Messages

5056

Lens Gallery / Re: Canon Body Nikon Glass!

« on: November 20, 2011, 08:15:10 PM »

I have lots of glass from various camera companies and I've tried it on my Canon cameras.  Generally, older lenses do not live up to modern standards, so results are OK, but not as good as my more modern Canon lenses.

Here is one with my
Nikkor 300mm f/2.8 on my 40D.  Very difficult for me to manually focus and to get a good exposure.



I had a Nikon d40X at the time, and it worked much better on that camera.

I only bought it because it was too cheap at $1000, and later sold it.

5057

EOS Bodies / Re: Smartphone picture quality is amazing now! Watch out Canon!

« on: November 20, 2011, 05:29:31 PM »

They will be good enough for many non photographers who want a snapshot.  How do they do with shallow depth of field, or low light?

I've nothing against them, they have their place.

If you want to see real world camera phone photos, check out Craigslist.  Blurry, usually too dark, in a word, awful.  Those are the photos that most camera phone users get.

Given the right lighting, and a distant subject where everything is in focus, they can take good looking images.

5058

Lenses / Re: Your Go To Portrait Lens?

« on: November 20, 2011, 03:06:37 PM »

If you had to choose both one zoom and one fixed lens as your go to portrait lens. What would they be?

First, you should tell us what body you use.  You could help get a better answer by explaining what gear you have available, and posting some exampoes of what type of portrait you like.  A prime lens will do a better job than a zoom, but a zoom has versatility and if you pose your subject far in front of the background, the background will be blurred.

You have received lots of answers, including many that assume you use the same body they use, whatever that is.

The answers from those who explain which body and lens to match they use should help you, it makes a huge difference, and  it shows that they understand the difference.

5059

Lenses / Re: Your choice for amateur Sportslens

« on: November 20, 2011, 02:38:55 PM »

As CR said, a 70-200mm f/2.8L non is would be a big improvement, a equivalent of 320mm max on your 7D, and with a 1.4 TC, about 448 mm equivalent at f/4.  You could squeak by at $1500 with a used MK II TC if you don't already have one.

That will allow you to get the high shutter speeds you need, which should be about 1/800 sec - 1/2000 sec.  Even so, you may have to crank up the ISO.

The next step up is a 300mm f/2.8, and the price is very high.

5060

EOS Bodies / Re: Bought my first digital camera today 5d

« on: November 19, 2011, 06:31:38 PM »

Good luck, its a learning curve to get all the settings right, go out and take lots of photos.  Learn to use RAW and process the images with good software, DXO, Abobe Lightroom, etc.  You will have much more ability to correct colors, contrast, sharpness, and noise reduction by shooting in raw.  The free DPP is good as well, but with no manual, its difficult to learn.

Nikon or Canon, they are just tools and both are excellent.  Canon is more popular because they cost less, and its easier to find good used lenses, but you would be pleased with either.

I'd suggest a 70-200m f/4 L IS to go with your 24-105 as your longer zoom.

For primes, 35mm L, 85mm f/1.8, 100mm f/2.8L (macro and portraits), 135mm L.

85mm and 135mm are classic portrait focal lengths, and 100mm is excellent as well.  I'd wait and see if they improve the 50mm f/1.4 next february, so get it later.

I'd put off buying Sigma lenses until you have more experience, they have a reputation of having autofocus issues, so you want to stick with fast and accurate AF lenses at first.  Then, if you get a lens with a issue, you will know whats normal and whats not.

Doing a tweak of the autofocus micro adjust can improve sharpness slightly, and for a wide prime, it might improve by a large amount.  Most Canon lenses are good right out of the box, but it pays to check.

5061

Lenses / Re: prime vs. zoom

« on: November 19, 2011, 04:42:42 PM »

You mentioned a secondary video usage for sports. 

Remember, with a DSLR you get a shallow depth of field, and no autofocus.  Manually focusing while trying to follow a fast moving sport is extremely difficult, its impossible for me to do it, particularly if I have a shallow depth of field.  About all I can do is to use a wide angle lens that is in focus over the whole feild and watch the players running around like little ants in the distance.


For still subjects, the video function is fine, but moving ones may be a issue if you need to follow action.

For sports, I'd look at pellicle mirror cameras that can autofocus while takiing video like the Sony A77.  I'm not a fan of Sony, but they seem to have worked out some of the video issues on their latest DSLR's

5062

EOS Bodies / Re: 5Dii sensor recycled into new FF entry body?

« on: November 19, 2011, 04:29:46 PM »

I hope not, its a very old sensor design by now and they can do better without increasing the cost to manufacture it.  The design is probably at least five years old.  The sensor first appeared in the 1Ds MK III over four years ago in August 2007.

It is not really relevant to the discussion, but my understanding is that the 1DsIII and 5DII use slightly different sensors.  Your point about the old sensor design holds for both however.  By now, a newer design can probably be manufactured more efficiently/cheaply, and give better performance.
Given where the pricing of the 5DII is currently headed, it gives an indication that Canon may have space for an 18-20MP mid range full frame body, and a 30+ MP body as well.  I would see it as more likely that Canon would use a "detuned" version of the 1Dx sensor.  That would almost be like the way car manufacturers use one engine block and then add various combinations of turbochargers, superchargers, intercoolers etc. to create engines with different outputs - just look at the VW Golf range as an example.

The silicone is the same, the AA filter and Bayer filters that are placed over the silicone are slightly different, so , in that sense, the finished sensor is slightly different.

I believe that Canon went from 8 in wafers to 12 in wafers which increased the FF production efficiency and speed as well.  I've seen mention of using 12 in wafersa in Canon press releases, but no details or date of implementstion, but it was likely needed to mass produce FF sensors for the 5D MK II.

5063

EOS Bodies / Re: 5Dii sensor recycled into new FF entry body?

« on: November 18, 2011, 11:18:44 PM »

I hope not, its a very old sensor design by now and they can do better without increasing the cost to manufacture it.  The design is probably at least five years old.  The sensor first appeared in the 1Ds MK III over four years ago in August 2007.

5064

Lenses / Re: Future standard changes to canon L series wide-medium primes and zooms

« on: November 18, 2011, 11:14:54 PM »

All these things are used in high end lenses, but a few of them may appear in the low end lenses.

Sealing is one of the things that is difficult.  If a lens extends while focusing or zooming, it will not be completely sealed,   USM is not goiing to happen for many consumer grade lenses, it requires a total redesign and increases the price. 

UD glass / Fluorite crystals will continue to be used where it is needed.  It has not been needed in 50mm lenses in the past, but if a more expensive version of the consumer lens comes out, it may be in it along with a doubling of the price for very little gain.

I don't expect to see anything different from what we've seen in the past, $1,000 lenses have better and more expensive construction than $200 lenses.

5065

Canon General / Re: Prices on Canon lenses too good to be true?

« on: November 18, 2011, 03:45:02 PM »

Sorry for posting the link.

Thanks for the link to that seller rating site!

The issue with the links is that the search engines pick them up, and then give a higher ranking when lots of people click on the link, so the scammer gets a big benefit and free advertising when a link from a busy web site like Canon rumors is posted and hundreds of people click on it.

5066

EOS Bodies / Re: 5DmkII price drop in Japan....due to a box fail?

« on: November 17, 2011, 11:36:52 PM »

The boxes cost about $2 to make.  Canon could easily afford to scrap and bad boxes and print new ones.  This sounds very fishy to me.

That said, Canon does seem to be dropping the price of the 5D MK II a bit, I'm kinda expecting a replacement to be announced in Februaary for perhaps May delivery.

5067

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 400mm f2.8L II USM (non IS)

« on: November 17, 2011, 11:32:57 PM »

None of the old non-is super telephoto lenses are on the CPS elgible for repair list, and haven't been for years.  If you have a problem that requires parts, you might find a independent repair service who has a part thats new or salvaged for a very high price, you can be sure that the commonly replaced parts are in short supply already.

Its definitely a risk. It won't be worthless if it can't be repaired, the parts for salvage may make it valuable, maybe more than you are paying.

I'd look for the IS version, they will be repairing them for another 5 years or so.

5068

Lenses / Re: Would Canon make a tele/super tele ef-s lens?

« on: November 17, 2011, 01:05:56 PM »

The major difference in such a lens would be to substitute cheap plastic for metal in the construction.  The money is in the glass, and it would be the same unless they were to downgrade it to have a lot more distortion, CA, ect.  Saving $500 by using cheaper construction for a $7500 lens is really not all that compelling.

There are low cost long telephoto lenses that use inferior optics and get horrible images, only a few buy them, and then realize that you get what you pay for.

In a long telephoto lens, a mirror lens is probably the best buy of the low cost lenses.  Bokah is strange, but if you can work around that, the lack of aperture control, and autofocus, you will have your low cost super telephoto.

Here is a image from a 600mm Sigma mirror lens that I took a few years back.  The image is reasonably sharp, certainly not great, and the highlights in the background are distracting.  Its a low cost lens, in the $150 range.

5069

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: APS-C Image Quality (7d vs nex7)

« on: November 17, 2011, 12:44:10 PM »

My experience with the 7d is that a careful microfocus adjustment makes a big difference, the high pixel density requires near perfect focus.  There is a learning curve.

Sony cameras are great in jpeg, they use a ton of NR and saturation so that images look wonderful on the web.  Compare raw output, and the tables reverse, give images the same nr and developing treatment, and the noise from the sony sensors suddenly becomes very apparent.

This makes Sony a good choice for a person who justs wants to point and shoot, while those who want to process their own images to get best possible quality will prefer the Canon sensor.

5070

EOS Bodies / Re: How often do you go through a body? Why do you upgrade?

« on: November 17, 2011, 12:29:25 PM »

Of digital SLR bodies I've had and used, I've had the D30, 10D, Digital Rebel, Digital Rebel XT, Digital Rebel XTi, 20D, 30D, 40D, 1D MK II, 1D MK III, 5D, 5D MK II, and the 7D over the past 10 years.  Usually at least two at the same time.  Most of them I bought used and sold them after a year for more than I paid, but my 5D MK II will be three years old in about three weeks.  I also had a Kodak DCS 620, but it was mostly as a collectible, and not used other than to test.

In order of IQ, I'd say 5D MK II, 1D MK III, 7D, 1D MK II was what I saw.  Certainly the 1 series cameras have a lot more going for them besides IQ, the ability to AF at F/8 or even f/11 (with stacked TC's) is a huge plus, and will be missed with the 1Dx, if I decide to get one.