October 22, 2014, 07:08:39 PM

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 ... 137 138 [139] 140 141 ... 174
Lenses / Re: Which L lens will be the first mark III?
« on: July 15, 2012, 12:05:49 AM »
I admit I've never used one but I can't recall anyone describing that lens as soft.
See for yourself. The L zoom is sharper than the L prime.

Yes.  The 70-200L II IS lens at 200mm is sharper than the 200mm f/2.8L lens, but not the 200mm f/2L lens. 

Lenses / Re: 100-300mm F/4 ???
« on: July 15, 2012, 12:04:12 AM »
Marketing.  Look at it this way.  The 70-200L II IS lens was running about $2500 at one time and sometimes you can find it for around $2200 right now.  Figure on the 100-400L to be $1399-$1599.  These prices we're figuring over the last 2 years now. 

Add in a 100-300 f/4L, and that isn't going to be as cheap as the 100-400 and probably a little cheaper than the 70-200L.  So if I need a good zoom, I'm going to purchase the 100-400L for the cheapest and get more focal lengths covered.  Throw in the 70-300L lens and now a 100-300L will never sell and that's exactly why there isn't one.

Lenses / Re: 400 mm f/2.8 L Mk I
« on: July 14, 2012, 07:56:55 PM »
I really prefer to not use a head when I use my 400mm 2.8 IS MK I on a monopod.  The head is just a wobble point and a little more weight.  You twist the camera to vertical in the  tripod collar.

IS is awesome on this lens, and if you think you don't need it because you'll be on a tripod, you are wrong.  Lenses of this size and focal length wobble on the heaviest and most expensive tripod.  If your shooting in bright daylight at 4000 sec, no you don't need it, but I shoot night sports and trust me IS makes a big difference.

Yes it has turned out to be a great lens.  I know I don't need IS when it's on a tripod because I shut it off.  No problems.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: My Canon EOS-1D X Has Arrived!
« on: July 14, 2012, 04:54:21 PM »
Perhaps the camera was for his wife, complete with the latest Vuitton camera bag

His camera was a Nikon 3200 ::) ::) ::)

I could use that excuse.  "I bought the camera for YOU honey."  Then disappear with it for hours on end.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to proceed?
« on: July 14, 2012, 04:53:16 PM »
That and with the 5D Mark III you can do full auto ISO in manual mode.  This actually is a great benefit to novice photographers.  Later, you can do in-camera HDR and Multi-Exposure.  That and the advanced AF system this is worth the additional cost already.

However, regarding IQ, the 5D Mark II is great, so maybe that and expensive L lens would really be the way to go.  I don't know.

I'm surprised nobody in here ever complained about using the 85L or any other fast primes! In bright daylight with those lenses the back AF points turn greyish/cream color, almost invisible since the brigheter lenses bring in a  lot more light.

The red dont even bother turning it on in daylight since with those primes 99% of times you wont even see the difference when it's lit up!

1.  Yes, I'm surprised nobody complained too.  Give it time.
2.  Maybe Canon should go to bright flluorescent green AF points from now on.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 50D vs 7D
« on: July 14, 2012, 03:59:16 PM »
I currently own

Canon 50D
Canon 70-300L is
Sigma 17-50 2.8
Canon 50 1.8
Canon 580 EX II

I am thinking of upgrading to a Canon 7D.   Part of the reason is for the much better focusing system for action shots of wildlife.

I am also wondering if there will be any significant improvement in ISO performance from the 50D, or would a better option would be to invest in glass.

Thank you for any advice.

Ah yes.  I consider the 50D to 7D one of those tough decisions.  Yes, the 7D overall probably is better, but the 50D is already so good it will be very hard to justify the upgrade.  No signficant improvement in ISO I'd say, just look at Bryan Carnathan's website.  If you're 50D is not that old, I personally wouldn't make the move.  The only improvement I'd make from 50D would be to either FF or a newer APS-C camera that has not come out yet.  That's just what I would do.  Get some good glass.

The 5D Mark III by itself is a much, much more powerful tool than the 5D Mark II and 7D combined.  If you know how to use it (which most critics do NOT) you would know this.  If you are complaining about a black AF point, you really have problems to begin with in your photography anyways, so the differences between these cameras would be a non-issue.

Ah, another person who doesn't understand the meaning of 'sarcasm'. Sorry, was just poking some light-hearted humor at the "problem" at hand. (sigh) I guess that I don't know how to use my equipment so I should just keep my posts to myself.

Or better yet... maybe some 5D3 owners out there, some of them happen to be "REAL photographiers", who are having a REAL issue with this. Or maybe this is kind of like those who compalined of a "soft focus" issue with the 7D. Plenty of people scoffed at the "problem" and said it wasn't real and that it was a user issue and not a hardware issue. Google it and see how many people had the same "problem".  My own 7D had the same issue until I sent it in for an adjustment (under warranty), and now it works fine. Or maybe I just happened to "learn" how to take a photo in the week they had my Camera. (sigh again)

How about spreading some of your "wisdom" and help those who are having this issue instead of telling them that their skills "suck"? (my words)

Hmmmm.  ::)


Ok, fair enough.  I didn't realize you were being sarcastic.  I'm big enough of a person to remove my post then, and apologize.  I'm sorry.  Your skills obviously don't suck and that isn't what I intended to say, but nonetheless, the post is gone.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D3 macro question (Possible Noobish)
« on: July 14, 2012, 12:50:59 AM »
I think you're too close.  You're within the minimum focusing distance. 

Lenses / Re: Canon 28 1.8
« on: July 14, 2012, 12:37:15 AM »
Can you do the test?

Lenses / Re: Canon 28 1.8
« on: July 13, 2012, 11:01:39 PM »
yeah true. The last "presentable" EF-S zoom was in 2009 and except for the 60mm macro there is not a single EF-S prime (probably does not make business sense either).

I wish may be someday canon will bring out EF-S 55-135/150mm f/2.8.

That's actually excellent.  Now that you mention it, does someone have a 7D and a 60mm lens, and a FF camera with a 100mm lens.  Then we could do subtle comparisons regarding view and prespective.  That would be a great test (only an effective 4mm difference). 

Lenses / Re: Canon 28 1.8
« on: July 13, 2012, 10:46:56 PM »
I am sorry if from my RE: post it seemed that I took your post to be offensive. Not at all. I was just curious to know whether what I know about EF and EF-s (and focal length) is correct or not.

Coming to my original post, what I tried to mean is that even if canon comes out with a, say, EF-S 30mm, would not the perspective remain the same as that of EF 30mm on an APS-C? The EF-S will probably just "optimized" (smaller glass elements probably) for cropped sensor. Therefore, for us APS-C photogs, it won't make any difference (probably) whether canon brings out an EF 30mm or EF-S 30mm.

No no, your assessment is correct.  You're absolutely right.  Will Canon make an EF-S lens at that focal length?  No way.  Even if the photos were slightly different with the two lenses, it makes not a lick of difference in reality and therefore Canon will not make the lens.  When was the last release date for an EF-S lens?

Lenses / Re: Canon 28 1.8
« on: July 13, 2012, 10:28:31 PM »
So you are saying an EF 30mm lens will be the same as an EF-S 30mm lens?

The focal length will remain the same.

The image circle created at the image plane will be definitely small and as a result a smaller sized "field of view" will be captured at the image plane.

And as Canon builds them, the EF-S one cannot be mounted on an FF body (unlike some third party manufactureres).

Are you saying these are wrong? On top of that I need to clarify whether the perspective of a lens is a function of focal length or field of view?

Please don't read more into my post than I posted.  It was a simple question and not a trick question at that.  Which part of my question made you infer that I was saying you were incorrect?  I believe all the guy wants is an EF-S lens with a FOV-equivalent of 50mm but with a smaller sized field of view capture at the image plane.  That seems like a simple request.  Why read so much more into it?  Will the two images taken result in the exact same view, one with an EF 30mm vs. EF-S 30mm lens?  I don't really know.

I'm using my mk3 at a paid wedding job tomorrow and i'm a bit nervous about the AF points.

Use the single shot blink red option, and you don't need to worry.  You don't need to worry anyways, I've shot a ton in very low light and using center point AF I've never had a problem.  Good luck!

Lenses / Re: Canon 28 1.8
« on: July 13, 2012, 09:53:36 PM »
So you are saying an EF 30mm lens will be the same as an EF-S 30mm lens?

Pages: 1 ... 137 138 [139] 140 141 ... 174