Messages

256

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon's roadmap

« on: November 25, 2012, 03:01:24 PM »

A few thoughts about the poll options:   

an overpriced ff 6d package — wait 6 months to a year for the real price.

tons of expensive is primes — expensive primes are good primes, cheap one usually aren't; the new primes were eagerly awaited by many photographers; the real prices will be lower than the introductory prices.

a 24-70f4 is costing about $1,500 — high quality costs, but wait 6 months to a year for the real price; and the popular 24-105/4L is still available.

the pro l L primes are loosing to new zooms(24-70's), and the new Sigma lenses are coming out on top! (35mm 1.4) — pro L primes get replaced with better versions gradually (24/1.4 II, 85/1.2 II) but then people complain about the price; zooms and primes aren't in a war with one winning and one losing; they each have their advantages notwithstanding any particular updates in any particular year.

a very nice 1dx, but the extermination of a pro crop censor for wild life shooters. — 1.4X TC solves that problem; the 1DX has other benefits which outweigh any advantage of a 1.3X crop factor; wildlife shooters did very well before the 1.3X crop factor existed and will be OK after it doesn't.

2new rebels in 1 year with a third on the way — Rebels are fine inexpensive cameras; lots and lots of people like them and are happy to see more.

a curious mirror less eos m, with a second camera on the way, and only 2 lenses — Canon has to start somewhere in the mirrorless market; of course there will be more and better cameras and lenses on the way; no manufacturer has introduced a rich, full system all at once.

The combination of the 60d and the 7d, to make a combo, giving ameutures and pro's the same camera, no seperation — I don't understand the problem here, especially with eleven dslr's in the current product line.

The apparent idea of combining all the aps-c cameras, where all pros would have to move to ff, and soccer moms would get 20mp, 10fps, and a pro body and not to mention some crappy ef-s zoom — not clear what "combining" you're talking about; Canon currently offers eleven dslr's so if pros and amateurs can't find a suitable model, they must search elsewhere.

The 3d/4d talk, but no results — model names in rumor talk are meaningless; the results are the 5DIII and 6D and whatever models come next year and the year after that; and with eleven dslr's in the current model line what is missing?  I suppose a high-mp body, but surely that will come.

No word and long postponement of the 14-24 l and 200-400 — lenses are released when they are ready; meanwhile other great lenses are being released.

Canon is leaving the amateurs in the dark with no 7d ii or 70d, and no new ef-s lenses — new models are being introduced every year or two; just because something new doesn't get introduced this quarter doesn't mean people are "left in the dark"; again there are eleven current dslr's to choose from and 60+ lenses in the EOS system; if people "left in the dark" can't find a lens this quarter, they may be "in bright shining light" the next quarter.

In the end, there is no perfect camera company or camera system.  Something will always be missing or inadequate for someone's exact current needs.  If the grass is always greener elsewhere and the multitude of choices leave one "in the dark" and seeing doom and gloom, then maybe it's time to find another system.  I understand that some photographers may actually and urgently need a long list of new camera bodies and lenses and features that Canon isn't currently offering, but then I have to wonder why they got into the Canon system in the first place.

257

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon's roadmap

« on: November 25, 2012, 12:01:58 PM »

Which lens has better IQ? Better AF? Which is weather sealed? Why does Tamron not offer those features?

Exactly!  And which will last longer?  Which will need fewer repairs, and get repaired faster if a repair is needed?  Which will professionals trust for work in demanding situations?  These are all factors built into the price.  IMO, the Canon is worth the extra cost.  That's not to say the Tamron is bad.  But they are at different price levels for very good reasons.

258

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon's roadmap

« on: November 25, 2012, 11:52:12 AM »

Canon's road through the photography world has become very bumpy, and I think many people have gotten lost.
Please help the community, and comment, add, or correct.

I'm not going to vote on "Canon's most disappointing achievements this year" because it's been a fantastic year for new products.  Having used Canon for the past 10 years, I'm more pleased with Canon's new products than ever.  The new products rock, from cameras to lenses to flashes.  In a nutshell, the 5DIII, 24-70/2.8II and 600EX-RT have been game changers for me — they've each made my work better and easier.  And there are other products that have been absolutely delightful, such as the 40/2.8 and the 28/2.8 IS.  It would take me an hour to go into all of the details and how they make a difference.  I don't mind the higher prices because you get what you pay for ... improved quality and reliability.  Also, people still forget that the introductory price is not the price; the introductory price is only for those who must have it now.

259

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D3 Box Size

« on: November 24, 2012, 03:00:32 PM »

The 5D3 box is about 25 x 18 x 15 centimeters.

Good luck with your camera!

260

EOS Bodies / Re: Possible positive 6D surprise? Should I wait?

« on: November 24, 2012, 02:53:19 PM »

I realize the AF seems to have been deliberatively crippled (and overly-so!), but for shooting portraits and candids and casual soccer of my kids, I really don't need the pro athlete or bird-in-flight AF.

Crippled or better, depending on your needs.  The 6D is supposed to focus in even lower light than the more expensive 5D3.  For some photographers, that may be a significant advantage.  Of course it will not be as good in other ways.  I'll be very eager to see how well the 6D's AF performs generally.

By the way, everyone says "crippled" about less expensive cameras, as if to suggest some bad intent on the part of the manufacturer.  "Crippled" suggests that they start with an excellent AF system and then damage it terribly.  But less expensive cameras are less expensive for a reason — less goes into them.  The lesser AF system is designed for a lesser price, from initial concept to production. 

Manufacturers have to differentiate their products somehow.  We do it as a photographers.  We differentiate our products according to size, hours, materials, etc., and yet we don't say our cheaper products are deliberately crippled.

261

Lenses / Re: Have $2200 budget which lens(es) to get next?

« on: November 23, 2012, 02:18:48 AM »

If you are going to shoot outdoor portraits or weddings, I would not go for a 70-200mm without IS.  We also got the 70-200 f/4 IS, but it is mainly a backup lens now.  If you plan to go on to shoot weddings (engagement shoots are an obvious gateway drug to weddings) rather invest in the IS version.

I agree, for weddings definitely invest in the IS version.  The version without IS is much less useful indoors -- you really have to be steady or use a monopod/tripod.  The 70-200 f/4 IS is a good choice too.  With the great high ISO ability of the 5DIII, the f/4 lens can now be used in many indoor locations where previously the f/2.8 lens would have been required.

262

Lenses / Re: Portrait lenses

« on: November 23, 2012, 01:40:16 AM »

It is funny, people pay nearly $6,000 for the 200 f2 and say it is the most awesome portrait lens ever with amazing compression and unmatched "look", same for the older 200 f1.8 at $3,000 secondhand, but when it is the more modest 200 f2.8 L suddenly the focal length is too long! And lets not forget all the 70-200 owners that end up with portraits from the 200mm end.

It's generally too long, no matter which one you get or how much you spend.  Of course, beautiful & amazing work can be done at 200mm (or any focal length).  But my sense is that if someone doesn't know whether 200mm is a good portrait lens, then it's probably not the focal length they should start with.  I would start with any of the 85's or 100's.  The cheaper versions of those are excellent for someone with a limited budget.

It is really annoying when people selective quote, why cut out the next bit? Where I advised it is often too long and looking at actual images might help get a feel for the focal length. "Indoors the 200, especially with a crop camera, can be unworkable, outside and/or with a ff camera the 200mm focal length can work very well, just look at the 200 f2 lens sample thread on this site for some examples."

Also don't forget the 70-200 f4 L is a bargain at under $700 if you feel an L lens will offer better depreciation value if it doesn't work out. Don't forget f4 on a FF camera gives less equivalent dof to a 2.8 lens on a crop camera, and if you use a short tele zoom for a while you can read your EXIF and see what focal length you take your favourite images.

Ok, I modified my previous post to quote your whole post.

263

Lenses / Re: Portrait lenses

« on: November 22, 2012, 10:22:43 PM »

It is funny, people pay nearly $6,000 for the 200 f2 and say it is the most awesome portrait lens ever with amazing compression and unmatched "look", same for the older 200 f1.8 at $3,000 secondhand, but when it is the more modest 200 f2.8 L suddenly the focal length is too long! And lets not forget all the 70-200 owners that end up with portraits from the 200mm end.

Indoors the 200, especially with a crop camera, can be unworkable, outside and/or with a ff camera the 200mm focal length can work very well, just look at the 200 f2 lens sample thread on this site for some examples.

As for holding off on the 135 for fear of updates, don't forget the 200 f2.8L is an ancient lens too.

It's generally too long, no matter which one you get or how much you spend.  Of course, beautiful & amazing work can be done at 200mm (or any focal length).  But my sense is that if someone doesn't know whether 200mm is a good portrait lens, then it's probably not the focal length they should start with.  I would start with any of the 85's or 100's.  The cheaper versions of those are excellent for someone with a limited budget.

264

Lenses / Re: Portrait lenses

« on: November 22, 2012, 09:17:03 PM »

Hello,

Is the 200mm F2.8 II a good portrait lens?

Generally speaking ... no (though of course there are exceptions and photographers who make it work).  It puts you so far away from the subject that it's not easy to communicate with the subject.  And while telephoto compression can be flattering, the compression of a 200mm can feel excessive, making the subject look two-dimensional.  The point of a 200mm is usually to get "nearer" to the subject than would otherwise be practical (as for sports) or strong isolation of the subject from other elements.

265

Lenses / Re: 1Dx or lenses

« on: November 22, 2012, 09:02:41 PM »

Currently have 5D3, 8-15L, 35L, 50L 100L 70-200L II I have a couple of EX 600’s and the radio trigger.

You already have a great camera for the photography that you do.  It has excellent AF, IQ, etc., etc.  The 1DX would offer very little advantage, and has some substantial disadvantages (size, weight, price).  As far as I can tell, the key advantage of the 1DX is for high speed bursts when photographing high speed sports.  Is there any other area of photography where the 1DX offers a real advantage?

266

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D MARK III with 50 mm f/1.2 performence

« on: November 20, 2012, 04:28:01 PM »

I have heard that the 50mm f/1.2 had focus peaking problems
my question is for 5dm III owners please, did you notice a difference when using the 50mm with the 5dmIII compared to the 5dmII?

i used to have the 1.4 but i really didn't like it, most of my images were out of focus and it was real pain to autofocus in the dark... don't know if i had a bad copy of it... but i was using it with the 7d...
any feedback please

The 50/1.2L is a sweet lens with a wonderful look.  It does not have focus peaking problems (not sure what that is).  Its only problem is backfocusing when stopped down to about f/2.8 - f/4 and shooting closeups.  This is an inherent fault in many fast lenses that lack a floating element.  That problem is easily avoided by shooting closeups with wider apertures (f/1.2 - f/2.5) or smaller aperture (f/5.0 and smaller).  And again, it's only an issue for closeups and only at certain apertures, certainly not for full-body shots.

The 50/1.2L seems to focus more accurately on the 5DIII than on the 5DII.  Actually, all lenses seem to focus better on the 5DIII than on the 5DII.  Of course, accurate focus at very wide apertures (f/1.2 - f/2) still requires extra care. 

The Canon 50/1.4 USM is not a bad lens, certainly very sharp stopped down, but my impression is its old autofocus motor design is not as precise as that in newer lenses.

267

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D MARK III with 50 mm f/1.2 performence

« on: November 20, 2012, 04:14:48 PM »

The Zeiss is the sharpest 50mm made but its only F/2 and the bokeh isn't as nice as the 50L.

The Zeiss looks great in The Digital Picture comparison.  However, the "sharpest 50mm made" appears to be the current Leica 50mm f/1.4.  That lens seems to outperform the best from Canon, Nikon, Sigma and Zeiss — though it costs a bundle and won't work on any DSLR.    See the charts in the "Overall Comparison" section of the LensRentals "50mm Shootout" here:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/01/the-great-50mm-shootout
And Leica may have surpassed even their own sharpest 50 with their new 50/2 ($7,200), not tested in the LensRentals shootout.

268

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: DPreview adds 6D sample images to their preview

« on: November 20, 2012, 04:05:01 PM »

The math doesn't seem to add up, $2100 body is perform better than $3500 in high ISO with same sensor.

It's not the same sensor.  Canon's web site describes it as a new design.

269

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: DPreview adds 6D sample images to their preview

« on: November 20, 2012, 12:09:56 AM »

Did a quick and dirty comparison using shots from dpreview. Canon 6D against the 5D mkIII at ISO 102400. I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

The 6D looks better.  That is pretty amazing as the 5DIII was already quite good.

270

Lenses / Re: 70-200 F/4

« on: November 19, 2012, 11:56:45 PM »

I shoot portraits, but I also shoot just general subjects.

The f/4 IS is much more practical for me.  Great lens!  Smaller, lighter and cheaper, and it has IS.  With improved high ISO performance on newer cameras, the f/2.8 version is less of a necessity than it used to be.  I would not buy the f/2.8 version without IS.