July 25, 2014, 09:57:32 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 - LetTheRightLensIn

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 219
Lenses / Re: Year of the lens....a joke....?
« on: July 15, 2014, 08:48:17 PM »
I've been holding out for Canon's supposed 50mm IS and possibly even an 85 IS.

We're over half way into 2014, I just may have to buy glass from a different manufacturer :/

Any word?

16-35 f/4 IS makes it the year of the lens!

EOS Bodies / Re: Eos7D mk2, How EXCITED will you be if . . .?
« on: July 15, 2014, 03:03:36 PM »
Latest rumor suggests that the big new sensor tech for 7D2 is all about a radically improved dual pixel AF that will be completely revolutionary but was also 100% silent on any talk of actual image quality improvements (an earlier rumor hinted that the next FF might be the one to focus on also improving IQ). But who knows, these sources may all be garbage.

Latest rumor out mentions that the dual pixel AF will have a radical, ground-breaking update and that that is basically what the new 7D2 sensor tech is about and not so much about still image quality improvements at all.

Another rumor from weeks back hinted that the 7D2 will introduce some new tech and that the 5D4 will get the rest (that one implied more image improvements for the 5D4). Who knows.

Maybe 7D2 gets the new dual ISO instant read per pixel (ALL pixels) thing? And 5D4 that plus multi-layer sensor in late 2015?
Or maybe 7D2 gets enhanced dual pixel AF and 5D5 gets dual ISO read per pixel (NOT the ML stuff that has issues, true, dual read of each and every photosite) in late 2018  ;D.

Why dual ISO, instead of just reduced read noise? All dual ISO does is work around a read noise problem. I know Canon already has several read noise and dark current noise reducing patents, some seem quite effective. Dual ISO is a workaround that ML discovered and implemented, because current Canon cameras have high read noise.

If Canon would just reduce their read noise, then we wouldn't need dual ISO...the problem with noise and DR would be solved directly.

ML didn't discover it. It was already suggest years ago on DPR by E.M.
Who knows what proves easiest for them to implement.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 1.4x II vs EF 1.4x III
« on: July 14, 2014, 02:19:17 PM »
I actually own the 1.4II, the 1.4III and the already mentioned Kenko Telepro. I could do a field test with the three, but am too busy for that. But I can say that the Kenko is the best value for money. It has even an advantage over both Canon extenders and I wonder why nobody ever mentioned that: It doesn't add barrel distortion. The 1.4II does it and the 1.4III does it to a lesser extent. But the Kenko performs best in this area. The Kenko has the added advantage that I can use it with my 70-300 L and my 6D and not lose autofocus. I use the 1.4III with my 600 L IS II to have a better autofocus performance and also because Digital Photo Professional has lens correction data for this combo, which of course isn't the case with the Kenko. But if you have the 1.4xII consider the Kenko, it might save you quite some money!

It depends as to whether the distortion is an advantage or not. The Canon TC were designed to give inverse distortion to some of the super-tele I believe. So end result might potentially be less distortion with the Canon TCs paired with the pariticular super-tele each was most aimed at.

Maybe 7D2 gets the new dual ISO instant read per pixel (ALL pixels) thing? And 5D4 that plus multi-layer sensor in late 2015?
Or maybe 7D2 gets enhanced dual pixel AF and 5D5 gets dual ISO read per pixel (NOT the ML stuff that has issues, true, dual read of each and every photosite) in late 2018  ;D.

I have to admit that I'm getting hopeful that we may actually see something like this in a Canon camera ;-)

If they can get it right (OK, big IF), it has the potential to make quite an impact.

I also recall the flurry of patents before the 7D came out ;-)

Hard to say. There are so many issues with multi-layer sensors. Maybe they have done a lot more in secret and they are ready, but, OTOH, it could just be a very slow work in progress and they may just be protecting things for 10-15 years out (or much longer if some aspects prove too hard to overcome), for all we know.

Anyway I guess we will known by next spring at the latest and maybe this fall, if lucky. And then it will be interesting to see how it performs on the chance it actually is ready.

Canon General / Re: Colombia
« on: July 14, 2014, 02:26:47 AM »
I would not walk down the street alone with a lot of photographic gear. :-\ In fact, when I travel to potentially unsafe cities, take my cheaper camera with a zoom lens. :-X

+1. I carried a 5Dc and 40mm in the streets of NYC. All logos were taped up.

Much of NYC is filled with tourists and locals with fancy cameras all over the place. Big lenses, white lenses, you name it.

And taping up logos solves nothing anyway. Like in Jurassic Park when he asks "Is it heavy? Yes? Well then it's expensive, put it down." so someone sees a camera and lens and they are like OK if it's big, it must be expensive, logo means little.

It will be a 1D Mark V in a 7D size body, hence the change to 1Dx because it is full frame.


Lenses / Re: Canon EF 1.4x II vs EF 1.4x III
« on: July 13, 2014, 01:32:30 PM »
I plan to use the teleconverter on a 400mm f2.8L IS II and 1DX, 5DIII, etc.

I shoot a lot of sports, so fast and accurate focus is important. You don't often get a second chance. The speed and accuracy is supposed to favor the 1.4x III. I've seen the claims that it's faster, but no numbers to back them up and the 1.4x II works quite well.

For this particular application I am not too concerned about the corners. Sharper corners is better, but not a priority.

To my eyes, looking at the center and mid-frame, this comparison on tdp favors the 1.4x II, but they are close. Unfortunately, they don't have a comparison, using the 400mm. I guess it could be my eyes, or maybe tdp the setup needed a bit of AFMA. That's why I am hoping to find more examples.


$200 is not a lot of money in a relative sense and I'll probably bite on the 1.4x III, but am just trying to make an informed decision, before I commit.

See now this is why I always say that I take TDP with a big grain of salt. They have the 1.4x III clearly looking worse wide open on that lens, but that sure does not match the findings of most others. At worst, it should merely look the same, not so clearly worse in the center and middle of the frame.

Anyway Canon says the III offers improves AF precision used with 400 2.8 II. I can't recall if that was for one shot only for for AI Servo too.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 1.4x II vs EF 1.4x III
« on: July 13, 2014, 01:29:16 PM »

Since you are using it with a II lens.... don't hesitate.  I don't have a number to back up my claim, but the VIII Tele is a world of difference with regard to AF speed and responsiveness over the VII TC.

Yeah, with a super-tele Mark II only, Canon does claim that it offers better AF over other TCs. Haven't verified it myself, but I will be glad to do so if someone gives me their super tele mark II (to keep).

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 1.4x II vs EF 1.4x III
« on: July 12, 2014, 11:42:51 PM »
Can anyone here provide photographic comparisons between the Canon EF 1.4x II and EF 1.4x III that actually show the EF 1.4x III is really as sharp or possibly better that the EF 1.4x II?

I see all sorts of claims that say the 1.4x III is slightly sharper and has higher contrast, but I have yet to see a photographic comparison that actually proves that.

I looked at the comparisons between these two teleconverters on the digital picture for both the 200mm f2 and the 70-200 f2.8 IS II at 200mm. In both cases I believe the 1.4x II is actually sharper and higher contrast, regardless of the conclusions they drew.

I already have a 1.4x II but am considering a second 1.4x teleconverter, since I frequently carry two or three bodies. I was leaning to the 1.4x III, but I have yet to see any comparison or claims from Canon that would convince me to spend the extra money.

I think I posted a careful test chart here a long while back.

III is just slightly sharper center frame, but you have to look hard at 100% or even 200%, it's really pretty close

it is definitely sharper at FF edges and corners and has much less CA there, maybe like 3x less (although this sort of CA does correct pretty well in RAW programs)

the kenko teleplus dgx pro 300 is pretty good, just a touch worse center frame and edges than the III and i'd dare say better than the II (I have never tested the kenko yet for sports type AF though, no idea how it handles that compared to the canon tcs which are designed to adjust af precision) since it definelty has better FF edges and corners than the II

Canon General / Re: Dragonfly, Powered by Canon Lenses
« on: July 12, 2014, 04:00:34 PM »
pretty cool

hope it brings some good results

Cool, will get the IS 4.

70-300 is not sharp enough at wider end and I don't need 300mm for anything.

My 70-300L was sharper than my 70-200 f/4 IS at 70mm. Photozone gets same result too.

Even my Tamron 70-300 VC was sharper at 70mm than 70-200 f/4 IS (70mm is the weakest point of the 70-200 f/4 IS), even if that was not the case everywhere else along the range.

70-200 f/4 IS had the least lateral CA at 70mm, but was also, oddly enough, the least sharp of the three for me under ultra careful testing (tripod, remote release, 25' to target, constant indoor lighting, best of 8-12 liveview 10x zoom attemps trials for each lens at each aperture).

70-200 f/4 IS was the sharpest of the three in the middle range of the zoom

70-300L was the sharpest at 185mm and up (although the 70-200 f/4 IS wasn't too far behind 185-200mm, the difference was much more noticeable over 200mm, with the 1.4x TC III on the 70-200 f/4 IS to let it get over 200mm).

Both 70-200 f4 IS and 70-300L are very good optically. Tamron is shockingly close at the edge, but actually it is in the center frame where it doesn't always have quite the same bite and sometmes has more halation and such.

I know TDP shows the 70-300L and Tamron doing badly at 70mm and the 70-300L only doing OK at 200mm and up and the Tamrom doing hideously, but those were not my results, nor those of Photozone and many others. It looks like he dropped his Tamron before testing and I really don't know how he got 70-200 f/4 IS+TC to look better than bare 70-300L. Maybe copy variation. Some say they have the 70-300L do relatively better in comparison to the 70-200 f/4 IS in the mid range and not at the extremes, so that may be copy variation, but it seems much more common the other way, with 70-300L doing relatively better at the extremes and worse mid-range, seems to me about 80% get the latter results and only 20%,if even and probably less, the other result.

I've seen several topics here previously about insuring your gear against theft or damage and I'm sorry I can't find that thread for reference.

I went to a State Farm agent and requested a quote to cover my inventory that totals about $45K. They sent a proposal for $850/annually which is much more than I recall hearing from other shooters here.

Who are others using for insurance?

Thanks again for your help. This is better than Dear Abby.... ::)

I pay state farm ~$150/year for $11k.... $150x4 is $600..so seems like a little much. I have a personal article policy (not for business) that covers everything except for war and vermin. I will note that it was kinda a hassle to get everything insured though, as you might expect they want receipts and some other form of proof of purchase. They even wanted an appraisal, but I got them to settle for the aforementioned documentation. Thankfully I have not needed it yet, but contrary to what others have said, if I lost, broke, or had a $1k piece of gear stolen I would file a claim....though I might think twice about filing a claim for something worth only a few hundred. I suppose the threshold of when to file a claim depends on one's financial state.

yeah same here, his State Farm price seems very high unless it was for professional coverage

although maybe if you are living in the middle of the hood or on some fancy beachfront that has a big hurricane risk, perhaps the rates can go crazy though?

the S.F. policy is nice since it's totally unattached, covers loss for ANY reason (and anywhere too, be careful as some policies will pay zilch if you break or have stuff stolen on vacation) with zero deductible

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 219