October 24, 2014, 08:57:58 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 - unfocused

Pages: 1 ... 74 75 [76] 77 78 ... 146
Lenses / Re: History behind the white lens
« on: January 17, 2013, 04:40:03 PM »
...why is the 200 f2.8 prime black while the 70-200 f4 is white?

Not denying that some of this is marketing, but in the specific case above, the 70-200/4 has a fluorite element, while the 200/2.8 does not (fluorite is more thermally sensitive than glass).  But then...the 70-300L has no fluorite, nor do the 300/4 IS or 400/5.6 (although the 100-400 does), which is why I'm not denying some of this is marketing...

As usual, you know the technical specs far better than I ever will. But you also get my point. If I'm paying $1,300 for a lens, I want it in white and with a red ring, dammit!

Marsu- tak all the time you need- it's a big decision...

Thanks for understanding!

It is indeed a decision that should last for some time...

...Unfortunately, unlike in the US in Germany there are nearly no "deals" or "instant rebates", just the regular Canon rebates (more limited than in the US and not including the gear I want) or eBay EU imports that aren't much cheaper either...

Well, if I were you, I'd hurry, because it sounds like the rest of the EU is going to empty the pockets of everyone in Germany before too much longer. :)

Lenses / Re: History behind the white lens
« on: January 17, 2013, 02:10:47 PM »
From the source: http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/infobank/lenses/black_or_white_lenses.do
This is the correct answer .

I don't know, I kind of want to call b.s. on some of the official explanation.

I'm sure that the original purpose was as stated, but I'm also pretty sure that Canon uses white on lenses like the 70-300 "L" , 70-200 f4, and probably even the 300 f4 and 400 f5.6, as a marketing tool so us mere mortals can own a "white" lens.

After all, why would the non "L" versions of the 70-300 zooms be okay in black but the "L" version require white, when they all use the same aperture and why is the 200 f2.8 prime black while the 70-200 f4 is white?

Canon is a smart company. They know their white lenses are a good marketing tool and, regardless of the original reason, it's clear they are now using it for marketing purposes as well.

Lenses / Re: New EOS-M Lenses Soon [CR2]
« on: January 17, 2013, 10:26:13 AM »
That's right.... bash Canon for trying to make an inexpensive compact camera and not using a full frame sensor....

Do you realize what using a full frame sensor means......  it means that you need full frame sized lenses... remember the silly looking picture of the EOS-M mounted onto the 800/5.6 just after it was released.. that's the direction you head with full frame sensors.... large and expensive.

Let's all sing the praises of the FF sensor. They are better than APS-C... that's a fact and not debateable... but why not continue this discussion on to it's logical conclusion and skip past medium format sensors and go straight to large format sensors.... a large format sensor could be made that would anahilate the specs of any FF sensor. Ok, the camera and lens(s) would be insanely large, heavy, and expensive, and only the photo elite could use it or afford it, but the pictures would be better.... I used to carry around a 8x10 with glass plates....did that mean that every other film camera was a piece of S___???? of course not! Same logic holds with sensor sizes.

The reason for APS-C (and smaller) sensors is to make cameras of a size and cost that will appeal to the masses. It is a cost and ergonomics thing at the expense of image quality. A lens that covers an APS-C circle is smaller, lighter, and less expensive to manufacture than a FF lens. The vast bulk of people will never understand why you would pay $500 for a lens.... and $5,000 for a lens is unthinkable. these are the same people that buy hundreds of rebels and point/shoots for every "pro" camera sold.... these are the people that are paying for the R/D to keep new inovations coming, these are the people that are paying to keep the lights on at the Canon factory.

Next time you want to start a rant about something, think before you type.....

Good post with some excellent points. I would go a little further though: film technology was much more mature and improvements much more incremental. Thus, there were much larger differences between image quality in various formats.  Digital has narrowed those differences significantly. A properly exposed and processed APS-C image can easily be printed at sizes that would have been unthinkable with 35mm film of the same ISO.

So, while bigger may always be better, it isn't that much better and the differences are often noticeable only when pushing the envelope.

Finally, this "full frame or nothing" mentality reveals a mindset that puts superficial appearance over true quality of the images. There is no more influential and significant photographic work of the past 60-70 years than Robert Frank's "The Americans." Many of the images were grainy and the focus was certainly not razor sharp, yet the images changed the course of photography and continue to inspire and influence photographers nearly sixty years later.

If your main objective in photography is to produce a picture with no visible noise when enlarged to the size of a billboard, 40 stops of dynamic range and a millimeter of depth of field, you're missing the point of photography.

Lenses / Re: Question about variable aperture
« on: January 16, 2013, 10:22:43 AM »
Thanks Neuro: Does it mean that the 70-200 mk.ii could possibly do 70mm @ f/0.98 ? (200/2.8 = 71.4, and 70/ 71.4 = 0.98) Since the lens element is large enough?  So the lens potentially could be a Variable 70-200 f/0.98 -2.8L ? If they so chose to build it with similar glass elements?

Chuck Westfall answers that in the link above (the answer is 'no', BTW).

What Chuck seems to be saying is that they design it this way. Not sure it fully answers my question. Chuck is saying that the Iris changes (becomes larger when you zoom to 200mm) .... well don't make it go larger, just let it sit there at 71mm when we zoom at 70mm, not make it go smaller when we go to 70mm. I am sure it is not that simple as i made it out... but I am curious what happens if they do not vary the "virtual" iris at all?

Agreed, I read Westfall's response and I don't think he ever answers the question. He "explains" how constant aperture lenses work – sort of; but he doesn't answer the question posed to him, which seems to be: why not a variable aperture lens with 2.8 at the long end and f1 at the short end.

Canon General / Re: refurbished Canon 5d mk iii
« on: January 13, 2013, 06:32:33 PM »
You are asking a question that no one can answer.

No one knows what the re-sell value of a 5DIII might be in two-three years, refurbished or otherwise. Based on recent past, DSLR bodies depreciate rapidly once a new model comes out. Will that be the case with the 5DIII? Probably, but it depends on what features the 5DIV has or if you wait until the 5D V to re-sell it.

I don't understand why anyone cares about the re-sell value of their camera bodies. Camera's aren't investments, they are tools. When it's time to replace one, replace it. If you choose to sell the old body, you'll get whatever the market it commanding at the time. If you want to increase the re-sell value at that point, send it in to Canon before you sell it and have them give it a thorough going-over and cleaning.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 6D weatherproofness, tested.
« on: January 13, 2013, 10:38:15 AM »
As this thread indicates, cameras may be weather-resistant, but no camera should be considered stupid-proof. 

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: whats up with 5d2 used pricing?
« on: January 12, 2013, 02:23:46 PM »
as a 450D user I'm on the hunt for a good deal on a 5d2 or save for 6D or 5d3   

however I always see people selling bodies with 5-25K clicks attempting to sell the 5d2 for 1500 or even more, because they spent 2 grand on it a year ago. 

I dont think I'd pay more than 1400 with body and kit lens.   Is everyone crazy hoping we don't know what the market looks like or just hoping to find a sap.

First off -- the people who sell them can't sell them for more than people will pay. It is the buyers that determine the price, not the sellers. When I want to sell something like a piece of camera gear, I look on e-bay to see how to price it.  If I were to do that for a 5DII, I would see that they are typically closing between $1200 and $1600 depending on condition etc.  $1400 -- $1500 looks like the going rate right now.  I sold mine for $1350 to a friend and to arrive at the price I watched 10 e-bay auctions and took the average.  Then I subtracted the fees that I would have to pay and that was my cash price to her.

+1. I was going to say almost exactly the same thing. These days with eBay it is very easy to determine the market value of almost anything. Just watch for a week or so and see what the selling prices are. On almost any used product, whether it is cameras or anything else, there tends to be very little variation in price, unless there is something unusual about a particular item.

Canon General / Re: Canon Experience Stores Coming Soon [CR3]
« on: January 11, 2013, 01:29:27 PM »
I wonder what percentage of their sales will be Canon branded t-shirts, coffee mugs, backpacks and other souvenirs.

Go in, play with a lens for 15 minutes. Leave looking like a walking billboard for Canon.

I have three Canon CP-E4s and one super cheap "Shoot" brand clone.

Main difference is that the battery compartment door for the clone is a much tighter fit. I have to really push it down to get it to fit. Not a major deal but kind of a pain. The construction on the clone is definitely cheaper overall.

I have two big concerns with the clone, but only time will tell if they are legitimate.

1) I don't have 100% confidence it is always providing power to the strobe. There is really no way to know for sure I guess except by directly comparing the recycle and battery life of the two and I haven't yet done that. It seems to work fine, but really, how do you know?

2) Durability. The weak link in all these packs is the power cord. If it breaks or shorts out, you've got nothing. That's something that will become apparent only over time. I suppose someone might take a knife to the cords to see if the CP-E4 uses better wiring. But then you have a dead battery pack so I'm not going to do that. The only other way to find out is to use them for a while and see if the cords break.

I know this isn't much help. But here is my opinion: If you are using it for paying work, buy the Canon since it's not that expensive – $150 at Adorama. If you are a hobbyist and the battery pack's failure is not going to ruin a job for you, go ahead and get a clone, try it and see what you think. Don't buy multiples of either one until you've bought one and tested it out and decided for yourself.

Lenses / Re: Need an affordable 300mm
« on: January 10, 2013, 07:54:15 PM »
Okay, I've rented the 300 f4 along with a 1.4 extender, rented the 400 f5.6, rented and later bought the 100-400 L and also bought the 70-300 L.

Advantages and disadvantages to all and it becomes a matter of personal choice.

For all-around use, I would say the 70-300 "L" hands down. Very sharp, very fast (focusing), reasonably compact and superb IS. This is the lens I always carry with me when going out and think I might need a telephoto.

The 300 f4 was a nice lens, but I didn't like the lack of zoom and with the extender I liked the lack of zoom even less.

The 400 f5.6 is sharp and fairly light, but I did not like the lack of IS.

I use the 100-400 "L" for birds and other wildlife mostly. It is a very good lens, but it is just a little too heavy and clunky in comparison to the 70-300 "L" for a general purpose telephoto zoom.

If I had to have only one, it would be the 70-300 "L." With the recent price drops this lens is now just "way overpriced" whereas it was originally "ridiculously overpriced." :)


That is just so wrong.

Thats quite POV dependent, isn't it? Going by the feature list you're right; but as a photographer: getting more use/value from SBs then from their Canon counterparts when using Canon cameras leaves a funny taste...

 No, saying Canon hung 580EX II owners out to dry is not a fact, every feature of the 580EX II is fully supported by the 600EX-RT, I really don't see how anybody could class that as hung out to dry.

 Whereas you believing you get more value out of an SBwhatever with SU4 than a 550EX for around a $100 that has 95% of the functionality of the 580EX II is a personal POV dependent comment that would need to be evaluated on a per user level.

 Canon are not innocents in this though, I well remember when they changed lens mount from FD to EF, then we were hung out to dry, but it all worked out for the best, sometimes harsh love works and I am sure Canon spent a lot of time discussing that major decision. There is no doubt in my mind, now with the benefit of hindsight, that Canon did the right thing then. I get the feeling they have done the same thing with the inability to use the optical and radio at the same time with the new RT system.

I suppose we have to agree to disagree. My point is simply this. Canon chose to release half of a product. They released a transmitter and no receiver. There is absolutely no technical reason why they needed to do that. Indeed, Yongnuo, Pocket Wizard, etc. etc., all produce transmitters and receivers or transceivers that combine both functions.

Canon, on the other hand, chose not to release a receiver, only a transmitter.

This is not, in any way, comparable to complaining because Canon products are too expensive or that they failed to custom build a camera to one's specific desires. This was a calculated judgment call on their part not to offer a complete product to make their previous top-of-the-line product compatible with a new model.

Yes, I understand that the new strobe can be used with IR control. I understand that the same features of the 580EXII exist that existed before they released the 600.

Actually, referencing the change from the FD lens mount is a good comparison to make my point. Canon has acknowledged that they only changed the lens mount because they simply could not continue to use the same mount and keep current with technology. They did it reluctantly.

In this case, there is no technological reason they can not produce a receiver that would work with older model strobes. They just simply decided to sell only half of a product. And yes, that does indeed leave a bad taste in the mouth.

How about sell your PWs and 430, then buy 2 600s. 

Sometimes the first and simplest answer is the best.

I have railed on Canon in other threads for their decision to abandon 580EXII owners and I still think it was a shortsighted and ill-advised decision, but despite that frustration, I can't advise anyone with just one strobe to buy either another 430EX or a 580EXII.

Since you don't have a big investment in speedliites, you are better off just biting the bullet and switching to the new 600 RT. To do it right, you will probably have to quickly invest in a ST-E3-RT so you can easily and cordlessly fire both strobes off camera.

As one who owns multiple 580EX II's this isn't an economical solution for me. Instead I've opted for the Youngnuo 622-C transceivers. But, you are probably better off cutting your small losses and switching to the 600 RT.

...Pros: future-proof, best Canon has to offer in terms of features;...

Just one comment: one might have assumed that buying Canon's top-of-the-line speedlite (580EX II) would also have been "future proof" since it was hard to imagine Canon just throwing those buyers into the ditch. We were obviously wrong.

Canon made a conscious decision with the ST-E3-RT to release only half of a product (a transmitter without a receiver). They could have easily accommodated their customers by releasing a full product (transmitter and receiver) but didn't.  The moral of the story: no matter what you buy, it is only "future proof" if Canon wants it to be "future proof."

Intrigued? Yes.

Love the look of the X20. I'll wait to see what the reviews say. The X10 was said to have a fairly pathetic viewfinder. Supposedly, they've improved that. I've toyed with the X10 and the G1X. Neither has convinced me, but Fuji may be getting closer with the X20.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Cannot Keep Screwing It's Customers Over
« on: January 08, 2013, 10:33:48 AM »
I agree a good post but when new things are released no matter what they are you can expect to pay list.  Why do people have to be the first to own some new release?   The depreciation they see over the subsequent months is the price for wanting to be part of that club.  If you know full well that months later it will be cheaper why do it?

More to the point: Why do it and then complain about it?

Pages: 1 ... 74 75 [76] 77 78 ... 146