July 30, 2014, 12:03:30 AM

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 - ecka

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 39
31
EOS Bodies / Re: New Sensor Tech in EOS 7D Mark II [CR2]
« on: June 19, 2014, 10:41:07 AM »
Does "NEW" means it was never used before? ... or more like the usual "new" from the last couple of years?

32
Canon General / Re: Let's confess our disgusting perversions
« on: May 26, 2014, 03:02:22 PM »
I like to shoot old Nikon AIS glass on my Canon bodies.  Does it get more perverted than that?

Yes, try using Pentax strap and Sony camera bag :).

34
Canon General / Re: Let's confess our disgusting perversions
« on: May 24, 2014, 04:01:50 AM »
0. I'm sure these are disgusting perversions for many, but I don't agree with you ;D
1. I like some Sigma lenses better, than equivalent Canon ones.
2. My camera is worth more than all my lenses combined at the moment.
3. I never use UV filters.
4. I prefer 50/1.8II on FF over 35L on a Rebel.
5. I always use LiveView for landscapes.
6. I crop a lot.
7. I only use center point for focusing.
8. For me, photography is a "capture-the-moment technology", not art.

#2 - As long as you enjoy the IQ, there is nothing wrong with that

#7 - Dam 6D  :P

#8 - same here. there is no rule of third in my photos. I don't use DOF button before pushing shutter. I like to shoot wide open, unless, I really want to have background included. These are just tools to capture what I want and when I want to  ;)

#2 - Oh, I would buy more and better glass if I could :). Thank you for your kind support.
#7 - I used the center point when I had 7D as well. There is a paradox here. If I shoot with a nice FF camera (like 6D :P ) with a cheap and sharp prime lens while only using center AF point without recomposing and getting the right framing by cropping, then I would still get a cheaper, smaller and nicer system than something like m4/3.
I think that 6D AF system would have been better with only 3 "super-points".

35
Canon General / Re: Let's confess our disgusting perversions
« on: May 23, 2014, 02:57:49 PM »
0. I'm sure these are disgusting perversions for many, but I don't agree with you ;D
1. I like some Sigma lenses better, than equivalent Canon ones.
2. My camera is worth more than all my lenses combined at the moment.
3. I never use UV filters.
4. I prefer 50/1.8II on FF over 35L on a Rebel.
5. I always use LiveView for landscapes.
6. I crop a lot.
7. I only use center point for focusing.
8. For me, photography is a "capture-the-moment technology", not art.

36
Lighting / Re: New flash for eos 6d?
« on: May 22, 2014, 10:21:24 AM »
It come down to size a power and whether or not you want to use more than one flash.  If you want to use more than one flash in the future, the 600ex-rt is the way to go because the wireless works so well.  Instead of getting the ST transmitter, you could use another 600 in the hotshoe as the master.  The 600ex-rt also "zooms" to support focal lengths up to 200mm, so it is a great choice if you have a 70-200 lens because now you can use the flash for the entire focal length range.

I'd argue against the 430ex-ii if you were happy with the 550 and 540.  Downgrading power makes you realize how useful the extra bit helps when you don't have it, unless you really need a smaller flash.

It depends. Most of the time I'm using 1/8 to 1/32 of my 430EXII power and I imagine that more is only needed for longer distances, diffusers and reflectors.

Sorry, guys! another question: 8)

I own an 550ex AND AN 540Ex (for the old Eos 3 and 1V) flash and new, a Eos 6D.

Can I feel an big improvement when i buy an 430 EX-II or an 600EX-RT? Or an third party flash?

If I would buy one of these new flashes, what do I need to use the flash off the camera? Do i need an wireless transmitter ? the shop assistant told me to buy an 300€ transmitter. Or is there an another third party transmitter equal to it?

BG
Daniela

If you decide to get a new 600EX-RT, then it makes sense to pair it with the new $300 ST-E3-RT radio transmitter (some say it is well worth it, but it only works with 600EX-RT and future Canon RT flashes). There may be some cheaper third party alternatives available already (I'm not sure). If you want to use the new flash together with your 550EX and 540EX, then 600EX-RT could be an overkill, because you would still need some radio triggers for your older flashes and, despite that 600EX-RT has it built-in, you may need one more for it as well.
It may be unreasonable to get the 430EXII while your older flashes are working just fine. If you decide to save money, then you can get some cheaper third party triggers for your current flashes. What a radio trigger essentially does is making your 550EX into 550EX-RT, kind of :). You need 3 eTTL transceivers for dual off-camera flash system (one for each flash + one for camera) and it would cost you around $150 (like $50 a piece), I think, or $100 for 1 flash (and even less than that for non-TTL triggers).

37
Lenses / Re: Canon Working on Faster f/2.8 Ultra Wide Zoom [CR2]
« on: May 21, 2014, 05:30:00 PM »
Back to zooms, if Canon do release the mythical 14-24/2.8, that would leave a gap in the range for a better quality 18ish-35/2.8. That would allow better quality optics than the existing 2.8 without much extra weight.

I read in (I think) the dpreview review of the 24-70/2.8 that Canon did not make an IS version of the 2.8 because the weight would increase. If Canon made an 18ish-35 2.8/IS, it would be excellent and versatile for low light interiors. I know that is far from the only use for ultra wide zooms, but it would be smart to cover all the bases.

On the other hand, a good prime at or just below 20mm, would be awesome, especially with reasonably sized filters. As a prime fan, I will cross my fingers, watch and wait. My credit card is safe for now.

Just to keep in mind, I believe the only example put out thus far of a f/2.8 16mm-ish lens without bulbous element sharper than the 16-35 II was the Zeiss 15mm, which has a 95mm filter thread.  Could you imagine how large that would be if made into a zoom?

While I think we will see small improvements in quality similar to the 16-35 I to 16-35 II generation, I don't think we will see an improvement the 24-70 got unless the 16-35 is made significantly larger/heavier (arguably incompatible with its target market).  Which is also why I think the 16-35 II will not be updated for a long time, with a wider bulbous zoom complementing it instead (i.e 12-24, 14-24, etc).

Yes. The new 16-35/4L IS USM is almost as big and heavy as the 16-35/2.8L II USM. IS is nice for videos, but if it's not much better than the 17-40/4L, then it may end up on the same shelf with 70-300 DO, 200/2.8II and 28-300L.

well, I think the 16-35 f/4 *will* be significantly better than the 17-40 and based on the mtf sharper than the 16-35 II.  But, while it replaces the 17-40 it does not replace the 16-35 II as it is a full stop slower.  In low light for event photographers/journalists that will likely be a deal breaker regardless of the sharpness. The market is there for both though as landscape photographers won't use f/2.8 much and would rather have the sharpness.

I hope it *will* be significantly better than 17-40L, which has very soft corners at 17mm. However, it may be considered sharper than 16-35L'II, because that one has a bit blurry corners as well :). I know many "landscapers" who prefer Sigma 12-24mm or even adapting Nikkor 14-24mm over Canon L UWA zooms, because of the bad corners. If Sigma releases a cheaper and perfectly sharp 12-24mm ART, then it could hurt Canon sales very much. That could explain why did they put the IS in it - to add one more reason for choosing Canon over the competition.

38
Lenses / Re: Canon Working on Faster f/2.8 Ultra Wide Zoom [CR2]
« on: May 19, 2014, 06:21:55 AM »
Back to zooms, if Canon do release the mythical 14-24/2.8, that would leave a gap in the range for a better quality 18ish-35/2.8. That would allow better quality optics than the existing 2.8 without much extra weight.

I read in (I think) the dpreview review of the 24-70/2.8 that Canon did not make an IS version of the 2.8 because the weight would increase. If Canon made an 18ish-35 2.8/IS, it would be excellent and versatile for low light interiors. I know that is far from the only use for ultra wide zooms, but it would be smart to cover all the bases.

On the other hand, a good prime at or just below 20mm, would be awesome, especially with reasonably sized filters. As a prime fan, I will cross my fingers, watch and wait. My credit card is safe for now.

Just to keep in mind, I believe the only example put out thus far of a f/2.8 16mm-ish lens without bulbous element sharper than the 16-35 II was the Zeiss 15mm, which has a 95mm filter thread.  Could you imagine how large that would be if made into a zoom?

While I think we will see small improvements in quality similar to the 16-35 I to 16-35 II generation, I don't think we will see an improvement the 24-70 got unless the 16-35 is made significantly larger/heavier (arguably incompatible with its target market).  Which is also why I think the 16-35 II will not be updated for a long time, with a wider bulbous zoom complementing it instead (i.e 12-24, 14-24, etc).

Yes. The new 16-35/4L IS USM is almost as big and heavy as the 16-35/2.8L II USM. IS is nice for videos, but if it's not much better than the 17-40/4L, then it may end up on the same shelf with 70-300 DO, 200/2.8II and 28-300L.

39
Animal Kingdom / Re: Portrait of your "Best friend"
« on: May 18, 2014, 09:04:04 AM »
Hi Ecka.
Really nice shot. A caption for 4242.
Are you taking pictures of me? How dare you!

Cheers Graham.

Thank you Graham.
The caption is more like "You better feed me after the shoot, or else ..." :)

40
Animal Kingdom / Re: Portrait of your "Best friend"
« on: May 18, 2014, 01:49:56 AM »

IMG_4243 by ecka84, on Flickr


IMG_4242 by ecka84, on Flickr

41
Lenses / Re: Canon Working on Faster f/2.8 Ultra Wide Zoom [CR2]
« on: May 17, 2014, 02:17:12 PM »
Quote
Canon Working on Faster f/2.8 Ultra Wide Zoom [CR2]

Nah. How about working on slower prime?
20mm f/4.0 STM pancake would be nice. :)

42
Much thanks for all postings!
I own following lenses for landscapes: 12-24 4 Tokina, Canon 28-70 2.8L, 50mm 1.8 (the others are >70mm)
I am looking to get an 24mm 2.8, or are there other lenses that i should buy? (I do not have the money to get an Zeiss or another extraordinary expensive lenses.)

G
Dani

My only must-have landscaping lens suggestion would be the Samyang 14/2.8 UMC. Because it is a killer lens for the price and you don't really need AF for 14mm. Other than that, any sharp lens should do.

43
I would question using a 64G card for stills.  That's a LOT of eggs in one basket.

There is no rule that each and every card must fail some day in their lifetime. Therefore having many "baskets" only increases the chance of failure. Switching cards adds even more risk to the mix. You can get your images corrupted by accidentally touching the SD card contacts, or dropping it in unfortunately nasty places :).
For more safety 6D offers a WiFi data transfer connection, so you can "seal" the card door and never use it again, if you like :).

44
Lenses / Re: Before you buy your next prime...
« on: May 09, 2014, 01:25:44 PM »
I have the 24-70ii and the 70-200ii. I don't really NEED anything wider or longer... where do I go from here???

:-\

Go shoot something  ;)

45
Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: May 09, 2014, 12:32:45 PM »

IMG_4361 by ecka84, on Flickr

Very Zen vibe. Well composed.

A redstart? I am most envious :)

Thanks.
Yes, it looks like a Redstart (male).

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 39