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.
The Japanese Yen has fallen considerably in value in recent months. Japanese exports should therefore be much cheaper now for buyers, so why are Canon prices remaining so high? I'd love a new Canon 5D mk III but current MAP limitations are keeping prices high and stopping me from buying.
When zooming in, you are literally pulling your camera away from you and when zooming out you are pushing your camera into your face. Plus, I had to change the way I hold my camera. I usually zoom using a finger on my left hand while cradling the lens in my palm...this wasn't possible with the 100-400. I shoot in manual mode and I'm constantly changing aperture and shutter speed along with continually moving my focus point around the viewfinder. This technique is second nature to me, but the push/pull zoom was very distracting and I know I missed shots that I wouldn't have missed. I just wasn't as fast with that lens.
In the end, I wasn't willing to change the way I shoot to accommodate one lens. I hope version II of the 100-400 will have the traditional zoom. I would buy it in a heartbeat.
You are aware that there is a tension/friction ring on the barrel that lets you adjust the amount of friction needed to move the zoom position, right? If I need to zoom fast I back it off a little so the zoom action is fast and easy
For MF I like the fact that your hand stays in the same position on the barrel (next to the focus ring!). Also, as the lens gets longer your left hand automatically stays on the long end of the barrel which helps to stabilise the lens.
Just another opinion. I love the 100-400 push/pull
Hi nda, what is the need behind upgrading, is it aesthetics, ergonomics or mechanics, eg like body, rear lens caps, where early ones are said to create more dust?
Cheers, Graham.
These are much easier to remove with hood attached. It's a pain in the #@& to reach inside the hood of a 70-200 and take the non-pinch lens cap off. Won't matter to most, but it has me cursing myself often.
That's a much easier solution than the stack of 10 UV filters I've been using to get the side pinch cap closer to the hood opening...
Hi nda, what is the need behind upgrading, is it aesthetics, ergonomics or mechanics, eg like body, rear lens caps, where early ones are said to create more dust?
Cheers, Graham.
Look for plates and L-brackets from Really Right Stuff
http://reallyrightstuff.com/Items.aspx?code=BodyCanon&key=cat
http://reallyrightstuff.com/Items.aspx?code=LensCanon&key=cat
Here is another clamp to use with a BR strap and Arca-swiss plates. I haven't used it, but looks like it would be the quickest transition from hip to tripod:
http://acratech.net/product.php?productid=86&cat=3&page=1
Thank you all very much for your helpful suggestions. It is interesting to learn that many photographers have encountered the same practical issues and that many of you have come up with your own inventive solutions. Looks like there's some room for manufacturers to come up with improved alternatives!
Right now, I am just taking pictures of books. I want the camera for the best still pictures there are. I went on Sigma's site and saw that pictures there were significantly better than what my camera produces. I want that same quality.
I have a 18-55mm and a 55-250mm. Both Canon. I am pleased with both. I am not a specialist in cameras though.
Well we know there are a number of factors that affect the quality of a picture besides the camera, such as lenses, camera supports, lighting, post-production, and sheer technique.
It can be argued that comparable IQ can be delivered by all current Canon FF cameras under a wide range of conditions, so you can consider the Canon 5D mkiii and even the 6D if you're mostly taking pictures of static objects.
If you go into a FF camera, one thing that will need to upgrade is your lenses. Your EF-S lenses won't work on any Canon FF camera, and better lenses may be needed to deliver top IQ anyway. As you upgrade consider the EF 24-70mm mkii, a 70-200mm tele to replace the 55-250mm, and perhaps some primes regarding your needs.
Are you serious that those two lenses will not work on the DX1?
I apologize for quote about pros and gear abuse. It's obvious there are different profile of work and personalities, so generalization was too broad.
My comment did come from discussion with pro that does lots of industrial/journalist photo, and when expensive factory line is stopped so he can take pictures, he has no time to willy-nilly position himself and be careful with equipment...
Obviously, many other pros don't have that kind of demands.
Yes, it does depend. I generally find, and as many would expect, that pros that use their own equipment take better care of it, than those that are using the office equipment. The office equipment, like at a newspaper, is what generally gets abused the most as it gets used by so many different people.
On a slightly different tack, I was wondering what the old lens is like? I need a zoom of this range for animals and sport moving toward and away and I've missed a few shots with the 300 prime. The prices seem ok, used top quality ones are a decent price. Best buy one before the price changes. New one will be a bit sharper, better I.s and lighter but way more expensive and for what I need the old one seems good enough. So is it any good? If not any alternative zoom? It's the wide range and a zoom I need.
Interesting read on it. I wouldn't expect a replacement that soon in this case however. Remember, the 1D4 directly replaced the 1D3. That was not the case this time. In Canon's own words, this was to also replace the 1Ds3, although we know it did not really do that. I would expect at least 32 months again, if not more.
MtSpokane, thanks for your words of wisdom. It turns out you're not telling me anything I don't already know. I disagree with your sentiment that they all work the same way. The object of noise reduction, is not to blur detail. It is to preserve detail and eliminate noise. They certainly do not all work the same way. Some are better with chrominance, others with luminance. If all they did was blur detail, then we could get the same results by simply applying softening to the image. The results are not the same at all, though. So for you to assume there will be no further advancement in noise reduction algorithms, or approaches, is rather absurd and wrong-minded. No offense. You might as well just suggest that deleting the image would be the simplest and best way to clean it. There's always a better mousetrap. As for changing to a better performing camera, I'm already planning to add a terrific one to my tool collection. But as a fan of low-light photography, and shooting at ISO higher than the base level...new noise reduction is especially interesting to me. Since noise reduction does not interest you, perhaps you need not even waste your time commenting.
