Messages

211

Lenses / Re: Lenses for crop AND full-frame bodies (starting up my photography business)

« on: August 28, 2012, 09:36:23 PM »

With all the choices available....my God, its a wonder how we made any money at all shooting with a Hasselblad and three lenses, non of which were overly fast, or zooms.   The few product shots got done with a Cambo in 4x5 with a old Nikkor 210, and there were a few Nikon and/or Canon 35mm with 28mm lenses for receptions and conventions.   A couple of 283 flashes, a slave eye, a bracket, a small card for "soft" and that was it.

Too many choices today.  Harumph....

212

EOS Bodies / Re: The final firmware update for the EOS 5D Mark II?

« on: August 28, 2012, 08:50:05 AM »

Dont hold your breath.  Canon did what they did for marketing reasons.  The 5Dii is a dead man walking.
That said....i love mine, just got another!

213

EOS Bodies / Re: AF Focus Point on 5D Mark II...

« on: August 27, 2012, 07:17:21 PM »

Almost anyone coming from a APS-C sensor camera will notice the reduced DOF on a FF body

214

Lenses / Re: When are Canon going to revise the aged 20mm F2.8 ?

« on: August 27, 2012, 06:14:37 PM »

I just wish they'd improve the POS lens hood that attaches to the front of the 20/2.8

Why have it:

a) turn only about 3/8 inch between "falling off" to "totally on" ?

and

b) have no lock or detent whatsoever, so the slightest amount of handling is likely to cause the hood to turn, thereby cutting off the corners of the image on FF

My 24-105L has a great locking hood - similar design too.  If they could do it on that lens, they could do it on the 20.

215

EOS Bodies / Re: What will happen to 5Dii prize when/if entry full frame (6D?) is announced?

« on: August 27, 2012, 06:10:02 PM »

Can't say if there will be a new FF "entry camera". 

Can say - the 5Dii is already all but discontinued.  Canon's way is not "officially" retire a model until well after their own stocks have been depleted and then more time, to allow dealer's shelves to be depleted.  They have always, with maybe one exception, done it that way.

As for a "6D", you wont see that number in Canon's nomenclature for a single digit camera.  Never has happened since day one.  Its always been 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, not necessarily in that order. 

I think the long rumored 3D is getting more likely every day.  Maybe we'll see that as the "killer" and the 5Diii move down some more.  Thats another thing that Canon has done traditionally.  I think they're at mid level bloat right now... low end should drop some more, mid level spread out a little and/or be trimmed. 

Canon has had very predictable marketing - for the most part - its just what feature set they'll offer thats up to being questioned.

I can see them doing a 5Ds (or similar suffix other than "X"), as a lower end 5 series, but not a 6 series, or sensor upgraded 7 series.  The niches Canon carves are carved deeper in stone - traditionally - than you might realize, unless you have followed the company since the late 60's.

216

EOS Bodies / Re: Funny thing happening across the camera world

« on: August 27, 2012, 12:22:13 AM »

Either Canon is really good at keeping secrets, or they are asleep at their wheels.

I think you'll find that Canon keeps the secrets it chooses to.  In the past Canon has actually put out distraction/false information to throw the competition off the trail.  I think you'll find... historically... when Canon is tightest lipped, the story is going to be bigger.

217

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D MK III Focus Hiccup

« on: August 26, 2012, 09:16:08 PM »

I'm having occasional problems with my 5D2, same thing.

I'm almost positive its the CF card.  Take out the card, reseat it, and its good to go again.  I've got my camera set for being able to shoot only with the card in place.   Next time it happens, I'm going to change the setting before I reseat the card... see what happens with that.

218

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Focus issues - a different analysis

« on: August 26, 2012, 09:09:57 PM »

Live view is from the sensor... its always good.

The focusing screen is for crap in almost all modern SLR's.

To focus accurately on the screen, the screen must be EXACTLY perpendicular to the sensor, and the mirror must be EXACTLY at 45 degrees.  I have set up Nikon F's and F2's to be critically in focus at any point on the screen.  It is not an easy task.  Those mirrors had adjustments, and the screen was 4 point shim-able.  With a film camera its even worse really, because the film did not lay against the inner rails on any film camera (no matter what they hyped at you).  It would be sort of flat the long way, but across the film from sprocket hole to sprocket hole, you got a wavy curve of a film plane... flat on the plate about 1/3 out from center in both direction, but bowing toward the lens in the center and edges.... but I digress.

Cheap cameras, back in the day, were made with the screen more or less at a 90 degree angle to the film, and the adjustment was made for CENTER focus by tilting the mirror in production (or repair). 

Compare that today's autofocus sensor, which must be aligned with the sensor (and lens) and the mirror must be dead on in two ways... and oh yah... you want the screen sharp too?  That is a very complex piece of alignment, and its no wonder why you see problems in top to bottom focusing.   That is, top focusing points, not matching the bottom.  Any wee little bit of misalignment at any point... its gonna get you a problem.  Factor in stacked tolerances... its a problem.

I'd personally not trust the screen on any mid-tier or entry level digital SLR...  it would be total luck to get one that was truly aligned.

219

EOS Bodies / Re: I love Primes.

« on: August 23, 2012, 10:53:00 PM »

This past Saturday, I spent about two hours comparing my 28/1.8 versus the 24-105L.

When you shoot the 28/1.8 at f/4, you get sharper corners, better corner contrast, better flare control, less CA by a huge amount, and from what I can tell... pixel peeping.... at least the same sharpness and contrast and "snap" in the center regions, as compared with the 24-105L.  Done with a 5d2.

So, it doesn't have to be L glass to be really good.  And granted, the 24-105 is not really to die for in image quality either (though mine is very impressive on the long end).

I can also say, that my 300/4L (non-IS) is as sharp, contrasty and snappy as my 50/1.4, assuming the 50 is stopped down to at least 2.8

The L glass is spectacular though... I'm lusting for a 35/1.4, but I'll probably succumb to a 16-35/2.8 instead.

220

Animal Kingdom / Re: Ribit!

« on: August 23, 2012, 10:46:18 PM »

No offense, but thats some nasty bokeh you got in that last shot....   I like the shot though!!

221

Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: What size Softbox

« on: August 22, 2012, 11:51:08 PM »

Any box will be a huge help.

I use a 12x16 on camera for weddings.  Have also used 16x20 on camera back in the Hasselblad film days (alas).

The idea of a softbox is twofold.  First, you transform the light from a point source to a more broad source.  Secondly, you're taking the specularity and making it much much less. 

Try a softbox (or two or three....) for table top work.  Amazing stuff there.  Take a regular flash, and use it for macro, and it becomes a more broad source automatically, when placed very close to the subject at high magnification.

The box in your link will give you a huge transformation of the quality of light you're gonna get.  There is really no right or wrong when you're still a good distance from the subject.  Getting close, on large subjects... then you have to worry about big boxes.... similarly when you need an exceptionally broad source.

222

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: What would you do?

« on: August 21, 2012, 11:38:09 PM »

What would I do?

Probably have a beer, or bourbon if the mood suited me.

Relax, they're a quality outfit that made a mistake.  If they weren't quality - you'd have tossed them aside years ago.

The F'd up.  Let them fix the problem, and relax!

223

Canon General / Re: Adorama issues anyone? Ever try to return a product?

« on: August 21, 2012, 11:34:38 PM »

Four whole hours.... wow.

Been dealing with Adorama as preferred vendor #2 since the mid 1990's.  Used to be Calumet #1, then B&H #2.  B&H moved up to #1, Calumet got dropped (too many mistakes... sending wrong items, short dated film, etc).  Adorama took the #2 spot.

Never had an issue.  I think I've only had two returns on items - nothing wrong, just the item wasn't as I thought it would be.   One was an EF lens, I can't remember which.  OTOH, I'm very careful about preserving packaging when opening a shipped in item.  I know I might want to send it back - rare but it happens, and having worked photo retail for a decade, I can appreciate doing the return guys a favor, and avoiding hassles for myself in the process.

B&H also got a lens back once, and I can't remember anything else from them. 

Mistakes happen - when they happen with regularity - such as Calumet sending VPL instead of VPS (we're talking 5 bricks of pro-packs at a whack... wrong stuff... and more than once!  And thats just an example...), then you switch vendors.   

If you treat your (quality) vendor with respect, you'll receive it back from them.  I avoid schlock-houses at all cost, no matter the deal or promise.

224

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 3D X [CR1]

« on: August 21, 2012, 05:25:09 PM »

Past experience with Canon suggests, no such thing as a 6D, or 4D or any even number for a single digit camera.  Won't say it can't happen, just its out of place in their corporate thinking.

The film line had the EOS-1 line, then the EOS-5 (A2/A2e), then the EOS-7 (Elan), then the EOS-3.  That has been their pecking order as far as numbers, and sequence go.

As you recall, the "1" was top dog, even without having all the latest greatest features in every feature category.

The "5" line brought eye control and fast (for its time) 5fps shooting.  The "7" line had superior focus, and the EOS-3 had all the bells and whistles, but wasn't quite pro-level in build.

I expect the same to be true of the EOS 3D.  Higher pixel count... sure.   I'd expect something more though.  Maybe something like integrated GPS and/or integrated WiFi, and/or integrated wireless flash triggering.  Canon's way as been to include some "nifty" stuff on the number 3 in the lineup.  I would be surprised if they disappoint this time around.

As the EOS-5DmkII sells off, and along with competition, probably more price drops - OR - instead of a 6D, you'll see a 5Ds or 5Di or something like that in the name.  Its Canon's way.  So, if there's an "entry level" full frame, expect it to have a 5 in its name, with some other suffix after it.

I see an EOS-3 selling in the sub $4500 league to start, getting sub $4000 rather quickly thereafter.

225

Lenses / Re: 100mm F2.8 macro vs 100mm F.28L IS macro

« on: August 16, 2012, 06:09:05 PM »

I have used both.  The L is the better of the two optically, but by only scant margins, as the non-L is deadly sharp as it is.

Is it worth all the extra money... hmm.

You get a hood with the L, and I think the hood is about a $40 item.  You get a case with the L, again some cost with that.

The rest is the IS, and better build quality.  The non-L is not built badly at all.  The old non-USM one... er... not as nice, it grows with focus etc.  But the USM non-L is a fine lens.

I would not justify the expense on the optical quality alone.  If you can justify the IS... then by all means, its worth it. 

The only thing similar I have is the 24-105 (similar focal length at 105), and find with some effort and deliberate concentration, I get sharp results fairly easily at 1/40-1/60 range of speeds.  Keep in mind macro shots - very close - you're shooting darker due to magnification, and you also will show any motion blur more easily.

If somebody said - you gotta do the rings, but cant use a tripod, I'd use a monopod - which would be up to the task in almost all cases.