July 31, 2014, 11:47:09 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 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 86
Technical Support / Re: OMG Cookie Hell on Canon Rumors
« on: June 12, 2014, 05:04:08 PM »
Naïve... Not really. That's why I wanted to see what third party cookies were up to.

BTW, Fredmiranda only had 2 cookies and POTN and zero cookies that I encountered.

BTW, the default Chrome and Firefox even if you invoke private browsing still have cookies enabled by default. Try to find Chromes setting to disable cookies. Its buried.

Maybe this is just a rant. But I think this is getting out of hand. It would be much more transparent if there was positive opt in not negative opt out. BY DEFAULT.

Oh and BTW, add 2 more cookies here for serving-sys and another cookie for bs.serving-sys. That's 27 cookies by my count.....

Now try Facebook and see the number of cookies rise, rise, rise...

EOS-M / Re: How crazy is this?
« on: June 12, 2014, 12:04:09 PM »
I would be tempted to convert the second body to IR-only, like WickedWombat did.

Also just picked up a 11-22 (after seeing all of wickedwombat's gushing praise of it  ;D), and it is quite a gem!

EOS-M / Re: Got my new IR eos-m!
« on: June 12, 2014, 07:42:43 AM »

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 6D or 5DM3 need your help guys
« on: June 11, 2014, 01:53:49 PM »
okay guys :)

Just bought the 6D with EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM ..... also 270ex ii and RC-6

is this flash good ? or shall i replace it with 320ex

the seller give good deal for these flashes ......

now i think i need good tripod and EF 135mm f/2L USM

I have a 270ex ii, which I use on the EOS-M.  It is a bit underpowered if it will be your only flash.  A 430ex ii is the minimum that I'd use as a primary flash.

If the 16-35 f/2.8 III is as good or better than the 16-35 f/4 IS and is able to use front filters, then I think it'll do well in the market.

You are assuming this is physically possible :)  This may be similar to saying "if the 70-200 f/2.8L IS III weighs no more than the 70-200 f/4 IS without any image quality loss, then I think it'll do well in the market."

The only f/2.8 lenses I am aware of that are full frame UWA zoom lenses which have significantly better image quality than the 16-35 II use a bulbous element.  Zeiss has an f/2.8 UWA prime that significantly exceeds the 16-35 II in IQ, but even that uses a 95mm filter thread (without autofocus).

I could see a 16-35 III f/2.8 with some minor upgrades over the II (i.e. less CA, better coatings, small sharpness increases), but I don't think you will see anything close to what the 16-35 f/4 IS offers over the 17-40 f/4 without either a bulbous element, much heavier/bulkier lens, or both.  There is simply no precedent that exists for such a lens.

f/4 is too slow for me, so the 16-35 f/4 IS is a non-starter.

I do think it is possible, and I don't think it'll be like "if the 70-200 f/2.8L IS III weighs no more than the 70-200 f/4 IS without any image quality loss, then I think it'll do well in the market." because I fully expect the 16-35 f/2.8 III to weigh substantially more and to have a larger filter diameter than its current 82mm.  The Zeiss 15mm has 95mm filters and it sets the upper bound.  According to the Canon website, the 17-40 is 500g and the 16-35 f/2.8 II is 640g.  The new 16-35 f/4 IS is closer to the 16-35 f/2.8 II's weight at 615g, so yes, I think the 16-35 f/2.8 III will be a bit heavier and larger.

I see 3-4 markets:

1.  Budget: 17-40 f/4L (this may be a temporary category until Canon goes through leftover stock, though).

2.  Landscape: 16-35 f/4L IS - Sharp and nicely corrected, but can only do f/4.

3.  Event/PJ: 16-35 f/2.8L II - Not the sharpest in the corners, but f/2.8 allows for faster shutter speeds in events and better subject separation at 35mm.  Since this type of photographer would be mainly shooting people, corners are less important as you can't place your subject there anyway due to distortion.

4.  Extreme performance: 14-24 f/2.8L - Does not exist yet, but I think something like this will come out from Canon soon to counter Nikon's 14-24.  This category is for those who want the fastest and widest zoom regardless of weight and front element size.  Probably not the most practical for long events and hiking trips, but to be used when you want to be using the fastest and widest rectilinear zoom even if it will be bulky, heavy, and potentially require an expensive filter system.

I'd rather see a 16-35 f/2.8 III, 16-35 f/4 IS and a 14L III.  If the 16-35 f/2.8 III is as good or better than the 16-35 f/4 IS and is able to use front filters, then I think it'll do well in the market.  With a class leading 16-35 f/2.8 III, there is much less need for a 14-24, and the 14L III will still be more compact/lighter than a 14-24.  Fix the coma characteristics of the 24L II, and you'll great astro lenses at 14 and 24mm.

I agree that some will still need/want the f/2.8 aperture, but no matter how you look at it, the market for the 16-35 f/2.8 II is now a lot smaller if the 16-35 f/4 IS is as good as the MTFs predict.  The 16-35 f/4 IS is priced to compete against Nikon's offering.  I just sold my 16-35 f/2.8 II, and I really don't care that the 16-35 f/4 IS has IS.  My 16-35 f/2.8 II is rarely used because I have primes in the range it covers.  What I do care about is its predicted IQ upgrade across the frame. 

Canon General / Re: Reach and the inverted bell curve
« on: June 10, 2014, 11:08:29 AM »
600mm f/4L IS II, $21.67/mm (or 0.046mm/$, if you prefer).  Great justification for adding a TC, the 2x drops it to just $11.25/mm.

The ratios can be even worse at the UWA end:  14L II, TS-E 17, 16-35L II.

Lenses / Re: Family Holiday To Florida
« on: June 10, 2014, 07:38:09 AM »
I'd take the sigma and 70-200 personally you won't miss the 35-70 gap but the extra 100mm on the long end will be nice
The sigma is plenty fast for low light

If you need wider than 18 mm shoot a pano in portrait and stitch
Nice combo if you ask me

+1.  70-200 come in handy for the parades, shows and animal parks.

Lenses / Re: Covering 70-200 Indoors.
« on: June 09, 2014, 03:31:22 PM »
I certainly won't argue with you guys on that point.  But given my budget, I'm looking at the Tamron 70-200 not the Canon one OR the 135L.  Would your answers be the same based on that . . . ?

I've never use the Tamron, but I think my answer would be mostly the same.  I'd suggest that you take a look at the Tamron 70-200 (and Canon 70-200 with and without 1.4x) and the Tamron 150-600 before buying anything.  I'm positing that a 70-200 will satisfy most of your indoor needs and that the 150-600 might suit you better if you need more reach for birding than you have with the 70-300L that you currently have.  What you'll be trading is weight/compactness for greater focal length range.

How much popcorn did you make this time?   :o

Lenses / Re: Covering 70-200 Indoors.
« on: June 09, 2014, 12:18:35 PM »
fragilesi, just FYI, the 70-200 2.8 IS II takes both extenders extremely well, and I use the 1.4x with it all of the time as an intermediate wildlife lens.  You might miss the last 20mm when combined with the 1.4x, but it would still be a stop faster, plus you gain the 70-200 at f/2.8.  It is a lot of money, though...

Not only is the 70-200 2.8 IS II plus 1.4x extender, nearly twice the price, it's almost twice the weight and nearly twice as long !  Whilst I'd accept that the 70-200 2.8 IS II is an amazing lens (I've not used one) the 70-300L has a lot of advantages over the former with the exception of f-stop.  If I was looking from fresh, I'd perhaps consider, but having got a 135L a few years ago, then picked up a 70-300L more recently, the 70-200 2.8 IS II seems like a lens I'd not need, just as the OP is looking in the reverse with a 70-300L already, sometimes the "obvious" choice isn't the same for everyone for a variety of different reasons ;-)

I have both the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II and the 70-300L, and I use the 70-200 much more (my second most used lens after then 24-70).  I find the 70-200's servo AF to be better than the 70-300's.  The 70-300 might be a bit better at 300 than the 70-200 + 1.4x at 280, but it also loses a stop.  I find the 70-300's key attribute is its compactness -- it's an ideal travel lens.

The good thing about this thread is that it forces you to reconsider your kit.  Perhaps the OP might be better off getting a Tamron 70-200 and then swapping the 70-300L for a 150-600.

EOS Bodies / Re: Reports of EOS 7D Reaching End of Life [CR2]
« on: June 09, 2014, 11:04:48 AM »
I'm still prepping my bomb shelter for the hysteria as the 7D2 release gets closer
anyone remember how bad this place got pre 5Dmk3?

That was a fun time -- lots of activity.  Don't think the 7D2 will generate as much traffic as 5D3.  The tech is more mature now (relative to existing market offerings), and Sony's A7x, micro 4/3s, Fuji have all taken some of the market share and tech buzz.

There will be a number of very specific camps posting here once the specs are announced. Each camp can be quite easily predicted.
The Nikon trolls....where anything from Canon isn never good enough.
The Canon fanboys, where everyrhing from Canon is given from the very "hand of god".
The existing 1DX users, who don't see the point of the 7DII compared to their exisiting camera.
The 5DIII users who don't care for the 1.6 crop. The 5DIII users who fancy the 1.6 crop.
The upgraders from the 70D and the side graders from the 7D.
The "we want 15 stops DR or the camera is a failure" brigade.
The people who don't have enough money to justify a 7DII.
The people who don't have any camera but like to post their opinions on forums as if they did.

you are welcome to add or delete to my list

In the mean time....I'll be out shooting during my busiest time of the year.

LOL, I'm just hoping for a lot fewer/elimination of the unboxing videos...

Lenses / Re: Covering 70-200 Indoors.
« on: June 09, 2014, 09:48:51 AM »
The 135L is a nice lens, but if you need more flexibility for indoor framing, then a 70-200 f/2.8 is your best bet.  Sure, you can crop for a tighter frame, but you can't go the other direction with a prime.  For kids events indoors, I use the 70-200 with shutter speeds as slow as 1/30-1/60 spraying and praying that I get one in a series of 3-4 that doesn't have subject motion blur in order to keep the ISO down.  That is the benefit of IS.  Other times, the lighting may be better so that you can increase the shutter speed, but having IS helps the keeper rate especially at the long end.

Lenses / Re: Looking for an wideangle lens about 20mm
« on: June 09, 2014, 09:17:47 AM »
If you have the 17mm TS-E where do you use the 24mm? Is it when you need the added sharpness (vs 1.4x) or added depth of field (f/3.5 vs f/5.6) or use of filters. Can you post some illustrations?
I have purchased both the TS-Es recently, and I know the 17mm will definitely find ample use in architectural photography, which I like doing a lot. It had been a dream lens for me. But I purchased the 24mm mostly to compare, and I was wondering if there is any justification in keeping it.

Keeping the TS-E 24 while having the TS-E 17 is mostly an economic decision.  If you can afford keeping both, it's a great combination.  The TS-E 24 can also tilt more than the 17.  The TS-E 24 has better resolution than the 17 and the difference is even greater with a TC attached to the 17.  I tend to use the 17 more indoor or for buildings and the 24 more outdoor.  I also use the 24 more for stitching, just because the UWA shots tend to be more interesting with a stronger foreground element and I have more difficulty keeping the element strong with a 17 without distorting it too much when stitching.

I've mounted a 1.4x to the 17 just to see that it works, but I didn't like it all that much.  Mostly because it interferes/or comes close to interfering when the rear element (near MFD, if I remember correctly).

Lenses / Re: Tamron 90 macro or Canon 100 for portraits?
« on: June 09, 2014, 08:47:34 AM »
It looks like the 100L will suit you well.  It seems like you've settled on a 100mm for a macro, but have you considered an even longer one (150-200) that will not overlap with the short tele portrait FL?

If you're looking for a 1 lens solution, then the 100L is a very good choice (haven't tried the Tamron 90).  I used it as a macro and portrait lens (before I had other options).  If you get more serious about single subject potraiture, you will end up having a f/1.2-1.4 85mm for that purpose specifically -- it just can't be helped.  And having a f/2.8 prime at 100 will push you to have a faster option at 85 (as opposed to the f/1.8 ).  A lot of primes at that range don't have very high max mag. specs.  The 100L or similar macro will allow you to change the framing a bit more easily.

IS is more helpful for macro than for portraiture.  For more serious macro work, you'll need strobes and/or a tripod, but the IS helps you stop down to extend DOF for handheld stuff.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 86