« on: October 01, 2012, 09:07:39 PM »
For a crop camera, the Sigma is very good. It falls down on FF a to where even the Canon 50mm f/1.4 beats it.
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.
I planned to keep it, but I gave in to the $2750 deal on the 5D MK III from Adorama. since I only paid $1407 for the Camera thru the Canon CLP, it was a deal I could not lose on. I sold it for $1750! So with the profit on the MK II plus the $55 ebay bucks, and credit card rebates, my new 5D Mark III cost me $2350. Why do you think thats stupid.
Color me stupid but WTF would you buy a camera and only take about 700 photos with it?
Maybe you shouldn't have bought it in the first place...
Still waiting on B&H or Adorama (have back orders on both) to catch up. Shame kenmore doesn't ship to different address (I am overseas, with a US forwarding address) else their "in stock" status might have just gone down one unit.
Thats a unique view. No rice in India?? Only China consumes more rice than India.
It's too bad there is not rice in india.
What have you done with that 5DII ? How long have you used it that it has such a low count?I bought it from the Canon refurb store in August after selling my 1D Mark IV, it had about 300 actuations. I planned to keep it for a year or two, but then I had some hand surgery, which prevented me from using it, and Adorama had the $2750 deal on the 5D Mark III. I was able to use it one weekend photographing my friend driving his Monster Truck, and then I decided to sell it since I had the 5D MK III, a 7D, and a old 10D and the 5D MK II wasn't going to get much use.
That's actually what I did. I got a new one off eBay when that one seller was selling them for $800.I noticed you said it was less than a year old. If you bought it with a credit card, some of them have disaster insurance that might cover all or part of the cost of repair or replacement. Many forget to check with the cc company.
It just seems like such a waste. The exterior is literally pristine...maybe I'll make one of those Canon lens mugs out of them.
The problem is corrosion. I was in India when this happened, so there was no way of letting it sit out and dry since it was so humid. I believe Canon said most of the electronics were corroded and needed to be replaced. I guess I'm just surprised at how expensive they are. You would think the glass are the parts that are expensive.
Even the same model different bodies will have different results. There are many things that can cause this. My 35mmL has a +2 on my 5D MK II while my 5D Mark III had a +17. Canon calibrated the lens on their reference 1D Mark III and it was right on, while only changing a couple of points on the 5D Mark II. There were different numbers for my 7D as well.My 5D Mark II seemed to have a big difference, but I did not use FoCal at the time. I'll check my new 5D Mark III with the lens.I wish there were a macro setting for the 100mm L, I'm certain that the AFMA value will be a lot different at near macro distances.
It wasn't for me. For the 100L Macro on my 1D X, it was +4 at 50x FL, +2 at 25x FL, and +3 close up (filled the frame with FoCal's tiny target). On the 7D, it's +2, +3, and +2, respectively, and the 5DII was -2, -1, and 0.
My 7D required bigger AFMA numbers than 5D2.