Messages

46

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Spec List [CR2]

« on: February 20, 2013, 11:40:38 AM »

im just making the point that i dont see myself as an entry level camera kind of guy. obviously if it does its job thats fine, i just dont like that tag.

It's all relative.  The Canon C100 is an 'entry-level' cinema camera, even though it costs about the same as the EOS 1D X flagship dSLR. 

The 6D is Canon's entry-level full frame camera, but that doesn't make it an entry level camera any more than being the least expensive Ferrari makes the Ferrari California an 'entry-level' sportscar.

yeah all very true and you are right of course,  dont you get that feeling though that people who are into cameras and photography look down on the 6d a bit? it doenst bother me but i get a that feeling a little, for some reason everyone loves the 7 series, or at least accept it.

They are tools. I doubt people who are "into" photography look down on it. As I stated before the 6D is an amazing tool, nothing more and in all honesty if/when my 5d2 dies I will consider a 6d as a backup FF. Three reasons: Good price, Similar IQ and amazing low light performance to my 5d3.

On the 7D front.. I know at least 5 amateur sports photographers who got their careers off the ground using that body and two event/wedding photographers. I got 2.5 years, a 25 foot fall into a snow bank (survived), sunk to the bottom of a river in a pelican box for an hour, A cat who seems to think EVERY time I went to change a lens on the camera at home he HAD to be right there, dropped into a still warm fire pit on a hike I did and close to 215k shutter out of that body. The damn thing was a TANK and I squeezed every penny out of the body. It is at Canon right now being prepared for a proper 7D funeral... Shot into the sun and returned with a minor scuff on the body in perfect working order.

The 7D is indeed beast. Mine have been rained on, snowed on, sanded on, saltwater wave washed, and tortured in as many ways else as humanly possible. And they still survive! But, you have the award: "Most Damage done to a 7D"!

47

EOS Bodies / Re: What if the rumored 5Dx is actually a 4D?

« on: February 19, 2013, 11:45:46 AM »

Seems strange to me that Nikon didn't offer a mRAW and/or sRAW on their D800. To me it suggests they're slightly out of touch with what people actually want

I never use small or medium raw, nor do I know why anyone would. The point of raw is non-processed information; down-interpolation is processing.

Different strokes.  mRAW is what I shoot the majority of the time because full RAW is overkill.  That gets right back to the point of the other reply I left here, that I hope this would be a spit in either the 1d or 5d line - not a replacement.  There are many of us who don't need mega giant files.  The 5d3 is a great all around camera workhorse.

Crop mode would be kind of useless for me as the vast vast majority of the time I want the FOV of a FF camera.  With the exception of the formal portraits, anything more than mRAW is overkill.  I'm not swaying there isn't a time and a place for what a mega mp body can do, but for me the benefits just aren't there.  plus there is the extra $$$$$ that would need to be spent on CF cards, HD's and upgrading my PC because as a wedding shooter something like the d800 would triple/quadruple the the overall memory used.  Hell, if it takes 20 minutes to transfer 16 to my computer - on a d800 I would need at least 4 more 16 gig cards - that's over an hour extra just to get the files on the computer.  Then comes the culling, which again will take much longer.  The majority of these shots will only be printed up to 5x7, so yeah, mega MP is overkill.  Unneeded for me. 

Spit the line - a mega mp body will not kill 5d3 sales as each cam is meant for different things (same goes for 1D series, sports shooters for sure woud rather have fps that MP).   

I seriously need every ounce of help I can with nord photography, which is usally in low light with distant, moving targets. mRAW will never get there.

48

Lenses / Re: FoV difference between Tamron 70-300VC and Canon 70-300L

« on: February 19, 2013, 11:44:04 AM »

In real world use, it's probably more useful to many more photo genres than the sports / press orientated 70-200 lenses. Landscapes, travel, documentary, details, a bit of wildlife...etc

Well, they'll get my 70-200 II when they pry it from my cold, dead hands (or Canon releases a MkIII), but I might pick up a 70-300L as a travel zoom...

That's about how I feel about it...

49

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Spec List [CR2]

« on: February 19, 2013, 11:42:10 AM »

<div name=\"googleone_share_1\" style=\"position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;\"><g:plusone size=\"tall\" count=\"1\" href=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=12918\"></g:plusone></div><div style=\"float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;\"><a href=\"https://twitter.com/share\" class=\"twitter-share-button\" data-count=\"vertical\" data-url=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=12918\">Tweet</a></div>
<strong>First spec list in a long time<br />


</strong>We received our first spec list for a Canon EOS 7D Mark II (we’re calling it that for now) from a known source in a while this weekend. Most people are now saying that this camera is probably being announced at the end of summer, with availability almost right away like the EOS 5D Mark III.</p>
<p>It was also mentioned that their could be as many as 3 prototype configurations of the camera out there, and this one of them.</p>
<p><b>Specifications</b></p>
<ul>
<li>24.1mp APS-C Sensor</li>
<li>Dual DIGIC V</li>
<li>10fps</li>
<li>Dual Memory Card Slots (Unknown configuration)</li>
<li>61 AF Points (I wonder if we’ll get red focus points in AIS?)</li>
<li>3.2″ LCD</li>
<li>Build quality like 5D3</li>
<li>GPS & Wifi</li>
<li>$2199 ($500 more than the 7D at launch, I’d like to see such a camera come in under $2000)</li>
<li>ISO Performance to get close to the 5D3</li>
<li>“Lots of video features”</li>
</ul>
<p>As we’ve been told before, this camera will basically be a mini EOS-1D X, and with that, comes a price increase. It was also stressed that about the only spec that may change is the sensor, as they have a few APS-C sensors available. I wonder about the megapixel count, though if Canon gets back to making industry leading sensors, I have no doubt 24mp could be a real winner.</p>
<p><em><strong><a href=\"http://www.kqzyfj.com/click-3958327-10618832?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.buydig.com%2Fshop%2Fproduct.aspx%3Fsku%3DCNEOS7D%26omid%3D200%26ref%3Dcj&cjsku=CNEOS7D\" target=\"_blank\">Canon EOS 7D $1199 at BuyDig.com</a></strong></em></p>
<p><strong><span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">c</span>r</strong></p>

THE AIR IS GOOD!!!

50

Lenses / Re: FoV difference between Tamron 70-300VC and Canon 70-300L

« on: February 18, 2013, 05:12:06 PM »

I was wondering if there is anyone else out there that has shot with both of these lenses and noticed the rather substantial field of view (FoV) difference between the two lenses.

If the Tamron is 300mm at 300mm then it feels like the Canon is maybe 290 or 280. A brick wall or newspaper test makes this very readily apparent.

Has anyone else noticed this?

How do you like the lens otherwise? I loved my 70-300 IS non-l, but the IQ was just too bad...

51

EOS-M / Re: EOS M Autofocus Performance Won't Improve via Firmware [CR2]

« on: February 18, 2013, 05:09:39 PM »

Dear Canon,

Autofocus will always be a deal breaker. Remember when you invented the EOS?

Also, the lack of easy manual controls is another reason I am not buying it. I am much more interested in the Nikon V2, and even more interested in an Olympus E5, I I can figure the name out. You thought beginners would love to upbuy a camera with 2 lenses available, but overlooked that your real market was advanced users wanting a small kit. I would love to take the EOS-M on a mountain climbing trip, but am forced by your lassitude into wandering desire.

-Me

52

Lens Gallery / Re: Samyang 14mm f2.8

« on: February 16, 2013, 10:22:10 PM »

Thanks for posting!

53

Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: Chinese aftermarket guns

« on: February 16, 2013, 10:21:39 PM »

When I fist saw this, I thought for sure it was more spam...

54

EOS Bodies / Re: What if the rumored 5Dx is actually a 4D?

« on: February 15, 2013, 01:26:56 PM »

Seems strange to me that Nikon didn't offer a mRAW and/or sRAW on their D800. To me it suggests they're slightly out of touch with what people actually want

I never use small or medium raw, nor do I know why anyone would. The point of raw is non-processed information; down-interpolation is processing.

55

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7D Walt Disney World Setup Help: New Bag, What Gear?

« on: February 15, 2013, 01:19:03 PM »

So here is the deal ... heading to Walt Disney World sometime in 2013.  We'll fly, we'll drive from hotel to parks daily, we'll spend all day at the parks and we'll drive back to the hotel exhausted. I've been to WDW before ... but not ever felt gear prepared. 

Do we go on water rides ... Yes.  Do we go on roller coasters ... Yes.  Do we bake in the ridiculously hot sun for hours ... Yes.

Here are the big things.  I am pretty sure I need only to take the body and a couple lenses.  But, what bag should I put these in to carry all day long in those conditions?  I have a big bag that wont be going with me.

Looking for advice on what to take (or buy and take) gear wise as well as something fast and friendly but comfortable for the conditions to put it in.  Also, I own no filters.  Is that a biggy?

Stuff I have (open to taking or leaving) 7D, 24-104, 50/1.4, 100/2, 18-135/Depends

Considering this is one of the most photographed places in the world ... I thought it might be nice to get some advice from those who have done it ... or even similar activities.

Cheers

Lowepro toploader for bag. A wterproof camera, as stated before, for  the day you go to the water place. The 24-105 and the 50 1.4. And, that should suit you pretty well...

56

Lenses / Re: Advice for shooting pictures of eagles

« on: February 13, 2013, 05:25:23 PM »

1. Totally bring the 2x TC. I use the tc 2x mk III, and it is sharp and quite good.

2. Up close, to get the entire bird in focus, you will need f18 or more...

3. Shooting wide open will carry the serious risk of getting the wing in focus and the eyes out of focus, or even the eye in focus but much of the body out of focus.

Most of what I shoot is birds, so, this comes from personal experience. For the best bird advice in the world, visit birdsasart-blog.com !

I'm not so sure about the 2x. Of course, if you've got it, bring it, it doesn't take much room but the MTF charts Canon publishes do indicate you lose some sharpness with the 2X. Also, he's bringing the 500 and a 70-200. With the 500 on the 1Dx (a FF) and the 70-200 on the APS-H, (effectively 88-250) he ought to have most of the range he needs covered. Given he's shooting from a blind, I wouldn't think he'd need (or want) the 500 and a 2x.

and a question for you - wouldn't an f18 aperture be diffraction limited?

On full frame? Not terribly. On a 7D, when the bird is close, I usually need to stop down to f11 or great. F11 is f18 on a 1dx. And, he most likely will totally need the TC 2x. A 500 mm lens is not that long, most of the time, especially not on a 1dx.

57

Lenses / Re: Advice for shooting pictures of eagles

« on: February 13, 2013, 02:24:33 PM »

1. Totally bring the 2x TC. I use the tc 2x mk III, and it is sharp and quite good.

2. Up close, to get the entire bird in focus, you will need f18 or more...

3. Shooting wide open will carry the serious risk of getting the wing in focus and the eyes out of focus, or even the eye in focus but much of the body out of focus.

Most of what I shoot is birds, so, this comes from personal experience. For the best bird advice in the world, visit birdsasart-blog.com !

58

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Cinema EOS C50 [CR1]

« on: February 13, 2013, 10:51:31 AM »

.........not working with morons and getting the blame when it goes tetes up.......

I don't do pro film/photo work, but I do have to contend with morons on a frequent basis.  Most of the ones I have to deal with have zip for common sense and no social skills whatsoever.  On those days that are particularly exasperating, I let my co-workers know they should use my Native American name when talking with me:

"Works With Morons"

Well-said!

59

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Cinema EOS C50 [CR1]

« on: February 13, 2013, 08:51:35 AM »

I guess it's the month of video. Hopefully, this will soon blow over and they will bet to stuff which actually matters...

60

Canon General / Re: What's your definition of "Pro"?

« on: February 08, 2013, 12:03:55 PM »

I'm curious. What does it mean to be a professional photographer?

I don't exactly consider myself a pro, but I'm not a fan of referring to photography as just my "hobby".
I've invested quite a bit of money (for me) in photography equipment- bodies, lenses, strobes and other studio equipment. But I know the gear I have doesn't make me a professional.

I'm not super technical in my photography, but I consider myself knowing more than just the basics. I spent 5 years working as an assistant at a photography studio. I learned a lot and got some great experience. I also spent those 5 years in the back room retouching and post-producing photos. I consider myself technically intermediate and enjoy learning and trying new techniques from others.

I don't make my living off of my photography, but occasionally I will do small paid jobs.

I consider myself an amateur- not in the sense that I'm new or inexperienced, but in the sense that for now, I do photography because I love it.

So what exactly does it mean to be professional in your opinion? We know it's not the gear alone. Is it the making money off of your skill? Paid jobs? Making a living? Is it simply having skill and experience? What do you all think?

My main job is a nurse, though I sometimes do photography for pay. When in nursing school, there was this one class where they spent hours and hours trying to convince is that nursing is a profession, not just a job. The term professional is a very bantied-about term, and has come to meaning almost nothing in many cases today.

Webster's 1828 :PROFES'SIONAL, a. Pertaining to a profession or to a calling; as professional studies, pursuits, duties,engagements; professional character or skill.

PROFES'SION, n. The business which one professes to understand and to follow for subsistence; calling; vocation; employment; as the learned professions. We speak of the profession of a clergyman, of a lawyer, and of a physician or surgeon; the profession of lecturer on chimistry or mineralogy. But the word is not applied to an occupation merely mechanical.

Maybe that helps?