August 20, 2014, 05:13:07 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 ... 37 38 [39] 40 41 ... 87
571
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 DC Available for Preorder
« on: June 14, 2013, 03:59:34 PM »
I do have a question about its design, though.  It's heavier and longer than the 16-35L II, so is this lens essentially a 16-35 FF UWA design with a speedbooster added?
You need a 1.55x speedbooster (telecompressor) to go from f2.8 to f1.8. If a 16-35/2.8 was fitted with a 1.55x telecompressor, it would become an APS-C 10.3-22.5/1.8.

A better match is a 24-70/2.8 with a 1.55x telecompressor. The nearest rival is another third party premium product, the Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC (just £20 and 15g more) - and that would make a 15.4-45/1.8 VC lens with the same telecompressor built in. Wider, longer, and image stabilised.

Yes, the 24-70 would be required, not the 16-35.  Oddly enough, the 18-35 f/1.8 is similar in weight to Sigma's 24-70 but is about an inch longer than the S24-70, which I found curious, which was why I thought Sigma might have "built-in" the booster to get the fast lens for APS-C.  Chop off the long and wide ends where zooms are typically weakest, optimize the optical formula slightly, and voila!

572
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 DC Available for Preorder
« on: June 14, 2013, 12:44:00 PM »

I started another thread on this when the price dropped yesterday...

Engagdet (not a great SLR source of insight) expected this to be priced in the $2k+ range as it was an industry first.  Cue giggling.

But even I am surprised with the $799 price including the hood.

I personally was expecting this to be coming in around $1,000-$1,200 even though it's APS-C only.  A first is still a first, and I'm not convinced something is so easily 'priced out of APS-C user territory' with so many sports / wildlife guys plugging much more expensive glass on their 7Ds.

Any of you surprised by the $799 figure?  The chatter I've seen on other announcement pages (photo rumors, Petapixel, etc.) has been very positive re: the price.

Sigma is on fire right now with that 35mm F/1.4, so people are taking them more seriously.  I still am bent out of shape that they are using whatever witchcraft they have on crop when full frame people would give their left nut for this -- where is the EF 24-50 F/2.2 for full frame?   ;D

- A

Not too suprised about the price.  Sigma has found a nice spot shy of 1k.  If it were FF, then it'd be 2k or more, depending on it's peformance.

I do have a question about its design, though.  It's heavier and longer than the 16-35L II, so is this lens essentially a 16-35 FF UWA design with a speedbooster added?  If it is, does that imply that a fast FF zoom would be similar is size to a medium format lens?

573
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS
« on: June 14, 2013, 12:28:08 PM »
So this could possibly turn into an actual product within a year?

Maybe.  There have been rumors that it's being evaluated in the field.  If you don't hear any testing rumor, then year -> years.

574
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 DC Available for Preorder
« on: June 14, 2013, 11:19:24 AM »
Hmmm tempting but I don't want to invest in APS-C anymore. The focal range is interesting as it overalaps Sigma's own 30mm f/1.4 DC HSM A. At this price it seems like the zoom would be the way to go?

Very true, particularly considering the 30mm isn't amazing optically.

I was refering to the new 30, not the old one. It hasn't had much press. Is that because it's not that great?

LensRentals did a quick evaluation of it.  It was similar to the older 30 with sharper corners - center was about the same.  IQ-wise, it is much closer to the old 30 than the new 35 f/1.4.

575
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 2nd Body - your thoughts?
« on: June 14, 2013, 10:33:17 AM »
Unless you have a critical need for a second body now, I'd hold off and wait for this winter.  Hopefully, prices will drop to that level again, or at least close to it.  You could always get the 400 or 200-400 first.  With those big lenses, no one will realize a second body dangling off the end of it!   ;D

For everydays shooting, I'm good with one body. For my daughter school events + others activities, I feel I missing alot of close-up shots for not having 2nd body.

For exp. my 4yrs daughter will graduate from pre-school next fri ;D. All students will be singing and dancing etc....having 2nd body for these moments is very handy.

I don't want to pay another $3200 for a camera that don't use much - hate that >:(

It's nice to have another 5D III though - this camera is just PERFECT for my needs. Will see :-\ :-\ :-\

Congratulations!  My oldest just had a kindergarten show for the parents and my youngest had a little one at the preschool.  Fun times!

I switched lenses a few times -- it was a hassle, but it was ok.  If I knew I'd have to switch lenses a lot, then I'd borrow a friend's 7D and use two cameras.  Neither of us shoot enough to justify two bodies, but borrowing between friends is much easier than renting.

576
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS
« on: June 14, 2013, 09:58:09 AM »
If the 100-400 is as good as Canon's recent new offerings, then it should be markedly better than the 70-200L II + 2x III.  Hopefully, it'll take extenders well and give us good IQ at 560mm, which is about as far as we can get with a mobile hand-holdable system.

Hopefully, it'll take them at all.  Lots of people are clamoring for a rotating zoom like the 70-300L.  What if that plus a compact design means the lens loses extender compatibility??  Why would they do that?  Consider...all along the 'barrier' was 400/420mm.  If you wanted longer and still wanted AF, you shelled out the big bucks for a 1-series body or a supertele.  So now that they've put f/8 AF in a 5-series, perhaps they'll take away a 'cheap' 560mm f/8 IS option with good IQ.  Not really trying to be the voice of doom, here, but we all know that Canon giveth and Canon taketh away (AFMA on the 60D, anyone?).

Perhaps... that's the nice thing about being the consumer and in charge of the money... it's our choice.  If the IQ is outstanding and it doesn't take TCs, then it'll be a harder trade.  I currently use the 70-200 II + 2x, but I don't use it that often.  However, I do use the 70-300L a lot at 300.  I'd love to get a supertelephoto at some point, but I can't justify it now.  It's not just about the cost, but mobility with having the larger lens and the support system.  Maybe if the kids get more serious about sports once they get older then I'll be able to convince the wife.  Look hon, I've got the camera, tripod, gimbal head, etc... all I need is the lens!  Plus the supertelephotos are kinda hard to hide.  They stick out like a sore thumb like those conifer cell towers towering 30-60 feet above the treeline.  At least the 100-400 is expected to be "blendable" with the 70-200 and 70-300 surrounded by smaller black tubes.   ;D

577
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 2nd Body - your thoughts?
« on: June 14, 2013, 09:42:01 AM »
Another 5D3 will just add to the muscle memory your probably built already. To me it's seemless to work with them as a pair.

All I need is BigValueInc sale, 5D III for $2500 :)

Yes, that was a very good price!

Unless you have a critical need for a second body now, I'd hold off and wait for this winter.  Hopefully, prices will drop to that level again, or at least close to it.  You could always get the 400 or 200-400 first.  With those big lenses, no one will realize a second body dangling off the end of it!   ;D

578
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS
« on: June 13, 2013, 11:14:01 PM »
With a FF kit, this would be a tempting upgrade path from the 70-300L to get a bit more reach...

I'd say that will depend on the physical specs of the new 100-400L.  While I'd appreciate a step up in IQ and IS, I find that the current 100-400L delivers excellent images.  But I'm still considering (and will likely purchase soon) the 70-300L as a travel lens.

Regarding 70-300 I will be  interested in your opinion when/if you get it. I already have two 70-200 lenses  (70-200 2.8L IS II and 70-200 4L IS) I intend to keep. A third one in the same more or less focal range would be too much.The f/4  is an excellent travel lens. Light and sharp. In addition I do not like the reverse use of zooming and focusing rings in 70-300 ...

On the positive side I would not have to bring my 300 4L and there are bags that you can put the 70-300 lens vertically - but not the 70-200 f4 - and save a lot of space!!!

Choices...

I'm guessing that if you were to get the 70-300L, then the 70-200 f/4 IS would be the odd lens out.  The 70-300L really does offer very good IQ in a light and compact package.  I can use my smallest camera bag (Velocity 7) and barely shove the 70-300L mounted to the camera and another lens on the side.  You'd lose a fraction of a stop to the f/4, but if you needed shallower DOF or more light-gathering ability, you'd be using the 70-200L II anyway.

If the 100-400 is as good as Canon's recent new offerings, then it should be markedly better than the 70-200L II + 2x III.  Hopefully, it'll take extenders well and give us good IQ at 560mm, which is about as far as we can get with a mobile hand-holdable system.  I'm also guessing that it'll weigh slightly more than the current lens' weight (more elements) and nearly weigh 4 lb (with hood and collar) and close to the current lens' length of 8 and 11 (extended) inches.  If it is, then there is still a place for the 70-300L.  The 70-300L will never be as popular as the 70-200 (ultimate short telephoto) or 100-400 (ultimate mobile reach) but it is an excellent travel lens.  If the 100-400 II is as good as the 24-70 II and the 70-200 II, then I'll probably end up with that one down the road too (currently 70-200 II and 70-300L).  Now, if the 100-400 II weighs less than 3 lb and is closer to 6 inches in length, then it'll make the 70-300L expendable.

579
I like to do portraiture, kid sports, travel, and ocassionally macro and landscapes.

If it's in antipation of being able to buy additional lenses down the road, then it's the 24-70 II.  It's a winner over its entire focal length but isn't long enough for sports.

If 2000 was the budget forever, then I'd opt for the Sigma 35, refurb 50 f/1.4 and refurb 70-200L f/4 IS.

580
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: cheap lowlight 30-35mm for APS-C
« on: June 12, 2013, 01:36:16 PM »
Happy fatherhood!

Take a look at the LensRentals comparison of the Sigma 30s.  The new one is better into the corners, but the center remains largely unchanged.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/04/sigma-30mm-f1-4-dc-hsm-vs-sigma-30mm-f1-4-ex-dc

I haven't tried any of the lenses you're considering, but I would suggest the new sigma 30.  If you think the 50 f/1.8 has slow AF, MF is not going to be fun either.  The new sigma 30 is slightly better than the old one but the think that would make it more valuable to me is the ability to dock it.  You'll be able to customize your lens better and hopefully it'll provide more "insurance" via firmware updates in the future if Canon changes its communication protocols.

581
When it comes to bare lens IQ, the 70-200 II is better.  There is something with the natural vignetting at f/2.8 and colors that help the subject pop.  AF speed is good.  I spend less time post-processing 70-200 II files than the 70-300L's.  The difference in look between f/2.8 and f/4-f/5.6 is noticeable especially for portraiture and sports.

If you want to shoot above 200mm a lot, then the 70-300L comes into its own.  The 70-200L works well with the 1.4x, but then it loses a lot of its advantages over the 70-300L.  For some reason, I don't like the images taken with the 70-300L on the LCD on the back of the camera but I end up liking them when I open them in LightRoom (mostly due to color reasons, so much so that I force myself to chimp less when using the 70-300L).  When comparing the 70-200 II with the extender to the 70-300L, the IQ (sharpness, colors) is similar, but the 70-300L is lighter, more compact, better at 280/300mm and having a wider range (70-300 vs. 98-280) while costing up to a stop in speed.  The 70-300L AF is a little bit snappier than the 70-200 II + 1.4x.

What it comes down to are well known trades between weight, size, how often you intend to use the 200-300mm range, and whether you need to use this for low light applications, where every stop counts.  The 70-300L is one of Canon's best travel lenses, and I would also leave the 70-200 II home when traveling (after lugging the 70-200 II to Disney for a week while trying to watch two young kids).  That we would opt for the 70-300L over the 70-200 II for travel is a testament to how good the 70-300L is because we don't lose much in IQ but we gain a lot in versatility.  However, a lot of us will also bring a fast prime to complement the 70-300L for thin DOF or low light use for portraiture or for indoor applications.  With the 70-200 II, you might be able to skip the fast prime and make do with the f/2.8.

582
I would like to be able to save my raw files to cf and small jpg images to sd...  and I haven't gotten that deep into the manual to see if it can do that...  though I guess no.

It can do it.

 Thanks.  I   played around with the settings  and figured it out pretty quickly.   I'm still curious if it slows down the write speed.

It does, but it depends on how you use if.  For a single shot, it doesn't seem to matter at all.  For a burst of 5, very slight.  If you shoot enough to fill the buffer and then continue shooting, then it is very noticeable.

583
I understand that we cannot utilize the highest speed of 5d3 if we setup the camera to write files into both cards at the same time due to the limitation of the in-camera SD card speed.  So my question is if it is possible to take photos and save as RAW into the CF card first and then do a Jpeg conversion through the camera later to save the Jpeg files into the SD card?  I know how to do a single file conversion but would it be possible to select a batch of RAW files and do a batch conversion through the camera?  This workflow is very useful that we can do batch processing without a PC especially during travelling.  I have to admit that I did not read the manual completely.  Any help on this would be appreciated, thanks!

Yes, and that is the only way that I have used the SD card so far (intentionally at least).  I shot dozens of pics in RAW to the CF and then batch converted them to jpgs onto to SD card.  I was then able to move the SD to an iPad and display the photos from there.  I hate how the iPad is unable to display RAW 5D III files (works with 5D II).

Hello Random Orbits, can you show me how to do batch convert in 5D3 or point me to any on-line references?  I had just tried again with my camera but still have no clue on how to do it.  Thanks!

Actually, I can't because my memory is faulty.  You can batch copy but not batch convert.  Sorry.  I must have converted them one by one...

584
Lenses / Re: 17-55 internal dust removal
« on: June 10, 2013, 10:05:43 AM »
Yeah I think the dust I'm seeing is tiny. Sucks that insignificant dust results in no sale or reduced value. This is about the only thing I don't like about this lens. It's by far my most useful lens. I thought of selling it and replacing it with a 24-105L just for the weathersealing. Still debating with myself what upgrade path to choose. Should I just sell it and get the 24-70 II? Is that where I'm gonna end up anyway?

Take your time cleaning it, and you'll get a good result if the dust is between the 1st two groups.  I only bothered cleaning those two surfaces while the lens was disassembled.  I'd pop in the front element w/o putting the screws back in and zoom/focus the lens to move the elements around.  Then recheck to see any dust is visible.  I cleaned the front surface of the front element after it was screwed in.  All lenses can get dust in them, but I find that having a filter on the 17-55 all the time helps a lot because the front decorative ring that covers the front screws is not airtight.

And yes, you will eventually end up with the 24-70 II.  The question is when.   ::)

585
I understand that we cannot utilize the highest speed of 5d3 if we setup the camera to write files into both cards at the same time due to the limitation of the in-camera SD card speed.  So my question is if it is possible to take photos and save as RAW into the CF card first and then do a Jpeg conversion through the camera later to save the Jpeg files into the SD card?  I know how to do a single file conversion but would it be possible to select a batch of RAW files and do a batch conversion through the camera?  This workflow is very useful that we can do batch processing without a PC especially during travelling.  I have to admit that I did not read the manual completely.  Any help on this would be appreciated, thanks!

Yes, and that is the only way that I have used the SD card so far (intentionally at least).  I shot dozens of pics in RAW to the CF and then batch converted them to jpgs onto to SD card.  I was then able to move the SD to an iPad and display the photos from there.  I hate how the iPad is unable to display RAW 5D III files (works with 5D II).

Pages: 1 ... 37 38 [39] 40 41 ... 87