Messages

106

Lenses / Re: in terms of IQ wich one is better?

« on: February 11, 2012, 03:16:33 AM »

The 17-40mm is definitely a popular lens. In terms of which has the "best" IQ, I don't know. Of the three, the 24mm f/2.8 has a slightly better MTF chart (on Canon's site), but MTF doesn't equate to image quality, since there are many other things like color saturation, CA, vignetting, distortion, and bokeh that all affect the way an image is perceived.

If you want the wide angle for landscape, I think you'll find a lot of people voting for the 17-40. If it's more for street photography, you'd probably want a faster prime. There are also some interesting specialty options, for example if you don't care about autofocus or filters, there's a Samyang 14mm f/2.8 that is about 1/5 the price of Canon's.

Anyway, as always, the choice is up to you, but I hope this helps.

107

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Split? 5D X & 5D Mark III [CR1]

« on: February 09, 2012, 07:31:05 PM »

The one thing I've been failing to understand with all the 5D replacement spec rumors is why a high MP camera (be it a single model or one of two) would have anything near pro-grade AF. Normally AF is a huge differentiating factor between lines and would pump the cost up quite a bit, but any camera with high MP is clearly being marketed to a studio/landscape/macro crowd in which AF performance is far less important. Yes, I'd love to see something better than the 5D Mark II's AF system, but I think anything even remotely approaching the 1DX's AF is a recipe for a 1Ds Mark III repeat.

If there are two models, I believe it makes the most sense for one to prioritize resolution and low ISO performance while the other prioritizes speed, AF, and high ISO performance. Generally speaking, photographers want one or the other. If they want both, then they should be willing to pay the massive premium for a flagship 1D-series camera.

108

Lighting / Re: I Need a Flash

« on: February 09, 2012, 07:13:23 PM »

If you don't need TTL then the YN560 (different from the 565 mentioned above) is an amazing choice for about $70. They are serious workhorses with pretty much everything you need (unless you need TTL, of course), and pretty much the only thing I can fault them on is long recharge at full power. At anything below full power it's a non-issue. Very comparable to a 430EX II in what you can do with it, for about 1/3 the price.

Does the YN560 support eTTL2 and being a wireless slave from the on board controllers?

No, they don't. As far as I know, optical slave/poverty wizards only.

109

Lenses / Re: Lenses for 600d or oncoming replacement

« on: February 09, 2012, 06:37:18 AM »

8-16 L

Oh man, if that only existed... /drool

Edit: if you were referring to the 8-15L, which does exist, that's a fisheye. Not exactly a strong general-purpose lens.

Edit 2: With a budget like that, I'd recommend the 5D Mark II with 16-35L, 100 macro, and a cheaper telephoto like the 70-200 f/4L if landscape is more important to you, or a 7D with the 100 macro, 100-400L, and a cheaper wideangle like the 17-40L if the wildlife is more important. Either way comes in at a similar budget to what you're suggesting but the full-frame will be awesome for macro/landscape while the speed and reach of the 7D will do you well for wildlife. The reason the macro is in both setups is that's something that can't be replicated with other lenses. Also, you may consider the non-L 100mm for half the price if you shoot your macros on a tripod.

Always your choice what to do with your money but hope this helps somewhat.

Edit 3: A third option could be the 5D Mark II with 24-105 and 100-400. In exchange for true macro and extreme wideangle, it does almost everything, and brilliantly. Unfortunately, landscape and wildlife tend to be at extreme opposite ends of the spectrum, so getting gear tailored to both is a costly proposition.

110

Lighting / Re: I Need a Flash

« on: February 09, 2012, 03:59:32 AM »

If you don't need TTL then the YN560 (different from the 565 mentioned above) is an amazing choice for about $70. They are serious workhorses with pretty much everything you need (unless you need TTL, of course), and pretty much the only thing I can fault them on is long recharge at full power. At anything below full power it's a non-issue. Very comparable to a 430EX II in what you can do with it, for about 1/3 the price.

111

EOS Bodies / Re: 5d Mark iii sync speed

« on: February 09, 2012, 03:50:01 AM »

Just to stir the mud a little more, the G12 will sync without using HSS at 1/4000th although for some odd reason not with the ST-E2 where it's a little slower.  It's left me wondering the kind of shutter the G1X is going to have, focal plane as per the NEX or electronic like the G12.

Does the G1X have a focal plane shutter?  My guess based on the above is no - a 1/4000 sync speed means electronic 'curtains'.

I used to have a Sony compact that also synced at 1/1000s and froze action like nothing else. I understand how the shutter of an SLR works, but I have never thought of what the negative sides to an electronic "curtain" is? Can someone fill me in? Why doesn't the slr's use electronic "curtains"? You could still have the mirror and everything, right?

I'm sure others will provide more detail on this but I believe it has to do with the sensor type. The G12 has a CCD sensor while the Canon SLRs have CMOS sensors. From all I know there are pros and cons to both types but what you describe is one difference where it's easier to accomplish different behaviors in one way or another.

Leaf shutters like on medium format cameras would be another option to increase sync speed.

In any case, neither have anything to do with freezing action since you can do that even at slow shutter speeds. Things like high speed sync (or high shutter sync speeds) are more important to control ambient light.

From what I understand, despite the myriad benefits of CMOS, one of their drawbacks compared to CCD is a more substantial internal capacitance that lets data "leak" into the pipeline after the sensor is turned off. This "leak" effect is not necessarily the same for all frequencies (colors of light), so there can be a color cast if using an electronic shutter with a CMOS sensor, which is why it's not done on DSLRs. A very frequent symptom of embedded systems implemented with CMOS ICs is a gradual, rather than instantaneous, turning off when the power switch is flipped (even if the switch is fully mechanical!), and if my interpretation is correct that lag in turning off is the reason that electronic shutters are a bad idea on CMOS sensors, which are in many other respects a better choice than CCDs for cameras.

112

EOS Bodies / Re: The Ultimate Question - Buy a 5D MKII today or wait?

« on: February 07, 2012, 11:39:54 PM »

If photography is your business, buy the 5D Mark II today. Even if the 5D Mark III is announced tomorrow, it won't be available for a while.

Otherwise, if you're happy with your T2i (in my case, I am, even though I'd love full-frame), I'd stick with it for a while, until you feel like you're "outgrowing" it and need something it can't provide.

However, I would not recommend using the 5D Mark III's release as an excuse to just keep waiting. It's a recipe for driving yourself crazy. Think of those people who were and are waiting for the new 500mm and 600mm.

Of course it's your choice at the end of the day. If your fear is the price suddenly dropping, you probably don't need the 5D Mark II right now. And if you have that fear but feel like you need it, buy used and then the price will not drop significantly for a long time and you can resell at almost no loss when the 5D Mark III comes out.

113

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II

« on: February 07, 2012, 02:39:59 AM »

$2300 and no IS...interesting.

I don't see any price listed in their press release or on their website. Can you link the source?

http://usa.canon.com/cusa/about_canon/newsroom?pageKeyCode=pressreldetail&docId=0901e0248044cf6e

After the 4th paragraph:

"The EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM lens is expected to be available in April for an approximate retail price of $2,299.00."

Yikes. 

114

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II

« on: February 07, 2012, 01:43:59 AM »

$2300 and no IS...interesting.

I don't see any price listed in their press release or on their website. Can you link the source?

115

EOS Bodies / Re: The next 5D: Someone posted this on Dpreview

« on: February 06, 2012, 09:35:09 PM »

I was pretty drunk and this guy came into my store speaking English which I have never really understood.  He asked how many glasses of Sake I drank so I held up three fingers and he smiled knowingly. He asked how long I'd been drunk and I said 7 to 10 days.

I have not been this drunk since I worked at the Salmon factory where I still know some people.  I told the English speaking guy about my good times there, and he was very happy.

Bonus points because "sake" and the Japanese word for "salmon" are pronounced the same way (less a small technicality) in Japanese.

116

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Is this a Pre-announcement leak for the D800?

« on: February 06, 2012, 08:10:34 PM »

Over-volting is not completely out of the question, but I wouldn't bet on it. If I had to take a wild guess, it would be to provide additional current to drive the built-in flash that fast? Does Nikon have any cameras with no built-in flash nor fixed grip (a la 5D)? Seems sort of silly, though. It's always possible it's just a marketing ploy.

117

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II

« on: February 06, 2012, 08:03:59 PM »

My vote is also that it's probably just a mock-up by Canon. IS or no IS, I'm super excited about the prospect of a new 24-70, seeing as the current one is coming up on a decade old and Canon's recent lenses have been really impressive.

As for the lens being retracted at 24mm, it doesn't bother me personally that much since I do so much more wide shooting than tele, but I suppose we could always hope for a zooming lens hood!

118

EOS Bodies / Re: Will anti-aliasing filters doom even forthcoming Canons to early obsolescence?

« on: February 05, 2012, 05:52:14 PM »

As a Computer Science major with an Electrical Engineering concentration, I have a fairly good grasp on the general concepts of aliasing and filtering. What I don't understand is why having an anti-aliasing filter should ever be problematic for images. As I understand they are implemented as low-pass filters in front of the sensor, which prevents high-frequency data (that data in which there is extremely rapid change from pixel to pixel) from getting through to the sensor, while letting everything else in. High-frequency data could be noise or moire, but the threshold for "bad" data is so high that there's no reason that the data you actually want should ever be stopped by it. That is to say, the local frequency of moire is so much higher than the frequency of, say, a transition from a person's clothing to the background behind them, or even the transition between edges on a repeating pattern, that I don't understand why having an anti-aliasing filter could ever be detrimental to any but the most extreme images.

Please enlighten me. 

119

EOS Bodies / Re: Rebates Extended = No 5DMIII Announcement until After March 3rd?

« on: February 05, 2012, 05:39:26 PM »

With the Nikon D800 imminent, I figure if Canon likes keeping their dominant market share in the affordable full-frame segment the 5D Mark III had better be forthcoming shortly. It would be a big business mistake not to. But hey, I'm just speculating as much as anyone else here. 

120

Lenses / Re: Amateur looking at a Macro, Prime and Walkabout lenses... input please!

« on: February 03, 2012, 02:02:32 PM »

I'd also like to chime in against the 28-135. While I don't own it, I have used it before and while the images it puts out are okay, they're simply not great (in my opinion not significantly better than the 18-55 kit zoom), and on a crop body like the T3i, 28mm becomes 45mm, which is long enough that it may leave you feeling restricted even for street photography and group/environmental portraits, to say nothing of landscape and architecture (even if it's not particularly your thing, one of the defining features, I think, of what we call a walk-about lens is its ability to do just about anything on a whim).

I don't know whether the macro or walk-about is more important to you, but if you were considering the 100mm L macro, then the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM isn't too much of a stretch financially. I know you said you're planning to go full frame in a few years (as am I), but a few years is a long time, and the Canon lenses hold their value extremely well (if they didn't, I'd have bought all the lenses I ever wanted used by now...  ), and if you're serious about practicing photography, it's a lens that won't let you down.

I've also heard good things about the EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM, but I've never had an opportunity to use one and the fact that I almost never see people with them or trading them suggests they may be harder to sell when you do upgrade.

If you are set on sticking to only EF lenses, the 24-105L is of course wonderful, but for about the same price as the 17-55 you lose quite a bit in terms of performance on crop (it's also slightly heavier).

For macro, I would say that aside from a macro lens, lights are your friends. They're extemely useful for bringing out fine detail, creating aesthetically pleasing reflections, and whiting- or blacking-out your background. Canon 430EX IIs are nice, but on a budget Yongnuo YN560s can be had for 1/3 the price if you are willing to shoot manual (which is a good idea for product-type macro photography, anyway), and cheap radio flash triggers abound. Strobist is an invaluable blog for learning that type of lighting.

Just to put it into perspective, I don't know exactly how much power those flashes put out, since those figures are rarely published, but just as a for instance, if you were serious about studio product photography you might look into some studio strobes (monolights). The most modest of these run about 160 Ws (watt-seconds) and have flash durations in the realm of let's just call it 1/500 (even though this is maybe a bit generous for a low-end strobe, it makes the math easier).

Time for some dimensional analysis.

160 Watt * second        500
-------------------------   *   -------------  =   80,000 Watts.
1                                       1 second

So you'd need approximately 800 100W light bulbs to produce the same amount of light. Needless to say, a setup like that would both look and cost ridiculous.

Sorry, I seem to be rambling. I just get so excited talking about photography! You sound like you know what you want from your gear, which is more than many people can say, so I think you'll find the right decision even if it takes a little more research or thinking. Have fun shooting!