February 28, 2015, 02:14:30 AM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - JoeDavid

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8
Lenses / Re: Canon at the London Summer Olympics
« on: July 31, 2012, 07:54:08 AM »
He's using a pro body.

Yea, the viewfinder looks like a 1D X. 

Lenses / Re: Canon at the London Summer Olympics
« on: July 31, 2012, 07:23:05 AM »
So does anyone know who the lucky guy with the 200-400 is?  He's not using a pro body (note how he's holding the camera for a vertical shot).  5D Mark III maybe?

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Camon M (mini) prices
« on: July 25, 2012, 07:23:36 PM »
Because in Europe (UK) for the EOS M + 22mm + adapter and the free flash, we will have the privilege of paying...

£879.99 or $1363.98.

Still feel hard done by?

Is that with VAT or without?  No one ever mentions sales tax with US pricing.  It's true that if we purchase from an Internet retailer that doesn't have a store in our state, we can usually get by without paying additional taxes but, if you patronize a local photo store, you get the privilege of adding an additional 10% to the price where I live for "state and local" taxes...

Lenses / Re: 28-300 L lens- thoughts?
« on: May 30, 2012, 10:30:39 PM »
I own one and use it for travel photography some times.  There's always the issue of getting a good one versus an average one from Canon.  I've got a good one.  For the price, you expect pretty good image quality and it can deliver.  You do have to factor in that it is an 11x zoom a little.  I'd rate mine as good at 28mm and very good from 35mm through 300mm.  For me the positives are as follows:

  1  One zoom covers the entire 28-300mm range.
  2  It focuses down to 2.3 feet at all focal lengths making it a near macro lens at 300mm.
  3  Good image quality with easy to correct CA showing up mostly at the wider end of the range.
  4  Canon's IS is very good on this lens.

The negatives are:

  1  It is one of Canon's push/pull lens designs making it a "dust pump" on the front of your camera so you need to zoom it slowly if possible.
  2  It looks like a telephoto zoom even at 28mm making it hard to do any street photography with it when traveling without getting harrassed by people thinking you're zoomed in on them.
  3  Pretty heavy lens for all day use (not really a problem for me but some people would gripe about it...).

For me its's a good lens to have at times but not always.  The answer for number 2 above is to carry a second lens for street photography!

You do need to try it before you commit to purchasing one.  Renting a copy first would be best.  I wonder who rents lenses...


EOS Bodies / Re: Chinese Alternative BG-E11 for 5D III not as bad
« on: May 29, 2012, 07:52:10 PM »
With additional controls in the grip, I'd be more worried about the reverse engineering being "not quite right".  Since I spent the $3500 for the body, I'd spend the additional $350 for the Canon grip.  If anything goes wrong during the warranty period, Canon can't blame it on a third party grip. 


Lenses / Re: Most requested lenses for replacement?
« on: May 28, 2012, 07:54:47 AM »
How about a new version of the 400/5.6L adding IS.  Also, now that Canon has boosted the price of the big white lenses to beyond reason, maybe a 500/5.6L with IS also...

Lenses / Re: A Brief Hands On: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II
« on: May 27, 2012, 04:06:32 PM »
After cleaning up the 24mm shot a little, the image is not that impressive.  The center is sharp enough but it looks to me like curvature of field is nailing it on both sides of the image.  It's impossible to compare it to the 24-105L since the max f4 aperture DOF would hide some of this.  Maybe he'll buy some of the Tamron 24-70mm VC lenses for the lens rental business and can do an A/B comparison for us.  I'd give up a little center sharpness for better sides/corner performance at the wider apertures plus the VC would be a nice addition (and then there's the price...).

As for the noise, the OP needs to comment on that one.  The noise levels out of my 5DM3 bodies isn't nearly that bad unless underexposed and then corrected...

I currently use the Amod GPS receiver which works quite well.  However, if this project works well then it would also be a good purchase and would cut out an extra software step.  The price also seems reasonable.  I suppose one of the drawbacks is that it can't be used with a hotshoe flash?

Addendum---- looks like it can also work with USB

I received one today.  It can be used with a hotshoe flash but you have to connect it with one of the two (short and long) USB cables.  BTW it only works in the hotshoe with the 5DM3 and 1DX.  You get partial functionality with the 7D but it has to be connected via USB since it can't communicate through the hotshoe on that camera...

EOS Bodies / Re: Anyone get the GP-E2 GPS yet?
« on: May 21, 2012, 03:56:58 PM »
Received one today from Norman Camera.  It's a little big since it takes a AA battery.  I glanced at the manual, put a battery in it (it didn't come with one by the way; how cheap can you get...), and attached it to a 5DM3.  Powering it on enables the GPS Settings in the 5DM3 menus.  It took about 60 seconds from power on to acquire satellites.  Not bad, since I was indoors!  I took a test shot and loaded it onto my computer.  It came with a CD with Canon's Image Browser EX software on it.  The mapping utility is a feature of the IB EX package.  It uses Google Maps and put the position within about 6 feet of where the shot was taken.  The manual says it will run 39 hours at Canon's default settings which included 15 second updating.  Only time will tell if that is so...

Does anyone have a more exact description of this problem?  I have a 200/2L IS that is in the "affected" serial number range but, when I put it on my 5DM3, it autofocuses just fine with the IS enabled and there are no unusual noises; just the faint IS sound that you always hear.  Is there a specific combination of IS, metering, and AF modes that the cameras and lens have to be set on for the "loud noise" to be emitted?

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Mirrorless Information? [CR1]
« on: May 07, 2012, 07:59:03 PM »
And how is APS-H any better? I always felt like it was the worst choice for wide-normal FLs (the ones you would normally use on a mirrorless camera). There is no decent non-L fast-50 Canon equivalent for APS-H (IMHO 35/2 is pretty bad). I guess that 28/1.8USM is a decent 35 on 1.3 crop, but that's all... It may be acceptable if they produce some nice APS-H format primes (like 12mm, 28mm, 40mm, 75mm), but then again it would fail at adapting EF/EF-S lenses (in term of vignetting, black edges and awkward FLs) and that's a deal-breaker for someone like me.

I shoot FF most of the time but I still enjoy shooting with my 1DM4 which is, of course, APS-H.  In a mirrorless body I'll take the largest sensor Canon is willing to put into it and, yes, I do shoot with L glass most of the time.  I'd be quite happy with a 1.3x sensor mirrorless body to use with the 14/2.8L, 24/1.4L, 35/1.4L, 50/1.2L... you get the idea.  Don't get me wrong, I'll take a mirrorless that is FF but I don't think Canon will produce one.  I don't really think they'll use APS-H either, so it will end up being something that I may buy as a backup for traveling light but not as my primary camera...

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Mirrorless Information? [CR1]
« on: May 07, 2012, 09:00:26 AM »
I don't think there's any way that Canon will release a mirrorless that is FF.  If they did they would charge way too much for it...  If I had my wishes I'd like to see one with the APS-C or, better yet, APS-H sensor size.  That 4/3 proportioned (but larger than 4/3 standard format) sensor in the G1 X is just about the craziest thing they have ever done.  I know there was a lot of hype about the G1 X and that the image quality was quite good but I found it interesting that Best Buy listed it for a couple of months before it was release and then deleted it from their site once it actually started shipping.  Sort of makes you wonder about the mass market appeal of the thing.  My guess is that Canon is lining up another oddity to not cannibalize their DSLR market...

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D3 Firmware upgrade, missing step...
« on: April 24, 2012, 08:45:23 AM »
Loaded mine from CF with an SD card installed with not probelms.  Updated two 5DM3 bodies this way.  The only problem I had was that the update changed some of my camera settings.  For example, the card to record to was set to the second (SD) slot after the update.  Before the upgrade they were set to CF.  The update also set my AF mode to single point with the center point selected.  These changes occured on both cameras.  Weird!  I'll have to go through the entire camera settings on both of them to see if anything else was changed...

EOS Bodies / Re: So frustrated with new 5DmkIII - returning it!
« on: March 25, 2012, 09:19:23 PM »
Not meaning to hijack the thread but, since most of this is about soft images from the 5DM3, here goes...

I have had the 5DM3 for 4 days now and am pretty pleased with its performance.  I've been doing mostly outdoor landscape type of stuff testing it out.  Tonight I realized that I hadn't used a flash on it at all so I mounted a small 270EX that I use for fill flash and began firing away at at a stack of magazines on the coffee table with the 24-105L.  With the camera set to let it select the focus points the results were soft to completely out of focus.  Changing the AF to single point produced sharp photos.  The magazine on top was a copy of American Photo with the large word "Photo" in red.  When the camera locked onto the red Photo word, the focus was completely off.  It got better when it chose to lock onto areas with black text but never produced anything as sharp as single point AF focused on the same black text.  This requires more investigation on my part but it will have to wait.  I have a 580EX II that I can test with as well but I thought I'd go ahead and put this out there in case anyone else with a 5DM3 can look at it too...

EOS Bodies / Re: Question regarding ISO 50 on 5D III
« on: March 15, 2012, 07:26:37 AM »
Great stuff, thanks.
If we're talking about jpegs direct from the camera, can we throw the improvements between ISO 50 to 100 out the window?

From looking at the noise in the various ISOs from the RAW files with no noise reduction during ACR processing, I doubt you'll tell any difference between them.  It wasn't a huge difference between 50 and 100 but it was clearly visible at 100% (pixel peeping...).  In fact, in JPEGs directly from the camera, I doubt you'll tell much of a difference from ISO 50 to 400!  800 looked like it will clean up with minimal loss of detail too.  Above that, the noise level starts to ratchet up signficantly with each full ISO step.  I will say though that the noise remained in a "tight" pattern all the way up through 12800; it just gets heavier as you go up but maintains quite a bit of detail.  At 25600 you start to see some of the random large chucks of noise that really impacts small details in the image and I wouldn't even bother with H1 or H2 unless you're desperate for any image at all.

Remember these comments are based on the Imaging Resources RAW files shot with studio lights.  To me they represent near "ideal" conditions.  Out in the real world, any underexposing of images always results in greater noise...

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8