Messages

91

Lenses / Re: what filter for my first "L" Lens

« on: September 28, 2012, 07:24:04 PM »

And as for filters for protection, I'm of the crowd that thinks it's kinda pointless.  Any whack good enough to actually fubar the lens will fubar it right through a filter.  And it will take a lot of years of lesser nicks to degrade the end to a point it really really matters.  All the while you have stuck a flat piece of glass on the end happily ready to at least offer no help to quality.  Other than a seal if you plan to use it in a hurricane or sand storm, for protection, kinda pointless.  And say you nick the crap out of the end over the years, I can't see it being extremely costly to send it to canon to have that piece swapped out anyway.  I use my 10-22 all the time, never ever use a lens cover cause I'll just lose them anyway.  Always yanking it in and out of the car and all over.  I've managed two little nicks.  Little nicks vs a big(relative to the nicks) piece of flat glass.  And that's not really ever even trying to be real careful.  I do wish I had a filter on after shooting around some sand dunes a bit though.  But that is it. 

92

Lenses / Re: what filter for my first "L" Lens

« on: September 28, 2012, 07:12:47 PM »

[/quote]

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml

and I can find many many more. Is it a copy issue?
[/quote]

Yeah I saw that review before I bought it.  I thought it was a solid lens till I went full frame.  Could be a copy issue I guess for my corners.  There is also this to consider with it....  http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Vignetting-Test-Results.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=9&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=412&CameraComp=9&FLIComp=0&APIComp=1

And this comment from photozone....  "I should mention that I've used the lens (another sample) during my film SLR days and at the extreme borders the results were somewhat disappointing below 20mm (full format). "

Both the photozone and lenstip reviews of this lens seem to have been done on crop sensors, which kinda sucks. 

But yeah for sure could be a copy issue.  The luminous-landscape version shows a pretty crappy 35mm end, perhaps my lens was "flopped" from that one given my corner was from 17mm.  Think I've read more complaints about the lens on full frame than I have praises. 

93

Lenses / Re: what filter for my first "L" Lens

« on: September 28, 2012, 05:06:41 PM »

And that juicy tidbit is the only good thing to come out of selling my 10-22 when I went FF. (I plan on getting a 17-40 and have an extra B+W filter lying around for it.)

You should lose very little when selling your 10-22, used, they are about the same price as a 17-40. I am not a big fan of the 17-40 on FF, but if stopped down, its fine.  Perhaps mine was just a poor copy, it happens.  It wasn't bad, just did not seem to inspire me.

Yeah, 17-40 fine on crop, crap on full.  http://www.extremeinstability.com/stormpics/compare2corner.jpg  That is F9 corner of my old 17-40 on a 5D II.  Center was sharp, so it wasn't the focus being off.  Thing made full frame sorta pointless.

94

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Estimate the price/body size of the new rumored Canon Megapixel Monster...

« on: September 28, 2012, 03:57:12 PM »

If they want to sell as many lenses as they possibly can, which I'm sure they do, they're going to need something to beat the D800 back down.  Guessing this has to be that camera, so 5D body, between $3500 and $4000.  Or they feel they can get by with $4500.  It seems it has to be priced against the D800 to take that whole deal back out of the picture for people.  Not sure how that happens with the 5D III however.  5D III becomes $2700-$3000 cam and this one gets parked at $4500.  Could see that.  But does that still leave a D800 draw for folks.  Kinda tricky for them.  Or they just don't overly give a crap and figure most will stay tied to lenses and not jump to the D800 at that price, even if they stick this thing out there $5000 or greater.  If it is to be priced high or mid-range it kinda has to bump into their own 5D III or 1Dx and if it doesn't outright come in around 5D III I don't know that it takes the D800 elephant out of the room.  Maybe 5D III just has a real short life.  Doubt that I guess given 4 years for the II. 

95

Lenses / Re: 24mm on a crop body?

« on: September 26, 2012, 10:22:28 PM »

Could also snatch up a Samyang 14mm F2.8 for half the 10-22.  Looking into that lens for full frame and kinda amazed it beats the canon 14mm F2.8 in most aspects and at $400 compared to $2200.  http://www.lenstip.com/index.php?test=obiektywu&test_ob=239

96

EOS Bodies - For Stills / 5D II live view exposure "oddity"

« on: September 24, 2012, 11:33:47 AM »

5D II live view exposure "oddity".  I'm going to assume something is broken to cause this, but hope it's some weird setting I'm just missing that is doing it.  Seems like the results say something is broke. 

http://www.extremeinstability.com/stormpics/2012/5d2liveview.jpg

That picture shows the issue.  I'm in manual mode live view on.  (So it's not some issue with that square part metering stuff)  The scene on the lcd changes as I change the exposure.  I take the shot and it's blown out too bright.  I stop down more and take the shot again, same blow out.  But if I turn the live view back off and take the shot, the shot appears like it did on live view and not blown out.  Just look at the settings on the two examples of the resulting images.  First one blown out with live view on at 1/6400 yet look at the 1/4000(slower) exposure when live view is turned off.  It's like it should be.  Something has to be screwed up and not just some odd setting that would do this?  It's a used 5D II I just got.  Images shot in raw and not touched during conversion.  100-400L was the lens.  24 seconds apart from one another. 

Thanks
Mike

97

Canon General / Re: How many of us are making money out of photography ?

« on: September 20, 2012, 10:02:43 AM »

100% income from this last 8 years.  It's never been enough to justify much gear and so has actually been done on the back of the rebel line the whole time, minus 6 months or so with a 5D II. 

98

Lenses / Re: Which to get: 50mm f/1.8 or 35mm f/2?

« on: September 20, 2012, 09:48:05 AM »

If you ever plan on manually focusing the 50mm(like landscape or night stuff via live view) I'd get some other 50mm and not the F1.8.  The focus ring on the 50mm is really flimsy and not a "real" one.  I focus it that way all the time for night stuff and just letting go of it the focus moves.  Then even the shutter slapping can move it and especially if you bump or have to move the tripod.  I still haven't replaced mine and every time something comes along and I have to use it(everything I do is manual focus basically) I am quickly kicking myself for not having a better version with a real focus ring. 

99

EOS Bodies / Re: 6D Sensor... why?

« on: September 17, 2012, 12:38:01 PM »

5D II had 12,000 and 25,000 for the H1 H2 while 6D has 51,000 and 102,000 for H1 H2.  Perhaps it's a trimmed down 5D III....not a trimmed down 5D II.  Or just all new.  Not that I know jack about creating sensors.

100

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon Announces the Canon EOS 6D DSLR

« on: September 17, 2012, 10:25:44 AM »

Buy a used 5DII and wait for reviews on the new gear, take your time

Yeah I think that is the most sensible route and no wait involved there either.  I always forget one can later sell these things, if they don't mess them up too bad.  I wish all I shot were daylight things with good lighting.  I just shoot too many things that like higher ISOs, like say Auroras, Milky Way or moon-lit scenes, even night storm structure can be helped tremendously by ISO'ing up(given no real bright bolts obviously).  I owned a 5D II for half a year or so and rented a 5D III and shot the Milky Way with it and whatnot.  The noise pattern compared to the crops is just so much nicer and fine.  I wish the review sites on their raw samples had the color noise removed for comparison.  Hard to really tell what you have to work with when something so easily removed is left on those samples.  But anyway, the 5D II and 5D III I found so so similar in noise, but with the 5D III trying to edge its way ahead up in the 5000+ stuff, which playing with the Milky Way or whatever can be fun.  And just now I see the listed specs of the D600 don't even go to the 5D III or this D6, so it sorta makes me wonder if that slight edge up in real high ISO even happens with it anyway.  I'm often far too willing to "split hairs" too much lol.  It makes one kinda realize just how big a jump that 5D II sensor was and as much as it hangs out now in the high ISO noise arena(especially if you remove the color noise in the RAW converter and compare that way).  It's just hard to ignore the better spec option now "out" in what for some is a used area.  To hell with patience till December over it however.  Will be a 5D II owner again tomorrow, go Canon lol. 

101

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon Announces the Canon EOS 6D DSLR

« on: September 17, 2012, 09:43:58 AM »

December....sigh.  I'm with the other person that now has money burning a hole in their pocket, to go full frame.  I was going to be content with a 5D II.  This camera kinda sounds great to me, in that the price is similar to 5D II now, but has the better sensor closer to the 5D III.  It now has me not wanting to buy a 5D II oddly enough and impatience is certainly not able to wait till December.  Don't really have enough gear to be completely tied to Canon.  Should just go Nikon D600 and pray the line isn't going to make it arriving happen in December anyway.  Kinda hating new options right now lol.  Should just suck it the hell up and buy a 5D II like was the plan before.  Least I can still get the 24mm F1.4 that way and have fun with that.  Or get the D600 and Nikon's 24mm F1.4.  But hell then I have to take a grand hit selling and replacing my 100-400L....so may as well have used that towards the 5D III instead and still have the better 24mm F1.4 then and keep the 100-400L.  5D III at $2750 just becomes kinda perfect.  Get it up and around or over $3000....then the damn Nikon D800 desires jump into play and one is all back at square one at a higher price point.  A horrible time for an impatient person ready to go full frame.   

102

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 6D Official Specs

« on: September 16, 2012, 11:01:26 PM »

D600 is equipped with Sony's 24M sensor; DR will be much better than Canon's sensor for sure!
I have no idea what Canon is thinking, I'm going to sell my 7D and L glasses

Yeah that is what I fear.  If Nikon had the winning 24mm F1.4 this would be easy to me now.  If Canon got the 5D III down to that $2750 price earlier, it'd probably be as easy again(enough bonuses I'd forget the DR/read noise deal).  It's pretty annoying at the moment trying to figure out which route.  Maybe there will be a surprise in the Canon DR and read noise deal.  I can't see them having had time to see what the D800 sensor was doing before the sensor for this was being made though, so I really really doubt it performs like that in those areas.  I can live without it though, however it's so tempting to switch.  If only the lens aspect wasn't a bit of a pain in the butt then.  But for someone thinking the 5D II was the best and only FF route for around $2000 within the past week, while staying Canon, this doesn't sound so terrible with the ISO boost to the 5D III level.  Sounds good.  D600 just trying to put on some blinders, potentially. 

103

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 6D Official Specs

« on: September 16, 2012, 10:42:53 PM »

Auto, 100 - 25600 in 1/3 stops, plus 50, 51200, 102400 as option

Guess that aspect is a clear upgrade to the 5D II.  As I look to go full frame without a focusing desire or frame rate, this kinda works for me. 

Compared to 5D II  Auto, 100 - 6400 in 1/3 stops, plus 50, 12800, 25600 as option

So I presume the sensor performance will be as good as the 5D III.  Is the D600 sensor going to be any better?  What I saw of images it didn't scream that it would be. 

I really want a 24mm F1.4L now on whatever full frame I get.  The problem is it doesn't look like I want that to be the Nikon version.  And given I already have a 100-400L.  I guess I'm going to wind up in the 'dumb group' that would pick the 6D over the D600.  Hmmm.  And if there's at least that difference in sensor high ISO ability to the 5D II I guess I don't want to really bother with that now either.  But holy crap do I want something right now though.  Sigh. 

104

Lenses / Re: If you can have ONLY 3 lenses, what would they...???

« on: September 16, 2012, 05:59:34 PM »

On crop the last several years I've had just 3...

10-22
50 1.8
100-400

Switching to full frame this week so, .....

100-400
Buying 24 1.4L II(glad to see that one listed so many times in this)
Third gets tricky if I can only have 3.  I want 24 for 1.4 night stuff, but it's still not wide enough for what I mostly shoot, storms.  It can be I guess.  But once I have the 24L with my 100-400L....the next thing I'd be interested in getting is likely going to be the 15mm Zeiss. Wish the 21mm Zeiss qualities were in the 18mm as I could live with that wideness for max wide lens.  So yeah, would probably bite on the 15 Zeiss. 

105

EOS Bodies / Re: Adorama is selling 5d3 for $2745 on eBay now

« on: September 16, 2012, 11:50:54 AM »

Annoying, been waiting all summer to go back to full frame and hopefully do so staying with Canon.  Finally get the money Friday but won't be in bank till Tuesday and just having to sit here and watch stuff like this lol.  "Cool 5D III price that makes more sense."  "S___, there it goes again."  It's most annoying that in reality it's hard to imagine that kind of price drop sticking in one go like this.  Soooo it would have been nice to hop on this.  Guess come Tuesday I just keep refreshing Adorama ebay lol.