December 24, 2014, 07:05:49 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 ... 33 34 [35] 36 37 ... 94
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Deal: Canon EF-S 10-22 $529 at B&H Photo
« on: November 21, 2013, 02:16:50 PM »
Interesting, when I try to click through the price remains at 649.00. I had the same issue when the 70-200 Mk.II was on blow out last week. Anyone else having that issue? I don't need this as I shoot FF but I was considering the 70-200 deal last week and could not get the 'good pricing'.

How far did you go?  Adding it to the cart is not enough.  You have to start the checkout process to see the price reduction, which is how I got the 28mm f/2.8 IS for 350.  ;D

Lenses / Re: Just got my 24-70 2.8 L ii. Got some questions.
« on: November 21, 2013, 02:12:00 PM »
I've bought numerous times from  I trust them. But this time the box is a bit atypical that I wonder if it's an imported item. It was not advertised as such. It does have usa warranty so I guess I'm still ok. I'm just curious if the packaging changed or I've sold an imported item.

Whenever I've dealt with Canon for service or warranty issues, having a copy of the receipt was always sufficient.  However, it might not hurt to walk into a high volume local camera store and ask about the difference in packaging.

Nice!  I would not have thought about using HDR in that situation.  I'm assuming this is hand-held, and that it took the camera about 0.5 sec to take the 3 pics.  How much shake/variation can be in images before the HDR finished image starts showing artifacts?

Lenses / Re: Ken Rockwell reviews canon 50mm f/1.0
« on: November 21, 2013, 12:47:11 PM »
Thanks for posting this. As is the norm with KR reviews,  there is a WTF part

At f/1.0, depth-of-field isn't paper-thin, it's vapor-thin. Don't expect every shot to have bang-on-perfect focus unless you're using the latest camera and have a lot of practice with it.

When photographing people, always focus on the nearer eye.

I'm impressed that I get results as good with any of my 5D Mk III's AF points, not just those marketed as "high precision." Likewise, I'm impressed that I can recompose after focusing and get swell results.

I'm guessing he's talking about different subject/camera distances in those two instances.  Either that or he's evolved into a higher level photograhper that either automatically leans to compensate for focus/recompose or he chalks it up those OOF shots to "practicing."   ::)

Pricewatch Deals / Re: 5D mklll (USA) for $2575 via Big Value
« on: November 21, 2013, 12:20:11 PM »
I bought a MK3 from BVI. Took two weeks to arrive but was perfect. I would do it again.  8)

+1.  I had the same experience.

Once I was on a trip and friend of mine was very interested in my camera ... well until the moment she discovered that with that lens she cannot zoom at all. "What is it good for when you cannot zoom?" I tried to explain and then shook her head because she couldn't understand the cost and size of this lens when it can't do what she wants.

Even more they shook their heads when I tell them, that every photo needs to be postprocessed (let's say only exported to jpg), they are used to do things conveniently. (And I'm not even mentioning panorama stitching or portrait retouching and time spent on this)

If it makes you feel any better, I find a lot of people expect all dedicated cameras to have zoom capability.  I picked up a EOS-M during a fire-sale with the 22 f/2.  I handed it to my wife and to a friend to try out on separate occasions.  They both asked me how to make it zoom.  Suffice it to say, I ended up picking up a white box EOS-M 18-55 for the wife to use.  I use the 22 f/2.

When some of my friends first saw the 70-200 II, they thought it had a much longer FL than it did because it was so large/heavy.  I use the 70-200 II a lot when my girls are playing soccer, and I've had the usual comments from random strangers like "Wow, that is some lens!"  And my default reply, "Yes, it is!"  It surprises me that there aren't more parents with better cameras.  After all, I see higher quality lenses/camera combinations at berry farms/apple orchards than I see at the kids' games.

I've actually found it to be more awkward interacting with parents when we're watching our kids' team play together.  You can hear their frustration trying to capture their kids on phones/cameras wanting to get a good pic but are unable to due to equipment limitations, technique or position issues.  And you know that they are wondering if you are getting any good shots with your camera, but they are too shy to ask.  I used to take pics exclusively of my kids, but I've come around to taking more shots during the scrimmages of their teammates too.  I then send the parents links to the SmugMug galleries and the most common response I get to those pictures is one of gratefulness.  That, and the awkwardness is now gone.  It's much easier talking to other parents and I have the freedom to take pictures however I want.

Lenses / Re: Lots of New Lenses Coming in 2014 [CR2]
« on: November 21, 2013, 10:19:28 AM »
I for one will be very bored by a Canon 100-400 replacement that costs $2700 like the Nikon 80-400.  Especially given that the upcoming Tamron 150-600 just might cost less, and just might be as good...and will go to 600mm, rather than 400mm.

I won't be surprised if it came out at 2500-3000.  I wouldn't be surprised that the Tamron will cost less, but it won't be as good.  I'm hoping the new 100-400 will trounce the existing offering, but I'll wait for the reviews before considering getting one and wait for the lower prices at the end of the year.  The 24-70 II came out at 2300 but is now being sold for 1700 (net rebates), and it's only been about a year.  Early adopters pay a premium.

Lenses / Re: Just got my 24-70 2.8 L ii. Got some questions.
« on: November 21, 2013, 09:45:18 AM »
1.  BuyDig is a Canon-authorized dealer, so they should be selling legit stuff.  I got mine about a year ago and it came in a white/black/red box but they may have changed the packaging.  I'm sure others in the forum will be able to answer this more definitively, but you can also head down to a camera store and ask.

2.  I like using the lock when walking about or storing it in the camera bag.  It keeps the lens more compact and prevents it from creeping when it rubs against the body while moving.  It also makes it easier to take out when it is a snug fit in the camera bag.

3.  Yes, the ring felt stiff to me as well initially.  It's loosened up a bit, but it's still stiffer than most of my lenses, but in practice, I don't notice it anymore.

Lenses / Re: Ken Rockwell reviews canon 50mm f/1.0
« on: November 21, 2013, 09:29:44 AM »
Ken doesn't like my 50 1.2L as its "plasticy" :( :(

Yes, but he still likes the 50L f/1.2 better than the other CaNikon 50mm AF offerings.   ;D

Ken is a max aperture nut.  f/1.0 is better than f/1.2 is better than f/1.4 is better than f/1.8 is better than f/2.8.  For value (performance/price), he'll recommend the f/1.4s, but at this price range, uniqueness is worth a lot and f/1 is pretty rare.

Lenses / Re: What's my next purchase?
« on: November 21, 2013, 09:13:32 AM »
So 24-70 II is a great choice, and I need a second camera. Which do you think is the better buy first?

Depends on how many weddings you plan on doing.  You'll use the 24-70 a lot for everything.  You'll need a second camera when you do paid events.  It might make more sense to rent a second body when you need it if you don't do that many events.  And if you will be able to fund the 300 II next spring, it might make sense to get the 24-70 sooner, a second body if you need one in the summer and defer the purchase of the 300 II.

Lenses / Re: The price you paid for your 70-300L ??
« on: November 21, 2013, 09:04:49 AM »
I bought mine brand new from Adorama for $1099 on 12/28/2012. The sale period lasted, I'm pretty sure, for less than one day and maybe only for a few hours. I just happen to check the CR site late at night and saw the notice for the sale. I wasted no time in ordering the lens. It's a fantastic lens. I've seen this price or a few dollars lower ($1089?) occasionally on a Canon refurb sale, but not on all of their sales. I've never seen anything lower than this price. If you need the lens now, even $1199 is a good price. If you can wait, then check this site and for sale notices.

Yes, I remember that one and it was a short-lived sale.  I was surprised that it went as low as it did.  I'd bought a used copy for about the same price the previous year, and I thought I had gotten a good deal for a like-new lens until I saw that deal.

Its focal length range and size/weight are its advantages.  Its images are also better/different than what I see on the LCD, so much so that I no longer delete files while reviewing images in the field but do it all on the computer.  Never had to do that with my other lenses, including the 70-200 II.  It also has a tougher time focusing on low contrast targets even in bright sun (i.e. wet seals/sea lions) than the 70-200 II.  A reason for that might be that it can't take advantage of the more accurate AF f/2.8 baselines.  It is my only non-specialty lens that is slower than f/2.8.  For sports and portraits, I'll grab the 70-200 II every time, but for travel (including zoos), the 70-300L is hard to beat.

Lenses / Re: Which lens to start with?
« on: November 19, 2013, 11:31:28 AM »
Thank you all for reading and given advices. I'm not a professional at all, but I know I am a perfectionist. That doesn't make it easier.
Read about pixel peepers, well, I think I am one of them.
So, I don't think the 24-70 is the one for me at the moment. It's a lot of money and I would rather spend it on the 70-200.
So, 35L, 17-40, 40mm, or TSE or the 24L? Why do they make so much lenses ;)

The OP's priority is landscapes/nature and doesn't think the 24-70II will be a good match for him.  If he is serious about landscapes, then I'll assume that he'll be using a tripod most of the time.  If so, then a TS-E 24 with a 1.4x might fit the bill.  Add a 40mm or a 50 f/1.4 and/or a Rokinon 14mm, and he'll have most of the lower focal lengths covered.

It didn't scratch my 20D, it make a little scratch on my 5D2 and larger scratches on the 5D3.  Like Neuro, I'm now attaching the the BR lug to a QR clamp (RRS in my case) clamped to an L-plate.  Most of the scratches occurred when I'm putting the camera with the BR strap attached in the camera bag, not in actual use.  Before I got the QR clamp, I'd take off the BR strap everytime I stored it, but that got tedious very quickly.

Lenses / Re: The 24-105 and/or the 24-70 II ...
« on: November 14, 2013, 02:25:42 PM »
Anyone who is arguing against or dismissing IS, is IMO, simply rationalizing the purchase of a lens for thousands that lacks said feature.  And that is fine.

But lets be real, IS is highly desirable.  There is no disadvantage with IS except a *slight* cost increase, and lets be frank when you are spending $2200 on a lens you can't really argue costs. The 17-55 has IS, the 70-200 has IS, the 24, 28, 35mm consumer primes all have IS.  Obviously it is very doable both financially and engineering wise.

The advantages with IS are plentiful.  Less shots needing tripod, less blurred shots, and even if you have a steady hand your shots will be slightly sharper with IS due to its nature as no one has the hands of a tripod.  If we were all as steady as a tripod, tripods would not exist.  More possibilities for photos are unlocked.  And it helps video, too, if you are into it.

There is no effective argument against IS.  Canon is just playing marketing games getting people to buy the same lens over and over again, because they can.  That is why it is not in the 24-70 II, no other reason.  When the 24-70 IS comes out, the 24-70 II will drop like a rock in value.  Take a look at how much less resale the 70-200 non-IS versions have versus the 70-200 IS versions. 

So, while people can say they might not need it, that is probably true.  But you also don't need L lenses or a full frame camera.  IS is another tool in the toolbox that is HIGHLY DESIRABLE.  Let's just hope we don't have to wait too long for Canon to milk the non-IS version before the inevitable 24-70 IS release.

Yes, the 24-70 II is sharper than the 24-105. But that has nothing to do with IS, it simply uses better glass.  Once the 24-70 f/2.8 IS comes out, the 24-70 f/2.8 will be soundly outclassed and lessened in value IMO.

The problem is that the optical formula with IS is different than the one without it.  Are the 70-200 f/2.8 IS versus non IS the same optical design?  According to the rumors circulating before the 24-70 II came out, both the 24-70 II and a 24-70 IS variant were being field tested.  They were different lenses.  The testers preferred what became the 24-70 II.  If that is true, then it is harder to design something that is as good as the 24-70 II and has IS.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Japan Teases a White Kiss
« on: November 13, 2013, 06:27:27 PM »
I will continue to bash Canon as long as they launch silly, immature and meaningless products and try to cheat their customers for their money with them, instead of devoting their resources to develop and manufacture products that truly help us to take (technically) better pictures and/or to get the pictures we want more easily and with a higher success rate.

Go ahead and bash away, but what is the point of doing it repeatedly in this forum?  We know where you stand. 

And given that no one makes your ideal camera, maybe it's not all Canon's fault.  Mirrorless probably is the way of the future, but what it ends up being may not be what you want... or maybe what you want is 5 or 10 years down the road.  I'd rather just not read 5 or 10 more years of the same posts over and over...

Pages: 1 ... 33 34 [35] 36 37 ... 94