February 28, 2015, 11:09:25 AM

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 - bdunbar79

Pages: 1 ... 115 116 [117] 118 119 ... 176
Canon General / Re: To CPS or not to CPS...That is the question
« on: August 13, 2012, 01:45:22 PM »
I'm just wondering what others experience is with Canon Professional Services (CPS)?  I will start out with the fact that I "qualify" for all three levels of membership.  I'm just wondering if the $500 price tag is worth the platinum membership.  I take very good care of my gear, but I know things can happen. 

Thoughts?  Who has joined/renewed recently?  What are the freebies ;) (I know you pay a bunch of money to get free stuff but you know what I mean)


Well, not that this matters much, but are you a pro?  If so yes.  If not, it's not as worthwhile unless you are shooting a ton of events/stuff.  Then when something goes wrong you can send it in for free.  The $500 Platinum?  Ahhh, no, I just did the $100 Gold.  That's plenty for me.

Lenses / Re: Canon super tele choices!!!
« on: August 13, 2012, 01:25:33 PM »
I think anyone would opt for the version II lenses if they couod afford them.  Canon does not service the older version 1 lenses anymore, and as remaining parts are used up, you could end up with a unrepairable lens.
Aside from that, weight and need for a paticular focal length are the main things to consider.  The 400mm is pretty much the standard for large field sports, but you can use any of the ones you mention.
The benefit of the 500mm is its ability to be handheld, whereas the 400 is not something to use without a monopod or tripod.

They most certainly service the 300 f/2.8L I IS and 400 f/2.8L I IS lenses.  I just had it done.  If you can get a good deal on good shape used ones, you can also get both for less than the version II 400mm lens.

I must say that Canon makes no good wide angle zooms and both 14LII and TSE17 does not support filters! I use the 16-35mm L II and its corner IQ is horrible makes me think of the Nikon 14-24 G everytime I zoom in. My friend purposefully has it on his Canon body even if it meant manual focus sigh....

Anyway, put that aside, I personally have the 100L marco and it works great, you won't find it disappointing but the ultimate macro lens in my opinion would go to the 180L marco, that lens is totally a macro killer. If you don't want to get a specific lens I guess close up filter on a telephoto zoom say 70-200mm II would work fine I guess. Or extension tubes on shorter focal length lenses...

I agree, the 180L is very good.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D3 for sports/action?
« on: August 13, 2012, 11:59:29 AM »
The 1DX and 1D4 are great for sports.  Those are my main sports cams.  But you can't use them at tennis or golf, gotta use a 5D3 because of the extraordinarily loud shutter.  Unless of course you have a super tele and are far away, which I'm considering :)

Lenses / Re: Which 3 Primes to go for. Your advice will be appreciated
« on: August 13, 2012, 11:28:09 AM »
Which 3 primes?  My 3 choices are 24L, 35L, 50L, 85L, 135L, 200L  :P

Lenses / Re: Landscape Question
« on: August 13, 2012, 10:46:16 AM »
Thanks, I always wanted to buy a TS lens, and I think based upon your suggestion and my focal lengths that I typically use, I'll start with the 24.  If I really get into using them, I'd consider the 17 as well, down the road.  Thanks.

Lenses / Re: Landscape Question
« on: August 13, 2012, 09:52:41 AM »
Great stuff.  This fall there is a week in September where I have no sporting events and am traveling to Pennsylvania and I'd like to do some landscape scenery so this thread will certianly come in handy.  Hate to start another thread, but I'm definitely, anyways at least, going to buy a TS lens.  I cannot decide between the 17 and 24 at this point.  I don't shoot a whole lot below 20mm, but I wanted to ask.  Thanks.

Lenses / Re: Landscape Question
« on: August 12, 2012, 11:05:19 PM »
Thanks to everybody.  Wow, this has been really informative. 

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 5dc, better than T1i?
« on: August 12, 2012, 08:40:43 PM »
I woned a Rebel XT then got a 5Dc. I loved the 5Dc and yes it can produce stunning images, however I have done ISO tests with it and the T2i and I found little or no difference in ISO capabilities.

If you want a step up in ISO performance, you need to go to a 5Dii. Thats what I'd recommend for you.

This may be just for my own use, but do you have any data for the 5Dc vs. 1Ds Mark II regarding ISO noise?  How do the two compare?  If you don't know that's okay, I was just curious.

Lenses / Re: Landscape Question
« on: August 12, 2012, 08:38:17 PM »
The digital picture website has a page which lists the DLA aperture for most of the Canon (sensors) cameras.


its shows with 5DIII you can probably go till f/10 and with 1DX till f/11. You might find the page useful for your later works (as I think "today afternoon" is already gone).

It looks like 5DC, 1DIIN and 1DII had the largest sized pixels of any canon DSLR till date and hence also allowed the smalled apertures till diffraction limits set in (all f/13)

[I rounded down all the DLAs to the nearest full stop]

Thanks!  I was using a 35L which I guess in this case would be much worse when you zoom or crop in for detail.  Even with a 22 mp camera/picture.  Even though I was totally within focus, the detail is blurred upon crop or examination.

Lenses / Re: Landscape Question
« on: August 12, 2012, 08:36:37 PM »
Actually Richard,

Thank you!  Only shooting sports and indoor weddings, my gosh I never really had to think of these things.  Thanks, that actually helps me as I'm really looking to expand my photography on a personal level, and landscape is definitely always been one of my favorites, but just never had the time to do it. 

I ran across a football stadium photo I took, the field runs north-south and I was at the south end looking north, looking towards both stands on my left and right, colors were pretty saturated, right down the field.  There was also a flagpole in my center which was situated on the south end of the field.  I was shooting with the 35L lens, and in my worry to "get everything in focus" I shot at f/22.  Well when I went home, eh, even the light poles and overhead lights weren't really sharp at all.  In fact, nothing was really all that sharp at all.  The scoreboard lettering had "pixelated" and you really couldn't read it.  Now mind you I was using a tripod at 1/100 at ISO 100. 

My question is, if I return to this same scene today, which is possible, would shooting at f/8, f/9, f/10, f/11, f/16 trial shots be worth it, ie will a bit wider make a difference in your opinion or is 35mm just too dang far away (although it's hard to fit the whole scene in any longer).  Or, should I back up and shoot longer, and compress everything?  This is just for my own curiosity.

Thanks in advance.

Lenses / Re: Landscape Question
« on: August 12, 2012, 07:56:51 PM »
Well, I think some photographers try to add that detail way back in the background when using a say, a 24mm lens vs. a 200mm lens, where the background is compressed into sort of one focal plane.  So they narrow the aperture with the 24 lens to f/22 (I've seen photography authors do it too), but on the 200mm lens they're fine shooting at f/8 to f/11.  I'd rather get more of my image sharper.  I've shot at f/22 with a 35mm lens and even the center background was not sharp. 

Lenses / Re: Landscape Question
« on: August 12, 2012, 06:47:47 PM »
Thanks.  I do notice on landscape shots where I've been f/22, it just doesn't look as sharp as f/11.  Thanks.

Lenses / Landscape Question
« on: August 12, 2012, 03:50:24 PM »
I'm going to be using my 24L lens this afternoon for some landscape shooting.  I won't have a whole lot of time to screw around and do any testing, so I had a question.  Suppose I'm doing a scene, and want maximum DOF.  I know setting the aperture too narrow can lead to diffraction.  However, since I don't do a whole lot of landscape, what are the consequences of narrowing from f/8, to f/11, to f/16, and to f/22?  Will there be any negative consequences at f/22?  Thanks.

Lenses / Re: Owning the Canon 200-400 f/4L Vs 400 f/2.8L II
« on: August 12, 2012, 12:26:27 PM »
When the 200-400 lens becomes available I will be purchasing it or the 400 2.8 prime. The delima of which of these 2 lenses would be more effective is making me mad.

The versatility of the 200-400 with the built in ext will be excellent. To think, though, that with the 1.4X and 2X ext gives you 3 incredibly useful focal lengths is equally incredible.

Owning the 70-200 f/2.8 II and using both ext's on it often, I think that the 200 to 280mm range of the 200-400 would go unused much of the time.

I have owed the 600 f/4 300 f/2.8 and the 200 f/2. Of all of those lenses, the 300 f/2.8 was my favorite.

Has anyone else given this much thought?

The 200-400 f/4L zoom lens cannot REPLACE the 300 2.8 and 400 2.8 primes.  For most sports shooters, f/4 isn't going to cut it and I've experienced this myself, especially night football where all you have are stadium lights. You also need access to all of the AF sensors in the 1DX and/or 1D Mark IV.  All other purposes, yes, it's a great lens and would alleviate the need to buy a 300 and 400 prime perhaps.

Pages: 1 ... 115 116 [117] 118 119 ... 176