September 02, 2014, 10:24:16 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 - Random Orbits

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 88
16
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5DIII with 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L
« on: August 25, 2014, 04:01:37 PM »
No problem for me.  Did you check the lens on another body or do AFMA?

17
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 01:55:47 PM »
Firstly, let me say that I do not have an engineering background or understanding that half of you folks do but I'm a little amused at the amount of damnation for a camera that nobody has even seen yet.

I know exactly what I want in the 7Dii but I guess it'll be different to every other Canon user's personal want list and as Canon are not in the business of Build-Ur-Own-Camera, they will release the best camera possible to us that they can.

On the DR issue; sure, I'd love Canon to have the upper hand over Nikon but right now they just don't. I've been in this position before though, I was a Sega fan during their 16bit war with Nintendo. 64 colours vs 256, mode 7. Street Fighter II was better on the SNES and yet, I still played games rabidly, day in, day out and loved every minute of it.

So once again, I'm not an engineer, heck, I'm only a very average photographer but I will use every moment I can to take photos because I friggin' love it!

It does seem to happen a lot.  Remember all the people poo-pooing the 6D when its specs were released?  Many of those here advocated for the 5DII over the 6D, but you don't see many of those in favor of the 5DII anymore.  If Canon did its homework, the 7DII should sell well.

18
Lenses / Re: A New Pancake Lens? [CR1]
« on: August 24, 2014, 09:59:42 PM »
Why would it be f/2.8?  The 24 f/2.8 IS isn't large, but it's not a pancake either.  A 24mm pancake that is f/4 would make more sense, but I'm not sure how useful it'd be a crop camera.

24mm & 28mm f2.8 IS is very good small prime, but the price is around 4 times to 40mm pancake.
Which is why I don't think it'll be f/2.8 or be as good as the 24 and 28 f/2.8 IS primes if it's priced anywhere near the 40mm pancake.  And why launch it with the 7DII, unless it is an EF-S lens, but does that make sense when Canon has not shown much inclinination for EF-S primes?

19
Lenses / Re: A New Pancake Lens? [CR1]
« on: August 24, 2014, 11:23:13 AM »
Why would it be f/2.8?  The 24 f/2.8 IS isn't large, but it's not a pancake either.  A 24mm pancake that is f/4 would make more sense, but I'm not sure how useful it'd be a crop camera.

20
Lenses / Re: Canon EF24-105mm f4 IS USM time for a refresh?
« on: August 22, 2014, 02:41:46 PM »
Or... the 24-70 f/4 IS is designed to replace the 24-105 f/4 IS as the sole kit lens.  The 24-105 f/4 IS could then be redesigned to have better performance but for a higher price tag that will not be discounted as heavily because it will no longer be a kit lens.  Some will upgrade from the 24-70 f/4 IS to the 24-105 f/4 IS II because it will be better with a longer focal length.

I don't see Canon selling a kit lens that is 35mm shorter than Sigma's alternative, which will be cheaper than the 24-105mm mk2, and 50mm shorter than Nikon's kit lens.

If Canon were to offer an updated 24-105 f/4 IS II in a kit configuration, then there will little point for having the 24-70 f/4 IS in the first place.  And if Canon designed the 24-70 f/4 IS to be a kit lens from the start, so that it's production costs are reasonable, then it can discount it in a kit aggressively while maintaining a reason for people to look for a reason to replace their kit lens.

That will create the image of Canon downgrading it's kit to make buyers draw the short straw.

Perhaps, but if it can offer the kit lens at lower price, then it gets people to buy into the Canon eco-system, which is what matters.  The Sigma can't be included in a kit, so you'll always be paying full price for it.  As long as the 24-105 is a kit lens, Canon will not be able to raise the price to make developing a more costly version II worth it.  I am cynical, after all...   ::)

21
Lenses / Re: Canon EF24-105mm f4 IS USM time for a refresh?
« on: August 22, 2014, 01:53:28 PM »
The 24-105mm is different from other lenses:

1. The 24-105mm is a kit lens for two FF cameras, so it's white box price is a high priority for Canon. Therefore, Canon will be more sensitive to it's production costs, and less willing to invest in making the big investment in replacing it.

[This plays part in both upgrades from crop and in competition to Nikon kits.]

2. Being a kit lens, it should be positioned so as to encourage photographers to upgrade to other lenses - better, wider, longer, faster, etc.

A new 24-105mm would be detrimental to both causes, so I expect Canon to delay upgrade as long as it can.  Currently Canon has the advantage of being able to offer a more attractive price in a kit, so I don't see how an upgrade would be urgent from Canon's point of view.

Or... the 24-70 f/4 IS is designed to replace the 24-105 f/4 IS as the sole kit lens.  The 24-105 f/4 IS could then be redesigned to have better performance but for a higher price tag that will not be discounted as heavily because it will no longer be a kit lens.  Some will upgrade from the 24-70 f/4 IS to the 24-105 f/4 IS II because it will be better with a longer focal length.

If Canon were to offer an updated 24-105 f/4 IS II in a kit configuration, then there will little point for having the 24-70 f/4 IS in the first place.  And if Canon designed the 24-70 f/4 IS to be a kit lens from the start, so that it's production costs are reasonable, then it can discount it in a kit aggressively while maintaining a reason for people to look for a reason to replace their kit lens.

22
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Dustin Abbott Reviews Tamron 28-300 FF
« on: August 14, 2014, 12:16:27 PM »
I'm not crazy about f/6.3, either, but it is also 1/3rd of a stop of light.  It is rare that the 1/3rd stop makes much of a difference, and the high ISO performance of the 6D that I use it with means that I can get away with cranking ISO and still get very nice images.

I suspect that the 28-300L probably has higher resolution than this lens...but I doubt the difference is significant.  This lens is surprisingly competent (I wasn't nearly as impressed with the new 16-300 VC for crop).

Does f/6.3 affect AF performance when using off-center AF points?

23
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 11-24 f/2.8L Coming [CR1]
« on: August 07, 2014, 05:15:28 PM »
This is where I don't get why Canon would make this lens f/2.8 leading to a huge size & cost.  Action shooters are much more likely to use a fisheye instead of an 11mm lens, and I'm not seeing much bokeh this wide.  Also, with today's high ISO bodies, and lenses this wide, who can't handhold at 1/10-1/30s?  I thought that the f/4 aperture was the smartest decision Canon made with the 16-35 f/4 IS.  I love fast lenses and would kill for this proposed lens, but I just don't see the need for f/2.8 on this lens.

Then again, it's CR1, so we're probably just making fools of ourselves by discussing this ridiculous rumor.

Perhaps it was easier to get around Nikon's patents by going to 11 rather than 12 or 14 at the wide end...

24
EOS Bodies / Re: 6D+7Dii Vs 5D mkiii
« on: August 07, 2014, 01:44:01 PM »
There have been several threads in the forum showing that the difference in IQ between a reach limited 5DIII is not that different from the 7D.  At the lowest ISOs, the 7D has the advantage, and the 5DIII has the advantage at high ISOs.  The wildcard is that we don't know how much better IQ will be in the 7DII.

Perhaps a different but just as important question, is how much total reach do you want/need?  400mm?  600mm?  The TDP comparison below shows that the Tamron on a FF at 500mm will beat a 100-400 on a crop at 400mm.  At 600mm, the 100-400 on a crop will pull ahead.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=113&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=2

How often will you use 600mm and crop at that focal length?  If it's a lot, then it might be worth getting the 6D/7DII combo.  But if not, then the 5DIII should be just fine.  There is some value in having a single set of gear rather than having to swap lenses/bodies.

25
Lenses / Re: Lens setup for wedding photography
« on: August 07, 2014, 01:03:19 PM »
Not the official photographer?
Then just the 50, be everywhere while staying out of the way.

+1...let's the pro does his/her best.

Although I would love to have a capable "photographer" at every table/group if possible.  There are many moments that are missed because there is only so much one or two pros can cover.

I remember placing those disposable 35mm film cameras at each table when my wife and I got married.  I was expecting a lot of shots to be bad, but I wasn't expecting THAT many shots to be bad.  I'm pretty sure it was not worth the cost of those disposable cameras and the cost of processing the film for what we got out of it.  Cell phone cameras are a lot better than those crappy disposable cameras, but a lot of those shots are still no better (as observed  from all the FB links from a recent wedding we attended).

26
Canon General / Re: Which Lens to Take
« on: August 07, 2014, 07:55:17 AM »
I'd suggest sticking with the 24-105 if you only plan on bringing 1 lens.  I find that 70mm is just a bit too short on the long end.

27
+1 for the RRS PG-02 system if you plan on doing any panos in the future.

28
Lenses / Re: Lens setup for wedding photography
« on: August 05, 2014, 08:28:58 AM »
If the wedding is in the evening and the reception at night, then a flash will be necessary.  Using gels is also preferable.

As an unofficial photographer, you won't get a prime shooting spot or have lights set up for you like the official photographer, so why bother trying to get similar shots when you're already at such a disadvantage.  Try to think of shots you'd like from a different vantage point and choose your lenses accordingly.  Or, if you know a lot of people attending the wedding, focus on those people instead.  The official photographers will usually only take 1-2 shots of everyone from each table, so use the additional time you have to your advantage.  When the bride and groom visit the table, use the opportunity to get candids of hugs and laughter and a few posed shots.

I attended a wedding last weekend, and found it hard to take pics of traditional moments (i.e. cake cutting) because the pros (1 main, 1 assistant and 1 videographer) crowd out a lot of space with those with cell phones stuck in between.  I ended up using two lenses:  24-70 and a 8-15 fisheye.  I had wanted to use the fisheye for the bride/groom walking down the aisle, but a 2.5 hour drive turned into a 5 hour drive and we barely made it for the ceremony.  The fisheye accounted for 20% of the keepers (out of about 80) and was used heavily on the dance floor with the camera often held up high and looking down.

From the set of equipment you listed, I'd bring the 10-22, 18-55, 50 and the 430.  The 18-55 would get the most use, then the 10-22 and then the 50.

29
Lenses / Re: Thoughts on 70-200 f/4 vs 70-300 vs 100-400?
« on: August 03, 2014, 01:11:19 PM »
It comes down to what you value more:  sports vs. travel; and IQ vs. weight.  The 70-300L is a good choice for travel.  It loses a fractional stop compared to the 70-200 f/4 IS, and it's shortness helps for travel.

But if you favor sports over travel, then I would suggest looking into the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II.  Add a 1.4x TC, and it's IQ at 280mm nearly matches the 70-300L at 300mm while being a stop faster.  Add a 2x TC, and it's IQ at 400 is only slightly worse than the 100-400L's although it does focus significantly slower.  The 70-200 f/2.8 II IS might also make your 100 and 200L expendable, depending on how you use them.

The 70-300L is a good lens, but it seems like many people in this forum that have it also have multiple telezooms.  It is the best choice for travel, but if I could only have 1 telezoom, I'd choose the 70-200 f/2.8 II IS and its IQ and advantages in portraiture and sports over its increased size/weight/worse handling and slower AF with TCs attached/etc.

30
Lenses / Re: advice for new lens´╝čplease
« on: August 03, 2014, 12:44:46 PM »
I'd get the 16-35 f/4 IS first.  The wider AOV will give you more creative options for travel and street.

I don't find a long zoom necessary for travel very often, so out of your options, I'd choose the 16-35, 50 and 135.  It'd give you the wider shots, and give you fast/thinner DOF options.  If you go to a lot of zoos, amusement parks, then a 70-xxx can be useful, but for general travel, I usually leave the 70-xxx zooms at home.

I'd suggest keeping the 35L even if you get the 16-35.  It is a 3-stop difference, which will come in handy indoors or in low light.  I'd suggest selling the 200 if you get a 70-200, especially if it's a f/2.8.  You can always get a 1.4x TC to use on the 135L if you need something a little more discreet.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 88