Messages

61

EOS Bodies / Re: 36x36 mm cmos sensor

« on: June 01, 2011, 08:23:04 AM »

I doubt people will do a full systems change due to price.

Truer words never spoken. Price is about the LAST thing to enter into the equation if you are actually talking about the tools with which you make your living.

It took a true game changer like the Nikon D3 to get me to even THINK about switching systems. Several of the other Canon shooters in my area were looking longingly at the images the Nikon guys were getting in the crappy light situations, but nobody I know actually switched. Most people choke on the pricetag, and some of us who are heavy old-school manual focusers can't abide the idea of having to re-learn how to do it "backwards."

People like me who work in news/editorial/event photography should be in the ideal target market to switch to the Nikon D3 due to it's low-light chops. But, frankly, this area does not pay exceptionally well, so for most of us it's just too painful to consider dumping the 10 G's or more it would cost to switch even if you sell your current gear at a good price. And while the D3 is better in low light, Canon's are still quite good.

At the other end of the spectrum, the heavy duty commercial people who are raking in thousands per day don't HAVE to switch (at least not for the low-light capability) because they help themselves to light from a phalanx of Elinchroms. It may be a different story for hobbyists who may make their living in dentistry or lawyering, or the ones whose "system" is just a body and one or two lenses, but aside from that, there's not a whole lot of switching going on.

62

Canon General / Re: Canon Refurbished

« on: May 27, 2011, 07:54:25 PM »

Sorry if this is one of those "guesses" you say you don't want, but I don't know what else you expect from a forum.

You cite specifically the 400mm 5.6. I would expect the reason there are no refurbs of this lens is that there are relatively so few in circulation. There are much more popular solutions for those who need 400mm than this fixed length and rather slow (though optically excellent) lens. Many more people opt for the 100mm-400mm zoom. I find this lens completely unsatisfactory though it continues to sell briskly year after year. There are also those who put a 2X on their 70-200mm 2.8's, which is overall a better solution in my opinion. Then there is the more well-heeled crowd who opts for a 400mm 4.0 DO or a 400mm 2.8.

The 400mm 5.6 is often a perfect lens for me, though I don't actually recall EVER seen another photographer using one. So you probably answered your own question with your observation that availability of lenses as refurbs is related to the number of lenses in circulation.

It would also be worth knowing just what Canon's definition of a "refurbished" lens is. You state correctly that the 400mm 5.6 has been in production since approximately the Truman administration, but I would assume that only lenses that come back in within a short time period of original purchase are eligible for "refurb" status. Refurbishment seems to imply a correction of a minor manufacturing defect, or perhaps a perfect product cleaned and checked after return for buyer's remorse. My 400mm 5.6, which I purchased used 2 years ago and is who-knows-how-old, will never again be refurbished, just "used."

63

Lenses / Re: 400mm Lenses

« on: May 18, 2011, 04:09:48 PM »

I got a good used copy of the 400mm 5.6L last spring and have been VERY happy with it. Prior to that, I had rented the 100-400 zoom on about 4 occasions. I really wanted to like that lens for it's reach and versatility, but just ended up hating it each time. The push-pull zoom becomes unwieldy and front-heavy right when you don't want it to - at the long end. Optical quality fluctuates throughout the zoom range, whereas the 400mm fixed lens is rock solid optically with very quick AF. I use it wide open pretty much exclusively and see no optical issues at all, and it's noticeably crisper than the zoom and any focal length.

Don't let anybody talk you out of the 400mm 5.6L based on the lack of IS. Just add aftermarket IS (by Manfrotto) and and take plenty of shots and you will be fine. I do wish Canon would design a tripod collar that can be left loose for easy turn from horizontal to vertical without being "sloppy," but that's not a gripe specific to this lens.

The 400mm 5.6 is a great lens for keeping a discreet distance from temperamental golfers. Another poster said it's a little long for soccer at times, which is true. But it's a little too short sometimes, also. The 400mm 5.6L combined with a secondary lens (like a 70-200, perhaps with a 1.4X) won't be as compact self-contained as the 100mm-400mm zoom solution, but I think you will be happier with the optics at all focal lengths.

64

EOS Bodies / Re: What do you want from the 5D mk III

« on: April 14, 2011, 09:52:29 PM »

How many photographers owing a great camera such the 5DIII, spending so much money on other equipment, and then turn this camera into a low res APS-C ? Is it worth for Canon to do this for just a few users and a feature promoting low quality ?

I would, especially presuming the 5DIII will have higher megapixels on the full frame. If the APS-C section adds up to 12MP or more, that's more than adequate if I wanted a second crop body to use in addition to the 7D.

I'd actually prefer if it did APS-H. Maybe it could do both. Or maybe it could also do the 24mmx24mm square segment I've been craving for so long.

I'll continue to stand pat on my original 5D Mark Nothing unless the 5D III adds focus points (parity with 7D) and gets the frame rate up to at least 6-7fps. It would even be fine with me if the higher frame rates were only available in "crop mode" or in the full-frame mRaw and sRaw modes.

Regarding the survey, only the higher fps and increased focus points would be compelling to me. It's not as important to me, but I'd be extremely surprised if better high ISO and more megapixels weren't part of the deal as well. I wouldn't bet either way on articulating screen or RAW video. I'm sure it would be nice for some folks, just not a big deal for me.

It's more of a sideline/hobby for me, but if they would improve the auto-bracketing options (at least 7 frames at adjustable intervals), that would make HDR work much less tedious. The 1D's are overpriced for my taste and overbuilt for my needs (with reasonable maintenance, my 5D and 40D are still going strong), so I'm never going to get a 1D just for HDR work.

65

Lenses / Re: I want a 24-105 F2.8 IS!!

« on: March 10, 2011, 09:14:14 AM »

So, my dream lens: 24-105 F2.8L IS priced at around $1500 should be fair...

24-70 is the most uninteresting zoom range I can think of. As a big fan of the 24-105 4.0, I agree a 24-105 2.8 would be a "dream" lens.

However, a $1500 price tag for such a lens would be much more than "fair." That would be an unimaginable steal. I'd expect such a lens to *EASILY* top $1800, maybe $2000, at least on initial introduction. Nearly doubling the zoom range and adding IS will jack up the price much more that a mere $200 or so.

The price would possibly drift downward a bit later after the initial "gotta have it now no matter how much I get boned on the price" crowd is worked through the pipeline. I would drool over it but would not be terribly likely to buy one. My current 24-105 4.0 performs very well for me and the bump to 2.8 would not be a huge advantage for the work I do.

66

Lenses / Re: Affordable, non-L, Prime Lenses from this century please!

« on: February 23, 2011, 04:09:51 PM »

No, the 80/1.8 does NOT have a "micro USM" motor; it has the full USM motor.

I have never had a problem with the AF speed on it; indeed I have seen the speed praised in some reviews of this lens.

It feels nice enough to use, not that I use manual focussing on it. But the AF "feels" just fine.


Martin

Thanks for that info. As I recall, the 100mm 2.0 was released about a year before the 85mm 1.8 and they look very much alike, so for about the last two decades I always assumed they had the same focus motor. Good to know that's not the case.

I just rented a 135mm 2.0 to use on my old 5D last weekend. I could have gotten about the same result with an 85mm 1.8 on my 7D without the rental cost, and the 85mm would be a much more useful all-around lens for me to own.

67

Lenses / Re: Affordable, non-L, Prime Lenses from this century please!

« on: February 23, 2011, 08:44:58 AM »

I still hold out some micro-hope we may see lenses like the 85mm 1.8 and 100mm 2.0 upgraded with better focusing motors, though I would't expect an optical re-design. But I will continue normal respiration until and if that ever happens.

I'm the other way around on the 85mm f/1.8. The AF on it is one of if not the fastest of any Canon lens I have, but I really wish it was less prone to purple fringing and had smoother reaction to point sources of light.

I never had a problem with the focusing speed. I had a recurring problem with the 100mm 2.0, and to a lesser extent with the 50mm 1.4 (since I used it less, probably) where the manual focus would become sticky and gritty. CPS would fix it for about 60 bucks, and the lens would be fine for 12-15 months when the problem would crop up again. My employer at the time paid all my repair bills, but when I got out on my own, I sold the 100mm rather than leave myself open to that recurring expense.

I never owned an 85mm 1.8. Can someone tell me what kind of USM it has? I assumed micromotor (which seemed to be part of the cause of the problem with the 100mm I refer above), but Amazon.com's product page for the 85m 1.8 indictates "Ring type USM,"  while Amazon lists "Micro Ultrasonic Motor" for the 100mm 2.0. I do not consider Amazon authoritative for Canon gear, but this has me wondering

So, can anyone tell me. . . what kind of USM does the 85mm 1.8 have? Canon lists "Rear focusing system with USM" for both lenses, which is kind of vague. If the 85mm does not have the same system as the 100mm 2.0, I could put that on my short list of lenses to buy next.

68

Lenses / Re: Affordable, non-L, Prime Lenses from this century please!

« on: February 22, 2011, 05:57:14 PM »

Kubelik NAILS why there will most likely not be any non-L fixed lenses (sorry, I refuse to call them "primes") in the foreseeable future, if ever. I would only add the the only reason the fixed lenses introduced in the late 80's-early 90's exist at all is the the lens market was totally different then. In the early '90's, the typical pro shooter's bag was filled with five or six fixed lenses at any given time. There may have been two or three more locked up in the cabinet for special purposes (macro, fisheye, long tele). My employer at the time then got each photographer on the staff a Nikon 80-200mm 2.8 AF ED zoom. This was literally the first zoom lens that was worth having for professional use (even though the autofocus was pretty slow, jerky and useless - Canon was first-to-market with AF that WORKED).

From there, the slow migration was on until today, when I do 90% of my photography with two zoom lenses (24-105 and 70-200). I have a Tamron 10-24 for my infrequent extreme wide work, and a 400mm 5.6 for extra reach. Anything else I rent as needed.

I was a Nikon shooter for about 10 years (until about 1992), and the Nikon line had multiple lenses at every focal length (i.e. 35mm 2.8, 35mm 2.0, 35mm 1.4). Canon was about the same with their FD line. Once Canon and Nikon could get quality zooms embraced by pros and serious amateurs, the market could be defragmented. That means better lenses for photographers and more profits for the manufacturers. That's a win-win that you won't likely see compromised by the introduction of mid-range fixed lenses.

With the market for fixed lenses thus limited, there is only room for one lens per focal length, and you can be assured that one lens will be the best, most premium piece of glass they can muster (at a commensurate price, of course).

I still hold out some micro-hope we may see lenses like the 85mm 1.8 and 100mm 2.0 upgraded with better focusing motors, though I would't expect an optical re-design. But I will continue normal respiration until and if that ever happens.

69

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS Development Announced

« on: February 07, 2011, 03:17:15 AM »

They don't say if the 1.4x extender changes the f-stop from 4 to 5.6...

The answer to that would be "yes." It's called "physics."

70

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II - sensor

« on: November 24, 2010, 08:43:41 AM »

Canon issues a new model when they change the sensor size.  The 7D is certainly not going to change, its a very popular camera.

Not sure I understand your point on that. True, there is no precedent for changing a sensor size between models in a particular series, but since they only make three sizes of sensor, I don't see any history that would definitely preclude it. I'm not saying you're wrong, just not sure I see why you're right.

I usually waffle and end up skipping every second iteration of a camera (went from a 20D to a 40D, for example), but one thing that would *definitely* make me jump directly from 7D to  7D MarkII almost immediately would be a larger sensor. It certainly makes no sense to expect the 7D to jump to full frame, but for a camera that Canon clearly wants to sell for a higher price point than a Rebel or 60D, an APS-H sensor would make the 7DMarkII a much easier sell to me and, I'm sure, many, many others.

Here's a blog post I put up over a year ago: http://progenyoflight.blogspot.com/2009/08/prognostication-from-dark-and-smelly.html I was wrong about a LOT in that post. I don't follow the rumor mill religiously and had not heard rumors of 1D Mark V being full frame, but considering that rumor, combined with the idea of 7D MarkII going APS-H, maybe I was right about a few things, just two years early.

71

Canon General / Re: Canon Doing Away With Date Codes?

« on: November 15, 2010, 10:09:26 PM »

The other aspect is, that pure serial numbers cannot affect the price - in theory if I know a lens is 10-15 years old I could attempt to negotiate a lower price from a private seller compared to a lens that's 1 year old (assuming else the same condition when looking at it).
A serial number would not allow you to distinguish those lenses.

A little reality check here: You MAY be able to negotiate based on lens age with an individual, amateur, or other non-serious or "motivated" seller,  but if I am serious about recovering legitimate value from a piece of equipment I want to update or replace, you not very likely to advance the negotiation based only on the lens' chronological age.

It's meaningless anyway. The serial may indicate the lens was manufactured 12 years ago. But did it sit on a store shelf for three years or did it sell the week after it was made? Was it used daily by a working professional for 12 years, or was is taken out of the closet by a neurologist only to shoot Christmases and Muffy's wedding for 9 years?

If a lens is clean, well-maintained, and in good working order, you aren't going to get a discount from me just by pointing at the serial number.

To paraphrase the '92 Clinton campaign, "It's the condition, Stupid."

72

Lenses / Re: Official Bad News - Lenses Delayed.

« on: November 01, 2010, 11:54:15 PM »

I am sorry to report that my raising of the many thousands of dollars for any of these lenses has been delayed for about two years.

I would like to apologize to Canon for any inconvenience this delay may cause them.

73

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Announces EOS 60D

« on: August 27, 2010, 03:53:43 PM »

What I was expecting was an up-graded EOS 50D with an 18mp sensor and video selling for $1,300.00 at the release.

OK, I'm with you so far. . .

So why don't I just buy a 7D? Because it is NOT what I want or need.

But. . . but. . . the 7D IS an "upgraded 50D with an 18mp sensor and video." You're chomping at the bit to spend $1300.00, but you absolutely can't come up with that last $235.00 for a 7D (current B&H price is $1535.00)?

I don't see how your mythical "upgraded 50D" has any real differentiation from the 7D. Canon is a business, and we who work (or "play") with their cameras and lenses need them to stay healthy as a business. For months people have been dreaming of a camera pretty much identical to 7D except for the price tag. That's just not realistic.

If you ask me, the 60D looks like a pretty good value for $1099.00. It pretty evenly splits the gap in features AND price between T2i and 7D, which makes perfect sense in the ongoing development of the Canon line. The biggest problem (and here I return to my earlier point about stupid marketing on Canon's part) is that this camera is NOT the next logical progression in the xxD line. It's a departure in design and it's name should have reflected that.

Everybody is angry because it's called "60D" but it's not designed like the next camera in line after the 50D should be. That anger is understandable. If Canon had given the camera a different name, we'd all be looking at it as a new camera in a new niche. But no, Canon named it like a fine Italian entree, but it actually looks more like a frozen pizza. No wonder people are ticked off.

74

Lenses / Re: Canon Announces New 300 f/2.8L IS & 400 f/2.8L IS

« on: August 27, 2010, 02:11:17 PM »

I wonder how many private sales of these Canon makes vs sales to places that rent lenses ("Hi CR guy!"), agencies, newspapers, other commercial ventures, etc?

Personal ownership of 300mm f/2.8 among working professionals is fairly common, especially sports and editorial shooters (AP, Getty, etc.), and I'd be extremely surprised if "owned" copies of this lens didn't far outnumber "rentals." Owning a 400mm f/2.8 is somewhat common, but quite a bit less so than the 300mm for very obvious reasons. I can't think of anyone in my general area who owns a 500mm or 600mm, and I don't remember the last time I saw one of these lenses at any event I worked. You can sometimes spot those two on sidelines of televised NFL, MLB, and World Cup games.

75

Lenses / Re: Canon Announces New 300 f/2.8L IS & 400 f/2.8L IS

« on: August 27, 2010, 01:56:15 PM »

I really don't see how there is going to be enough improvement in the new version to warrant spending an extra $2500.  I results I get with my current 300 model are out of this world.

The results I got with the 1992 vintage original EF 300mm f/2.8 were out of this world. (Ouch! Just kicked myself again for ever selling that one.)