Messages

31

Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: Is there a cheaper way to buy from "REALLY RIGHT STUFF"

« on: August 13, 2012, 12:07:54 PM »

I wonder again how photographers in the past were able to take amazing shots with crappy cameras and tripods compared to what we have today Imho the photographer makes the photo not the camera...

These comments are so misleading and completely out of context. 

First of all, if you didn't think gear made a difference, you wouldn't be on this forum reading about gear and to some extent, gear that doesn't even exist!  So if you really believed your statement, you'd be out taking pictures instead of reading a rumours forum. 

I love the post about the 10D.  If the camera doesn't matter, then everyone would be using a 10D or their iPhones.  I watched a lot of Olympics and didn't see one photographer with an iPhone or a Rebel or a 10D.  The camera matters and that's a fact, so you're trite remark is misleading to anyone who is doing research on a forum. 

Lastly, the comment that a great camera won't help a crappy photographer is also misleading.  Assuming, the user knows how to turn on the camera and even use it on auto, even if his composition is poor, a better camera is going to give him a better quality file.  That's fact.  It might look like crap and it might be poorly exposed, but with a better camera, he's going to have a better file to work with and a better file to pass on to his kids (if he chooses). 

I can't believe how many people state that gear doesn't matter.  The irony is that many of these people post on gear forums so it's clear they believe gear matters.  Either that or they like to waste their time I suppose. 

People are allowed to buy whatever they want.  If the OP wants to spend a grand on a tripod, he's allowed to and doesn't need anyone to lecture him. 

To the OP: I've seen RRS gear used in on the B&H used site.  I don't know if it ends up cheaper, but it's worth giving it a look.  Also, take a look at the various market sites on message boards.  That's if you don't mind buying used. 

32

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Canon USA August Rebates

« on: August 13, 2012, 11:58:15 AM »

I wish the big telephotos would go on sale more often.  Has anyone seen the 400mm 2.8 IS II with rebate yet? 

I wonder how long it will take if ever, for the 200-400 to have a rebate. 

33

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Canon USA August Rebates

« on: August 12, 2012, 10:00:26 PM »

A rebate on the ST-E3-RT already?   I'm still waiting for Amazon to get them in stock to fill my preorder.  Got such a good price (even lower than the rebate) I dont want to cancel and order elsewhere.

I don't see any rebate amount on the ST-E3.  Do you see information somewhere that lists the rebate amount off of the ST-E3? 

34

Lenses / Re: Owning the Canon 200-400 f/4L Vs 400 f/2.8L II

« on: August 12, 2012, 12:13:47 PM »

Is anyone here serious about buying the 200-400 if we see a release in the next few weeks?

I'm going to get either the 200-400 or the 400 2.8. I'm just a dad wanting to take photos so I don't think I can justify buying more than one big lens. If the IQ is as good as the 70-200 MK II then it will be enough for me to overlook the loss of speed from 2.8.

I'm worried about the QC a tad too as Canon has had many problems with new product launches lately so I might wait a year before buying.

35

Lenses / Re: How is the hand-holdability of the Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II IS USM lens (+TC)?

« on: August 09, 2012, 02:49:11 PM »

I have the 300 f2.8 I IS and regular shoot it with a 1.4x or 2X TC hand held.  Its a bit heavy if you have to walk a couple of miles with this combo, but it is doable for me.  The attachment is a portrait of a black bear in Yellowstone at 600mm, 1/200 sec, handheld.  The iS is great.  So the answer is it depends on your level of fitness, how far you need to walk, what tele photos you have used in the past, etc. In general, you will find many people amateur like me or pros who say this lens is very handholdable.

I hope this is taken as constructive opinion, but the image of the bear, is not sharp at all. 

36

Technical Support / Re: EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS USM II strange IS noise - does the lens need to be repaired?

« on: August 08, 2012, 04:01:27 AM »

I have a few IS lenses and this is the only IS lens that I have that makes this noise.  I also have the Mark I and it is totally silent. 

I wonder if this is the same sound that owners of the 200mm f/2.0 L hear on their 5D Mark III. 

37

Lenses / Re: Canon at the London Summer Olympics

« on: July 31, 2012, 12:25:45 PM »

The 200-400 is not as massive as I thought it would be, looks pretty hand holdable to me.

Actually, the front element's diameter is much smaller than I had thought.  I'm actually really surprised. 

I wonder why neither of the photographers in the photo is using a lens hood. 

38

Lenses / Re: Canon at the London Summer Olympics

« on: July 31, 2012, 12:24:27 PM »

That room full of L glass must be worth hundred of thousands of dollars. It's a robbers dream the lenses are being held in a broom closet.

Maybe I missed something, but do we know where that photos of all the lens-room comes from?  Is it a staging area at the Olympics where Canon lends out gear? 

39

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS M - Colour Availability

« on: July 25, 2012, 07:39:05 PM »

Canon USA indicated that the white version will only be available direct from Canon's online storefront.  Since B&H is a US retailer, they will not get the white version.

That's too bad because it will likely mean I have to pay full MSRP. Does anyone know if Canon direct charges tax?

40

EOS Bodies / EOS-M Body color - Black or White?

« on: July 25, 2012, 12:44:03 PM »

I haven't seen any information on the launch of the other EOS M colours.  B&H only has black and I haven't been able to even find a concrete launch date for black.  I'd like to get a white one for my wife so if anyone has information about colour availability in North America, that would be great. 

41

Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: ST-E3-RT stock ... this is crazy!

« on: July 09, 2012, 03:56:49 AM »

why would you buy that?
buy a phottix odin instead.

ps: with the ST-E3 RT the sync time is down to 1/100s on everything except  a 5D MK3 or 1D X when using radio.
otherwise you will have some shadowing on your pictures.

I am in the same boat as the OP. I'm really curious as to why inventory is so limited. I might end up buying a 5th 600EX if the STE3 isn't available soon.

I was considering the Phottix Odins for my 580ex IIs but in the end I'm glad I didn't because the 600EX' are so easy to use.  The Canon system has a very significant advantage in that they are a closed system and don't require as much set up as an IR system or a third party RF solution.

I still think they 600ex' are a tad expensive but I'm a believer. I sold 3 580ex II and bought 3 600ex. Very shortly after I bought a 4th and am considering a 5th (since I cant find an STE3).

42

Lenses / Re: Owning the Canon 200-400 f/4L Vs 400 f/2.8L II

« on: July 05, 2012, 08:45:57 PM »

When the 200-400 lens becomes available I will be purchasing it or the 400 2.8 prime. The delima of which of these 2 lenses would be more effective is making me mad.

The versatility of the 200-400 with the built in ext will be excellent. To think, though, that with the 1.4X and 2X ext gives you 3 incredibly useful focal lengths is equally incredible.

Owning the 70-200 f/2.8 II and using both ext's on it often, I think that the 200 to 280mm range of the 200-400 would go unused much of the time.

I have owed the 600 f/4 300 f/2.8 and the 200 f/2. Of all of those lenses, the 300 f/2.8 was my favorite.

Has anyone else given this much thought?

Ever since the 200-400 was announced, I've given this a lot of thought.  I have young kids that will be going into field sports very soon so I've been planning on a big lens for a while. 

I personally don't think I will ever shoot longer than 400mm so for me, it's the 200-400 or the 400.  Since both are going to be in the same range, price doesn't play a factor for me. 

I'm leaning towards the 200-400 because of the versatility.  If the IQ difference is too great, however, I'll get the 400mm.  If there is very little difference, then I think I can lose the light/speed and go for the 200-400. 

I guess what I don't have experience or knowledge on is the difference in background blur between the two lenses.  That could play a role so I'd love to see someone shoot the 400mm at both 2.8 and 4.0 and post the photos. 

43

EOS Bodies / Re: Is SLR dead?

« on: June 30, 2012, 04:03:51 PM »

You're wrong about video quality. Video stores are dying and bluray sales are falling off the charts. Many brick and mortar stores don't even give any shelf space for it.

If you're on this message board you're already far more of an enthusiast than the average Joe. IMO, the difference in IQ and flexibility (lenses etc) are far greater between SLRs and compacts than between SLRs and micro 4/3 and the like.

Anyways, no one can prove the future. We can only see what happens. IQ is the most important thing for me regardless of size but if there was a way to prove it, I'd wager that convenience (where acceptable IQ exists) is for most, the most important thing.

44

EOS Bodies / Re: Is SLR dead?

« on: June 30, 2012, 12:52:26 PM »

Look at two other consumer trends:
Music Quality
Video Quality

There was a time when people sat down and listened to music.  Today, people just download compressed music.  there are always going to be audiophiles, but they are the minority.  I'm one of them, but I know it's not the norm. 

Then there is Blu-ray.  Where can you rent those today?  How big is the Blu-ray section in your local electronics retailer?  Again, I've got a movie set-up at home, but I'm the minority.  I didn't think people would ever watch movies and video on small screens, but it's happening.

On one side, we have quality...image quality, video quality, sound quality.  On the other side, we have convenience, weight, on-demand, cost, etc.  I don't know if SLRs will diminish in sales numbers, but for all those that don't think it's even a remote possibility, those people aren't looking outside of their own world.

This seems like a bit of a different arguement to me, agenst higher image quality generally rather than SLR's as the preffered basis for that quality.

I'd argue that photography had its "shift to convenience" a decade ago with the digital revolution and what were seeing today is a shift back towards quality.

Audio and video already went through their improvement stages.

People care less and less about quality after it's met a minimum standard. That's some unknown level of perceivable difference. Most people don't have the time, care or money to tell the difference of modern technologies.

Maybe our circles of influence are different but the strong majority of women I know don't want an SLR and many of my friends who are early adopters who have SLRs have either augmented or replaced their SLRs with smaller formats.

You don't have to believe me. Look into industry sales numbers. DSLRs sales are growing but at a declining rate.

45

EOS Bodies / Re: Is SLR dead?

« on: June 28, 2012, 05:33:12 PM »

Look at two other consumer trends:
Music Quality
Video Quality

There was a time when people sat down and listened to music.  Today, people just download compressed music.  there are always going to be audiophiles, but they are the minority.  I'm one of them, but I know it's not the norm. 

Then there is Blu-ray.  Where can you rent those today?  How big is the Blu-ray section in your local electronics retailer?  Again, I've got a movie set-up at home, but I'm the minority.  I didn't think people would ever watch movies and video on small screens, but it's happening.

On one side, we have quality...image quality, video quality, sound quality.  On the other side, we have convenience, weight, on-demand, cost, etc.  I don't know if SLRs will diminish in sales numbers, but for all those that don't think it's even a remote possibility, those people aren't looking outside of their own world.