March 06, 2015, 11:22:42 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 ... 32 33 [34] 35 36 ... 97
EOS Bodies / Re: Thinking Out Loud: EOS 7D Mark II Thoughts
« on: December 16, 2013, 01:37:33 PM »

PS: This could be the reason why Canon tries to cripple or limit EOS M and its EF-M lenses and will be the last camera maker to release mirrorless FF. The situation with EOS M is not like with usual DSLR APS-C users, the chances that new users of small and tiny EOS M will ever purchase EF-EOS M adapter and EF-S or EF lenses (including big whites) are close to zero -- these are just too large for this camera...

Perhaps true for those that don't already own a EOS camera, but probably not for those that do.  For those that do, the M serves as a more portable solution that can be used in a pinch with other EOS lenses.  The 11-22/20/18-55 setup would be about as far as I'd take the M setup -- a compact travel kit. 

Software & Accessories / Re: Tripod Advice for Landscapes with Big Stopper
« on: December 16, 2013, 01:27:35 PM »
I'm 5' 8" and use the TVC-24L with the BH 55m, and it works well.  Most times, I can get away with not extending the last leg section, but in comes in handy on sloped terrain.  I've had no problems using it up to a 70-200II + 2x.  I'd like to try heavier lenses on it, but I haven't had the chance to, but I'm sure it can handle much heavier loads just as easily.

Lenses / Re: Review: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS
« on: December 16, 2013, 01:20:24 PM »
Does weather sealing really even work on this or any other pumper/extending type zoom lens? It has to let air in somewhere.

Weathersealing is one of those concepts that is really hard to measure.  There are no universally accepted metrics about the extent of weathersealing. Weathersealing does not mean weatherproof.

I take any "weathersealing" with several large grains of salt.

I don't think the Sigma 24-105 is marketed for Canon users.  I think that Nikon users will be more interested in this as they don't have a simular specced lens.

+1.  I hate the term "weathersealing" too.  Weather-resistant or water resistent would be better.  With the term weathersealing, some people assume that the lenses are airtight, which they are not.

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
« on: December 13, 2013, 11:52:40 AM »
All this drivel about "Canon wants to protect their customers from bogeyman" is just that: drivel. And to some of these "if you spend x000 $ on camera gear, why be cheap when spending y00 $ on batteries": I really shouldn't have to answer to Canon or anyone why I make a purchasing decision, and Canon should be the very last one to slap my wrist after all the money I have spent on their gear.

You can choose to buy Canon or 3rd party equipment as you would like.  Just don't expect Canon to care about maintaining 3rd party compatibility.  You make your choice that is best for you, and Canon will make the best choice for itself.  Canon doesn't owe anything to 3rd party equipment manufacturers, but it does have a vested interest to make sure that all Canon stuff plays nicely together.

You got your benefit in a lower price upfront by going with a third party manufacturer, who sells at a discounted price to offset the risk.  After all, who'd buy a third party part if it was the same price as Canon's?  And clearly you have not spent enough on Canon gear else you wouldn't have any 3rd party equipment.   ::)

Lenses / Re: 24 f2.8 IS or 28 f2.8 IS ???
« on: December 13, 2013, 09:02:45 AM »
If you're considering a three lens kit, then the 24/35/50 is a bit more natural than a (24 or 28)/40/50.

For architecture, a 16/17 lens is useful indoors and a 24 is useful for larger rooms and buildings, which favors your 17-40.  If you're going for architecture, I'd suggest bringing your 17-40 over getting another lens even though it is a bit larger than what you're considering.  The 17-40 will also be more flexible for landscapes.

For street, I prefer a 35 if I'm only going to use one lens.  If you opt for the 35 f/2 IS, then you might be able to leave your 50 at home a lot of the time because f/2 would also work well in low light situations.  You might want to consider swapping the 40 for the 35 f/2 IS, and seeing if that one lens will satisfy your needs for street photography.  If you need wider, then you can consider the 24 f/2.8 IS and if you need longer, then bring along your 50 f/1.4.

FWIW, I recently picked up the 28 f/2.8 IS.  It's nice:  the colors are good and it's sharp enough.  The IS is less useful than I thought it would be.  I need to drop the shutter speed a lot before I can see IS making much of a difference (i.e. 1/15 or slower, at 1/30 I'm getting similar IS on/off results).  I chose the 28 because I have plenty of options at 24/35/50 and I got it during a sale for 350.

Lenses / Re: Canon 2X III teleconverter
« on: December 12, 2013, 02:50:49 PM »
Hmm, I am just about to pick up one of those. But as it's the first negative experience I've heard of I won't heditate.

 I hope you'll get a good one when you get it changed.

+1.  Just remember to AFMA when using the TC.  Canon bodies store lens and lens+converters separately.  My 1.4x changed the AFMA setting minimally, my 2x changed it by 4 or 5 units.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: What camera for a mom
« on: December 12, 2013, 02:46:38 PM »
I would point her at an SL1 with the 18-55 kit.  You can start off in "green box" mode and as experience builds you can start into some of the more challenging modes.

It should do far better than a p/s camera and gives her room to grow.

+1.  The EOS-M is a nice camera, but it stinks at tracking moving objects, especially if her daughter is younger.

I have no experience with Eos M. Is it at least faster than p&s? For mirrorless cameras, perhaps sony is a better choice?  I know too little about mirrorless.

It's typical of p&s, which is not very good.  Other mirrorless offerings by other companies are better but are also pricier.  The AF tracking of the M is its Achilles heel, which is why people are waiting to see the M with the 70D's dual pixel sensor technology.  IQ-wise, it's like most Canon APS-C offerings.  For 300, it delivers a lot of bang for the buck.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: What camera for a mom
« on: December 12, 2013, 01:45:51 PM »
I would point her at an SL1 with the 18-55 kit.  You can start off in "green box" mode and as experience builds you can start into some of the more challenging modes.

It should do far better than a p/s camera and gives her room to grow.

+1.  The EOS-M is a nice camera, but it stinks at tracking moving objects, especially if her daughter is younger.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 10D, 100D or 700D?
« on: December 12, 2013, 08:29:36 AM »
Option 2 but with the kit lens if you stay with a DSLR.  The 18-55 range is more useful than the 24-105 for parties and is smaller and lighter.  She could always "borrow" your lenses for a specific purpose, but the 100D with the kit lens is compact and light.  Most women I know prefer the more compact option even if it has fewer features.  The camera that is small enough that they don't mind carrying is the one that gets used... which is why I got my wife the EOS-M.

Lenses / Re: IS Versions of the 50mm, 85mm & 135mm Coming? [CR1]
« on: December 11, 2013, 12:42:56 PM »
Just a thought, but how many people (especially unhappy 17-40mm or 16-35mm owners complaining of soft corners) would be please if Canon replaced the 20mm f/2.8 USM with a 20mm f/2.8 IS or 18mm f/2.8 IS for around the same street price as the 17-40mm (not initially, but eventually drift down like the 24/28/35mm IS primes)?

I know 20mm is much longer than 16mm or 17mm, but I'm sure a new IS prime would be incredible sharp, and still fairly small.  Sounds like the perfect solution for video (widest stabilized lens in Canon EOS mount) and tripod-free nighttime landscape photography (theoretically handholdable at 0.8 sec).  What does the CR community think of such a replacement?

I like the idea.  I got the 28 f/2.8 IS and am impressed with it.  If Canon do get a similar result with the 20mm, then I'm all for it.  It would make me that much closer to getting rid of the 16-35 II.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 35 f/1.4L II to Finally Arrive? [CR1]
« on: December 11, 2013, 12:37:39 PM »
My Sigma 35 does not fail at focusing. I have used a few pre-2012 Siggys in the past and I know what the issues were and the new Art 35 has none of those. My copy focuses nearly as fast as my 135F.  Me thinks some folks love Canon a bit too much and are not open to 3rd party lenses or at least to the possibility of those said companies improving and actually doing nearly or even better at times than the big C to the point they convince themselves it's not true.

I don't care who made my gear as long as it performs.

When the 6D was announced, a lot of people on this forum did not see its value and swore that they would get the 5DII instead.  Now, few people would opt for the 5DII over the 6D.  Right now the S35 is better than the 35L.  I'll wait for the 35L II to be reviewed and then make the choice.  Right now people can't see a lens much better than the S35, but what if the 35L II is much better?  And if it's not, then S35 will continue to do well in the marketplace.

Events and weddings can get quite dim, and I would hate losing a stop.  It doesn't matter much when there is sufficient light, but going from ISO 6400 to 12800 is not pleasant.  More noise, less DR, which means less flexibility for post-processing.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 35 f/1.4L II to Finally Arrive? [CR1]
« on: December 10, 2013, 12:41:10 PM »
Yay, finally!  The 35L was my gateway drug into the world of fast primes.  Used it when we visited a live nativity recently.  I had brought a flash, but it was inappropriate to use, so it stayed off.  ISO 10000 at f/1.4 at around 1/15-1/30s for the dimmest condition, and the pictures came out pretty good.

I'd expect it to be better than the S35 (otherwise, it's DOA), but by how much? 


" It doesn't seem too long ago I was changing rolls of film every 36 exposures or less. Now some are peeved at only getting 300 shots before changing a battery" ... how true ... the digital age has spoiled us. :-[

True, but we don't have to wait hours to "charge" rolls of film either.   ::)

It reminds me of my first digital camera, a Nikon coolpix 990.  It chewed through 4 AAs in about 30-50 shots.  Horrid.  And the NiMH batteries of the day did not keep their charge for long.  Getting a 20D, whose battery lasted hundreds of shots, was a revelation.

Lenses / Re: Trade current lenses for 70-200L f4 IS or 70-300L
« on: December 09, 2013, 05:44:02 PM »
Depends on what your want to use it for.  If you're using the 135L for portraiture, I'd keep it.  There is big difference between f/4 and f/2.  If you need to get to 300mm, then the 70-300L is the way to go.  You'll lose a fractional stop to the 70-200 f/4 but gain better performance at 280/300mm.  It's shorter but fatter than the 70-200 f/4, but I find that it fits my camera bags better.

Pages: 1 ... 32 33 [34] 35 36 ... 97