Messages

16

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.

17

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?

18

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: World's First EOS-1D C Motion Image Shoot

« on: December 24, 2012, 04:21:46 PM »

In many cases, I can time my shutter release to within about 2ms for doing things like capturing a batter hitting a ball, a pitcher releasing a ball, etc.  For 2ms accuracy, you need 500fps, not 24fps.  Even if I'm only accurate to 5ms (I can nail that most of the time) you'd still need 200fps.  So, in many cases, "spray and pray", even at ordinary video speeds - or even at RED's maximum of 120fps - is not sufficient to capture the moment unless your "spray" is at very, very high frame rates that neither the "c" nor any of the RED cameras can manage.

I'm going to have to call BS on this considering the lower limit on human reaction time is ~150ms.  Give the following link a try to get a sense of the speed required for 2ms.

http://www.humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime/

19

Lenses / Re: Lens checking methods 24-70II

« on: December 18, 2012, 10:19:43 AM »

You spent $5k on lenses you know nothing about?  Must be nice.  I'd seriously consider giving you a handjob for that 15mm.

That would have to be one hell of a handy.

20

Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 F/2.8L II USM on 7D

« on: December 11, 2012, 08:53:45 AM »

I did a head to head test of the 24-70ii and the 17-55 on my 7D back in October and found that while the 24-70ii is slightly sharper than the 17-55, there really is nowhere near enough difference to justify the extra cost, lack of IS, and less useful range on crop.  The 17-55 is just that great of a lens (aside from the subpar build quality.)

21

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D mkIII- use all 61 focus points in something other then A+

« on: December 03, 2012, 07:10:56 PM »

You can use all 61 points in any mode, just cycle through the autofocus groups the same way you did on the 7D.

22

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 Di VC USD Hands-On

« on: November 30, 2012, 11:11:02 AM »

ePhotozine has a review up on this lens now.  Their only gripe is the price, which frankly seems to be all over the place.  In the US it undercuts the Canon MKII by about $700; in Europe the Tamron's suggested retail is higher than the Nikon, Sony, and Sigma versions and is only cheaper than the Canon (but not by much). 

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/tamron-sp-70-200mm-f-2-8-di-vc-usd-lens-review-20774

Tamron dodged a bullet with the 24-70 VC because Canon's price came out so much higher that it made the Tamron seem reasonable despite being hundreds higher than the Sigma equivalent and because Tamron had a killer feature (VC) that the new Canon didn't.  This lens may be a harder sell if they don't bring the price down.  It's only advantage at the moment is being a bit lighter and more compact.  AF is still not as fast as the MKII, so...I would expect to see the US price more like $1350 within a few months.  I doubt too many people would choose the Tamron over the Canon if the price was even just a few hundred difference.

Comparing their review of the Tamron with their review of the Canon, it seems they're suggesting the Tamron is optically superior.

23

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: EOS 6D with 24-105mm f/4L IS pre-order, already with a $200 instant rebate?

« on: November 29, 2012, 11:29:02 AM »

My 2 cents: same time next year, 6D will be on Ebay for $1200 or less.

$1200 seems pretty optimistic, I'd expect something closer to $1500.

24

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: CompactFlash vs SDXC (Effectively 5D3 vs 6D)

« on: November 26, 2012, 03:50:48 PM »

Also, SD/SDHC/SDXC is considered by some to be more reliable since it doesn't have any pins that can be bent, which is true. However they tend to just feel a bit flimsier to me than CF.

Samsung makes some very nice metal SD cards that feel almost as sturdy as CF cards.

25

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Shutter remote 3 pin vs sub-mini

« on: November 22, 2012, 10:14:22 AM »

Looking at getting a Vello Shutterboss while they're on sale, for my 5DIII. Which version is better, the 3-pin connection or the sub-mini connection? (/which one will work)

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/749827-REG/Vello_RC_C2_ShutterBoss_Timed_Remote_for.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/749826-REG/Vello_RC_C1_ShutterBoss_Timed_Remote_for.html

Go for the three pin connector as it has the bonus feature of being compatible with your 5d3.

26

Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS Sample Images

« on: November 21, 2012, 10:06:09 AM »

Sigma 35/1.4 seems definitely worth checking out:

Off-topic a bit, but is the new sigma meant to be weather sealed?

No, only the S (Sports) series lenses will be weather sealed.

27

Software & Accessories / Re: bg-e13

« on: November 05, 2012, 01:33:38 PM »

I think the BG-E7 has magnesium in the center, but the actual shell is plastic.

28

Lenses / Re: Thinking about a 17-40 f4L USM. Thoughts?

« on: November 03, 2012, 10:31:12 AM »

The 17-40 is a fantastic lens. Like everyone else mentioned very sharp at f8 and up. In terms of image quality i would rate it par to my 135 f2, even sometimes sharper. but i have to disagree with the build quality. and this is the main reason why I think it cost lesser than other L lenses.

my camera was attached to 17-40 on a tripod and it accidentally fell onto a rock (distance from camera fall to rock about 5 feet)  resulting in a broken camera's lcd and due to impact my lens rear mount was also broken. In my opinion, due to that impact with any solid build lens, the rear mount should not break. Unfortunately the 17-40 lens did not stand the impact. So i gave it a 5/10 for built quality. I would not judge a lens' built quality by the looks and feels, until you actually experience the impact or any unwanted damages to it.

I'm pretty sure almost all  lenses are designed to break off at the lens mount in such a situation.  Much better to have all that energy dissipated through snapping off the lens mount, a relatively easy part to fix, than to leave it to shatter the lens elements inside.   

29

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: 6D Need To Change Something..

« on: October 22, 2012, 03:36:58 PM »

Did you actually use it for some time? I find it quite ok because you can keep your thumb at the same place all the time, so that's really a personal preference and imho not the main shortcoming of the 6d.

I've never owned a 60D but a friend has one and I've used his while he tried my bodies.  I can agree that the idea may have merit but the implementation is not good.  The controller I tried had a very mushy feeling and I found myself clicking in the wrong direction far too often.

30

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: 6D Need To Change Something..

« on: October 22, 2012, 02:32:48 PM »

The 6D needed to have a multi-selector. Instead it went with the awkward ergos of the 6D. Ehhh.....

This is actually a signficiant thing turning me off of the 6D.  The multi-selector from the 60D is just awful.