Messages

31

Lenses / Re: Help picking lenses for vacation!

« on: June 15, 2012, 05:38:45 PM »

I recently returned from the second of two trips to Japan this year.  Since these were both business trips, I wanted to get the maximum flexibility from my camera without having to lug around too much gear.  In Japan I walk and use public transport a lot, and there is a limit to what I can carry alongside my luggage and my work laptop.

On the first trip I brought my 5D2 and the 24-105 kit lens only.  That worked pretty well, being reasonably light and compact, but there were a number of times when I wanted more reach.  So for the second trip I bought a new bag and packed the 24-105 along with my 70-200mm f/4L and a 1.4x teleconverter.  This worked out great - the weight and bulk were not a problem and I got a lot of shots that would not have been worth taking with the 24-105 alone.  I was shooting outdoors only, so the slow lenses were not a problem.

The bag is worth mentioning, as I think picking the right one makes a big difference to the experience.  I got a Tamron UltraPro 7, a messenger style bag designed for a DSLR and two lenses plus accessories.  I like the messenger style, compact for the capacity offered and it doesn't look that much like a typical camera bag so it attracts less attention.  I also find the slim-line style puts less strain on my back than wider models.  For trips when I bring more equipment I like Neuro's idea of bringing a large case and also packing a smaller bag to carry only the lenses I need on a specific outing.  I plan to try this at the next opportunity.

As far as lens selection goes, the 17-40mm and 24-105mm should be a good combination.  The 70-200mm f/2.8 may well be too heavy - I just gave in to my desire to own the mk2 version , and it is certainly hefty if you are not used to big lenses.  I am torn between selling my f/4 version to fund future purchases or keeping it for trips when the f/2.8 is too much.  I need some time to get used to the 2.8 before I decide.

One comment about the 17-40mm - for architecture you need to be a bit careful, as it does introduce quite a lot of distortion especially at the wide end.  I got this lens just before a Spanish vacation, and overused it shooting in cities not realizing how it would look.  I was still using slide film at that time though, so this may not be as much of an issue with digital given the ability to correct in post.  The ability to go wide in confined spaces in cities like London and Venice is certainly handy, since backing up to get everything in shot is often not an option.

32

Lenses / Re: A small walkabout lens - lay it on me!

« on: June 05, 2012, 05:14:10 AM »

Maybe I am off base here, but if compact and light is what you want have you considered buying an APS-C body?  A T2i plus the highly regarded 10-22mm would come in well under what you'd pay for the 24L f/1.4.  The 10-22 is only 3.5in long and weighs 13 oz, not as light and compact as the 50 f/1.4 but the smaller lighter body should more than make up for it.  I'm always amazed when I pick up my daughter's T3i how little there is to it compared to my 5D2.

The IQ of this combo should be pretty good as long as you are not looking for the speed and DOF of an f/1.4 lens.  The Rebel doesn't have the low light and AF capabilities of your 5D2, but it has the same sensor as everything up to and including the 7D.  The AF might not be an issue if you are using the camera for landscapes and street scenes.  The flexibility of a zoom might be a plus for a walkaround lens.  If not, the 14L f/2.8 is another option, but say goodbye to light and cheap.

Just a thought...

33

Lenses / Re: Used Lenses

« on: June 04, 2012, 01:52:09 AM »

Something to consider beyond seller rating is WHAT they have been selling - e.g. 5000 sales of bubble gum, and now an L lens? You can see if the item description jives with this story.

Good point @Ew.  I would not trust the description from someone who does not sell a lot of similar items.  If I did buy from such a seller I would look for a significantly lower price to offset the risk.  Usually someone else apparently less risk averse than myself (not too difficult ) bids the price up beyond my comfort level, thereby solving the problem.

34

Lenses / Re: Used Lenses

« on: June 04, 2012, 01:19:40 AM »

I have bought quite a bit of Bronica medium format gear from KEH, and I always found their rating of the condition to be accurate, even conservative.  I have seen the same experience echoed on Bronica and other forums, and I can't recall seeing any complaints.  I also had a very positive experience selling some of my used gear (again Bronica) to them when they came to my area.

I have bought Bronica equipment through eBay too, with no problems.  I buy from sellers with high ratings (99.x% typically) and usually with plenty of feedback to give confidence.  If in doubt, I will read through the negative and neutral ratings to see what the problems were and how the seller responded.  At least one purchase was made from a UK seller (I'm in the US) and there were no additional complications.

If looking for something specific I find it helpful to search completed listings on eBay to see how much the item generally sells for.  You can compare that price to current auctions or to B&H, Adorama or KEH prices to decide where to buy.  Depending on rarity and demand I have found some bargains on eBay but also some popular items which often get bid up to more than they are really worth.  The best results come from watching the market for a while until a good opportunity comes along (eg. after Christmas when people are unloading unwanted gifts).

35

Lenses / Re: 400mm f/4. Anything good and "affordable"?

« on: May 31, 2012, 04:48:47 AM »

Looks like I may just go for Canon 300mm f/4 IS with 1.4x TC.  Not as much reach as I wanted, but at least it should be more portable.

I have the 300L f/4 IS and I've been very happy with it on my 5D2.  Fast AF, good IQ, and not excessively heavy.  The IS is awesome, and is the main reason I picked this lens over the 400L f/5.6.  I just got the 1.4 x mk3 TC, taking advantage of the current rebates.  This gets me 420mm at f/5.6 and IS for not a huge amount more $$$ than the 400 would have been.

I am on a business trip to Japan right now and I didn't want to lug along the 300, so I've been trying out the TC with my 70-200L f/4.  That combination seems to be working pretty well, although I haven't looked closely at the results off camera yet.  I took a bunch of shots of formula cars at the Motegi racing circuit, and the AF seemed to track pretty well even with the TC.  So I'm hopeful that the combination of 24-105, 70-200 and 1.4 TC will make a nice light and compact kit for casual travel when I don't want to carry my full set of gear.

I'm looking forward to trying out the 300 plus 1.4 TC combination in earnest when I get home.  I only had time for a few quick shots of birds at a feeder before I left, and I didn't nail the focus.  I did do my homework before buying, and came to the conclusion that the IQ of the 300/1.4 TC pairing was close enough to the 100-400L and the 400L f/5.6 to make this combination viable.

Like you, I have been vaguely evaluating 400 f/4 (or equivalent) options.  The cheapest Canon solution would probably be a used copy of the 400 DO, which can be had for less crazy money than things like the 300L/f2.8 with TC, for example.  But I'm thinking my best option will be to pick up a 7D to get the reach I want.  The 7D is far less expensive than most fast 400 options, and has an AF system that is up to the demands of bird photography which the 5D2 really isn't.  As a bonus I get a backup body as well.  Until then I am stuck with borrowing my daughter's T3i when I can get away with it.

36

Lenses / Re: Suggestions for Full Frame Lenses

« on: May 27, 2012, 08:36:34 AM »

I have the 85 1.8 and once owned the 100/2.0.  The 85/1.8 is better all around than the 100/2.

I have the 100 f/2.0, and it is a decent piece of glass.  I have never shot with an 85 f/1.8 for direct comparison, but the reviews I read generally gave the 85 a slight edge in IQ.  The reason I went with the 100 is that it was said to have less flare.  Since my primary reason for buying this lens was to shoot musicians at a bar in China, flare was a key consideration.  The shots I got with the 100 f/2.0 in that environment did not disappoint.  Its a good lens for the money, but if flare was not such a concern I would have plunked for the 85.

37

Lenses / Re: Selling Lenses to Adorama Used Store

« on: May 12, 2012, 12:56:56 PM »

I have not tried selling to Adorama, but I had a good experience selling some of my old Bronica gear to KEH.  The items I sold were lenses for the ETRSi system.  They were in very good condition, but they were E-series lenses rather than the more desirable PE series.

KEH sends their buyers out to cities around the US to purchase equipment.  They had one of these sessions scheduled at a hotel in my area, so I took a bunch of gear along.  I had previously obtained quotes for this gear through their website, but visiting the buyer in person meant I could get a firm quote right away without having to mail it in and hope they agreed with my assessment of the condition, and I didn't have to pay for shipping at all.

I was pleasantly surprised to be offered more than the web quotes, and I accepted immediately.  There is a reasonably healthy market for used Bronica equipment, but I wouldn't have said the items I was selling were particularly sought after so I was very pleased with this result.  Of course KEH will resell my stuff for more than they paid me, since they are in the business of making money.  But I judged that any potential I lost for getting a higher price through a private sale was more than offset by this hassle-free experience and the risk of not getting what I expected.  I should note that KEH declined to make an offer for my 1990 point-and-shoot Olympus film camera due to the low value and lack of demand.

One thing to remember is that KEH is primarily a used equipment dealer, and it is in their interest to pay fair prices to acquire new stock.  Used equipment is a much smaller and less important aspect of Adorama's and B&H's business, so they may not have the same incentive.

38

Lenses / Re: Seeking lens in the 85-100mm range

« on: May 08, 2012, 01:04:29 AM »

I'd love to hear from someone who does have the 100 2- or perhaps even the 135L to hear impressions.

I have owned the 100 f/2 for about 8 years.  I bought it with the intention of shooting a band playing in a club in China (the band members were friends of mine.)  I was still shooting film at the time with an EOS 10S.  I had a couple of goes at shooting in this environment without much success before buying the 100.  I got the 50 f/1.4 at the same time, as part of an experiment to see if I preferred primes to zooms.

Reviews of this lens spoke very favorably about it's lack of flare compared to the 85 f/1.8, and my experience seemed to confirm that the 100 is good in this respect.  I got some really nice shots in very low light with decent contrast and no flare issues.  My copy seemed sharp on the 10S and the AF worked fine (although I may have used MF in the club due to the lack of light.)

Since then I have not used the lens extensively, and not at all on my recently acquired 5D2.  After catching the L bug I have mostly focused on zooms, with the exception of the 300 f/4 IS (which I really like.)  This thread may encourage my to dig this lens out again and see what it can really do.  Its not that I really disliked using primes, but I got tired of constantly swapping lenses since I had only one body.

39

PowerShot Cameras / Re: Canon S100 vs. Olympus xz-1

« on: April 29, 2012, 01:51:21 AM »

I bought the XZ-1 for my wife last year just before a family holiday, to replace an old Minolta S-414 (which was junk in my opinion despite some favorable reviews).  At the time we were comparing against the S95, and the XZ-1 had just come on the market.  Based on reviews I had already decided to get the Canon, and only found out about the XZ-1 at the last minute.  I tracked down the only store in town that had one in stock and bought it the same day.

The XZ-1 is an awesome compact camera.  The image quality never ceases to amaze me.  What really swayed me over the S95 was the lens - f/1.8 at the wide end and still f/2.5 at full tele.  The S95 was almost as fast wide, but shrank to a mediocre f/4.9 zoomed in.  I thought that might make the difference between a shot and no shot in some conditions.  The Olympus has a little more reach than the older Canon too.  The macro capabilities of this camera are also excellent, AF seems to work well, and it exposes more consistently than my 5D2.

Now, had the S100 been on the shelves when we made this purchase, we might have made a different choice.  The extra range of the zoom, especially the availability of 24mm equivalent WA, might have tilted the balance.  (The Canon is still dog slow at the long end though - now up to f/5.9 ).  But my wife actually preferred the handling of the S95, it was my daughter and I who talked her into the XZ-1.  So if I was buying another and the size was an issue, I would definitely to a serious look at the S100.  We've been extremely happy with the Olympus though, and I have no regrets.

I'd agree that the user interface is not the best.  We got ours stuck in some funky picture mode and it took quite a bit of scouring through the manual to figure out how to get it back to normal.  A point-and-shoot camera, even a high-end one with lots of features, just shouldn't be that hard to use.

It is also a bit on the bulky side compared to the Canon offerings.  Not usually a problem for us, as it is usually hanging from someone's neck or tucked into a compact shoulder bag.  But if you want a camera that really could be stuffed in a pocket, the XZ-1 would not fit the bill as Neuro said.

40

EOS Bodies / Re: nikon d600 fullframe afordable camera!! will canon reply?

« on: April 26, 2012, 10:20:59 PM »

I'd LOVE to see some low cost FF options from either Co. at a lower price point than present by keeping the cameras simple and minimally featured but capable of great IQ.  Problem is, that darn video feature keeps creeping into peoples' mindsets and that can handicap both price, IQ and overall stills performance.

If Canon and Nikon can figure out how to produce FF at relatively low cost (somewhere between D60 and 7D, say), I think it would be great for many of us.  It should significantly increase the number of FF cameras in circulation, which in turn would increase sales of the FF lenses in relation to EF-S.  Hopefully this would encourage Canon to drop the prices on those lenses due to economies of scale.

It would also mean someone like me, an amateur with limited budget, might be able to justify a second FF body.  I would use the 5D2 I recently bought as my main body, and an entry level FF when I wanted to be able to switch quickly between lenses.  Right now I find myself missing shots because it takes too long to pull the lens off the body and attach the new one.  If I'm feeling lazy I may not take the shot at all because it seems like too trouble (or the family is yelling at me to quit fiddling with my camera and get a move on!  )

41

Site Information / Re: How to change equipment list at bottom of post?

« on: April 26, 2012, 04:32:46 AM »

I can never understand why people feel the need to list what they own in the first place.

I suspect the reasons vary from one person to another.  Sometimes I find it quite helpful to see what lenses people own when they are giving advice or commenting on their experience.  If they say lens XYZ is absolutely the best you can see what they may be comparing it to.  Of course you can't know what they may have borrowed, rented, or owned in the past, but it is better than no information at all.

Ok, I'm up to 3 posts, only 7 to go before I can add my (modest) list of gear! 

42

EOS Bodies / Re: Anyone shooting film?

« on: April 06, 2012, 03:28:15 PM »

Someone mentioned full frame earlier, if you ever wanted to get the same feeling as using a crop sensor on film, there is always the EOS IX

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS_IX

Just joking around with that. Anyway, where are most people getting their film developed? Pro lab? Or just Target/Walmart, etc etc ....

I have used pro labs to develop my color slides for many years - ever since a chain store returned several rolls of slides to me with a scratch across every one   They probably got some dirt in their machine and never noticed.  I now go to Burne Photo in Madison, WI (USA).  I've chatted with the owner there and he is completely committed to film.  He has capitalized on the move to digital by becoming a niche business, and he told me he has been able to build up his film processing capability by buying up equipment from other labs that went digital.  He does nice work, and I've used him for medium format transparencies as well.  I go there in person when I am visiting the area, but he does accept work by mail.

One thing I miss is the days of hand printed pictures using a proper enlarger.  I used to go to another guy in Madison (Hyperion) who made some really fantastic prints from my slides.  He was a real craftsman and would dodge and burn each print to get it just right.  Unfortunately he was an early digital adopter and now only offers scanning and printing services like most, if not all, labs.  I know it is easier and quicker, but I swear something gets lost in translation.

43

EOS Bodies / Re: Anyone shooting film?

« on: April 05, 2012, 05:29:18 PM »

I've been lurking here for about 4 months.  This thread finally tempted me to make my first post

I've been shooting film since I was about 10, like many here I'd guess.  In 1991 I bought an EOS 10S, and I was still actively using it when I finally took the plunge into digital and bought a 5D2 a couple months back.  I've had to replace the shutter on the 10S once for around $150, but other than that it has been absolutely 100% reliable.

As an amateur shooting maybe 20-30 rolls of slide film annually, my costs were low enough that I found it hard to justify the leap to digital, especially since I really wanted to stick with FF.  For a long time I made do with inexpensive lenses but in recent years I gradually started to invest in some decent glass (within a somewhat limited budget, so sticking to the cheaper L lenses).  I didn't want to have to start over with EF-S lenses.

What finally convinced me to get the 5D2 was that I was looking at investing in a new L lens, and had settled on the 24-105 F4L.  I realized that if I bought it as part of the 5D2 kit that effectively meant I was getting the 5D2 body for about $1800 (lucky I pulled the trigger before the price went back up).  That's equivalent to about 3 years of film costs for me, and that was enough to overcome my fear of owning a worthless outdated body when the new version came out   Maybe I'm paranoid, but I certainly don't see may people keeping a 5D for 20 years and not feeling the need to upgrade, like I was able to do with the 10S

So now I have taken a couple thousand pics on the 5D2 and I'm still learning how to get the best out of it.  I really love this camera (and the kit lens too), but it is clear that it will take some time for me to adapt to the digital paradigm.  Yeah, it is great that I can shoot thousands of frames without any film costs, and I'm trying to take advantage of that to learn how to take better pictures.  But oddly, the ability to see the shot right away instead of waiting a couple weeks for developing, I find is actually not as liberating as I thought.  Yes, I can check that it is sharp, composed and exposed right, but I actually find myself spending too much time second guessing, trying to get the perfect shot when with film I would shoot two or three frames and forget it.  Either I got the shot or I didn't, but I worry about that later.  I guess this will become less of a problem as I get the camera set up for the way I shoot and get used to it.

The relevant question here is will I continue to shoot film?  I think I might, after the honeymoon period with the 5D2, but only for certain subjects.  There really is something about film that digital can't quite match, even though it has come a long way and surpasses 35mm in many respects.  I also have a pretty comprehensive selection of Bronica ETRSi equipment which I have made far too little use of.  I may decide to use that for my film shooting and the 5D2 otherwise.  I have a good selection of macro gear for the Bronica and would like to give it a proper try.