Messages

1036

EOS Bodies / Re: Microfocus adjusting my 17-40?

« on: December 16, 2011, 12:33:12 PM »

No problem adjusting a zoom, do it at 17mm, then at 40mm, then at some thing in between, often the miss by the same through the range, and if it doesn't, you just have to go middleway.

Only the 1d X can correct for different focusing errors at wide and "tele" end of a lens.

1037

Lighting / Re: PocketWizard FlexTT5 and 580exII RF Issues?

« on: December 16, 2011, 10:50:57 AM »

While I agree that ETTL for light setup isn't the most reliable, with the Phottix Odinb you just use the ETTL connection to remotely control the power-setting on the remote-flashes. Means, you don't have to run those 100 meters over to the flash to adjust it up one stop, you can do that from the transmitter on the camera, which is fantastic.

Also you have A, B, C groups to control, so if the subject is moving you can use a M-set flash output for background, and ETTL for the subject moving. And the ETTL output is actually pretty good. The mix and match makes it all the more versatile. And still, NO misfire, NO adjusting and tuning in software, NO trial and error. They just work.... Cannot stress enough what it means to have them work every time at every setting at any distance.

1038

EOS Bodies / Re: Upgrade to a 5Dmk2 or TS-e lens?

« on: December 16, 2011, 08:00:12 AM »

I use the TS-E 17mm, and it's by far my favorite wideangle, I used to have the 14 II, but the converging lines limited it soo much for me. I thought the 17, especially after reading all the tech-stuff around, that it would be very challenging to use properly, but nothing could be further from the truth, it's supereasy to use and gives AWESOME results. IQ-wise it's one of the best, only surpassed by the TS-E 24 II, BUT I didn't get it, because I needed wider and also already own the 24 f1,4 II.

I would go for the 17, no doubt, it will make your images stand out like no camera-upgrade can do.

1039

Lenses / Re: Which telephoto lens has the fastest AF

« on: December 16, 2011, 05:46:06 AM »

Just to clearify, when I said the 70-200 was faster than my 300 2,8 IS, I meant the mkII 70-200, and that isn't up for discussion. The new AF Canon is putting out in the new lenses is from another world. Now it doesn't rotate to the desired distance, it JUMPS there! It feels almost on and off rather than fooocuuusiing. The new 70-200 is Canon's greatest lens to date. To have a zoom with that low weight, short mfd at 2,8 and match nearly all primes for sharpness is just crazy. I never use it though, but I'm keeping it until I see if it will be put to better use on the FF 1d X, on crop it's just ,neh...

1040

Lighting / Re: PocketWizard FlexTT5 and 580exII RF Issues?

« on: December 15, 2011, 01:17:55 PM »

Pleeeaaassse don't!!!

I will shorten your life with ten years trying to get them to work.

Buy the Phottix Odin at a third of the cost, more functions and best of all, they just work.

Where are you finding the Odin for 1/3 of the PW's?

The PW's costs 2500 nok's a piece here in Norway, making it 7500 nok's plus the AC3 controller at 900 nok's, total of 8400 nok's = 1401 usd with this minutes rate. And I got the Odin from Dzone2 seller off of ebay for 549 usd... Free shipping also.

On a side note, I tested the ETTL range with the Odin today , 200 meters and it all worked perfect!! I didn't have more space to put between me and the flash, but I'm very sure it will work for longer than that... THE perfect system....

1041

EOS Bodies / Re: Should i go for the 1DX or the 5D Mk III?

« on: December 14, 2011, 05:07:58 PM »

Here's one of the reasons I am extremely happy that the 1d X is 18 and not 36mp, and it's a reason no one talks about, but I know it's a fact going from the 10mp mkIII to the 16mp mkIV:

The smaller the pixel the faster shutter speed you need to freeze action, because the subject moves over to the pixel next to it way faster with higher density. This is one of the reasons you often here the 7d is soft when shooting moving subjects. And it's for the same reason I need 1/1600s-1/2000s to freeze action instead of 1/1000s I needed to stop everything with the mkIII. So going back to 1/1000s as a result of 21% larger pixels of the X will be yet another fantastic reason to get one.

1042

EOS Bodies / Re: Why not 16bit?

« on: December 14, 2011, 10:00:08 AM »

I for one would REALLY like to know the DR of the 1d X. They've never said it was imrpoved before, it has gone unnoticed by most, but this time they list it as a main new feature, which is stupid if it's only 1/3 of a stop. the mk4 is, what 11,9? But with some trickery in Lightroom can go way beyond that. So do we get a 13,5 stops? at least up to iso 800 or 1600? I certainly hope so...

1043

Lenses / Re: Battle of the 50mm's - 1.8, 1.4 and 1.2L

« on: December 14, 2011, 08:21:07 AM »

Focus shift of the 50 L isn't a problem unless you use it between 2,8 and 5,6. I'm so tired of trying to get people that say it's way overpriced to actually use it where it's clearly best, widest of apertures. The bokeh is in another league compared to any other 50 on the market. Resistance to flare is in another leauge, same with color and contrast, plus it's the fastest most accurate AF. Best build BY FAR, weathersealed. I mean, to say it's overpriced and not worth it compared to the 50 f,14 is wrong on so many levels. A friend of mine said it best "The people dogging the 50L tend to only shoot rulers and testcharts, I shoot people with it, and at that, it can't be beat"

There is no fantastic 50mm on the planet, I mean, compare them in every aspect to the 35's and 85's and both are clearly better, but the 50 focal is just fantastic so we all love them and buy them. and the 50 L is the best.

1044

Lenses / Re: Which telephoto lens has the fastest AF

« on: December 13, 2011, 04:18:49 PM »

NO doubt .. the new 300 L II will be blistering. I owned the old one and only beaten by the sick new 70-200, and I KNOW that Canon won't let a budget lens like that get the upperhand, the new 300 combined with  a mk4 or X will be the worlds fastes AND most accurate...

1045

Lenses / Re: Is Canon EF 24mm f/1.4 L II USM Lens too wide for FF?

« on: December 13, 2011, 01:38:58 PM »

No 28mm that are any good from Canon, that's why.

And I gotta say, it's an example often used, but how many times are you ACTUALLY shooting 8 people in a sofa indoors?!?!?! Come on! I have NEVER done that... The 24 is capable of soooo much more. and yes it can be used for group shots, but I recommend getting a cool subject, lit well, right at the mfd and cool background as change of pace. Explore the possibillities, if you|re shooting groups for a living, get a 24-105 instead, you're using it at f8-f11 and what's the point of blistering AF and 1,4 then?

1046

Lenses / Re: Is Canon EF 24mm f/1.4 L II USM Lens too wide for FF?

« on: December 13, 2011, 12:56:55 PM »

I use the 24 L II on a 1d4 (1,3x crop) and it's the perfect lens for my uses, I use it for EVERYTHING. Absolutely perfect.

Now, I'm moving on to a 1d X when it gets here, so I tried the 35 L on a 5d to sort of match the focal of 31mm the 24 gives on the mk4, BUT that is quite a lot narrower, even though it's only 4mm, it surprised me. So I went on to try the 24 on the 5d, and seems better, so I would have liked a 30mm on FF, but I'm much rather keeping the 24 than getting the 35 to replace it. This is also something to do with the fact that I have a 50 for a little more reach which I like MUCH better on FF than 1,3 crop.

1047

United States / Re: Is 1D Mark IV boring or almost perfect?

« on: December 13, 2011, 09:41:13 AM »

I agree! I didn't think Canon would be able to create a camera worth replacing the mk4 for, but along comes this FullFrame Monster that does exactly that.

I don't have that kind of money for other things, and I buy all the cheapest stuff of everything else. I haven't bought new clothes since the 90's, but do I blink to spend 8000 dollars ( a bit more expensive here in Norway) on a new camera? Nope!

1048

EOS Bodies / Re: Should i go for the 1DX or the 5D Mk III?

« on: December 13, 2011, 08:31:50 AM »

Do you have the money for a 1d X and get by with 18mp, get it! It will be better in every way. If you don't know if you need a 1d and you choose between a 1d and 5d based on resolution, yeah, that answer it for me, you don't need a 1d.

I use both 5d2 and 1d4 and for things that need to be perfect I use the 1d, if I'm doing portraits and less stress situations, I use the 5d because of the FF sensor (although the lack of useful af-points makes it much less able to shoot like I want to, wide open at 1,2 and 1,4), the only thing the 1d4 lacks. So I'm first in line for the 1d X. Giving me the perfect camera, but the FF sensor is just a very welcome bonus. It's the AF-system that is highest on my list when choosing a camera.

And be prepared, once you go 1d, you'll never buy another camera than a 1d.....

1049

Lenses / Re: Will it be a EF 14-24 2,8 L is from Canon

« on: December 12, 2011, 06:28:10 PM »

I'm not sure 14-24 zoom makes too good of sense for Canon.  For Nikon, the 14-24 is effectively the replacement for the 14mm prime, and has been said to be of superior image quality to the wide 14mm Nikon Prime.  The Canon 14mm prime on the other hand is said to superior to all the aforementioned lenses, including the 16-35 L II, (all third hand information from scouring various reviews, mostly Ken Rockwell).  Also the zoom range from 14-24 seem a bit awkward.

http://minus.com/mwi8ith2f

Seriously, have you looked through 14 and 24 on a FF camera? the difference is HUGE!! I miss the extra 3mm from my 14 L II when I got the TS 17, but the IQ and endless possibilities with the TS makes me forget lightning AF, small and light, f2,8, weathersealing and all other things that are better with the 14. Because the 17 is the best UWA Canon has ever made, and Nikon (and everyone else) have nothing to challenge it with...

And if you want 2,8 to isloate an item with UWA, yo neeeed to check out what the TS 17 can do at f4.

1050

United States / Re: Is 1D Mark IV boring or almost perfect?

« on: December 12, 2011, 02:28:59 PM »

YEah, I second that, out of reach for a lot of people. Cost issue I guess.

I use the mk4 and I'm not a pro, but use it for all it's worth and it lacks some Af-tracking abilities in lower light, but other than that there's nothing wrong with it, and I know it by heart so less need to start threads.