Messages

1

Lenses / Re: Why aren't zoom lenses faster than 2.8?

« on: April 24, 2013, 06:11:29 AM »

It's definitely possible to make a practical <2.8 zoom lens with a conservative zoom range (not too wide and not too long).

The Tokina AF 28-70mm f/2.6-2.8 AT-X Pro II is a (discontinued) full-frame lens that is a tad faster than 2.8 at the wide-end, and it's not very large (A bit larger than the 24-105 f/4 IS). Moreover it's fixed length (does not extend while zooming). Quite a nice piece of engineering.

2

6D Sample Images / Re: Photographs taken OF the Canon EOS 6D

« on: March 12, 2013, 07:01:26 AM »

Hello everyone!

As many know, the Canon EOS 6D is the worlds smallest, lightest full-frame SLR on the market today. As a travel and landscape photographer, I was quite intrigued by the ultralight factor and immediately bought one of the first to ship. Just over three months later I have shot quite a few images with it, and OF it : )

Wrong! That the Sony RX1

Wrong! The RX1 is not an SLR

Challenged! Cameras such as the Vivitar V3800N are smaller and lighter.

Perhaps the OP meant smallest DSLR on the market

Nice pictures though! Was the front, body only picture taken with the Zeiss 50mm f/1.4?

3

Lenses / Re: 135L vs 85L vs 70-200L II

« on: January 17, 2013, 04:44:45 PM »

I own the 85 f/1.2, 135mm f/2 and 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II, but I rarely use any of them. I normally take my trusty 100mm f/2.8 L IS instead. It has the

• IS and weather-sealing of the 70-200
• Light weight and stealthiness of the 135
• Creamy smooth bokeh of the 85 (albeit with less "blur potential" )
• I heard it can do macro, too!

However, I'm still keeping the other three. They're all too good in their own right

4

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Pro's who use 5D MkII

« on: December 03, 2012, 06:30:10 AM »

Pete Souza, official White House photographer, used the 5D Mark II until recently. It was the first digital SLR used for an official presidential photo

(The President himself has been seen using the camera, putting him in the same company as Madonna, Miley Cyrus, and the Jonas Brothers )

Quoting Jeff Ascough: The number of truly brilliant photographers across the globe that use the camera daily in all sorts of disciplines and locations is testament to how good a camera it is. I have used a pair of 5D Mark II’s since launch date in 2008 and I had a pre-production camera before that. It is small, light, well-built and has the best files from any camera. Period.

5

Lenses / Re: 35mm lenses vs 24-70

« on: November 08, 2012, 03:58:29 AM »

they are all super sharp... 

but what you forget is crop factor...

the x100 is an APS-C and the 6d is full frame.

So a 35mm on the x100 is 56mm equivalent on the FF 6d.

So you prob want to look at 50mm or the zoom...

A moot point, since the X100 has a non-interchangeable 23mm lens, no doubt designed to closely resemble the field of view you get from a 35mm on a FF camera.

6

EOS Bodies / Re: Shutter count request to Canon.

« on: October 01, 2012, 05:36:13 AM »

What have you done with that 5DII ? How long have you used it that it has such a low count?

That's nothing, I recently bought a 1Ds II with 840 actuations (original price €6900). Thats about $10 per shutter cycle, so I hope the previous owner had a high keeper rate

I don't think I'll ever see such a pristine 1Ds again. It even had LCD screen protectors.

I also sold a 5D II used for video. The shutter count of around 280 ensured a quick and easy sell...

7

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 5Dc as an entry for FF? yay or nay?

« on: October 01, 2012, 04:53:38 AM »

Nay from me given your current situation. I'd rather invest in some good EF lenses. In most situations, your 500D can produce pictures that are indiscernable from a FF camera at equivalent focal lengths.

I've owned several 5Dc's, most recently right before 5D III hit the stores. Coming from a more modern camera (5DII), I have to say the LCD was a bit frustrating to use. It's nigh impossible to determine if the image is tack sharp, or just slightly OOF. I also found the colors to be off (greenish cast).

On the other hand, the images are really good, and I didn't really miss the IQ of the 5D II/III (at ISO<1600). It's a "no frills" image making machine.

One thing to keep in mind is that a lot of used 5D's will come with dirty sensors, and if you're not comfortable cleaning it yourself, you may want to factor in that additional cost.

8

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sony A99 24MP Full Frame Press Release

« on: September 12, 2012, 06:18:46 AM »

They would need to seriously catch up with the glass!

What glass are you exactly looking for?  I find the Sony and Zeiss lineup comparable though some are expensive are comparable to Canon lineup.

Sony shooters have some very good lenses at their disposal, such as the ZA 24-70mm f/2.8,  ZA 85mm f/1.4, ZA 135mm f/1.8, and the 70-200 G, 70-300 G and 70-400 G.

However, in targeting the professional market (as they obviously are with the A99), it is a drawback that none of the abovementioned lenses are weather sealed. No wonder they're making a huge point of the fact that the new 300 f/2.8 and the A99 grip are sealed.

9

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Upgrading from Canon 60D to 5D MkII: Help me decide!

« on: September 06, 2012, 08:10:24 AM »

Any other points I may have left out or should be aware of? Thanks in advance.

Here are my thoughts from having owned both these cameras at the same time, and using them more or less "side by side". Your mileage may vary.

Overall, I've found the 60D a bit more enjoyable to grab for a quick, informal, shoot, mainly because of the following:

• Working Auto-ISO in M mode. 5D II Auto-ISO is fixed at 400 in M mode.
• Better AWB. Indoors, the 60D will often hit the mark where the 5D II misses completely. Both have problems with the really yellow tungsten lights.
• More sensitive peripheral AF points.  Having 9 fully usable cross-type points reduces the need for focus-and-recompose on the 60D. The 5D II often struggles to lock with the outer points.
• Built-in flash which can trigger Speedlites remotely.

However, for more "serious" work, I would take the 5D because of:

• Overall better IQ, especially at high ISO. However, the difference is often negligible at ISO 100
• AF Microadjustment. Not having this is my biggest pet peeve with the 60D
• Increased creative potential wrt. depth of field on FF
• Better viewfinder on 5D II.
• Better selection of lenses in the 24-85mm range (considering the crop factor)
• Overall better controls and construction on 5D II

10

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon EOS-1D X AF at f/8 with the Kenko 1.4TC

« on: September 06, 2012, 07:13:35 AM »

Canon EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 L + Kenko 2x (effectively @ f/8-11) = Slow/difficult to lock focus

... a 1.4x tc is the absolute max for the 70-300L unless you mf, but imho the iq with the 1.4x Kenko is "just" ok so I wouldn't want to try a 2x.

In fact, I found that the bare lens performance at 300mm is only okayish, which is somewhat disappointing considering the max aperture. I have two of these so I may run a quick check to see if there's any discernable difference.

11

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon EOS-1D X AF at f/8 with the Kenko 1.4TC

« on: September 05, 2012, 06:20:28 AM »

I've used Kenko 2x with the lovely Sigma 100-300 f/4 on 5D III, and it worked like a charm. Very sharp and snappy AI Servo AF with both manual and automatic.

Sigma 100-300 f/4 + Kenko 2x (effectively @ f/8) = Works 100%
Sigma 100-300 f/4 + Kenko 2x + Canon 1.4x (effectively @ f/11) = Only automatic AF point selection, fast lock
Canon EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 L + Kenko 2x (effectively @ f/8-11) = Slow/difficult to lock focus

12

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Cheap Camera Ideas...worth it?

« on: August 23, 2012, 04:23:57 PM »

Keeping in mind that the Rebel XT has very limited high ISO capabilities, and that the 18-55 non-IS is not exactly great, an affordable, high optical-quality prime (35mm f/2, 40mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1. will certainly bring out the best images you can get on a $200 budget.

13

Lenses / Re: Lens creep. Is this normal?

« on: August 10, 2012, 05:28:28 AM »

I've owned five of these. Out of those, three or more had creep with the lens hood attached, and two of them had creep without an attached lens hood. My current sample has creep with or without an attached lens hood.

Bummer - guess I got lucky. Mine has the hood and a UV filter.

But really, how bad can it be?  For comparison, ever shot with the 70-300 DO?  I had one for a while, now that's a lens with serious creep in its double-extension design.  I was shooting fully extended once, tracking a bird in flight, and as the bird flew overhead, the zoom slammed back in so hard I swear I'm lucky the eyecup on my 7D didn't give me a black eye... 

Forgot to mention I was using UV/CPL on all of them. I've used the DO, but not for BIF. I actually like that lens, and wouldn't hesitate to recommend it if it'd been priced similarly to the 70-300 IS non-L. It even has a (much needed) zoom lock IIRC

14

Lenses / Re: Lens creep. Is this normal?

« on: August 09, 2012, 06:55:17 PM »

I've owned five of these. Out of those, three or more had creep with the lens hood attached, and two of them had creep without an attached lens hood. My current sample has creep with or without an attached lens hood.

15

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS M Specs

« on: July 22, 2012, 10:11:06 AM »

don´t you think the AF will be as good as 5 year old cameras who do wildlife shots pretty well?

Are you referring to five year old cameras such as the 1D III or the 40D? If so, my answer would have to be a resounding "heck, no!"