April 18, 2014, 12:33:52 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 - Etienne

Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16 ... 34
EOS Bodies / Re: Fixed Lens APS-C camera - What would you buy?
« on: July 24, 2013, 03:35:37 PM »
35mm FF-eq.  Thus, I now have the EOS-M + 22mm f/2.  :)

I just received mine today from the original $299 deal. B&H sent me the kit with the speedlite 90EX ... Bonus !

If Canon comes out with a nice little 15mm f/2.8, I'll have everything but the swivel screen  :). I sure would like a swivel screen, maybe the EOS-M II, if it comes, will have a swivel screen.

EOS Bodies / Fixed Lens APS-C camera - What would you buy?
« on: July 24, 2013, 03:29:24 PM »
I would like a pocket camera with an APS-C sensor and a sharp and contrasty fixed FF equivalent 24mm f/2.8 lens, and a swivel screen.

Would you buy one of these?

What fixed focal length would you want? FF 16mm, 21mm, 24mm, 28mm, 35mm, 50mm , or greater?

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Deal: EOS M w/22mm f/2 STM & 90EX $399
« on: July 24, 2013, 02:48:06 PM »
I had one of the backordered B&H orders in and it arrived today ($299 deal).  I was pleasantly shocked when I pulled the little flash out of the box - they sent me the kit with the flash!  That was a very nice little upgrade on what was already a fabulous deal

I finally received mine today from the original $299 deal ... and yes, they sent me the kit with the speedlite 90EX .... Bonus !

Lenses / Re: Patent: Canon EF 50 f/1.8 IS
« on: July 24, 2013, 10:51:45 AM »

IS is always nice, but in this case I can't see it being worth what Canon is likely to charge for this lens. I'm honestly confused by this lens. For photographers, it's appeal is extremely limited to me. It probably has the biggest appeal to people doing video.

Hmm, disagree.  Video has a couple of things going for it..

1. Minimum shutter of 1/30th.  More likely to be 1/50th or 1/60th for most users.  Largely negates the IS of a stills lens.  IS for video and IS for stills is quite different.  We don't know how aggressive or how reactive the IS will be.  On a better handycam format camera IS can be set in different modes, on traditional camcorders it isn't present at all.

2. In anycase most serious video users would have the camera supported in someway.  Anything over 30s becomes a pain to handhold.  Again, largely negating the benefit of IS for video users.

It seems you don't shoot video. Shooting at 1/30, 1/60 or 1/4000 does not improve eliminate shake in video, but IS cuts it down quite a bit.

Hand-held video is common even on big budget films today. Eliminating the micro-shakes improves the look quite a lot. The camera on a shoulder brace with a 50mm with IS is great on FF, and even more important on a crop.

Lenses / Re: Patent: Canon EF 50 f/1.8 IS
« on: July 24, 2013, 12:54:17 AM »

ps- these "why IS?" arguments is think is ludicrous. IS helps. THAT IS ALL.


I am sick of hearing the "nobody needs IS" crap. Nobody "needs" power windows, but it sure is nice to have.

Canon General / Re: Canon Testing a 75+ Megapixel EOS-1 Body? [CR1]
« on: July 21, 2013, 04:57:55 PM »
that's a lot of pickles

Lenses / Re: EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM
« on: July 21, 2013, 04:45:35 PM »
Etienne, that's exactly how I feel (the gun shy, time intensive bit, though I do love the lens that much).  I know someone with a 5D III, so I may see if I can borrow theirs for a day to test it on that.  If it's just the body/lens combo, then I don't have any problem with that.  I've been meaning to upgrade to a 5DIII as soon as I can afford to anyway.  Do you find the 16-35 can do the same beautiful things that this one can do when shooting people though? 

LetTheRightLensIn, I'm glad to get that feedback from you, because that's kind of what I'm thinking; that this is just a lens that doesn't marry all that well to the 7D.  However, several people on here have said the same thing about the 5D II, although we all know about the AF on THAT body...  Unfortunately, the issue in this case is that it is distinctly INconsistent front or back focus.  It just doesn't hit where it's supposed to the same way each time, even if the conditions are completely perfect.  So because of this, Micro Adjustments won't help at all.  It's so bizarre.

What really throws me for a loop is that under the exact same testing conditions, the 100mm L Macro prime tested 100% perfect.

I'm interested in what you find with the 5DIII - 24 1.4 combo.
wrt 16-35L 2.8 II ...  it's my most frequently used lens. Obviously you can't get to f/1.4 but you can get to 16 mm and 35 mm. It's a bit soft at 2.8 on the edges, but an extremely versatile lens. You'd be surprised at how many top photojournalism shots are made with this lens.
I have the 28 2.8 IS, and I'm thinking about the 24 2.8 IS. These are really nice light little lenses that are sharp at 2.8

Lenses / Re: EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM
« on: July 21, 2013, 03:55:49 PM »
Standard, I most certainly appreciate you input, and don't think you're a nasty wasty criticizer.  I'm glad to have your input as a user of both full frames and the 24.

Viggo and Etienne, good to know that you two have both had similar experiences, and interesting to note that you, Etienne, noticed the problem on the 5D II.

I'm pretty frustrated with the whole experience really, because no other lens in the canon line (other than the TS 24, which isn't what I'm looking for) can do what this lens can do, and that just so happens to be what I WANT it to do.  I'd like to get a 16-35, but the lack of the 1.4 aperture is what keeps me from doing so.  I wonder if I should just try to acquire another copy, or if I should just abandon the idea of this wonderful lens altogether?  What a sad thought that is... 

Does anyone know if I were to send this lens back to Canon if they could fix the problem or replace it?  My date code seems to indicate that the lens was produced in September of 2010, so by that I would imagine it's out of warranty, though I still have the warranty card...  How could Canon be aware of this problem and not do a recall, or issue a new version of the lens?  Seems a little silly.  Every single site I go on seems to have reviews that reflect this problem....

If that particular lens is really important to you, why not try another one?
I may try again now that I am using 5DIII, it's just that I'm a bit gun shy at the high price and the time it takes to evaluate and trade until you get what you want. I'm using the 16-35L 2.8 II now.

Software & Accessories / Re: photomatix merge to HDR help
« on: July 21, 2013, 03:39:11 PM »
I think Trey Ratcliff recommends noise reduction first ... the HDR process tends to add a lot of noise.

see stuckincustoms.com/hdr-tutorial/

Lenses / Re: EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM
« on: July 21, 2013, 03:29:11 PM »
Standard; whereas I understand completely where you are coming from, are you implying that sitting it on a table with a single autofocus point, on a single subject, with mirror lockup, and a wireless remote shutter with no variation in the settings is poor technique?  Then how is it that the EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro under the exact same conditions produces FLAWLESS results every time?  Whereas I understand that it's a bit of a chore, I'm not sure that you read my whole post...  I love the 24, I really do, I'm simply confirming many people's suspicions that something is inherently odd about the lens.  My question is whether it's isolated to the low light performance of sub 5D bodies.  Seeing as you have two different 5D bodies, and yours performs perfectly, my theory remains thus far upheld.  Now I understand that bad lens copies do exist, but this lens produces beautiful results for me.  It just only seems to want to do it consistently under better lighting conditions, and this is the first time I've ever experienced that with any lens.  I just think something is odd about that.

I had one and used it on my 5DII. It focussed well under about 6 feet. However when focus distance was greater than 6 feet it was really unreliable, regardless of the light. I sent it back and never tried another one.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Fantasy Dayhiking Kit
« on: July 19, 2013, 08:58:25 PM »
For day hiking? How about a 5DIII with 24-105L f4 IS.

If you see a particularly awesome scene that you want to get perfect, go back later with the right gear.
If I was going to take two lenses, it would 16-35L 2.8 and 70-200 2.8. Much heavier, but more options.

For really light hiking, a point and shoot, like EOS-M with 22mm f/2

Canon General / Re: POLL: Satisfaction Level With Canon products.
« on: July 18, 2013, 06:00:53 PM »
Canon products are pretty damn good, but quality control is not always the greatest.
I've had to send several items back because of stuck red pixels, one body with a bad LCD screen, and one body had a bad lens mount.
That's too many faults for the number of items I buy, in my opinion.

When everything works as advertised, they're great.

5DIII is a great all-round camera, but of course I could be tempted to upgrade.
Smaller and lighter, improved DR and high ISO performance
Improved video performance with features like focus peaking, false color, really good AF.

To be honest, I'll probably add a crop body to my 5DIII, and/or C100 mark II if it's really good. Pretty happy with stills, but could use improvements in video area.

The ML team deserves our support. They are brilliant, and bringing really useful features to Canon users!

In practice, if you want to achieve the same depth of field on a crop as FF, you need to open the aperture on the crop camera by 1.3 stops.

In practice, it helps to give practical advice.   ::)

If I am shooting with my 85L II at f/1.2 on my 1D X, then I mount that lens on my EOS M, please tell me how, in practice, I can achieve the same DoF by opening up the aperture on the crop camera by 1.3 stops?   ::)

I understand what you mean, but it might help to phrase it the opposite way...

Of course you can't open past max aperture. That's why some people buy FF - crop cameras can't get there (super-shallow DOF).

If you prefer: to get the deeper DOF of a crop on a FF camera you need to close the aperture by 1.3 stops on the FF camera.

Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16 ... 34