December 20, 2014, 04:05:35 PM

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 5 ... 94
Lenses / Re: Canon Refurb Store
« on: October 29, 2014, 09:21:44 AM »
Not really.  The refurbed equipment used to carry a 90 day warranty.  Now that it is 1 year -- same as new, the risk is pretty much the same.

I've purchased a EF-S 10-22, 5DII, 35 f/2 IS and 24 f/2.8 IS and a couple 600EXs from the refurb store, and I've been happy with all the purchases.  The lens selection has expanded over the years, which is nice.

Lenses / Re: More EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II Talk [CR2]
« on: October 28, 2014, 02:59:14 PM »
I'm not saying I like it, but I'll have to see in person if I could get used to having the zoom ring on the "wrong" side, compared to my other three zooms - the 17-40L, 24-105L, and 70-200/2.8L.

It will also probably have the same extreme focus breathing.

As a trade-off I'm happy to accept those things in exchange for a very sharp, reasonably compact 100-400L. The only real problem is what it will do to the value of my 70-300L on the used market...

Not much.  The 70-300L will still be smaller and lighter.  The question I have is how well it will perform at 400mm.  If its sharpness improvement can compete with the Tarmron near 600, then Canon's smaller and lighter lens with native AF algorithms will do well.  And if the IQ is improved that much, how much better can a prime 400 f/5.6 do, even if it is a 400 f/5.6 IS?

You won't be wrong with the 24mm f2.8 IS, IQ is fantastic

+1.  Bought it from Canon's refurb store while on sale for ~410 including tax.

Lenses / Re: More chatter on an EF 11-24 F/4L coming soon
« on: October 24, 2014, 10:53:09 AM »
I would still miss a coma free 16-35 2.8L III for astrophotography...  :(

The reason being is that anything wider has a bulbous element which cannot be protected much from light (in contrast to a flat front elememt lens with a hood...

That and the need for a 2.8 aperture...

+1.  I'd love the see a 16-35 f/2.8 III.  I'd rather bring a 16-35 and a 14 prime (or this 11-24).

Lenses / Re: why there are no new L primes
« on: October 24, 2014, 10:35:01 AM »
You forgot the 50mm compact macro on your list, brilliant in the f8 - f11 range , but the crappiest lens ever wide open. It is one of the very few (if not the only) left over from the original 1987 EF releases. The old Nikkor AI-S 55mm was much better compared to the LOMO/Canon 50 Compact Macro f2.5.  Come on Canon, your standard Macro is a shame, this one as well needs an urgent upgrade. What happened to the year of the lens ???

EF-S 10-18, EF 16-35 f/4 IS, EF-S 24, 400 F/4 DO II, 24-105 f/3.5-5.6 IS, EF-M 55-200... just not the lenses you want.

A 400 f/4 and a 1.4x gets you there; maybe the new 400 DO will work well for that.


+1.  It'll be interesting to see how the new DO technology performs.

Lenses / Re: 70-200 2.8 II or 100 2.8L and 135 2 and 200 2.8
« on: October 23, 2014, 08:54:53 AM »
I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask but I heard there were still some issues with the 70-200mm F2.8L II IS.  For example, the lens does not mount tight against the body.  Some owners experience some 'play' if the lens is gently twisted back and forth against the body.  There were complaints that some of the lenses were not  sharp compared to other 70-200 ... possible quality control issue with Canon(?).  Does anyone know if these issues have been resolved?  Are these issues a real concern?

I am also looking into purchasing the 70-200 F2.8L II but the shops here does not allow us to open the boxes to test the lens.  If you want to open the box, you need to buy it.  If you have problems, send it back to Canon.  This is what they tell me.  It would be nice to spend >$2200 on a lens and not have to worry about 'potential' problems.  I guess it depends on your luck!

It depends on the body.  There is a some play, but the pin locks and it works fine.  The play was more on my 5DII than my 5DIII but there is still some.  I also have some play in some of my other Canon lenses.  It's a tolerance stackup issue, but it's within the specs and everything works as it should.

Perhaps there is a lemon here or there, but there are lot fewer 70-200 f/2.8 IS II complaints than the 50L, 50A, 35A, etc.  If your body as AFMA, use it to get the best performance.  If it doesn't, then you might have to send both the lens and camera into Canon for them to adjust.

If we did, prices would rise. 

Good.  I would rather pay more to have a product that works for at least 2 years then pay less and have the company liable for something vaguely "manufacturer defects" or what ever weasle words the lawyers come up with.

Then buy a 3rd party warranty.

  The law states that the product must function for two years in it's intended purpose with normal usage.

Wish we had a law like that here in the US.

If we did, prices would rise.  You don't get something for nothing.  As it is, we get a "discount" because the same equipment is designed and shipped to both markets.  It would make more sense to engineer the product to the stricter standards and then sell it globally.  Just because a part is designed for a MTBF of x hours or clicks doesn't mean that failures ony happen after MTBF.

I am leaning toward that choice, with a refurbished 6D at $1500.

as for 24-70, maybe that needs another thread, but from a quick research i get that the 24-70 f4 IS is second only to the 24-70 f2.8 II in sharpness, also IS is helpful as my hands are not steady, and at $1k its at half the price, yes f2.8 is very tempting, but that's pushing the wallet too much :D

If you have your heart set on the 24-70 f/4 IS, you could considering getting a white box grey market lens for 800.

You can also get a brand new 6D for 1440 from an authorized dealer using CPW's streetprice:

6D first.  You will still have the 600D, so you won't losing any focal length flexibility, and F4 lenses work much better on FF.  Unless the birding shots outnumber your night events/portraits/wedding shots, getting the 6D first makes a lot more sense.

Lenses / Re: 70-200 2.8 II or 100 2.8L and 135 2 and 200 2.8
« on: October 17, 2014, 07:32:37 AM »
70-200L f/2.8 IS II.  The 70-200 is close to being my most used lens, and I have the 100L and 135L.  The primes have specific advantages but the 70-200 will get used more and in more situations than the primes will.

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 6D Mark II to Move Upmarket? [CR1]
« on: October 16, 2014, 04:42:43 PM »
That gets the heart of the question -- doesn't it?  People pay a lot of money for cell phone network/data access.  I can't see many people paying a similar fee for a camera in addition to the cell phone that they already have...

Well, I don't pay extra for my iPad. It's included in my data plan. No reason why a camera couldn't be as well.
But really my main point is quite simple- there are a lot of things camera makers could do to help their professional customers gain an edge in today's highly competitive and interconnected world.

I'm not saying it's for everybody but I don't get why some folks feel threatened by it. Well maybe I do...keeping up with fast changing customer demands means you have to work harder and those who cling to the old ways risk becoming obsolete.

Depends where you are.  But right now when data plans are in the single to tens of GB and now you want to load raw files to the cloud for processing/social consumption... 22 to 40 MP files are going to eat into that capacity quickly and we're just not there yet where the infrastructure can support that at a reasonable cost.  Stuff packaged for iPad/cell phone consumption are low res to save space.

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 6D Mark II to Move Upmarket? [CR1]
« on: October 16, 2014, 02:20:07 PM »
So what is it exactly that you want, what needs to be added to a camera to compete with Hello Kitty?  A cellular 4G radio?  Should it also make phone calls, perhaps to call our editors and beg forgiveness for the few minutes delay?  Instant cloud upload?  A Facebook, Twitter, Instagram app, a contacts list complete with social media addresses of all customers?

That's a pretty good start. I've crossed out the phone, because I'm not sure that's necessary, but I would entertain it. But, certainly a usable wifi interface and the ability to do some quick edits in-camera at a minimum.

That gets the heart of the question -- doesn't it?  People pay a lot of money for cell phone network/data access.  I can't see many people paying a similar fee for a camera in addition to the cell phone that they already have...

EOS Bodies / Re: Scott Kelby Does a Field Report on the EOS 7D Mark II
« on: October 11, 2014, 07:29:30 PM »
+1.  One person doing one review or giving experiences from using something over a short period of time is not going to satisfy all the "review points" for all the critics of this forum. 

The problem is that he had the camera for like a week? more? and did an hour long video on the camera but didn't say anything of substance.  Its actually kind of amazing how little he was able to convey in such a long period of time.   I guess the soothing, melodious voice of marketing and vague reassurances that everything is totally great guys just trust me is all people really need. Be sure to get your pre-orders in!

He's used to using a 1DX and has a 70D.  He says it's little brother to the 1DX but is an older brother than he thought it would be.  ACR and DPP don't support it yet, so what is the point of comparing RAWs?  Noise looks better than 70D but it doesn't match FF.  It has a deep buffer.  What else are you expecting?  And you've found some other source that played with a preproduction model and got all the info you wanted?  I don't think so...

which led to my second sentence which you didn't quote "But instead of treating it as some information/experience from someone who has used multiple lenses/cameras in advance of it becoming generally available, it's being discounted as worthless."

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 94