March 05, 2015, 11:25:41 PM

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 - tapanit

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5
Software & Accessories / Re: Changing over to Arca Swiss HELP!!!
« on: February 03, 2014, 03:00:08 AM »
I switched out my RRS lever clamp for a Hejnar screw clamp on my small tripod after the second RRS lever clamp I bought began acting as badly as the first
Would you care to be more specific about how they began acting badly?
A side note on lever clamps: they can be finicky with the camera/lens plates used as they have to be built to tight tolerances--usually they only work with the same brand plates +/- one or two other brands.  Mixing brands can lead to headaches.  Hence you may want to buy a screw clamp.
Yes, except compatibility isn't guaranteed even with screw-on clamps. :-(

I've got two RRS clamps on two different ballheads, an old one (bought almost as soon as they started to make them) and it still works just fine but (as advertised) only with RRS plates, and a brand new one, which is slightly different and clamps securely with every plate I've tried - including one that most screw-on clamps I tried won't hold (it's too narrow).

A recent dpreview ballhead comparison tested their clamps as well, might be worth a read.

Lenses / Re: EF 400mm f/5.6L IS on the Way?
« on: December 30, 2013, 07:34:23 AM »
+1, no wobble on the 100-400 or 28-300.

Nor do I have any dust in mine after three years of use.

I hope the push-pull stays - makes it really fast to zoom, and allows you to lock the zoom at the long end or anywhere in between (whereas zoom locks on recent/most rotating zooms only allow locking in retracted position).

Agreed. I've not dust I can see in my 100-400 after... what, almost 13 years by now, no wobble whatsoever, and I really like the ability to lock the zoom at any position. And it is indeed faster to zoom than the more usual twist mechanism.

EOS Bodies / Re: Another 6D v 5D3 body battle...
« on: September 05, 2013, 03:36:45 AM »
I had the same choice and went for the 5D3. For me the decisive factor was AF, not for sports but for nature photography, where effective tracking with multiple AF points helps a lot. Another factor was interface similarity with 7D (earlier I'd found 60D UI very hard to get used to, and the 6D is similar) - and unlike some commentators, I've quite happily used 5D3 and 7D side-by-side, usually with wide-angle lens in the 5D3 and a tele in the 7D.  Yes, 5D3 IQ is better, but in good light 7D is qood enough for me - and in focal-length limited situations with long lenses the crop factor helps.

So: If you've used and like the multi-point AF modes of 7D for tracking moving objects, you'll be be better off with the 5D3. If you can get along with center-point AF only and don't care about differences in ergonomics, go with the 6D.

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Information [CR2]
« on: August 05, 2013, 06:39:57 AM »
Once you owned 5D III, your 7D will most likely sitting in the bag & collecting dust - or end up on CL.
Mine doesn't. It has been demoted to "second body" position though, but I use two bodies often enough, and the 7D complements the 5D3 quite well. In particular I like it that their ergonomics are pretty similar - much more so than between 7D and 60D I used before. And sometimes 7D *is* better, in particular it has longer burst length, and in good light the extra reach is sometimes actually useful (well, just about enough to offset the generally better IQ from 5D3), so that a shorter lens (24-70, say) in the 5D3 and a long one (100-400) in the 7D make a good combination.

I would still be interested in 7D mk2 if it had sufficiently better IQ, especially with high(ish) ISOs, that it would produce visibly better pictures than the 5D3 in focal-length-limited situations. Better AF, higher fps and longer bursts (with raw) would also be appreciated. Everything else, like WiFi and GPS, would be icing on the cake - nice but not important.

EOS Bodies / Re: 70D or wait for 7D MK II?
« on: July 02, 2013, 03:06:44 AM »
As a 7D owner, am curious for input on if I should wait for a 7D Mk II or just go for the 70D. The 70D does have some interesting features, especially the highly touted AF system, but I worry if I upgrade now the 7D Mk II may be far superior with the same AF system, dual DiGiC 5s, and probably even higher FPS shooting (as a sports photographer that's important!). While I can wait, I can't wait forever. Probably til the end of the year? Anyone know/think they know when the 7D Mk II will come out?? Should I wait?
I will wait - but then I've already bought a 5D3 and delegated the 7D as the 2nd body (moving up from 7D+60D), and one key feature where 7D is better is burst length, and 70D is worse in that respect. I'm also addicted to the custom modes, and the 70D only has one, like the 60D (5D3 and 7D can be customized similarly enough to make switching between them a breeze).

Given 70D specs and price, I expect there will be a 7D2, with 7D-level customization, higher fps and bigger buffer, better AF (with optical viewfinder that is, probably same in live view), weather sealing (but maybe no flexible LCD or touch screen), maybe dual card slots. I hope it will *not* have integrated vertical handle, though; if it does I'll probably skip it.

As for when, who knows. The 70D should be available in August; I would be surprised if the 7D2 is announced before that, but I guess it just might be timed to hit Christmas market. But I wouldn't bet on it, could be well into next year as well.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 70D Announced
« on: July 02, 2013, 02:36:18 AM »
I think this spells the end of 7D sales, and the resale value of the 7D should also take a big hit.

The only thing the 70D gives up to the 7D is  1 fps (8 fps vs 7fps).

Burst length is also shorter (presumably mainly due to bigger file sizes).

It also loses pretty big in ergonomics: only one custom mode, much less customizable buttons, no joystick. Having used 7D and 60D side by side I find the latter much clumsier and slower to use.

If the image quality and high ISO performance is good. (which is the 7D's biggest weakness, so it isn't hard to beat it), it is game over for the 7d.
Could be. But it is missing enough of the high-end features (customizability, weather sealing) of the 7D it clearly leaves room for a 7D2.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 70D Announced
« on: July 02, 2013, 02:27:43 AM »
360 degree mode dial. That'll please some people  ;)
Not me though. I like the stop in the dial in the 7D, as it makes it easier to use it blind (with eye in the viewfinder), mainly switching between the three custom modes. In particular moving to C3 is very easy, just move it as far as it goes.

Reviews / Re: Why I Chose a Canon EOS 6D over a 5D MKIII
« on: June 05, 2013, 09:53:36 AM »
Just as a point of information for those who have recently got a 6D or are considering one.  One significant difference from the 5D line in terms of operation is the zoom functionality.  I found it a little difficult at first, and still on occasion lapse into the other way of trying to magnify.  The 6D actually has a good, logical system after you make the mental switch.  To magnify, hit the zoom button and then you can use the scroll wheel near the shutter to zoom in and out.  It actually is smoother than button mashing, but it is very different from other bodies and takes some mental adjustment.
That's exactly like the way 5Dmk3 behaves, too. The difference isn't between 5D series and 6D but between earlier models vs. both 6D and 5Dmk3.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 6D vs. 600D with good lenses?
« on: May 27, 2013, 03:29:52 AM »
But generally people don't choose the 5DmkIII or 1DX because of financial limitations - and needing to keep sufficient funds for decent glass.
Yes. If money is no object, go with FF. But APS-C cameras today are also amazingly good today, and the price differential is substantial. I've been shooting with APS-C for a decade or so (when did 10D appear?), last four years with 7D, only getting my first FF (5D3) this year, and while it is clearly better, I have no regrets about not doing it earlier.

In particular, I like the EF-S 17-55 very much, and given your comments about your budget that's what I'd get, with whichever crop body (550D or newer) you can get cheapest - image quality won't change much (if you shoot raw - jpeg engines are better in newer ones). I'd prefer the 60D because of the top LCD and even more because I'm addicted to the back wheel, but for most people it doesn't matter so much. (The 7D is superior mainly if you shoot fast-moving subjects, like wildlife or sports.)

But what suits me might not suit you. Given a limited budget, with APS-C you can get more lenses (and accessories like tripod and flashes) that will cover wider range of situations, but image quality will not be quite as good as with FF. If you are one of those people who only want perfect pictures rather than wanting at least some kind of picture in wildly varying circumstances, you might be better off starting with FF; especially so if your main game is low light, because that's where FF advantage is biggest.

Lenses / Re: 17-40 f4 L discontinued???????
« on: May 12, 2013, 11:13:49 PM »
Hi All,  If you look at all the other Canon "L" products you will notice all the prices are above $1000.00 or more.  The Canon EF 17-40mm f4L is priced at $839.00
The 70-200mm f/4L (non-IS) is even cheaper ($629 at B&H). I believe it is also still selling very well, despite of the existence of the IS version.
Canon may want to make few more American dollars, add IS, and raise the price to $14-1500.00.  My two cents.
Canon certainly wants to make more dollars, but I don't think they would do that by replacing the 17-40/4L with something much more expensive - rather that'd be likely to benefit Sigma, Tamron & Tokina. If the 17-40 is to be discontinued, I'd expect a substitute without IS and only slightly higher price (under $1000). If they decide to make an IS version, which would be interesting, it's likely to be offered alongside the non-IS version, just like the 70-200 lenses are.

PowerShot Cameras / Re: Best Point & Shoot that will fit in a pocket?
« on: April 28, 2013, 10:57:09 PM »
I'm going to get a Ricoh GR as soon as it hits the shops:

Now I'm using Ricoh GRD 3, and the only complaint I have with it is poor high ISO performance of the small sensor. The new GR promises to fix that. An obvious alternative is Nikon Coolpix A, with very similar specs (a bit thicker, very different user interface - I love Ricoh's UI).

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 60d or t5i, your help?
« on: April 24, 2013, 05:18:18 AM »
My wife uses 650D (4Ti?) even though I offered her 60D as well (my backup body), simply because it's smaller and lighter. Your (and your wife's) mileage may vary, but I'd ask her handle both before making a decision.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 100D Detailed Specs Appear
« on: March 18, 2013, 11:54:24 AM »
"Lens Features: EF-S 18 – 55mm f/3.5 – 5.6 IS zoom lens"

"Lens Focal Length(s) 35mm equivalent 18 – 55mm (with included lens)"

If those are correct, it's a full-frame body.
Somehow I don't really think so, but if it were...

Lenses / Re: Is your midrange gear insured?
« on: February 18, 2013, 01:29:13 AM »
I insure nothing. Regardless of how high the risk is, I'm sure the insurance companies have figured it out better than I could, and if it's profitable for them, it can't be for me, in the long run.
On a grand scale, for long-term you're correct.  On a realistic scale though, it comes down to risk tolerance.
Of course. I wasn't arguing nobody should take insurance, only explaining why I don't. Mostly it comes down to mental risk tolerance, rather than financial - how you feel about uncertainty.

I also travel a lot and take chances with my gear. I've traveled in places where I was told "robbery is near  certainty", and I have once destroyed a DSLR by slipping on a rock while crossing a river (an L lens also got wet but was fine after cleaning). But no regrets: I've done the math, and if I'd consistently insured my photo gear over the 15 years (at the time) I'd been using SLRs it would've cost me way more than replacing that body did.
I am not an insurance company that can afford to "write off" the capital loss.  For an insurance company, it makes sense to insure me, I'm likely 100% profit.  But to me, the cost is worth it.
Then by all means pay it. For me, it isn't, so I don't.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5