January 26, 2015, 10:31:00 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 ... 25 26 [27] 28 29 ... 96
Canon General / Re: Review: Canon Speedlite Transmitter ST-E3-RT
« on: January 31, 2014, 09:56:19 AM »
But, if the extra power isn't required, that 'one size' could be a set of 4x0EX-RT flashes instead of a set of 600's, and with multiple flashes that would be significant cost savings.

True, although I'd probably still opt for the 600s anyway, especially if the 4x0EX-RT does not zoom to 200mm.  The 600 doesn't have that much power at 200mm for a large group (wide area) at a distance, but for smaller targets, it is handy.

Canon General / Re: Review: Canon Speedlite Transmitter ST-E3-RT
« on: January 31, 2014, 08:55:48 AM »
I know, this is mainly about the ST-E3-RT, which is "OK" [it should have included AF assist light] but overall I find the Canon RT system to be rather limited. Only one big, expensive speedlite and one expensive controller. The system has been around for quite some time now and still there is no

* small and cheap RT transceiver to integrate optical-only Canon speedlites [580/430) into a RT setup, and ideally also 3rd party flashes [at least in M mode] as well as studio strobes 
* 430EX-RT
* overhaul of the ancient Canon wireless ETTL protocol to finally enable remote 2nd curtain sync and remote control over zoom-reflector setting

I find it easier to have just one size for the speedlite.  It makes changing manual settings much easier when you don't have to remember which "group" is the smaller flash and compensate for it accordingly.  So much so, that I my 430 sits unused nearly all the time.

I do wish the the ST-E3-RT had an AF assist light.  It's hard to focus in a dim, low-contrast setting when the ambient lights are down.

Thanks for all the replies, comments, suggestions, experience reports, etc. I'm going to respond only just where I have to add something that might add to the discussion. Still, I really appreciate all of them and I'm happy that there were also some voices against the 6D/FF now.

<Wall of text>

The Tamron 24-70 VC would satisfy your mid-range zoom requirement for <1k, or if want to go prime, then the 24 f/2.8 IS and 35 f/2 IS would work well too.  The focal lengths of your lenses will also be more useful on FF (100, 70-200) for portraiture.

Macro can still be done with FF handheld.  The advantage that Marsu is claiming with APS-C is not as significant as it might seem.  There are plenty of cases where DOF is not deep enough in either case and focus stacking is required.  Besides, people were taking macro shots for years FF with film before APS-C came along.

ASK yourself a question before buying A7R mirrorless. If compactness, IQ and balance are not important, than why not just shoot with Canon/Nikon DSLR.

I simply don't give comment and suggestion on something that I haven't touched. The Zeiss FE 55mm f1.8 is a SOLID piece of glass. The IQ is good or slightly better than my 24-70 II from f2.8 to f8.

The Zeiss FE series is design to bring the best of Sony A7 series. Not to mention, AF speed of Canon lenses on A7 series is REALLY slow. Have you ever shoot EOS-M with original firmware?

If you want to play the game, play it right. If you want the best IQ from A7r, stay with native lenses

Except that there are how many native lenses?  28-70 and a 55?

For Canon landscape shooters, the A7R may be the perfect solution right now.  Manual focus is preferred so AF is not an issue AND you get to use superior Canon glass:  TS-E 17, TS-E 24, 24-70.  Nikon can't match those lenses and neither can Sony/Zeiss.  And if one wanted to use the 14-24, then an adaptor can be used rather than introducing another camera system.

So what? What does the op need high iso for - posed portraits? no. (tripod) macro? no. architecture? nope, not with vanilla lenses. landscape? only for the superior postprocessing leverage of ff - and in this case, a used 5d2 might be even or better (a bit more mp, a bit sharper at base iso).

The other advantage of the ff is thinner dof, looking at the op's gallery he could profit from that - but expensive zooms or primes are needed for it ... much more than just a camera body upgrade. Last not least the infamous 5d2/6d af plus missing crop factor isn't made for shooting squirrels or alligators from a distance, so what he ends up is our popular setup: either a 5d3 or 70d/7d+6d combination. That's a lot of $$$ for camera bodies that loose value in no time, it might be smarter to get some nice primes first.

The OP mentioned night shots.  If this includes starscapes, then higher ISO capability is welcome. 

He also only has 1 EF-S lens, the 17-55 f/2.8 IS, which retains its value and can be sold easily.  His other lenses are EF.  The same EF lens on FF will seem to have better sharpness, and he would also get an immediate DOF benefit by moving to FF even keeping the same EF lenses.  If anything, APS-C cameras place a higher premium on lens quality. 

Lenses / Re: Which lens is should I buy.
« on: January 30, 2014, 01:13:05 PM »
I have no experience with longer lenses, but as far as i know "bird photography" and "walk around lens" can't be attributed to the same lens. :-P
Among those you listed, the 70-300L seems to be the one, but i suggest you look into the 100-400L, which would be better for the purpose, IMHO.

+1.  How much do you value weigth and range?  If you plan on using it exclusively outdoors, then the 70-300L works well.  Compact and well suited for travel (relatively light), but it will not get you close enough to birds.  The Tamron 150-600 weighs 75% more than the 70-300L but gets to focal lengths that birders typically use.

Canon General / Re: Canon's Fiscal Year 2013 Financial Results Released
« on: January 30, 2014, 11:38:03 AM »
..., the EOS 5D Mark III and 70D advanced-amateur-model digital SLR cameras ...

Did they just call the 5D3 an advanced-amateur-model?  :o

Indeed they did.  The 1-series are the 'pro' bodies.  OTOH, Canon Europe lists the 5DIII in the pro section.

Oh good!  DxO Optics Pro should then move the 5DIII to the standard version and save US customers $100.   ::)

Canon General / Re: Canon's Fiscal Year 2013 Financial Results released
« on: January 30, 2014, 09:29:20 AM »
I would guess by the way they worded this, that they lost market share, but still maintained the lead.  If they had increased their leading market share position, they almost assuredly would have stated that here.

Just making a point about the clever way that statements can be worded to give a positive (or negative) spin.

Canon might have lost share this year, but the relevant comparison is market share over several years.  From past charts I've seen, market shares can shift several % points year-to-year.

I did have both in my hands a couple of times and with different lenses on them. Unfortunately I can only just try them "on the spot" and shooting the interior of a shop is not exactly what I'm interested in.

Yes, but if you bring a lens that you routinely use for your shots and test the ISO capabilities on both bodies then you'll see whether or not you'd take advantage of the higher ISO capabilities of a FF camera.  Stores tend to be relatively dim, so they can be a good spot for tests.  If you don't have a high speed prime, see if you can try one in the store on both bodies and see if the shallower DOF is to your liking.  Better yet, take someone with you and use him as your model.  These don't have to be keepers -- they just have to show you whether you value one camera's IQ enough over the other.

Lenses / Re: Why aren't new lenses weather sealed?
« on: January 30, 2014, 07:59:41 AM »
Weather sealing is not the same thing as weather proofing or being watertight.  Throw enough "weather" at the equipment and it will fail.  You're better off bringing plastic bags, umbrellas etc. if you can.  It is not a good feeling when a lens fails because of a nick in the rubber.

Lenses / Re: More EF pancakes?
« on: January 30, 2014, 07:54:30 AM »
I'm guessing "no"... at least not until after Canon develops something like the A7R.  Have you looked at the 24, 28 and 35mm IS lenses?  I have the 28, and it's a lot smaller than L lenses.  A pancake will require the removal of IS and correcting elements, and I don't think the general market will go for that. 

+1 for the 6D.  Full frames have ~2 stop advantage in high ISO (although you do lose some DR).  Full frames also give you greater control over the DOF, which is an advantage in portraiture.  There are many more options for WA, UWAs on FF, and it allows you to use UWA lenses to their full capabilities.

You'll learn to work with the 6D's quirks.  Go to a camera store with your own memory card and try out both bodies.  The experience you gain first hand will mean more than forum recommendations.

EOS Bodies / Re: "Honey, I'vs never seen it this hard before..."
« on: January 25, 2014, 10:01:52 AM »
So you say you have a 5D III

You see, I was a Nikon shooter for several years, and owned everything from a D70, all the way through to a d700. I finally jumped ship a couple of years ago and got a 5D mark III.

and then you're asking about getting a 5D III?

You should read the whole post. The OP had to sell it.

Back OT: with Canon you have to pay dearly to get the good stuff. As you said, the 6D blows in terms of AF. Just so you know, saying that will not buy friends  ::) The latest fashion in here is praising the 6D for having better low-light capabilities and DR than the 5D3  ::)

If you want to stay with Canon without spending too much, your best shot is a 70D. Sure, you have to give up on the FF part.

Otherwise, yes, your best shot overall is buying a used D700 or a D610. The latter's AF doesn't work too great in low light on its own, but it has an AF assist lamp that for your shooting conditions will make it perfectly suitable.

My choice would be the D610 if money is tight, buy another 5D3 is you prefer the peace of mind.

Ummm... hello.  That was not in the original post.  The OP edited it.

EOS Bodies / Re: "Honey, I'vs never seen it this hard before..."
« on: January 25, 2014, 08:18:52 AM »
So you say you have a 5D III

You see, I was a Nikon shooter for several years, and owned everything from a D70, all the way through to a d700. I finally jumped ship a couple of years ago and got a 5D mark III.

and then you're asking about getting a 5D III?

I have no doubt that at some point in the future the software will put aside compatibility with RAW files from specific cameras . It may take 20, 30 years to happen , but it will happen. So , it seems prudent to save me apart from RAW , also another universal image format such as DNG , or JPEG . Businesses exist for profit , and archives of previous decades are not a priority for software companies . If you have technical knowledge to build your own RAW conversion software , you can rest assured . Otherwise, you may be a victim of planned obsolescence . If Microsoft itself no longer supports the old WORD files , why you believe Adobe or another company will eternally support files from a specific camera model ? As for the media , the programmed obsolescence tabém will ( at some point ) surprise people who believed in the durability and compatibility of media . Hard drives will also be obsolete someday, and we use SATA HD will be discontinued . When this happens , your files (all types ) can be accessed ?

I don't believe that Adobe or any other company would provide support forever.  However, companies tend to support new and old formats for a generation or two so that users can convert file formats.  It is then that the files in the old format need to be converted something that will be good for another long while.

Yes, HDs will be obsolete someday, but the day is not today.  What else can store so much data so cheaply and conveniently?  Whenever its replacement arrives and HDs start to disappear, I'll move the files to the new media.

Pages: 1 ... 25 26 [27] 28 29 ... 96