January 31, 2015, 05:15:09 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 - drjlo

Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20] 21 22 ... 45
EOS-M / Re: BH Photo EOS M Kit
« on: July 25, 2013, 03:51:28 PM »
FYI, I've now read of a couple of people having issues with the Viltrox adapter.


I don't think these adapters have any additional chips or programming, just straight-through contacts.  When heavy L lenses are mounted, they are probably having mechanical contact issues, as I can feel a slight "give" at the camera side.  however, my Canon-brand 2x III TC also has similar amount of "give," so if "clean contact" warning comes up, one could probably just unmount and remount the adapter.  I paid $45, so I can't complain..

EOS-M / Re: BH Photo EOS M Kit
« on: July 25, 2013, 12:53:46 PM »
I am so glad I did not order from Adorama.  I ordered from B&H when EOS-M/22mm was already backordered, but they honored the order unlike Adorama.  I just received it, and to my surprise, B&H seems to have honored the EOS-M/22mm backorder with EOS-M/22mm/90EX kit!  That's right, 90EX flash included for my $299 order  ;D

EOSD4257 by drjlo1, on Flickr

I was also happy to find out the cheaper Viltrox adapter works great with EF lenses.

EOSD4261 by drjlo1, on Flickr

Finally, a sample shot with EOS-M/85L with the 90EX acting as master to fire off-camera 580 EX II.

IMG_0027 by drjlo1, on Flickr

Lenses / Re: Patent: Canon EF 50 f/1.8 IS
« on: July 25, 2013, 12:32:11 PM »
How about adding IS to a lens that really needs it. Take the 135L for example....  ::)

Or 85L III IS.  That would enable me to sell my 50L, maybe even 35L.

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS M Stock & Shipping Update
« on: July 25, 2013, 02:28:30 AM »
Adorama canceled my order for the $299 EOS M and 22mm lens (which was placed in early July and apparently couldn't be fulfilled).

I feel very lucky I ordered from B&H and not Adorama when EOS-M/22mm was already backordered.  It looks like B&H decided to bite the bullet and honor the backorders with EOS-M/22mm/90EX kit (currently on sale for $399 at B&H) instead of cancelling them. 


My copy of 24-70 f/2.8 II needs -9 at wide end and 0 at tele end on my 5D III.  My Canon 70-200 f/2.8 II needs 0 at either end, and my 100L also needs 0.  Some of my fast primes including 35L, 50L, 85L II range between -1 and -3. 

A brand new Canon 17-40 f/4L I just borrowed needed -6 at wide and 0 at tele. 

-9 seems a tad too much for a $2100 lens, so I'm just wondering what 24-70 f/2.8 II owners have experienced with AFMA (and 5D III)?  Is it worth sending in the lens to Canon while still under warranty for calibration?

Is my copy of 5D III partly at fault here, as the body seems to need Minus AFMA on lenses, never positive.  The body is out of warranty, but should I send in both the 24-70 II and body to Canon for calibration together (does Canon even calibrate a specific lens+body combo?). 

Any help would be appreciated.

As long as you can get it setup what does it matter. Some people seem to get so worked up about the number and dream up reasons to be unhappy.

A lot of the concern is due to future resale value, ease of sale given full disclosure, etc. 

Lenses / Re: Patent: Canon EF 50 f/1.8 IS
« on: July 24, 2013, 12:08:26 AM »
Just what we need.....an eight hundred dollar 50mm f/1.8 lens.  Oh boy!

I hope it's not true.  I'd much rather have a new Canon 50 f/1.4, but a 50 f/1.8 (IS or not) would be acceptable ONLY IF it was very sharp wide open at f/1.8.  Actually, I'm growing more and more attached to my 50L, so maybe it's a moot point for me..

EOS-M / Re: Crazy moon
« on: July 22, 2013, 11:57:23 PM »
Shooting the moon hand-held isn't exactly how I would measure a camera's capability, but sure Canon aps-c sensor can do very well given the 1.6x crop factor.  Below is my shot on full frame on tripod, highly cropped.

SuperMoonEF2 by drjlo1, on Flickr

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Foveon?
« on: July 22, 2013, 07:19:19 PM »
Hmm 25 MP x3=75 MP a la Sigma's way of counting MP?  Interesting thought  8)

EOS-M / Re: Testing EOS M for Portraits
« on: July 22, 2013, 04:43:52 AM »
Hmm.  I basically have similar gear (5D III), and my EOS-M is on the way.  Are you saying Yongnuo YN622 ETTL trigger does not work well with EOS-M, and in what way?  I also happen to have YN622 and other Yongnuo flashes such as 568EX. 

Nik Color Efex and Nik Silver Efex are what I end up using most often. 

EOS-M / Re: My EF M 11-22 has arrived
« on: July 19, 2013, 01:36:21 AM »
My EOS-M is on the way.  I think I'll just use my Tokina 11-16 on it with adapter instead of buying the EF-M 11-22.

EOS-M / Re: Digital Rev quick 2.0.2 autofocus speed test
« on: July 14, 2013, 03:45:15 PM »

I like this! Childish schmildish it is funny and informative...bravo.

I almost missed the "Extra DVD" past the official end of video.  It's hilarious especially the "Can Canon AF beat exploding champagne" bit, and the conclusion was informative:  "Canon's AF speed is adequate for everyday situations." 

Lenses / Re: New Tilt-Shifts in 2014, Other EF Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« on: July 11, 2013, 04:55:01 PM »
Here's hoping (against odds) that Crack-smoking Canon exec's don't put the pedal to the metal with pricing  :'(

EOS-M / Re: The Frenzy is Over.....
« on: July 10, 2013, 11:44:41 PM »

I too considered buying EOS M before the price drop. I could not decide between it and NEX 5R. But then came the price drop and here we are. Why not get EOS M for S110 money.

I held out on the EOS-M deal until the last minute because I fancied NEX 6 or Fuji; but then again, those are not $299 including an f/2 lens.  Another factor that pushed me to order the EOS-M was I found a third party EF to EF-M adapter for $45 that people have actually tried and proven to work well on EOS-M.  I have a closet full of L glass and would hate to build up whole another set of lenses for a completely different system, not to mention all my EOS wireless triggers and speedlites.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 70D Dual Pixel AF Performance
« on: July 04, 2013, 07:11:31 PM »

- Not sure how the continuous AF tracking was set up for the 4th vid (or if it was even set up correctly at all), but it clearly showed that that particular L USM lens+body combo couldn't follow the hand as it moved backward & forward from the initial point of focus lock.

It's kind of strange they picked the 100L Macro for AF testing, since as a macro lens, it is not one of the faster AF Canon lenses, and the if the focus limiter was set to "full," it would REALLY be slow.  I would have liked to have seen how lenses like 24-70 II or 70-200 II do. 

Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20] 21 22 ... 45