April 17, 2014, 04:16:48 PM

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 [4] 5 6
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II Arrived
« on: September 14, 2012, 11:50:52 AM »
Need IS for video!

Absolutely not! You need a tripod/monopod or glidecam. Some sort of rig, but definitely not handheld. Handheld video looks awful and is amateurish.

Yes, but for home video, I would have personally appreciated it.  Oftentimes, I just want to grab a video of my kids and it's not often convenient to use a tripod or monopod.  The lack of IS just means I can't keep that lens on as an all-around lens. 

I may still buy this new Mk II but only when I know I won't shoot any video.  Video with my 24-105 without support, is totally acceptable. 

EOS Bodies / Re: Is a 46mp Canon EOS-1 on the Way? [CR1]
« on: September 10, 2012, 01:43:37 PM »
An EOS-1?  When are they going to stop building these bodies with the grip permanently built-in?

Never, I hope. 

Put a removable grip on a body. Hold the body in one hand, the grip in the other. Move your hands. Feel the flex?  Now...put an AS-type plate or L-bracket  on the bottom of the grip, mount it on a solid tripod. That flex translates to vibration, and vibration costs sharpness.  Oh, just remove the grip? Very inconvenient, for me.

Love the integrated grip of the digital 1-series bodies!

Agreed. My biggest and possibly only complaint with battery grips is the flex that exists between the body and grip when doing tripod work.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II Has Made its Way To Retailers
« on: September 02, 2012, 12:04:22 PM »
I wonder when the 5DIII kits w/ new 24-70mm start to ship... (Not available in all markets). I can't wait!

Maybe never?  There was never a kit with the Mark I that I know of.  Not from Canon anyways. 

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Canon EOS-1D X in Stock at B&H Photo
« on: August 29, 2012, 05:44:17 PM »
Just picked up mine today! Excited to start using this camera in a real (professional) shooting environment.


Just out of curiousity, why do you equate "real" to "professional"? 

EOS Bodies / Re: Anyone else preorder the EOS M yet?
« on: August 23, 2012, 01:41:02 PM »
I'm definitely going to get one for the wife and kids, but I am going to wait for a sale at Christmas.  Being a consumerish device, I expect there will be some good sales (more than we see on SLRs anyways). 

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 3D X [CR1]
« on: August 21, 2012, 05:41:57 PM »
However this camera turns out, 5D3 owners will be burned.

For what reason? Unless you plan to buy another super computer for 46MP - raw file  ;D

Does anyone know what the RAW file size would be?  If it's just about double those on the 5D Mark II then I don't know why people are suggesting you need a super computer.  I admit the transfer of images from memory card to computer could be a bit onerous, but any decent computer (last few years) will easily handle the file sizes from the 5D Mark II.  I don't do multiple layers, etc, but my computer manipulates my 5D Mark II images almost instantly. 

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Chuck westfall on the sharpness of the 5dm3
« on: August 20, 2012, 01:11:11 PM »
Chuck: "We're going to look at the...um....needs of the market and consider our strategy going forward.  I can't make any promises."

He should have been a politician.  He doesn't say or commit to anything.  It couldn't have been a more useless comment.  What I think he's saying is that they will give the features to the other products if it makes sense to Canon.  They are not committing to making the best products that they are capable of. 

PS: Is it just me or does that Planet 5D guy seem a bit creepy? 

Lenses / Re: New Wide Angle Zoom Discussion & Opinion
« on: August 15, 2012, 05:20:47 PM »
I own a 16-35mkII and it worked perfectly with the 1Dmk3 I had.

After I replaced the 1Dmk3 with a 5Dmk3 the 16-35mkII wasn't good enough anymore: the off-center unsharpness is just too visible. I bought the 17-40 which is a lot sharper (but obviously lacks the F/2.8).

I really like the 16/17 to 35/40mm focal range, so I'm really hoping they are going to release a sharp 16-35mm F2.8. The 14-24mm F2.8 sounds as a nice addition to the 24-70mm, but for the type of photography I'm doing I'd rather use a 16-35 + 70-200mm combo.

Just my 2 cents.


You're the first person I've ever heard say the 17-40 is sharper than the 16-35 MkII.  I'm going to go further and say you outright had a defective copy of the 16-35 because every tester says the 16-35 is sharper and my own experiences have reflected that. 

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 :P 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. 

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. 

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? 

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.

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. 

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. 

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. :D
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. 

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6