November 29, 2014, 02:52:36 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 - KitsVancouver

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7
1
I remember seeing a post for the 24-105 for $599 a few days ago, but thought that might have been a new one.  Does anyone remember if the previous post was for a new or used lens? 

2
Lenses / Re: Another EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II Mention
« on: November 05, 2014, 07:32:25 PM »
Okay, enough. I wish everyone will just stop posting anything at all about the (maybe) new 100-400 until Canon announces it. Do these websites do this just to to get hits? Too many years of false rumors, give us a break!

I'm confused.  If you don't like rumors, why are you visiting a website DEDICATED to rumors? 

4
Lenses / Re: Selling 200-400
« on: November 03, 2014, 01:23:48 PM »
Unless you "need the money", I think you should keep the Canon 200-400.  I look at capital budgeting for a good chunk of my real life, so for what it's worth, this is my rational. 

The cost of keeping the lens is not $12,000.  The cost is the opportunity cost of the $12,000 so unless you need the money for something that will earn you money, the cost of the money is just the interest you would earn by putting the money in some liquid investment.  At 3%, that's only $360 per year.   You will easily spend that much money in rentals per year. 

Your residual value will change little to none at this point because lens depreciation is stepped.  Meaning, you take a big hit once you open the box and then it levels off. 

I have a 200-400 that I use very little.  I use it for eagle photography once a year and for my young kids in field sports.  The cost and hassle of renting isn't worth it for me. 

So...unless you need that $12K to buy the other lens or you need it to fund some other capital item, it makes no financial sense to sell the lens and rent. 

5
Lighting / Re: Speedlites - How many are enough?
« on: October 15, 2014, 12:51:48 PM »
I'm just an amateur photographer who mostly takes photos of my kids so I usually just have one 600EX on my camera.  That said, I now have six 600EX and one ST-E3.  I take a lot of photos at children parties and I like using low ISO speeds so I put stands everywhere.  The place we usually have parties is very large so six lights is often not enough for those rare occasions. 

6
EOS Bodies / Re: More Talk of an October Announcement of a DSLR [CR1]
« on: September 27, 2014, 12:14:25 AM »
To all the people threatening to jump from Canon to Sony/Nikon...

When you bought your Canon camera, it was obviously because you needed/wanted its performance.  It was good enough.  Now suddenly it's not good enough?  Did it deteriorate in quality?  You bought a camera because its performance was what sought, and now its performance (which is the exact same as when you bought it) is not good enough?  Y'all make me laugh.  Hah.
What makes me laugh is the fact that you are participating in a forum called, "Canon Rumors Forum".  You don't care about new cameras, but you take the time to post and read?   That seems so contradictory to me. 

Technology is all about progress and relative performance.  If your logic made any sense at all, we would all be using film cameras or maybe even just painting everything we see with inks from berries. 

7
In my experience the 100-400 is a dog with a TC,

This is a 100% crop from a 100-400L with two 1.4x TCs stacked on a T2i (18MP).



That's a 100% crop?  I'm surprised the moon image isn't much larger.  With a 200-400, I shot some of the moon with the built in 1.4 and an external 2x and the image was quite a bit larger.

8
The age of the 150-600 has begun. I wonder what that spells for Canon's 100-400. Will we see a 100-400 II replacement? Or will Canon join in the fun with a 150-600 as well...

I think it's very possible that Canon does not join in on the fun in order to not cannabilize sales of their 600mm supertelephoto.  Now, my sample size is rather small, but there's a couple guys in my local photo club who do photography as a hobby, but also have good jobs, and both had the Canon 600mm.  When the Tamron came out, those two gentlemen both sold their Canons for the Tamron.  To some, I guess they don't need the absolute best quality, but rather the ease of getting 600mm.  I'm sure there are others who once having experienced the superiority of the Canon would absolutely not go down to a Tamron, but the issue remains that more affordable versions can take sales away from the top of the line models.  I suspect if for whatever reason Canon did decide to enter this field, their lens would outperform the Tamron.  At that point, you even more have the possibility of a very good lens, and more versatile, taking sales away from a great lens.

Having said all that, I truly DO wish Canon would make a copy of the Tamron.  I'm very impressed by Canon quality lately (as well as Sigma).  I don't use 600mm enough to warrant paying 5 digits for a lens, nor do I have that much disposable income, but I certainly would buy a 150-600 from Canon even if it cost 3k, possibly even 4k. 

I guess that's why these large companies have market research teams.  Weighing the options of people like me, vs people like those in my photo club.  Which makes them more money in the long run.

Well, owning the EF 600mm f/4 L II myself, I honestly having a VERY hard time believing anyone who owned one would ever sell it for the Temmy 150-600. If you've ever used a lens of the same caliber as the Canon 600...there is simply no alternative. You usually use such a lens on a tripod...so it isn't like weight is really a concern. I could see ADDING the 150-600 for use while traveling, but I just cannot imagine anyone selling the 600...not unless they had serious financial concerns and were forced to.
I don't have the 600 f/4, but I bought the 200-400 to shoot photos of my (then) 4 year old son.   I've used it all summer to take photos of my son in soccer and just can't imagine selling it unless I have serious financial hardships so much that I can't even pay my mortgage.  Even if I don't use it much, I'm going to keep it in the closet for when I do. 

Anyone who shoots at 600mm and is worried about IQ, is going to use some sort of support.  I've shot at 560 without support but only because I needed to swing around real quick or I didn't yet have my lens mounted.  Once you have the lens mounted, weight really isn't an issue.  The only time weight is an issue is when you are transporting it.  I can see myself buying a "budget-minded" long lens for travel but even in that case, I would never sell my 200-400. 

I'm not saying no one would ever sell a 600mm f/4, but I do have a hard time understanding why one would do so except for financial reasons. 

9
Lenses / Re: Camera setup for dental clinic
« on: July 17, 2014, 12:50:56 AM »
Thanks for all your suggestions, guys! I talked to current residents today, and most of them use crop Nikon bodies with Nikon 105 micro/macro lens and a macro ring flash. Sorry for a silly question, but would 100mm L macro lens fit into a Canon's crop body, like 7d or 70d?

Please let me know if anybody has a good copy of 100L.

They probably have crop bodies because no one told them the difference between crop and FF. 

Yes, the 100L will fit on any Canon body with an EF mount.  It will fit on both the 7D and the 70D.  The crop body does give you some more working distance. 

If you are going to use the camera for photos other than dental, then you should consider a FF body. 

I wouldn't look at cost too much as you can write off all this gear. 

10
Pricewatch Deals / Re: SanDisk Sale at B&H Photo
« on: July 16, 2014, 04:39:18 PM »
Oddly, I've found that my old Firewire card reader is faster than any USB 3.0 card reader I've ever tried. 

11
Lenses / Re: Camera setup for dental clinic
« on: July 16, 2014, 03:55:13 AM »
Hello guys, I hope you all are doing great. I need a camera+macro lens+macro ring combo to photograph teeth and other stuff in the mouth in dental patients. So, I have two options and I need your help.

1. I have an old 5di which I can use in the clinic. But I need macro lens and macro flash. For a lens, I'm deciding between 100mm f2.8L and non-L. How good is the quality of the non-L lens, which is much cheaper than L one? What macro ring would you recommend besides the one Canon makes ($500)?

2. Get a crop camera, 60mm f2.8 EF-S and macro ring. How good is 60mm f2.8 lens?

I don't need top quality of the pictures, but it should be at least very good. All other people in the clinic use Nikon :o

Thanks!

Just noticed your user name.  I'm assuming you're a periodontist in which case, you're looking at mostly cosmetic.   Definitely get the 100L.  You might want to consider getting a tripod but that could scare some of your patients. 

12
Lenses / Re: Camera setup for dental clinic
« on: July 16, 2014, 03:51:57 AM »
Hello guys, I hope you all are doing great. I need a camera+macro lens+macro ring combo to photograph teeth and other stuff in the mouth in dental patients. So, I have two options and I need your help.

1. I have an old 5di which I can use in the clinic. But I need macro lens and macro flash. For a lens, I'm deciding between 100mm f2.8L and non-L. How good is the quality of the non-L lens, which is much cheaper than L one? What macro ring would you recommend besides the one Canon makes ($500)?

2. Get a crop camera, 60mm f2.8 EF-S and macro ring. How good is 60mm f2.8 lens?

I don't need top quality of the pictures, but it should be at least very good. All other people in the clinic use Nikon :o

Thanks!

Are you looking to take photos more for restorative or cosmetic dentistry? 

If you are looking for cosmetic photos, then live view isn't that useful.  Most patients are going to be happy with before and after photos as long as you get their veneer colours to match well.  The problem with veneer colouring is often educating the patient on the changing colour of their non-veneered teeth.  Some patients after getting a veneer, implant, etc will still not be happy with the colour after the tooth is done. 
If you are looking for cosmetic photos for a portfolio, then that's a different matter and probably a much bigger discussion. 

Restorative dentistry photos are really tricky.  I've seen a bunch of dentists buy the G-series dentist kit and rarely take it out of the aluminum box. 
As for live view...you're never going to use it because it's only useful on a tripod.  One thing to keep in mind is that with the 100L, you will still need to be quite close to get shots inside the mouth in which case, your depth of field is going to be very very shallow.  Definitely get the L 100mm macro because of the IS. 

13
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II [CR1]
« on: July 14, 2014, 08:17:16 PM »
Canon could sell a million of these if they don't hold back and just give us sports/wildlife people a great lens at a decent price.

1998 -2014, after 16 years you would think that this newer version would be much improved on what was already a decent lens.

I have to wonder if they're trying to protect the Big Whites. The 400f5.6 prime has arguably superior IQ to some of the old big whites, and upgrading something like that might look a little unbalanced.
Maybe they wanted to wait until they had all the version II supertelephoto lenses out before releasing a budget option that performs on a similar level.

Just out of curiousity, how do would you define, "on a similar level"?

14
Lenses / Re: World Cup started - no sign of 100-400L Mk2
« on: July 12, 2014, 02:55:58 PM »
Never had much credence in the views held by some that this mythical lens might appear in Rio - but still early days etc. Miracles could happen.

Ultra secretive Canon treat their loyal expectant customers with contempt.

The least that the Canon hermit kingdom people could say is no replacement planned at all or replacement planned for 2015, 2016....2020 or whatever.

Going back on topic a bit.  I don't think a 100-400 is a lens that would be in hand with top photographers as it's really a budget L lens.  I'm not a professional, but I would imagine that world-class photographers will use the best.  The 100-400L is a compromise for size and cost. 

15
Software & Accessories / Re: Gimbal head or not for Tamron 150-600
« on: June 12, 2014, 06:27:06 PM »
IMO, you need support for both stability and easy of use.  I've not held that Tamron, but looking at photos and the weight of the lens, a good ballhead will easily provide enough stability.  As far as ease of use (panning, movement, relieving weight), a gimbal will really help, but for the size of that Tamron, I think it's overkill. 

I purchased the Wimberley II for my 200-400 which is a bigger lens than the Tamron.  Even with the 200-400, I could have gotten away with a ballhead.  The main advantage with the gimbal for me, was easy of movement and peace of mind (you don't have to worry about locking the ballhead really tight to prevent flop). 

This is less of an issue and some will laugh at me for saying this, but that Tamron will look a little odd sitting on a big gimbal.

It's not just the weight of the lens...That Bigron extends out quite a bit and factor in that big hood.  Center of gravity shifts depending on where you have it extended.   Hence gimbal over ballhead in this case.   PLUNK !

Actually, a changing center of gravity works AGAINST a gimbal.  When you set up your gimbal initially, you set it for forward/backward weight distribution and (on the Wimberley), you also set it for up and down weight distribution. If the lens shifts forward and back, your Wimberley won't work the way it's intended to. 

Even when I have the shoulder strap on/off, I need to readjust for the difference in weight distribution. 

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7