Messages

526

Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: Next Canon Flashes With Exposure Based on Color Temperature?

« on: November 20, 2011, 08:12:34 PM »

With todays flash, you get one temperature of light from the flash, and another from the ambient light.  Your foreground and background will then have different light temperatures on them making color correction difficult, even from the RAW photo.

So... a flash that could mimic the color of the ambient light, would mean foreground and background could then both be corrected with the same fix, or the camera could do it automatically.

Sounds very high-tech, and like the kind of thing I would never use.

527

Lenses / Re: prime vs. zoom

« on: November 19, 2011, 03:22:47 PM »

70-200 on a crop sensor camera like the 60D is a very long lens to be your only lens.  So I have to say option 2.

528

Canon General / Re: hello, and another request for suggestions

« on: November 19, 2011, 11:53:49 AM »

Opinions:

1. If the money is not a significant deal breaker, buy the 7D, it's awesome.  A pro sports camera hiding in a pro-sumer body. 60D is a great choice too, and it does have that cool pivoting screen.

2. Put your question for the forum at the beginning, and in the title.  Seriously, not to be a jerk, but your subject needs to be something like "60D or 7D for Aerial photos."  You will get more and better responses. 

3. Lenses are more important in this equation than bodies.   You should be looking at a 70-200 2.8. Canon's are great, new or used as are Sigmas.  Choice is as much a $ question as anything else.

529

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

« on: November 17, 2011, 01:16:49 PM »

I'm amazed at how many of you change/acquired so many lens and cameras in such a short period of time.

I wish I had that luxury 

There will always be somebody with a newer/more expense camera and lenses.  The key is to outshoot that guy, out sell that guy, or at least have more fun than that guy depending on why you take photos.

Me I buy a new camera when I have the money, and the improvement warrants it.  That was every 12/18 months for a while, but now I've had my 5DII for 3 years, and it is still awesome.  I think progress in DSLRs has slowed, and there is less need to upgrade, but in the end it comes down to want/need and the avaiablility of $$.

Do what you can to buy low and sell high though.  I minimize my cost by ussually buying used, especially with lenses.

530

Lenses / Re: Canon 28mm f1.8

« on: November 17, 2011, 09:29:25 AM »

Without opening the debate, I am one of those people who shoots without UV filters all the time.  I say protect your lens with a hood when shooting, a lens cap when not.

For a bag, i am rally a fan of the Lowepro Sling bags.  I have a 200 and just moved up to a 300.  I bought the 300 used on eBay for $44, but can't tell it from new.  The 200s are great, i just needed a bigger bag.  Lowepros lifetime guarantee is awesome, and the hideaway rain cover can save your gear.  They have replaced 2 bags for me for free, no receipt required.

531

Lenses / Re: 300mm F4L IS

« on: November 17, 2011, 09:00:15 AM »

As with the comments above, love it. Macro ability of the lens is a serious plus.

532

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

« on: November 17, 2011, 08:29:16 AM »

I also think the answer is no, but I think the answer is in the Canon's approach.  That is that Joe six pack consumer wants to buy a zoom, and canon fills that need quite well.  Canon also has Sigma and Tamron to contend with in the consumer arena.

Also, super teles while awesome are made for a very small market.  To make one for crop cameras only would be an even smaller market.

And last, I think the pro-sumer who will spend $$ on a lens, may be shooting 1.6 crop today, but has his/her eye on FF in the next camera or 2, so EF-S lens purchases, especially high $ ones are not likly.

533

PowerShot Cameras / Re: The Future of the G Series

« on: November 12, 2011, 01:21:54 PM »

It would be great to see some real improvement here.  I had a g11 as a 2nd camera and it was great, but each new G in the last 5 years has been less of an improvement. 

534

Canon General / Re: Got a problem...

« on: November 12, 2011, 01:02:18 AM »

It needs service.  Find a friend in the USA/Canada to send it in for you.   You can probably send it to the service center , and just use their address.

Actually, are you sure it covers only the USA and Canada?  That does not seem right.

535

Lenses / Re: Does a lens hood reduce the light?

« on: November 11, 2011, 05:04:39 PM »

OK guys, you are taking one thing I said (out of many), changing it dramatically (dropping my if...), then saying you disagree.  OK you win, that thing I never said, I disagree with it too.

And you got me on the flare/flair thing, (though creamy white Canon lenses do have both) but that's not a corollary, it's a contraposition.  And it's not what i said.  Arguing against something that I did not say is hardly straightforward.

So mreco99 use the damn hood.

536

Lenses / Re: Does a lens hood reduce the light?

« on: November 11, 2011, 10:15:58 AM »

The only point of contention is your assertion that the lens hood prevents all flare regardless of zoom position.

I am not sure how to argue this because that is pretty much the opposite of what I have been saying.

Here's the thing, unless your shooting with a pinhole camera and the pinhole is size .00001" you cannot make a perfect hood.  The lens people keep bring up here is the 70-200 f4, which has a round hood.  And I have yet to see a petal hood for any lens that is not squared off on the top and the bottom.  So none of these hoods are close to perfect at even the wide end of the zoom.  They are a compromise in size/shape etc.

In every post I've made here my advice has been use the hood because it will help, and if you need to, even add a gobo. (hand/hat gobos are cool too Rocky)

And the reason I've been stating this is because the original poster here seems on the fence of whether to use his hood or not.  My advice: use the hood (and maybe a gobo).  Lots of other peoples advice here: "So, hoods protect mostly/only at the wide end of zooms." Or some longer version of that.   Which does not seem too encouraging to the OP.

537

Lenses / Re: Does a lens hood reduce the light?

« on: November 10, 2011, 09:02:44 PM »

To be fair, I think @texphoto is pointing out that in a zoom lens such as a 70-200mm the lens hood limits the angle of incident light to the front element the same regardless of the internal positions of the zoom mechanism.  This much is true.   However, he's not correct in his statement (I'm paraphrasing) that the zoom position doesn't matter at all.  Clearly, at 200mm the front element is being exposed to a far greater angle of incident light than will be in the field of view of the lens which is how flare is created

You guys are missing the point entirely. If you are shooting a 70-200 zoom, and you have the stock hood: you have 2 choices:  Use the hood or don't.   Which of these 2 choices will better control flair at 70mm? Using the Hood.  Which will control flair better at 200mm?  Using the hood.  In fact, if the hood is preventing all flair at 70mm, I will guarantee there is no flair when zoomed to 200mm assuming no other changes.

Now if you want to argue that you should not use the hood you have because a theoretical 200mm only hood (that you do not have) would be better than the stock hood, then you are right from a theoretical standpoint, but wrong from a reducing flair/practical/not just being difficult standpoint. Now if anyone here owns a 200mm only hood for their 70-200, I will... eat a bug/admit defeat/ etc  Whatever.

538

Lenses / Re: Does a lens hood reduce the light?

« on: November 10, 2011, 04:06:04 PM »

Even if the hood were designed to perfectly fit the edges of the image, and zoom as the lens does (a few do this, Canon 24-70 2., it would not protect 100% fom flair. 

Hoods provide some protection from flair, not 100%, but it is a whole lot better than none.  A gobo can still be useful.

The hood of a 70-200 is shading the front element exactly the same amount at 70 vs 200.  So it makes no sence to say  hoods protect mostly/only at the wide end of zooms.

539

Lenses / Re: Does a lens hood reduce the light?

« on: November 10, 2011, 12:14:20 PM »

As long as you have the right lens hood, it will only improve the photo.

It is possible to put the wrong a hood onto a lens that will vignette the photo, but as long as you use Canon's or a good knock off, you'll be fine.  And you'd see that in the viewfinder anyway.

Lens hoods also provide some measure of protection in drops and bumps.  I highly recommend them.

540

Lenses / Re: 400mm 2.8 L (non- IS)

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

That is a shame, but good you did not get something you did not want.  Think about a 300mm f4 IS as a way to get your feet wet in the long side of the L world.  I kept mine after getting my 400, and it is a great little brother.