Messages

1666

Canon General / Re: Odds & Ends

« on: June 10, 2011, 12:47:51 PM »

1) 1Ds Mark IV

2) A revised 7D

I'd be surprised if there is a 5D III yet as I haven't heard anything about a  beta D800.

The 7D i would dare to say is on a 3 year cycle like the 5d series... now keep in mind the 1ds was on a 3 year cycle, kinda, but they have broke that cycle recently so the same could be said about the 5d and 7d.... Also unless nikon starts announcing a D400, I wouldn't count on the 7d II to be released because they are currently winning marketshare and praise of the 7D vs D300s comparison. 

1667

EOS Bodies / Re: What do you want from the 5D mk III

« on: June 10, 2011, 11:16:00 AM »

I DO NOT want dual CF cards . . . In the US, CF are harder and harder to find because most cams come with SD slots.

CF are hard to find at places like walmart, but then again, so are L lenses.  Shop online, you'll get cheaper deals and find everything you are looking for.

I HATE to admit is but I got great deals on new (sealed in packaging) lexar and sandisk udma cf cards on ebay.  I wouldn't recommend getting cheap generics on ebay, but if you can find a NEW, SEALED lexar, sandisk, (other brand name) card, I would go for it...

1668

Canon General / Re: Odds & Ends

« on: June 09, 2011, 03:01:00 PM »

I'm holding my breathe on the 5D rumor 

1669

Lenses / Re: 24-70.. bite?

« on: June 07, 2011, 10:16:27 AM »

well i guess what i'm saying is im going to be getting the current lens anyway, and I'd LIKE it now (i'm going on a trip back to Korea) but will the price drop significantly after the new one comes out? Because I'm assuming the new one will come out with the original price tag (2000+)

I personally don't forsee any of the good lenses (new) taking a price drop right away . . . both from availability and demand.  This will keep the older lenses in demand on the secondary market, so you probably won't be kicking yourself based on that.

Take a look at the lens price over the years, though, it is still about $100 more than it was earlier this year.

CanonDirect has one listed as refurbed . . . honestly if you want it now, that's not a bad price.

What's in your camera bag now?  Is this range/speed covered well already?

+1... plus odds are if the new lens DOES come out and is better there's a good chance it will command a higher price (see the 70-200 2.8 IS II) So the current price should be good for the foreseeable future...

1670

United States / Re: Repair status info

« on: June 05, 2011, 11:00:56 PM »

I would like to know why we are not able to directly communicate with the Canon Repair centers,
 either in NJ or CA, to check status of repairs and why we must pay up front.
I know of no other product that has that requirement.

I dont know about regular situations, however with CPS through canon, you are given the emails and phone numbers to both the irvine and NJ centers as well as they email you a repair status verification upon receipt of the start of the repair and the completion of the repair.  We have to pre-pay (preauthorize a certain amount if applicable) for repairs.

1671

EOS Bodies / Re: The Future of the 1Ds & 5D Lines [CR2]

« on: June 02, 2011, 03:00:24 PM »

5DMIII, one body, slightly better ISO performance would be nice, and better AF for sure. As far as megapixel count, I wouldn't mind an increase, I'm not sure why people think that 12 MP is ok. All my clients ask for huge prints.

As far as video goes, I hope the 5DMIII is one unit that does both video and photography. I really don't feel like lugging more camera equipment then I already do.

Would be nice if Canon came up with a gyro solution for HD video, even with a red rock micro kit I sometimes feel that its not stable enough.

+1.  One thing (i'm sure most think it's a gimmick but...) I want the 2 way axis level on the LCD and viewfinder if possible like the 7D.  I know people dog the 7D because of the computerized VF screen which cant be replaced like you can the 5D but if they can find a compromise between the two I'd be game.  Also a Flash commander would be awesome.  I dont care if its through a popup flash or infrared, just get it in there some way.  If they can do that plus the above suggestions I'd be very happy.

1672

EOS Bodies / Re: Very few EOS 1 bodies sold - wonder why!!

« on: June 02, 2011, 11:07:12 AM »

I might as well throw in my 2 cents being in the professional circle... There are different groups of "professional" photographers... The people who has been in the market for years and has a want/need for large cameras such as the 1Ds and can justify it on a daily basis, and professionals who are happy where they are and while they would love to have the accounts and budget to afford the best, they have to make due with what they got.  I personally fall in the second range where I'm not making the $$ i could in other areas and if I had this and that, however at this stage in the game, my wife would kill me if I plunked down $4000-7000 down on a 1d or 1ds... However the 7D/5D are more in my budget so I make due.  Believe it or not, the groups of people who can afford the 1d series cameras are small which high potential profit margins... Newspaper agencies, advertising agencies, top tier photographers, etc... and to be honest, like the rich who can afford high end cars, they are built better so they typically last longer and owners hang on to them longer than people who buy fords or hyundais or kias... You buy a 1d series and while it costs a lot more, they are built like tanks, have excellent ergonomics and to be honest, unless you need the latest and greatest... There are several pro's getting along just fine with older 1d series cameras because they dont NEED to upgrade as quickly unless they wear out their camera or are going broke.  Typically if you can afford the 1d cameras you usually have a large enough investment in canon and likewise with nikons D3/4 series cameras and their investment in Nikons that I dont see much of a flux in that top tier.  However it is the mid range pro's 7Ds,5Ds,D300's,D700's where you see all the movement and why these cameras sell so quickly vs the top cameras. 

If Canon really wanted the 1D's to fly off the shelves they would market them to the mid range to amateur photographers and price accordingly, however they dont.  They know what market share they are going after with that range and they are comfortable marketing to those photographers. 

Lastly, dont forget the economy right now... few people can justify spending that money on such an expensive camera... Even agencies are tightening their belts and holding off upgrades, so I wouldn't start getting paranoid just yet. 

1673

Contests / Re: Update: Blue Crane Digital Giveaway!

« on: June 01, 2011, 05:39:28 PM »

Ah what the heck.  Keep in mind this was shot with a 6 inch opening of a door thanks to our wonderful secret service trying to close my view. =)

Great videos from the DSLR

1674

EOS Bodies / Re: The Future of the 1Ds & 5D Lines [CR2]

« on: June 01, 2011, 11:35:22 AM »

In my opinion anyone who is a serious professional videographer wont use a DSLR and will use a video camera from a professional range. I know you get the enhanced depth of field, with the EF system, but by the time you have bought the extra equipment like a shoulder harness and all the other stuff that makes a DSLR like a pro video camera you are spending nearly double what a pro video camera would cost. Not forgetting it has serious flaws like zooming etc

all I read there was: "I'm not a videographer, I really have no idea about that market"

* "professional videographer" and "zooming" should never be in the same sentence

* "a pro video camera" comparable to a DSLR starts at $5K (without lenses)

* you've been out of the planet for the last two ryears, right?

* you know black swan had a scene shot with DSLRs? and that George Lucas' Red Tails also used DSLRs? and both of them in situations where the existence of cameras like the sony F3 or FS100 (or the Sony CineAlta F35, which was the main camera in Red Tails) is irrelevant (Black Swan used the DSLRs to shoot in the underground, without permits; in Red Tails, DSLRs were put inside the cabins of WW2 planes; in both cases, the size of a DSLR was deemed more important than the ergonomics of a real videocamera)

the rest of your post, though, is pretty sensible (e.g. the 50D vs 60D vs 7D part, but also the bit about a dedicated videocamera being more likely than a video-centric DSLR); it's just that the beginning cried for a "duty calls" post:
http://xkcd.com/386/

+1... dont forget scenes shots in the TV show "house" and even a few scenes in avatar if i'm not mistaken.  There is always a place for compact video cameras.  It's not of the quality of a "red" camera, but for what it is, it's not a shabby performer.  In the end I'd rather have that option in my bag rather than differ all video related jobs to someone else and lose money and a potential client.

1675

Lenses / Re: Bokeh comparison 24-70 f/2.8 vs 24-105 f/4

« on: June 01, 2011, 10:14:05 AM »

okay, now I understand, this is what I get :

24-105 with :

[105mm * f/4 *  3 meters ]


 from subject  will give the same OOF as :

24-70 with :

[60mm * f/2.8 * 2 meters]

* So if I want the DOF more shallow , get closer to the subject but like neuro had said I won't get the whole image, maybe just nose or something else.

I've said it on my comment before that I know that f/4 can't beat f/2.8 in making OOF background. I want to know can f/4 make okay OOF background too so the subject can still be distinguished.

FYI, previously I compare the OOF with my old 18-55 f/3.5-5.6.  With f/4 I still get decent OOF background (it is on my t2i. I believe I'll get shallower DOF on FF body). Then I found someone said that 24-105 produce spikey bokeh but all your images shared is good for me. So 24-105 isn't always produce it.

wow, thx again for the OOF background information

That's what I figured your question was regarding... the answer is yes, you can get decent OOF background if you need it.  The "Spikey" bokeh is purely subjective and if you like what you have seen photo wise, then you wont be disappointed.  Good luck with your purchase and feel free to let us know if and when you make your purchase and start shooting pictures with your new lens(es)

1676

Lenses / Re: Bokeh comparison 24-70 f/2.8 vs 24-105 f/4

« on: May 31, 2011, 04:46:07 PM »

Sorry Neuro but focal length does not affect DoF it's yet another myth which has been perpetuated, nor does subject distance.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dof2.shtml

Magnification affects DoF which is why Macro has such a thin DoF & aperture, circles of confusion are not really anything to do with the sensor size, again that comes down to magnification, you need more to fill the frame on a FF camera.

In optics, a circle of confusion is an optical spot caused by a cone of light rays from a lens not coming to a perfect focus when imaging a point source. It is also known as disk of confusion, circle of indistinctness, blur circle, or blur spot.

While to a degree I agree with you and the link regarding focal length to the extent that yes, you take the 400mm and take the wide angle and zoom in tight to the same crop and perspective of the 400mm, all things being equal, if the lenses are good, the OOF should be the same, however as you can see with the full image, it is easier for the layman to physically see the OOF on the 400mm and it's harder for most people to conceptualize that if they get very close and crop to the same size, it will be the same. 

I do have to disagree about the subject to background not making a difference... macro you have a razor thin focal plane because you are focusing inches away from the lens.  I shoot daily studio small product photography for a local company and at f8, at a distance of 12-18 inches, I only get a focal plane of about an inch, inch and a half.  I dont dare go to F11-16 on the 50D because of the lens sweet spot and wider apertures will give me less than an inch focal plane.  Distance of subject to foreground/background has EVERYTHING to do with bokeh.  Why do you think the iphone has like 4-5 depth of field calculators... just so people can get focal plane info in a pinch while out in the field shooting. 

1677

Lenses / Re: Bokeh comparison 24-70 f/2.8 vs 24-105 f/4

« on: May 31, 2011, 04:22:33 PM »

As always I agree with Neuro's analysis however yes, the 24-70 will give MORE, no much, but more OOF than the 24-105.  In a typical portrait, in practice an F4 will typically get most of the face if not all in focus... 2.8 you may get the nearest eye in focus with the second eye slightly OOF.  Wider you go the more OOF you get.  I think the original poster realizes if he wants and fully cares about bokeh, he wants and will need to get into fast primes... Also rememeber F4 to F2.8 is 1 stop, but on the same hand, it's only 1 stop.  Will the 24-105 give you pleasing OOF WHEN you shoot in a situation to get good OOF? yes.  I would even go as far as saying when applicable, the OOF area is as pleasing as the 24-70 when shot in situations where the OOF areas are similar.  This once again falls into the situation of knowing what equipment you are using and being comfortable with your equipment when you need to.  I would still recommend going to a camera store and testing the lenses out there... As long as the store is under the impression they're going to make a sale, i'm sure they will allow you as much time with the equipment as possible until you make your mind up.  Then go home and buy online for cheaper, haha.   

1678

Lenses / Re: Bokeh comparison 24-70 f/2.8 vs 24-105 f/4

« on: May 31, 2011, 10:30:37 AM »

The 24-105 is more than capable of producing very nice images with nice bokeh.  Some of the main complaints of the 24-105 are slight distortion at the 24 and pincussion at 150, however as I said, for most everyone, unless you shoot architecture and doing a lot of "photo stitching" then, that really isn't that big of a deal for 99% of everyday shots.  The 24-70 is/was a very nice lens, but image quality, doing side by side shots in my studio for commercial work, when I tested them, I didn't see any appreciative difference between the 2 lenses to justify the extra weight and strain I would have to go through to use it and hand hold it (with my 2 camrea system).  Dont fret about purchasing either lens. 

Regarding the 15-85 suggestion... There are a few reasons to choose the L over this lens and a few visa versa... first of all, in favor of the L (either one) is fully weather sealed and construction.  The L's are built like a tank.  Secondly, while I dont care one way or the other, but the constant F2.8/4 aperture throughout the range.  On the 15-85 it's 5.6 at the 85 range vs on the 24-105, at the 85 range it's still F4.  At the 105 range the L lens is a hair sharper all around.  Lastly, it can work on any canon EF camera (crop or non-crop).  If at any time you upgrade/borrow/whatever another camera you can be 100% sure you can still use your gear.   

Now with that said, the cheaper lens is still less weight, easier to hold, not as high profile, sharper in the corners at wide angle and compared to the two, should your 15-85 break you wouldn't be as much out of pocket as the 24-105 or the 24-70 for that matter.  Keep in mind, Canon has and is using a 3 tier system on lenses... a cheap consumer lens, 15-55, a mid-range semipro lens, 15-85, and then pro series 24-105 or even the 17-55.  They have this symmetry throughout the lens line up from the 50mm's, to 70-300's etc... They even do that for the cameras... rebels, xxd, xd.  There's no knock on however uses the inexpensive versions however they are seen to be more of a jumping off tool or a reason to upgrade tool to get your feet wet and then start longing to upgrade. 

1679

Lenses / Re: Bokeh comparison 24-70 f/2.8 vs 24-105 f/4

« on: May 30, 2011, 11:24:25 PM »

I think this conversation has ventured a bit off topic from the original question at hand... is the 24-105 a good compromise to the 24-70... A few years ago I had the same question and so i borrowed 2 lenses for a wedding (a night time wedding) and they were the 24-70 and 24-105.  I put the 2 lenses from CPS in a series of tests (on how I shoot) and I went in knowing I was using flash as the wedding so low light wasn't a huge dealbreaker for me.  While I wasn't thrilled that either lens extended while zooming (the 70 hid the zoom inside the hood while the 105 was visible) at the end of the day, I packed the 24-105 with me to the wedding and to go alongside my 17-40 for wides.  Images quality, to me, came out to be a wash.  I know the photozone people says it has some pincushioning, however in my tests, it really wasn't anything to lose sleep over.  I didn't end up buying either because budget wise I couldn't justify it, however I do plan on being first in line with the 5D mark III comes out and that will also force me to buy the 24-105 as a standard lens, oh shucks... The 24-70 is a great lens, but at the end of the days its all on how you shoot.  Go to your camera store and test them out.  PS... bokeh is affected by so many factors including image capture size, proximity of lens to subject to background, aperture, magnification and MM of the focal length, etc... If bokeh is your main concern, there's so many other ways in pulling it off than just pure aperture

1680

Canada / Re: COPYRIGHT in Canada

« on: May 26, 2011, 11:07:52 AM »

FMI, those of you worrying about copyrights... how many of you actually have gone to your countries respective copyright website and registered your images?  I'm not 100% in canada, however in the US you can go to the US Copyright website, pay $40-45 for a 30 minute window of time to upload your photos to their website.  You fill out your personal and professional information, and submit them... I a few months you get a certificate saying they are copyrighted under your name.  In court, it's hard to prove you were the person who fired the shutter on the camera unless you have witness's and or have other supporting documents but having the copyright certificate, that goes a long way in proving your case.  Lastly, http://www.digimarc.com/DigimarcForImages/  for a yearly fee you can put an invisible digital watermark on your photos... you can post your images on your website with no visible watermark to degrade your images, and depending on your level of purchase, they will scan the internet for their watermarks so if someone takes your image and puts it on their website, you will know about it.  If you get a big enough company to do it, you can make bank.  =)  NAPP tested this service by taking a photo with the invisible watermark, having the photo published in a book, scanned the photo from the book in a scanner, and open it in photoshop and photoshop still found a trace of the watermark.  I haven't tested this myself, but NAPP is very credible and I would trust them so if that is 100% true, this is an incredible technology.