Messages

1

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5DMK3 new firmware - Silent shooting in "one shot" is now very loud???

« on: May 03, 2013, 09:34:46 AM »

And normal shooting sounds like a canon (no pun intended).  This is very disappointing, any suggestions other than earplugs?

I haven't noticed any difference.

2

Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L Macro lens from authorized dealer on ebay for $799

« on: May 01, 2013, 03:20:38 PM »

I'm seeing $779 + ~$16 in eBay bucks.  That's a better price than I've ever seen on the used market.  The only price I've seen lower was during a Canon 20% off refurb sale.

3

Lenses / Re: 300 f/2.8L and 400 f/2.8 at f/2.8

« on: April 14, 2013, 12:32:42 PM »

Could the AFMA be off on the 400?

4

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

« on: April 07, 2013, 02:32:51 PM »

I've shot with Canon cameras my entire life starting with an Elan back in the 90's. A few years back I went digital with a 20D and the FANTASTIC EF-S 17-55 2.8.  The 20D body was destroyed a year or so ago and I've been making do with a Canon point and shoot since then.

My first child is due on the first of May and I want to document his early months with a DSLR. Given my ownership of EF-S glass (really only the 17-55... my other Canon glass is cheap and left over from pre-DSLR days) I think APS-C is probably the way to go; but it bothers me to go after a 7d with its successor just around the corner.

Any thoughts or angles here? I'd only like to spend $2000 and need to do it pretty quickly. I'd like some reassurance that purchasing a 7d at the very twilight of its existence isn't complete folly or maybe an alternative approach I haven't considered (a $1000 EF-S lens was a bit shortsighted of me as I have a hard time justifying FF given the investment).

Buy a used 7D off of FM or PotN, should run you about $750-850; then sell it when the next round of cameras come out.  Will probably end up costing you ~$100-150 for several months of use.  Way way way better than renting.  Also, don't get rid of the 17-55, that lens is fantastic and if it weren't for the fact that I needed a weather sealed normal zoom I would have had a hard time giving it up on the move to FF.

5

Software & Accessories / Re: Anyone find an INTERNAL usb3 CF reader?

« on: March 31, 2013, 08:01:52 PM »

I have two of these now and they work extremely well.

http://www.amazon.com/Uspeed-Reader-Support-RS-MMC-Connector/dp/B007ND42QK/ref=pd_sim_pc_6

6

Lenses / Re: Anyone Want an Improved 16-35mm over the much requested 14-24mm?

« on: March 18, 2013, 10:10:34 AM »

I want a 16-35/4 IS (like the Nikon).

This is exactly what I'm hoping Canon will release.

7

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Waiting to Shoot the New Pope with Nikkor 1200-1700mm Lens

« on: March 12, 2013, 05:04:11 PM »

That is some shockingly bad background blur at 1700mm.

8

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

« on: March 07, 2013, 02:23:55 PM »

More high praise for the 24-70 II, with the usual caveat of price.

Question for people who've bought the 24-70 II and had/have the 24-105mm f/4L IS 'kit lens'.  Did you keep the 24-105L, and if so, now that you have the 24-70/2.8 II, do you use the 24-105L any more?

At the moment I've kept both the 24-70 ii and the 24-105 thinking that there were situations where the IS would be way more useful than the extra stop from f/2.8.  What I've found though is that if f/2.8 is not enough, then I'm either shooting something where I'm using a tripod or using the IS of the 24-105 just leads to subject motion, so the 24-105 hasn't seen much use at all.  At the moment I think I'm going to get rid of the 24-105 and replace it with a 35 1.4 instead.

9

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Good TripodHead

« on: February 27, 2013, 10:19:51 AM »

I'm a huge fan of the Markins ballheads, although the RRS BH-40 is a fantastic option as well.  If you search on FM, you can usually find Q10s going for less than $250.  If you're more budget minded, the Benro B2 or B3 seems to be a reasonable approximation to the Markins, although I don't know how well they'll hold up over time; but I use one of their combination legs (the C4770t) and it's been absolutely fantastic so I don't doubt their ball heads will be any worse.  Then the other issue is that you'll need to start investing in QR plates as well.  When I switched over to the arca-swiss system I ended up spending more on plates than I did on the ball head just because of how many I needed to buy.

10

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: I just finished comparing my old 1Ds MkII (mark two!) and the new 5D MkIII

« on: February 06, 2013, 01:51:02 PM »

Have you tried using DPP to do the RAW conversions rather than capture one?

11

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Canon may be expensive but...

« on: January 29, 2013, 09:44:39 AM »

Dayum

12

Lenses / Re: Ultimate giclée lens?

« on: January 26, 2013, 02:43:22 PM »

Another option would be the Sigma 70mm macro.  That one should be a bit sharper in the corners than your 50 is in the center at F/8 as well as having slightly lower distortion (not that either of these have any detectable distortion.), and less vignetting.  See the photozone.de reviews for more info.

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/559-sigma70ff28eosff?start=1

13

Lenses / Re: Ultimate giclée lens?

« on: January 26, 2013, 01:41:25 PM »

For an ultimate lens you're probably looking at the Coastal Optics 60mm macro. But that's a $4k lens, although you can rent it when necessary.

https://www.lensrentals.com/rent/nikon/lenses/specialty/coastal-optics-uv-vis-ir-60mm-macro

http://www.jenoptik-inc.com/coastalopt-standard-lenses/uv-vis-nir-60mm-slr-lens-mainmenu-155/80-uv-vis-ir-60-mm-apo-macro.html

14

Pricewatch Deals / Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS Available January 7, 2013

« on: January 03, 2013, 03:44:53 PM »

Thanks for the link. They are only looking at the resolution in center of the lens (my subjects usually aren't right there, are yours?).  Also, I don't understand the rationale for summarizing the results as an average of the wide and tele ends or an average of the values from wide open (which varies by lens) to f/16.   

Moreover, looking over the tests on that site, I see several results that disagree with many other testing sites (e.g. the 300mm f/4L IS scoring much higher than the 70-200mm f/4L IS, which is quite the opposite of data on TDP, PZ, etc., even when only looking at center sharpness). 

So, they're reporting just one measure among many that are important to lens performance, and calling that one measurement a 'review' is an understatement, IMO.  Add in the questionable accuracy of their methods based on other lens tests (and in this case, a direct contradiction of Canon's MTF charts), and I'm certainly going to defer judgment on the lens until we see some real reviews (although it's an academic issue for me, since like you, I have no real interest in the lens for my needs).  Those reviews may turn out negative, too, time will tell.  But the MTF charts for the 24-70/2.8 II were also impressive, and the performance tests were consistent with that.  But then again, there were bad copies of the 24-70/2.8 II (TDP tested 4 of them to get a good one), and if the same problems are plaguing the 24-70/4 IS, that may be a factor in poor reviews as well.

They also provide a TDP style chart showing image quality at different points in the frame.    While the sharpness at 70mm isn't terrible, the quality at 24mm really does look quite bad.  That said, given the variation shown with the 24-70ii on TDP, we'll probably have to wait for a few more reviews to come in before getting any idea of what the lens is really like.

15

Pricewatch Deals / Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS Available January 7, 2013

« on: January 03, 2013, 03:19:17 PM »

Given previous statements along these lines, I have to ask...where do you read these reviews/tests?

because im not a fanboy who makes general (false) statements like "canon lenses are better then nikons".... without any differentiation?

there are a few german sites who have tested the lens... for example:

http://www.traumflieger.de/reports/Videos/Traumflieger-DSLR-Woche/das-neue-Canon-24-70mm-4-0-im-Test-Teil-1-DSLR-Wo-14-1::386.html

they did retests because they could not believe the bad result either.

Wow, that looks awful.  Do you know if they used multiple copies or if they just retested the same lens?