Messages

31

Lenses / Re: Rebate Ending Soon? When's The Next One?

« on: January 31, 2013, 02:45:41 PM »

I'm waiting to see $100 or $150 off the 35mm f/2 IS before I buy it... I can wait until summer if need be

32

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

« on: January 29, 2013, 12:43:41 PM »

I also hope Canon wouldn't put IS in a 17-40 lens just to boost the price. For a lens whose primary use is on a tripod, that would be silly

I hear you there. but their current trend of releases tends to suggest that, if they do update the 17-40, it will most likely have IS built in.

that being said, I'd dispute the fact that the majority of its buyers use it on a tripod. I know lots of people that use the 17-40 specifically as a wide-angle walk-around (or hike-around, rather), and would love to not have to bring their tripod along.

33

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 100 f/2.8L IS Macro

« on: January 29, 2013, 12:40:47 PM »

I am worried about the Hybrid IS since someone in this post said that, because of it, his/her photos were soft (and sharp when tuned off). Though, it was only 1 comment going that route.

Nah, that's either a broken lens or people simply don't realize that IS doesn't stop the world around them and the effect diminishes to nearly zero when going near 1:1 mag. And with very fast shutter speeds you should turn IS off because the lens shutter speed is faster than the IS sampling rate resulting in a bit of blur.

The advantage of the hybrid is over other IS systems is that esp. with a 7d/5d3-type af system the lens speeds up the sample rate, so tiny adjustments are adjusted plus it also compensates for forward/back movement next to panning. It's a theoretical advantage esp. when shooting med distance handheld macros, but I wouldn't make a lens choice Canon/Sigma depend on the hybrid is - the downside is that it's noisier and might be more prone to failure since it's more complicated.

agree with marsu, I don't buy the "IS makes it soft" thing at all, unless it's a broken lens. just this morning I spent tome extra time messing around with my 100mm f/2.8 L Macro and it delivers crisp images handheld at 1/15 shutter speed. if I'm patient I can get good-but-not-perfect images at 1/8.

34

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

« on: January 29, 2013, 10:56:33 AM »

And I was wondering what the other lens they were announcing would be.  I knew the 18-35 was being redone, but the 800 was a surprise.

Seems like that price point for that lens drives the nail in the coffin of any "update the 17-40" efforts. The going rate of an entry wide-zoom seems to be $750-$850, and I doubt they go cheaper.

I don't know, if Canon can update the 17-40 f/4, and possibly add IS ... it would be wider on the wide end, longer on the long end, a fixed max aperture, and have IS. then they could definitely justify pricing it above this quirky Nikon UW zoom.

35

Lens Gallery / Re: Canon EF 500mm f/4L IS ll USM

« on: January 29, 2013, 10:51:42 AM »

really like the second image (blue bird with black+green background)! congrats on the new lens, I wish I could "pick one up" but then I'd probably get 'picked up' soon afterwards by the police

36

EOS Bodies / Re: Where are you EOS 70D?

« on: January 25, 2013, 02:00:02 PM »

thanks for that version of the translation, tim. also, good on the interviewer for being blunt and to the point. I'm a supporter of canon products but I do think they still need to look at themselves with a critical eye and work on continually improving, just like every company should.

37

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

« on: January 24, 2013, 02:32:51 PM »

man, I remember seeing Audra McDonald in the original run of Ragtime. mind-blowing. Brian Stokes Mitchell also has the perfect voice to compliment hers. the recorded version is also excellent and very much worth getting.

wonderful shot, Chris!

38

EOS Bodies / Re: Which is better? 5D MKII or 6D?

« on: January 24, 2013, 02:27:40 PM »

the more annoying thing about snapsort is sometimes they flat out get the specs wrong.

39

EOS-M / Re: Micro four DoF and lenses

« on: January 23, 2013, 10:01:58 PM »

unfortunately, AF with the speed booster is slower than using the EOS M, according to Roger Cicala. so maybe a fruitless pursuit after all.

Don't know that I care about AF with a lens at f/0.5 - what would it possibly fix on? I'm thinking MF w/liveview. Agreed, not for every lens, but I would really go for a 24mm (eq FF FOV) f/1

well, I know if I were using a 24mm f/1.4 L on a full frame DSLR, I'd certainly expect its autofocus to work

40

EOS Bodies / Re: Where are you EOS 70D?

« on: January 23, 2013, 09:59:59 PM »

I think they're trying to get some sort of record for wringing the most profit from a sensor, over the longest lifespan

41

EOS Bodies / Re: Any news on the 7dMk2 now that CES is done

« on: January 23, 2013, 08:28:10 PM »

I agree with jrista about EVF's been a long way away from being truly good, but I also agree with your point that technology grows quickly, and it certainly will get there, probably sooner than the decade that jrista predicts.

One of my co-workers brought in an Olympus E-M5...we played comparison between it and a 7D. The EVF on it is comparable to the 7D, it takes better quality pictures in poor light, about the same in good light, and I really can't tell the difference in AF speed or accuracy. I was amazed that this camera was so good. It's hard to deny the existance of something you are holding in your hands... this wasn't just an EOS-M killer, it was a Rebel killer too, and if it wasn't for the way better user interface on the 7D and Canon Lglass, it would have topped the entire APS-C lineup.

interesting, I'll have to check out the E-M5's EVF. I have recently looked at the hotshoe EVF for Olympus and was not at all impressed by the size, pixel density, visual quality, or the refresh rate.

42

EOS-M / Re: Micro four DoF and lenses

« on: January 23, 2013, 07:42:15 PM »

unfortunately, AF with the speed booster is slower than using the EOS M, according to Roger Cicala. so maybe a fruitless pursuit after all.

43

EOS Bodies / Re: Any news on the 7dMk2 now that CES is done

« on: January 23, 2013, 07:40:13 PM »

ok... but i am typing this on an ipad with a 264ppi density, the Galaxy X IV phone is 440, 500 isn't too far in the future.... oh no! Wait a minute! Sony has a 1200ppi EVF.... the future may be closer than you expect....

I agree with jrista about EVF's been a long way away from being truly good, but I also agree with your point that technology grows quickly, and it certainly will get there, probably sooner than the decade that jrista predicts.

the thing that made me cringe, though, is the thought that ... Intel is still expecting people to buy into its "ultrabook" system, where you get a 14" monitor and only a 1366x768 display. it's totally pathetic and not at all a surprise as to why people aren't buying into the system.

44

Lenses / Re: Any chance for a 18-250 or 18-300 lens from Canon in the foreseeable future?

« on: January 23, 2013, 06:37:14 PM »

As a rule of thumb, the wider the zoom range the worsae the image quality. The 18-200 has the worst MTF curves of any lens Canon makes and extending the range will probably make it worse. It might come out, but I would not buy one. A pair of cheap lenses like the 18-55 and 70-300 would probably outperform an even wider rage superzoom

The whole idea of a "workhorse" lens is one that covers a very large focal length, both wide and tele, without me having to change lenses.
For my day-to-day photography, I need a focal length from 18mm to >200mm.

while that's certainly a valid way to interpret "workhorse lens", I think a lot of people would say that what makes a lens a workhorse is its ability to consistently give you results that you would be satisfied with delivering as product, or the result of your "work". trying to mush a whole bunch of functions into a single lens usually means the opposite, in which you can shoot anything, but not at a satisfactory level.

I'm not saying you're using your lens wrong. certainly, if I were just traveling on vacation and I prioritized being able to get any shot I wanted without having to carry much weight, an 18-250mm might be just the right thing. however, given the fact that you seem rather adamant about needing to go beyond 200mm, yet also being rather adamant that superzoom image quality is exactly what you want, is a little puzzling.

don't be too scared to switch lenses, even if you're in the field. exposing your camera's innards momentarily isn't quite the danger zone some folks make it out to be (unless, yes, you are in a sawdust-filled wood shop, or a decomposing abandoned building, or similar). and frankly, for you to buy yet another superzoom (if Canon were to release one), you might as well spend that same money on a consumer telephoto that will give you fast apertures at the same focal length, and better image quality.

45

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: I love big gear

« on: January 23, 2013, 04:18:06 PM »

While you beat your chest about your 1Dx and your 100-400 push pull, Ansel and I will be pushing and pulling our view cameras and wooden tripods up to Half Dome.

nice. the more behind-the-scenes stuff I read, the more impressed I am by the number of people out there still shooting large format. seriously, the past two months I keep coming across photos that I'm like, that's a great photo, I wonder what it was shot with, and then the answer is some kind of large format.