Messages

166

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

« on: February 07, 2012, 07:59:00 AM »

Ouch... the European price is more than the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II. I rarely complain about Canon's pricing, after all they're market leaders and a for-profit company... but... really? 

167

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

« on: February 06, 2012, 02:17:06 PM »

Are any of you guys (and girls) actually photographers? Do any of you use photoshop? That is a rubbish PS image there are so many reasons why the is fake it is comical.

Your observations may be correct, but you've jumped straight to the conclusion that errors in the image = a fake picture.

Let's say the lens is real, a prototype; whatever. Don't you think Canon alter their product shots in photoshop? Are they not capable of post-production errors? I'm not trying to call you out here or to question your expertise, but perhaps turn your critical eye to official Canon product photos from the past, I'd be curious to know if there's any bad masking etc. in those.

168

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

« on: February 06, 2012, 01:28:13 PM »

I looked at the picture in PS and if this is a fake, then it is a very very good one.

Maybe someone just got bored of waiting for the 24-70 II, so they made their own. 

169

Canon General / Re: $5000 gear spree exercize

« on: February 04, 2012, 05:18:08 AM »

Fun game.

1.) Canon EOS 1D Mark IV
2.) ... Oh 

170

Lenses / Re: Canon 16-35 L version I vs II

« on: February 02, 2012, 02:57:24 PM »

Thanks for all of the replies. It seems the mark II is at best a tiny bit better than the mark I, and would involve buying a new 82mm polarizing filter... which would cost £150. Ouch. Still, I am leaning towards the mark II, mainly because it isn't a huge deal more expensive than a used mark I, and there's the no-quibble returns policy.

I'll make a point of karma +1'ing you all, if you care about that sort of thing...

171

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D X or Mark III Specs & Release Date? [CR1]

« on: February 02, 2012, 10:35:05 AM »

•Announcement February 28

If I were in marketing, I'd announce on February 29th to signify the leap forward in technology. 

172

Lenses / Canon 16-35 L version I vs II

« on: February 02, 2012, 09:20:43 AM »

I'll be moving to full frame within a few months and I'll be looking at adding an UWA lens to my kit. What I can't seem to figure out is the benefit of version II of this lens versus the old 16-35 f/2.8. Resolution chart comparisons seem to suggest that they each perform better at different focal lengths, both lenses are weather sealed, both have roughly the same design...

Also, version II has 82mm filter threads, an awkward size for sharing.

... Was there a particular reason for updating this lens?    The only reason I'm currently considering version II over I is the mark I still sells for about 70% of the price of a new mark II, and I'm generally suspicious of people selling lenses on eBay.

173

Canon General / Re: Is it just me, or....

« on: February 01, 2012, 07:07:00 AM »

I'm also a new poster. I'd say the increase in volume of new members coincides with the announcement of the 1D-X and a great deal of semi-plausible 5D Mark III chatter.

174

EOS Bodies / Re: Can someone debunk this Peter Lik picture... PLEASE!!!

« on: January 30, 2012, 07:16:40 PM »

Although no doubt a technical masterpiece, the shot does very little for my personal tastes.

Good for him if he's pleased with it, we should all be aiming to be happy with our work. But to me, it looks like it belongs in a video game.

175

Canon General / Re: Equipment for travel/vacationphotos

« on: January 30, 2012, 08:59:43 AM »

I´ve been looking at the Canon Zoom EF 70-200 mm 2.8 IS II USM online and it looks really good, but from what I read it´s plain out silly to combine it with the camera I have? Do I also need a new body?

As someone who has combined a 70-200 f/2.8 IS II with a 450D, I can confirm that it feels a bit silly! But that's mainly due to the odd weight/size balance - you'll still get superb results with your photos from this lens with the 450D.

I think it might be worth quickly brushing over why you got such bad results when shooting rhythmic gymnastics with that lens/camera combo, if you aren't already aware. Firstly, I'll assume that most of your shots were a) out of focus and b) blurred due to motion. I'll deal with the limitations of the camera and the lens (for this application) seperately:

Camera

• The 450D has poor AI Servo focus - this means it struggles to keep the lens focused on moving subjects
• Slow burst rate (as mentioned by scrappydog); if you're firing off 3 frames per second you're less likely to get the shot than if you're firing 8
• 1600 maximum ISO - if you're trying to push your ISO higher to get a fast enough shutter speed to freeze action, you'll hit the cap at a rather meager (and noisy) ISO 1600

Lens - assuming 70-200 is the right focal length; this is really your call

• f/4.5-5.6 means that at 70mm, the maximum aperture is f/4.5 and at 200mm the maximum aperture is f/5.6 - neither of these are normally considered fast enough for sports, i.e. they don't let enough light in. I consider f/2.8 to be a minimum for sports, and for some indoor sports even this is not enough. A wider aperture also helps to blur the background and give separation to your subject.
• ... okay maybe that's the only one. Image Stabilization doesn't really help for sports because you're already using shutter speeds that should be fast enough to freeze motion (upwards of 1/500sec, preferably 1/1000sec). One thing it is useful for is panning.

Flash can also be really helpful for freezing motion, although it's generally not preferred because it's distracting and it prevents you from using high burst rates. Here's an example of a gymnastics photo I took with flash:


(Canon 7D + 17-55 f/2.8 IS)

Anyhow... to get back to your original question, which wasn't really about sports shooting - The 450D is a perfectly acceptable camera for travel as long as you aren't expecting to run into any scenarios demanding high burst rates, AI Servo focus tracking or high ISO. I really like the 450D + 50mm 1.4 (1.8 if you're on a budget) as a compact travel kit that fits my style of photography.

EDIT: My mistake, that photo was actually taken with the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS.

176

EOS Bodies / Re: *UPDATE* New High-End DSLR Later in February [CR3]

« on: January 29, 2012, 01:59:48 PM »

Any possibility of the 24-70 getting bundled with say the 5D MkII successor?

Yes, that's entirely within the realm of possibility.

... then again, so is no 24-70 replacement within the next 5 years. 

177

Lighting / Re: ND filter better than High Speed Sync on a very bright day?

« on: January 29, 2012, 09:29:17 AM »

ND filters are definitely an option, David Hobby from strobist.com has a good article here: http://strobist.blogspot.com/2010/06/using-nd-filters-to-kill-depth-of-field.html, explaining it better than I'll be able to.

Personally I like HSS because I have 3 580 EX speedlites; power is rarely an issue for me. Plus I don't like putting more glass in front of my lens if I can help it. ND filters are an equally effective tool for fill-flash, as far as I understand - but I have never used it in practice.

178

Lenses / Re: Looking for advice

« on: January 29, 2012, 04:53:33 AM »

In contrast to some of the other replies given, I'm going to recommend you get the EF-S 17-55 instead of the 16-35 for several good reasons. You shoot a crop camera and in my opinion, you should go for the best lens to suit your camera. By picking the 16-35 over the 17-55 you gain an extra 1mm on the wide end ... okay ... but you give up 20mm on the long end and image stabilization, you also lose an extra $450 from your pocket. The 17-55 is optically superb, for crop cameras it matches or exceeds the overlapping L series equivalents.

There are a couple of disadvantages to the 17-55 though, namely

• no weather sealing
• the propensity for 'zoom creep' - this is when the lens is pointed directly up or down and gravity moves its focal length slightly - my copy does this, but it isn't a big deal to me and doesn't happen during normal use
• build quality is good but not great like the L lenses - if you are planning on subjecting your gear to harsh conditions, bumps and clunks, maybe go with the hardier 16-35

179

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: The best ways to (not) get your gear stolen

« on: January 28, 2012, 03:35:14 PM »

Okay, and here's my serious response...

If you're concerned about having your strap cut, you could go with one of the several brands (e.g. Sun Sniper) that offer straps with steel cables running through.  Apply common sense and an awareness of your surroundings - a common method of pickpocketing DSLR users is to detach the lens from the camera if it's hanging from your strap at your side/back. You can prevent this by keeping a hand on your lens when it's at your side. Avoid the 'tourist look' i.e. camera hanging around your neck touching your belly with "Canon 5D Mark II" written in big letters on the strap. Ditch the branded strap and go for something less conspicuous (I'm a fan of the BlackRapid RS-4 - not really for the reasons I just mentioned but for comfort and practicality). If you're carrying a tripod you look more familiar with the area and more professional, too.

For the record, please don't cover your equipment in petroleum jelly. 

180

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: The best ways to (not) get your gear stolen

« on: January 28, 2012, 03:22:24 PM »

The other is the quite conspicuous "hit and run" - simply snatching the camera off you, or cutting the band from your strap or bag and running off with it.

You could cover all of your gear in a thin, even layer of vaseline. This would make snatching more difficult for would-be thieves and also improves the water sealing of many bodies and lenses.