.  Thinktank Glass Limo -
5.  Gitzo Series 4 GT4542LS beefy tripod and more stable than series 3. Get series 5, if weight is no concern to you.
6. Aquatech leg wraps
7.  RRS universal leveling base with clamp
8.  Wimberley Full Gimbal
9.  RRS cradle clamp for Wimberley head

EOS Bodies / Re: Get the 1DX or wait for the 7D Mark II?!
« on: November 07, 2013, 12:32:53 PM »
Wait for the 7D Mk III!

EOS Bodies / Re: How can I choose between 1DX and 5D MARK III?
« on: November 06, 2013, 06:32:25 PM »
You can without a doubt capture BIF with a 5D III.  For those that cannot, might need to improve their skill.  The AF on the 5D III is superior to 1D MK 4, which many wildlife photographers lived and died by and still do.

All captured with a 5D III:


EOS Bodies / Re: How can I choose between 1DX and 5D MARK III?
« on: November 06, 2013, 11:42:59 AM »
If landscapes are your main subject, I would get the 5D Mk III.  It has extra pixels that most landscape photogs enjoy.  The 5D III will still do very well with tracking birds in flight and 6FPS is very respectable.  The AF system is basically the same as the 1Dx and you now get f/8 AF (using converters). 

The 1Dx is good if you mainly stay in AI SERVO and do lots of sports or wildlife photography.  It has spot AF for any focus point that helps shooting indoor sports (especially helpful for ice skating and hockey).  There might also be a 1 stop benefit in ISO noise quality over the 5D MK III.  This might be important for wedding photographers and event stuff.  But, unless you are getting paid for those things, I'm not sure that is worth the extra coin on its own.  It has better weather sealing yes, but for me personally, I don't think I would test its limits anyway.  If it starts to hail or down pour and I am out with my 500mm or 600mm with the 1Dx, I am looking for cover; no matter what they say is sealed.  If you are a working professional and need the shots rain or shine, then you might test the weather seals more than I care to do. :-)

The other thing to consider is the substantial price differential.  The 5D III is on sale many places now and the savings from not buying the 1Dx, might afford you another lens to add to your arsenal.  I am thinking a 17mm f/4L TS-E might be nice for landscape work or a 14mm f/2.8L II.  Just a thought.

Best of luck to you.  You really cannot go wrong with either of those bodies!


Pricewatch Deals / Re: Deal: Canon EF 50 f/1.2L $1259 at B&H Photo
« on: November 01, 2013, 07:05:34 PM »
Awesome deal on a new 50L!!!  I really enjoy mine!

Some samples taken today with my new Canon 70D:

50mm . f/1.4 . ISO 1600 . 1/250 s:

50mm . f/1.2 . ISO 1600 . 1/250 s:

Congrats to those that get this deal!

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: This momma is looking to buy a camera ?
« on: October 28, 2013, 09:31:31 PM »
If it were me and I could wait a while longer, scrape up together a few more bucks, I'd get the Canon 70D.  It seems to be a great all around camera.  You will thank yourself a hundred times over to have the Autofocus dual-pixel movie mode.  Otherwise, manual focus with the other bodies is very tedious!  To the point where I just don't enjoy making movies...even with the 1Dx! 

That's just my two cents.

Best of luck with any decision you make!


Lenses / Re: Canon 300mm f2.8 IS II
« on: October 23, 2013, 02:29:30 PM »
Nice shot mackguyver!  I really do like the 300 II. 

Lenses / Re: Canon 300mm f2.8 IS II
« on: October 19, 2013, 04:47:33 PM »
Don't know that I can talk you out of it.  I have one and rather give up my 600mm II than the 300mm II.  It is just a very versatile lens by itself and with both 1.4x and 2x extenders.  If Canon comes out with a 7D II with 1Dx like AF, then it gets even more versatile. 

Here are some samples:

300mm II + 2x III on 1Dx; f/8 ISO 1250:

300mm II + 2x III on 1Dx; f/8 ISO 1600:

300mm II on 5D III; f/2.8 ISO 100:

Let me know what you decide. 

Lenses / Re: Protective filter for 24-70 II - standard or thin?
« on: October 18, 2013, 11:53:08 AM »
I personally use the B+W 82mm XS-Pro UV MRC-Nano 010M Filter and B+W 82mm Kaesemann XS-Pro Circular Polarizer MRC Nano Filter on my 24-70mm f/2.8L IS II lens.  They are real quality.  But I also use Hoyal Digital Pro-1 UV filters on other Canon L primes that I have.  Like Nero says, the Hoya's tend to add a warmth to the photos.  I sometimes like that about them.  They are really good filters too, but the B+W is just built a bit better.

You might even consider some of the newer Hoya filters like the EVO line:

Lenses / Re: Which lenses should I sell?
« on: October 02, 2013, 05:16:49 PM »
Sell these:

EF 28-105 USM (bought in 2001, probably v1)
EF-S 18-55
EF-S 55-250 (bought in 2009 so assuming v1)

60mm Macro
18-270 (PZD version).

EOS Bodies / Re: Bad News Closing out 2013? [CR2]
« on: September 21, 2013, 11:30:56 AM »
Was really hoping for the 7D II.  Was thinking of downsizing from my 1Dx.  I'm no pro and 18MP full frame for my birding / wildlife pursuits is not that great!  I still need to crop a bit and well I rather do that from my 5D III.

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L
« on: September 13, 2013, 10:55:23 PM »
I really enjoyed the review (keep em coming) and am enjoying my 17-40mm f/4L IS.  It is light and gets the job done.  I used to have the 16-35mm f/2.8L IS II and for the price (even getting it at a bargain used; $1100), I decided to go with the even more reasonably priced 17-40mm I found used on FM. 

The results are nearly the same as what I used to get on the 16-35mm, since I would stop it down anyway.  The times I used it at f/2.8 the results were not that impressive.  Lots of vingetting on both...cannot say the 16-35mm II was so much better in the corners. 

So for me, the decision was easy...I don't do weddings and appreciate the lighter weight and 77mm filter size of the 17-40mm.  I also like the 5mm on the longer end!  17mm is plenty wide on FF. 

Here is a sample that I took with my 17-40mm f/4L IS on a 5D MKIII:


My vote would be a 6D for weddings.  The 5D III as you know, is ideal.  But if looking to spend less than a 5D III, then the 6D would be next best.  7D is not really great for low light situations where you cannot use a flash or use it effectively.  I'm no wedding photographer, but doubt that setting up lighting up at the alter is allowed.  I was at a wedding in Rio last year where three photographers were all hovering around the bride and groom at the alter...two with flashes on camera with the a bounce modifier (high ceilings).  The third had the 85L 1.2 on the body, don't remember her having a flash on. 

I don't think you'd need 8 FPS that the 7D affords at a wedding.  So again, 6D.  You might even consider a used or refurbished 5D II.  Up until the 5D III, those were the darlings of wedding photogs.


Canon General / Re: EF 800 f/5.6L IS II [CR2]
« on: September 04, 2013, 12:28:31 PM »
I bet neuro's already working out how to fit it into his finances...  :D

Not really.  I like having f/4 when I need it, and 840mm f/5.6 when there is sufficient light.  I'm actually leaving leaning the other way, toward the 300mm f/2.8 IS II.  ;)

I've got the 300mm f/2.8L IS II and the 600mm II and think the combo goes together well.  The decision on which to use is really tough when I need 600mm.  If I need to be mobile I go with the 300mm II + 2x III.  When I can go with a large tripod, I choose the 600 II. 

Now if only the 7D II would come out and make that 300mm f/2.8 II even more useful!

Kind regards,

Canon General / Re: EF 800 f/5.6L IS II [CR2]
« on: September 03, 2013, 12:54:43 PM »
I had a good feeling it would be the 800mm; as stated in an earlier thread.  But they better make it appealing.  Not just compete on par with the Nikon version, which by the way is heavier than the current Canon 800mm. 

I don't know why it would need to be priced over the Nikon version.  Since it uses elements that are smaller in diameter than the 600mm IS II.  Less fluorite element should mean cheaper to produce.  Also less material for the barrel, etc.  But, more often than not these decisions make little sense. 

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 15