Messages

556

Lenses / Re: Minimalist photography

« on: November 14, 2011, 01:23:13 PM »

I am not a minimalist. When in full mode for wildlife and nature, I've got two 7Ds, a 10-20, a 24-105, 70-200 2.8, 180 3.5, and a 300 2.8, and usually a 50 1.4 and 30 1.4 tossed in for good measure, as well as a flash, and maybe even my tripod if I think I need it.

I think minimalism is a mindset and method which works best for some people and uses. I've done minimalism (for differing reasons, usually mountaining or something broke...), but I prefer to have all my options available.

However, if I am going out to town, or being with friends, I usually bring as my point and shoot, if you will, my 7D with either 24-105 or 50 1.4 (or sometimes 30 1.4 now that my 50 is having issues...)

557

Lenses / Re: Canon 24-70mm 2.8L IS II mentioned in an issue of popular photography

« on: November 14, 2011, 01:17:08 PM »

Maybe they did it on purpose to get free publicity in the rumor forum world...

558

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS "Soonish" [CR2]

« on: November 14, 2011, 01:15:49 PM »

Will it take the 1.4x or 2x extenders?

If it would take a 1.4x AND they'd release a high-pixel-density 1.6-crop body (i.e. 7D Mark II) that could focus at f/8, Canon might get several thousand of my dollars.

Agreed. 21-24 mpx 1.6 crop, 8 fps 7D2 paired with this lens would make a great kit.

In times past, I spurned the 100-400 in favour of a 300 f4; perhaps, I may look to this in the future. I now have a 300 2.8, which I use extensively, but a 100-400 would be nice for a second camera...

559

Canon General / Re: Birders don't use Canons?

« on: November 13, 2011, 04:12:12 PM »

Here is South Florida, I frequently go to the Everglades for photography. There are usually a lot of serious bird photographers, nearly all of them use Canon. The masses use a mixture of lenses and cameras, but the serious shooters all use Canon with almost no exception. The ratio is probably more than 15:1 Canon to Nikon.

560

Lenses / Re: Changing lenses quickly or safely in the field

« on: November 09, 2011, 12:14:08 PM »

I take a lens off, hold it between my legs, and place the new lens on, then replace the rear cap, and put it back to wherever it got it from. Usually, I reserve this method for my larger lenses. My smaller lenses I hold in the crook of my arm as I pop them about.

561

Canon General / Re: 50mm Focal length for portrait

« on: November 08, 2011, 03:25:52 PM »

Of course you can use it! The picture you posted looks quite nice. Just be careful not to exagerate the size of chins and noses. Careful model directing will yield you great pictures!

I like this picture you have posted, keep it up!

562

Canon General / Re: New APS-C Camera in February?

« on: November 08, 2011, 03:23:44 PM »

Those of you interested in a 7D with lower MP, why not just shoot your 7D on M instead of L? Moreover, I woulld be curious to know if the OP has a 7D...

Mine is an incredible camera, capable of amazing things, and the 7D MK II will I am sure have even more glorious megapixels and will retain the APS-C format! (make sure you read this, Canon engineers!)

563

EOS Bodies / Re: 1DX: obviating the need for more expensive lenses?

« on: November 08, 2011, 03:16:40 PM »

I've actually handheld the 300 2.8 mark one for an entire 4 hour swimmeet. It's not that bad...

564

Canon General / Re: New APS-C Camera in February?

« on: November 08, 2011, 09:35:38 AM »

If Canon was smart they would outfit the 7Dii with a sensor with the same philosophy as the 1Dx... lower mp count with larger pixels! 

No, that would be suicide! 7D users LIKE having it as a crop sensor camera, and have built their lens line-up (several thousands of dollars of glass, usually) around that line-up.

As has been iterated many times, it would be a HUGE loss of focal length, and would frustrate me hugely!

565

EOS Bodies / Re: 1DX: obviating the need for more expensive lenses?

« on: November 07, 2011, 05:30:09 PM »

Hmmm... Maybe you should consider the Sigma 120-300? Anyway, the 1DX may help you somewhat.

In general though, will the 1DX replace broad aperture lenses? No more than the 1dmkIV did.

And congratulations on having better pictures than any one else! They must be really jealous.

566

Lenses / Re: Canon 1DX: The AF problem may be bigger that we think?

« on: November 07, 2011, 11:56:09 AM »

If I had a 1DX, and spent the pile of cash on it, I would not be buying ANY of those lenses. I would instead be nabbing up a 400 2.8, a 600 f4, a 200 f2, and maybe a 100-400 for fun! And when the fabled 200-400 would come out, I would buy two of them, just to be on the safe side!

567

Lenses / Re: Realistic wish lens

« on: November 07, 2011, 11:52:47 AM »

50mm 0.75 

568

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 5D3 Announcement Date & Poll (and your thoughts)

« on: November 07, 2011, 10:26:38 AM »

I suspect we'll be waiting a while for it.... I don't have  a 5Dii, but do have a 7D, and suspect it won't come out for a while either... 

I voted Photokina 2012...

569

Lenses / Re: canon is not for poor film makers anymore! 47,000$??!!!

« on: November 07, 2011, 02:07:09 AM »

If you want fun, google how much a set of panaflex lenses would cost...

570

Lenses / Re: Cinema lens versus non-cinema lens

« on: November 07, 2011, 02:06:01 AM »

And how many botched takes can you afford before the cine lens becomes the overall cheaper solution?

42

42 is the answer. Now what was the question? Sorry, have read Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy...

Probably much of the cost difference has to do with the exact light transmission calibration, permitting guess-free utterly predictable exposure. Also, it looks solidly built. Just like my old 50 1.4 super takumar! (I've used that thing on my 7D, and it is great!)