Messages

586

Lenses / Re: Any rumor about a new ef 400 f.5,6 L is ?

« on: September 14, 2011, 11:35:22 AM »

Consumer primes, especially on the telephoto side seem to be on their way out.   I have let a few friends use my 300mm f4 IS when we are out shooting together, and the first question they ask is "Where is the zoom?".  I think the current 70-300 is the best we'll see for a while.  (Don't hate me, this is not what I voted for, just what i think is happening)

That said, to those dreaming of a 400mm f4 IS, Don't forget, Canon already makes one.  The DO.  (A green ring for goodness sake, bleh!)  Not my favorite either, but do you really think Canon is going to come up with a $2000  400mm f4 IS, to sell next to their $6000 400mm f4 IS DO?

587

EOS Bodies / Re: *UPDATE* Art Wolfe Confirms the 1Ds Mark IV?

« on: September 13, 2011, 12:22:46 PM »

Finally we have proof.  Art Wolfe is a member of the illuminati.

588

Lenses / Re: 1.7x extender - just me, or would this be a great product?

« on: September 13, 2011, 11:43:44 AM »

I know the Nikon side of the house loves the 1.7x they have, any many recommend it as the only teleconverter you need.

I have a 400mm f2.8 and both the 1.4X and 2.0X converters (version 2).  I find I almost never use the 1.4X converter.  The gain is not worth the drop in quality.  For me 1.7X might be just the ticket, but would replace my 2X, not add to my collection.

589

EOS Bodies / Re: Art Wolfe Confirms the 1Ds Mark IV?

« on: September 13, 2011, 10:47:07 AM »

The naming structure of the Canons makes a slip like this way too easy.  And I have to agree, this would not have been the place for a demo.

590

Lenses / Re: 70-200 2.8 non is w/ 2x tele?

« on: September 13, 2011, 12:58:14 AM »

The 300mm f4 IS is ...So sharp you can crop to the view of a 400mm and have a better photo than with the 100-400mm

The 300/4 is a little sharper, but not that much sharper - comparing the 300/4 wide open to the 100-400 @ 400mm wide open, they deliver about the same resolution in both center and borders.  The 300/4 stopped down to f/5.6 is a bit sharper in the centers, but about the same at the borders. 

I agree that the 300/4 is a great lens, but really, it comes down to the focal length you need/want.  I wouldn't get a lens planning to crop most of the resulting images.  Also worth considering the intended subject(s) - for example, if you're shooting birds, most likely even 400mm will on APS-C will require some cropping, 300mm would require more and a correspondingly greater hit on IQ (which is why I sold my 300/4 and bought a 100-400 instead).  400mm is a break-point - a longer lens will cost you significantly more (or you'll take a hit on IQ with less expensive 3rd party lenses).

I don't have a 100-400 to compare to my 300 f4, but the resolution tool over at the TheDigitalPicture tool show the 300 to be much sharper than the 100-400 at 5.6, center mid and corner.  And the 70-200 2.8 looks really sad at 200, and 280, and 400 (with teleconverters)  And the 300 still looks slightly better at 420mm (with a 1.4X) than the 100-400 at 400 (both at 5.6)

I can't imagine why you you'd always crop a 300mm?  But I would crop if the composition could be improved.

The 400mm 5.6 has a good reputation, but I've never used it.  I am lucky enough to have a 400mm f2.8 IS from my office and that is an awesome way to go if you have the money and the back to carry it.

591

Software & Accessories / Re: To HDR or Not To HDR

« on: September 12, 2011, 10:24:05 PM »

HDR like anyhing else can be really overdone, or it can be really awsome.   I sell stock, and many of my images use HDR, but in a subtle way that does not stand out. 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/12047900@N06/3686579818/sizes/z/in/photostream/

592

Canon General / Re: 7d or Mark II for filming?

« on: September 12, 2011, 12:27:19 PM »

Hey guys, I did not say my 7d was great at focusing while filming, or that it would track fast moving soccer players, or F-18 fighter jets approaching at mach 2 for that matter.  I said it would focus while filming, and it does.

I thought it was interesting that it does this when the AF-ON button is pressed, but my 5DII does not.

593

Canon General / Re: 7d or Mark II for filming?

« on: September 11, 2011, 07:40:16 PM »

I'd buy a 60D now, and a 5DIII 6-12 months after they come out.  When they are a little off retail price.

My 7D will autofocus while filming btw.  You press the little AF-ON button and it focuses.  You'd never really want to use it  though because it's very loud and hunts a little before finding focus, but it does work.   

594

Lenses / Re: 70-200 2.8 non is w/ 2x tele?

« on: September 10, 2011, 11:33:23 PM »

The 300mm f4 IS is an awsome lens I think you should consider.  You loose the zoom, and you won't reach 400m, but you'll have alot of reach and super sharp photos.  So sharp you can crop to the view of a 400mm and have a better photo than with the 100-400mm or some combination of lenses and tele-converters.

The thing you have to consider with any teleconverter is will it produce a sharper photo than simply shooting with the same lens and then just cropping? 

595

Canon General / Re: 16GB CF PANIC!

« on: September 08, 2011, 03:01:34 PM »

I use an Application called Photo Rescue.  Has worked every time for me.

596

Lenses / Re: Good yet affordable telephoto lens?

« on: September 08, 2011, 11:29:41 AM »

70-200 f4 IS, and 300mm f4 IS are 2 fantastic lenses that you should consider depending on how long you want to go.

597

EOS Bodies / Re: Having Multiple Camera Systems

« on: September 07, 2011, 08:51:35 PM »

I have one overriding feeling when reading your post, and please don't take this the wrong way.

It seems that you want to go from a compact camera, to $4000 worth of kit to take "snapshots" of your family. That just seems crazy to me. If you have no interest in photography and learning how to use the kit to get the best results, you really wont see much benefit from having all that expensive gear! A 70-200 2.8 is a big beast, you wont be able to just pick it up and start taking great shots with it without and practice/experience, and if your not interested in photography per se, i would imagine you would get fed up pretty quick!

Agree with all of the above.  Going from Golf Cart to Ferrari will result in some serious crashes.  Also buying photo gear is not something you do in one shot every 5-10 years.  Buy one camera, get used to it and figure out what you need next.  I'd recommend a 60D + 18-135mm kit lens, plus a fast 50.  Then give yourself time to think about what you want next.  Carry around a cinderblock in your camera bag for a month before buying a 70-200 2.8 II.  It's that heavy.

598

Lenses / Re: wide angle lens

« on: September 07, 2011, 08:42:15 PM »

If your goal was just to go wide I'd say Sigma 12-24mm II all day long. 

599

United States / Re: MACRO EF LENS VS CLOSE UP LENS

« on: September 07, 2011, 09:45:44 AM »

this should complete my set of lens...

A lens collection is never complete.  There is always just one more that you need.

Good choice on the 60mm. 

600

EOS Bodies / Re: Why don't Canon update their bodies?

« on: September 06, 2011, 08:28:36 PM »

No, what we need is a massive wave of Blog posts and forum threads that will torment them into sharing their precious new DSLRs. Don't go outside and shoot with the cameras you have.  That's just playing into their hands.

An interesting idea, but I have a better one. Since Canon is purposely holding back all this incredible new technology just to torment a handful of people posting on forums, the best way to spur action would be for everyone to quit posting. That's right, instead of whining about how Canon HAS TO release a new model or you will Absolutely be SWITCHING TO NIKON, just quit posting.

When they see that you no longer care, it will bring them to their knees and they will be forced to immediately release all the super-secret technology that they have developed but which they absolutely refuse to put into cameras because...well because you are so important that they feel the urge to deny you the camera that will make your life complete.

That is just crazy enough to work!  Or, you are Canon spy....  Hmmmm  which is the more reasonable theory (Discard that one) Canon Spy!