November 22, 2014, 04:07:34 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 ... 41 42 [43] 44 45 ... 93
EOS Bodies / Re: So I made the jump to FF - now what?
« on: July 08, 2013, 07:24:56 AM »
How do people feel about the 135L with an extender?

It takes the extender ok, but it will lose to the 70-200L f/2.8 IS II in IQ/IS.  If you don't have 70-200L zoom, then 135 + extender is a good way to extend the focal length range.

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Help about prices...
« on: July 05, 2013, 07:09:35 AM »
I used Get It Digital for my 5DIII, and it arrived fine.  For 2500, I was willing to put up with some hassle, but didn't have any issues.  GID is not an authorized dealer but it's an ongoing debate whether or Canon offers warranty coverage under these cases.

Lenses / Re: Help me choose 40 v 50(1.4)
« on: July 04, 2013, 09:36:13 PM »
If those are the only two choices, then my vote is for the 50 f/1.4.  The only really good reason to get the 40 is for compactness.  If you're willing to use the 24-105 as a walk-around lens, then the 40 has very little value to you.  It is only 1 stop faster than your 24-105 and it doesn't have IS.  The 50 offers 3 stops compared to your zoom, which makes it much more appealing to use in low ambient light and for going for a really thin DOF look.  It makes sense to have clear uses for each of your lenses, and I think the 50 will fit that bill better.

Landscape / Re: Post Your Best Landscapes
« on: July 04, 2013, 08:24:55 PM »
Pano stitched like the previous picture, only this time shooting into the sun with a 10 stop filter.  Corner vignetting is from combination of lens and filter.

Landscape / Re: Post Your Best Landscapes
« on: July 04, 2013, 08:01:23 PM »
Early morning by a lake in Maine.

Ordered 1 also.  Was tempted at 399.  For 299, it's a go!  This will be the travel cam for the wife.

Mirrorless will eventually replace DSLRs but the lenses are obstacle.  It'll take a long time to replace all the EF lenses with mirrorless variants.  I can see a half-way there product:  a mirrorless camera with the same external dimensions (and flange distance) as a DSLR.  Gone will be the mirror and phase detect array to be replaced by high FPS sensor, and the pentaprism replaced by an EVF.  That will give sports shooters an edge over existing offerings. 

For a FF mirrorless design, fast primes and quality zooms will always be larger than the camera could be, which means a FF mirrorless will never be pocketable for significant segments of the DSLR user base.  Larger sensors will always have advantages over smaller sensors.  If the sensors improve such that smaller sensors are good enough for indoors/sports/dim settings, then FF may go the way of large and medium formats -- niche products.  Until then, I'll choose the FF DSLR and lenses for its better IQ.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Dual Pixel Liveview Autofocus
« on: July 02, 2013, 11:12:51 AM »
I'm also hoping that the pixels aren't all split in a left/right horizontal pattern, as the video shows, but that half of them are split vertically, because no one would want the AF system to be sensitive to horizontal contrast only.

Based on what I've read, including a statement from Chuck Westfall who was asked for clarification on the matter, they are all split in the same direction.  That means the Dual Pixel CMOS phase AF system is a giant vertical line sensor, responsive only to horizontally-oriented details.

Any guess as to whether the next generation will have a quad split (2x2) to do both vertical and horizontal or would it be better to use the next neighboring pixel of of the same color instead?

Lenses / Re: Kit for California trip
« on: July 02, 2013, 08:29:51 AM »
I am looking into purchasing a 1.4x and/or 2x extender before I leave on this trip.

I'm thinking I could maybe leave the 70-200 and 70-300 home and use my 135L with the extenders for added reach.  I typically don't take a high percentage of shots at longer focal lengths anyway, and this would save quite a bit of space and weight at the expense of some IQ and convince.  Maybe i could just get by with the 24-70 II and 135L + extenders?  Maybe the 50 1.4 as well.

A 135L + 1.4x and 2x will weigh more than the 70-300L.  You will gain 1+ stop in aperture/shutter speed, but the zoom will win in IQ, focal length range, and convenience.

Perhaps renting a UWA lens in CA for a few days will be a good compromise.

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Preorder the Canon EOS 70D
« on: July 02, 2013, 07:14:21 AM »
Not to be negative, but I don't think Canon is in the x-mas present business - if they price the 70d just as Nikon's d7100 this means that even Canon thinks that their camera is somewhat lacking, and this can only mean the the sensor performance as you'd expect from a tweaked 18mp sensor. You'd also expect a lot of video moire from a 20mp sensor just like on the 6d, we'll see.

Canon might not be in the x-mas present business, but retailers are expected to compete on price during then and they often do.

Lenses / Re: Teleconverters/Extenders, Canon or Kenko?
« on: July 01, 2013, 11:28:15 AM »
I have both the Canon 1.4xIII and 2xIII.  I have read that the Kenko 1.4x is 'as good' as the Canon 1.4xIII in some reviews, others indicate that it's as good as the 1.4xII and a little short of the 1.4xIII.  I have not read many reviews of the Kenko 2x, but the few I've seen suggest it's not nearly as good as the Kenko 1.4x or any Canon 2x.

The other issue with Kenko TCs is compatiblity.  They come in different firmware versions, indicated by colored dots on the TC.  They cannot be updated.  Many users have reported issues with certain combinations of Kenko TCs and Canon bodies + lenses.  One apparently reproducible issue occurs with the latest Kenko 1.4x and the 5DIII - if you have AFMA enabled, the camera locks up and you need to pull the battery to reset it.  The 'solution' is to not use AFMA with the Kenko TC...and IMO, that's no solution at all unless you're lucky enough that your combo doesn't need it (and no guarantee that will be true with the next lens you try).

The only reason to go with a Kenko TC, IMO, is if you require it for a lens like the 70-300L or 100L Macro, where the Canon TC's won't work for physical reasons.  But personally, I'd recommend going with the Canon TCs and sticking with compatible lenses.

+1.  I was writing something similar but neuroanimist beat me to it.  I too have the Canons -- one bought on sale, the other used.  Using them on my 70-200 II required AFMA (my bare lens required AFMA too but it was a different value with the extenders attached).  Canon bodies also have different settings for the bare lens and with the extender attached, so it is convenient.  I didn't think that using the 70-200 + 2x (since I was using it at f/5.6 and f/8) would require AFMA but it did -- I was very surprised.

Another point is Canon III extenders don't stack because of the protrusion (perhaps it's for weather resistence, but probably more for preventing us from using them in ways they weren't designed -- Murphy-proofing).

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Body upgrade - Florida trip
« on: July 01, 2013, 07:09:03 AM »
6. I won't be selling my flash. The flash is only used during event photography, where an additional light source required.

No one said sell it now but you will (probably) end up selling it with 6D. High ISO on FF are that good. As long as you're not out in the woods, FF+f1.4ish+PP = Night vision.

Just to quote HCB: (shooting with flash) "is coming to a concert with a pistol in your hand."

Still need a flash for fill and strongly backlit situations and more serious portraiture (off camera).  600ex-rt supports focal lengths up to 200mm, which makes the 70-200 more useful indoor for events.

Lenses / Re: Kit for California trip
« on: June 30, 2013, 12:56:24 PM »
24-70 II, 50, 135L, 70-300L.

Week 1:  24-70 II, 50, 135L.
Week 2:  24-70 II, 70-300L.

Another option is to replace the 70-300L with the 70-200 II + extender if you can deal with the weight, esp. for week 2.  The 70-200 II can take the place of the 135 and 70-300, so total pack weight might be less but in-use weight would be more.

For travel, I usually opt for the 70-300L over the 70-200 II, but I recently chose the 70-200 II because I wanted it with the 2x to take pictures of the recent large moon.  However, every night was cloudy/raining, so no moon shots, but I did use it at 200-400mm for kids jumping off docks into the lake.  Over 1000 shots taken, kept about 350, and ended up using the 70-200 more than the 24-70.

If you are bring a tripod for landscapes, you might want to get a nodal slide, which makes panoramas a lot easier.

Lenses / Re: 70-200 f/4 - 70-300 f/4-5.6
« on: June 29, 2013, 10:13:43 AM »
If you have the 70-200 f/4 IS, then I'd stay with that and bring along the 1.4x.  If you have the non-IS version, then I'd go for the 70-300L.  The 70-300L works well for a travel lens.  However, getting the 70-300L might force you to reconsider your lens mix.

+1 for smugmug.  Was never a fan of Yahoo. 

Pages: 1 ... 41 42 [43] 44 45 ... 93