Messages

46

Lenses / Re: Most requested lenses for replacement?

« on: June 25, 2012, 04:26:03 PM »

If you don't pixel peep, you're not likely to notice the imperfections of any lens.  Since I've never worked in print publication, I can't comment, but as a pixel peeper (self admittedly), I feel the 17-40 is quite weak (sharpness wise). 

I have the 17mm TS-E and from my pixel peeping, it is about on par if not a teeny weeny bit less sharp in the center as the 16-35.  However, in the corners, the 17 mm TS-E blows the 16-35 out of the water.  Not even close.  The challenge with the 17 mm TS-E is that it is manual only focus.  I bought that lens this year for a trip to Italy and noticed for myself, I was paying a lot more attention and time on shots because of the manual focus and the protruding element. 

47

Lenses / Re: Most requested lenses for replacement?

« on: June 25, 2012, 02:27:34 PM »

I wouldn't say the 17-40 is woeful by any means, I also wouldn't be upset if they refreshed it provided A) they keep it 77mm, and B) keep it under the 1K mark...

It depends on your definition of "woeful", but I would say it is.  I believe the other poster was referencing FF performance and in that respect, the 17-40 is very weak in the corners with respect to sharpness.  The 16-35 Mk II may cost way more but it's definitely better.  The sad thing is that the 16-35 Mk II isn't that great either. 

I agree with all the posters that 50mm nees a good solid entry from Canon.  In the film days, it was what I shot with more than anything.  Now I own 7 L lenses but not one 50mm. 

48

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 14-24 f/2.8L [CR2]

« on: June 15, 2012, 01:52:46 PM »

Hope this one becomes a reality.  If IQ is similar to the Nikon version, I'll drop my 16-35mm f/2.8L II like a hot potato.

I wouldn't, but your style and needs as well as budget, I know, are quite different than mine and still, I am very happy to see this lens releasing for Canon systems.  I wonder if this will best, the 14mm Canon prime (I hear that currently, maybe someone can confirm, Canon's 14L prime is superior to the 14mm end of Nikon's 14-24 as well as superior to Nikon's 14mm primes???)  I think if I was willing to chop off the 35 mm end of the zoom, with an intention to pair it to a 24-70, that I would just go for a 14mm prime instead and save a little size and weight.  I also don't like that the 14mm prime and the 14-24 lenses have unprotectable, aspherical front elements and I'm not at all convinced that leaving the house with just a 14-24 would be anywhere near as useful for many forms of photography as the same scenario with a 16-35.  The 35mm end of the 16-35 is what lets the lens go from ultra wide angle, to a normal viewing angle.  You can stick the 35mm end in someones face and get an intimate portrait that doesn't make them look like a mutant, not so with the 24.

I was just going to ask how many people would ditch their 16-35s for a 14-24.  I will likely get the 14-24 at some point, but the 35 is very useful on the 16-35.  Indoors where I shoot mostly my kids, I find I use 35 more than I do 16.  There are not many instances when I wish I had wider than 16 either in the house or out. 

Thanks for the above post as it made me realize I need both lenses.   

49

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Canon EOS Rebel T4i/650D Body in Stock at Norman Camera

« on: June 13, 2012, 11:57:41 AM »

It's interesting how this body made it to market so quickly after announcement.  It makes me wonder what Canon's strategy is around announcing their pro gear so far in advance of availability. 

50

EOS Bodies / Re: BG-E11 in-stock $319 (free shipping)

« on: June 11, 2012, 02:26:00 PM »

FYI, they've raised their price to $329. 

51

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon EOS 7D Firmware Version 2 Coming Soon

« on: June 08, 2012, 12:34:23 PM »

Thank You Canon! 
It's like getting a new camera (almost) for free!
I am so glad that Canon decided to do this, I feel like Canon really did the right thing here.
They could have just as easily left the 7D alone and introduced a newer version (7D MKII) but they invested in their customers and I for one think that was the right thing to do.
 

Don't fool yourself.  I'm saying this a bit tongue-in-cheek, but Canon doesn't do anything for their customers.  None of us will know for sure, but they probably needed some more separation between their low-end cameras and the mid-range 7D so that they can continue to sell some bodies at a higher ASP (average selling price). 

What this tells me is that Canon does in fact hold back features or cripple bodies.  In other words, their product specs are just as much a product of marketing segmentation as it is a limitation of technology.  If the processing power of the 7D is enough to support that much of an increase in buffer, it's more than just an improvement in firmware. 

52

Lighting / Re: The Flash Bracket? Do they really matter anymore?

« on: June 06, 2012, 12:56:17 PM »

I was talking to a fellow photographer who works weddings all the time. We were discussing on-camera flash and he spoke of always using a flash bracket for on camera.

I've seen them before, those large hulking contraptions that some photogs carry around on a wedding. Is it really necessary though anymore? I think one of those would slow me down but if the benefits are really worth the hassle i'd might look into it.

Supposedly, it will remove the horrid side-shadow when shot in portrait orientation but why not just use a TTL cable and hold the flash in proper orientation rather than carry a bulky and heavy bracket? Or just bounce?

Dunno, It was interesting enough to want some opinions on brackets.

If you have a bracket that can easily flip from landscape to portrait and then back, a bracket is awesome for shadows.  At many locations, bounce is simply not an option because you're either too far from a wall or ceiling, the ceiling is black or colored. 

53

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D3

« on: March 29, 2012, 06:10:32 PM »

I think the problem with the 5D Mark III is not that its a bad camera...
if you think it is, then you are not qualified to be taking photos.

The problem is that currently Canon no longer have a high megapixel offering.
What most of the replies here do not realize is that there are print sizes between
12x18 and billboards... such as 24x36 and 36x48, that 22mp simply is not enough for.

Theres also the problem that most photographers do not come from a print
background and don't really understand that there is a huge difference between 300ppi
and 400ppi printing. Its not so much about whether or not your clients can see it, or
whether the general viewer can see it. It is about striving for more than "just okay."

Just because they do not consciously see it, does not mean that no points are
added unconsciously to their first impression of your work. Go out and find a print sample
book that has 300ppi vs 400ppi photos and then tell me if you don't see a difference.
400ppi looks like a USM sharpened photo on paper as if it were a screen.
Its really something else.

A 12x18 print at 400ppi is around 34.5mp. That size is pretty common to see in
photos that run an entire spread... including the bleed.

Keep in mind that the typical commercial printers you have at home, or your local
print house printers are not able to create something of this quality. Not all 400ppi prints
are equal, I'm talking about commercial, large scale presses.

Interpolation really isnt a solution as much as its just a temporary fix. If you
cannot tell the difference between high res photo and an interpolated photo, then
your attention to detail is lacking... I really question the quality of your photos as well.
Sure you can make a ton of money being "just okay," but we're talking about
achieve more than that.

Resolution does not make a photo better, but bad resolution really takes away
from a photo. That argument that people are not going to look at a poster up close
is really, really false. Every time I put a poster up, the first thing anyone does
is look at it up close... as long as they can get to it.

Sometimes photographers also forget that there is typography set on the posters
as well. These are vectors so naturally they are super sharp and high resolution. Put
that together photo and all of a sudden the photo doesnt look quite as good.

Don't get me wrong, almost all of the people complaining about resolution have
no idea what I'm talking about, nor do they have access to print such large and high
resolution prints. I'm just saying, don't write resolution off for the rest of us that
actually want to be perfectionists.

Canon sure went crazy on fixing AF on the 5D Mark III, but I fear that
they've forgotten what made the original 5D2 so popular... I see the 5D3 as
more of a logical next step to the 7D... not the 5D2.

I am on vacation with limited Internet and felt compelled to register to this forum to agree with this post. The Internet is rife with people without the proper background, knowledge, education or experiences to be posting as someone in the know. I am an admitted gear head with many years of product marketing and Chinese manufacturing experience to see most people provide inaccurate opinions on product marketing and profit drivers.

I admittedly did not understand all of the above post but it was well written enough to prove the point that to many people, MP is important if not necessary.

I personally don't understand the emotional and often aggressive rants to "go out and shoot and stop worrying about the technology". It's ironic because this is a gear site after all.