August 20, 2014, 09:22:29 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 ... 20 21 [22] 23 24 ... 39
316
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 70D Next to Be Announced
« on: June 27, 2013, 12:20:01 PM »
This rumor doesn't excite me. I'd like an APS-C for reach and second body, but I'm in no hurry. My next DSLR will have to have IQ at least on par, preferably better than, my 5DIII. So maybe the 7DII will deliver. I hope Canon takes the time to get it right.

317
A friend of mine has the 6D. The battery drains overnight even with the power off. He sent it to Canon and they upgraded the firmware and then said that they could not reproduce the problem.

It worked properly for a couple of weeks, but now it's doing it again. He can't leave the battery in the camera without it draining in a day or two, even with the power switch shut off.

Has anyone else heard of this problem?

PS... too late to return it.

318
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II Mentioned [CR1]
« on: June 24, 2013, 03:31:18 PM »
I'll probably get the 35 f/2 due to it's smaller size and lower weight, if the price drops.

Other than that, I'd rather have a new and improved, cracking sharp 16-35 f/2.8L III, 50 f/1.4 II (L), 50 f/1.2L II, or a really good 20mm f/2.8 (L), a 135mm f/2L IS II that can take teleconverters, a 200 f/2.8L IS II that can take teleconverters ... In that order. The 35 f/1.4 II comes after all these for me.

319
Lenses / Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« on: June 24, 2013, 12:50:28 PM »
About 18 months ago, when I really started investing time reading lens reviews, it was pretty much unanimously stated the the 70-200 f/2.8 II was the world's sharpest zoom lens.

6 months or so ago, the 24-70 II f/2.8 was considered a contender to that crown with some reviewers stating it IS the world's sharpest zoom.

Last month, the 200-400 f/4.0 became the latest to be spoken of in such terms.

Imagine the new 14-24 f/2.8 rouses similar reviews.

So with 4 lenses, you could realistically cover the 14-560 range with potentially the 4 best zoom lenses in the world.

The whole set would probably cost ~$20,000 - can the average participant on this forum fork that much cash for lenses?

I'm sure there are a few photographers on this forum can spend that much cash on lenses, and justify it as well, personally I'll be very happy to be able to add the 24-70mm f/2.8 II & 14-24mm f/2.8 to my collection.

Drop the 200-400 out of that, and you've still got 14-200 covered, which is probably all the average participant on this forum really needs... are there people who need more than 200? Absolutely. But if we're talking averages... Not to mention I don't think there are enough 200-400s in existence to give one to everyone on this forum...  ::)

The new 100-400 IS may also be super-sharp. I'd add that in place of the 200-400.

320
Lenses / Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« on: June 21, 2013, 09:13:41 AM »
I am most interested in an improved 16-35. Sharper, less distortion ... smaller and lighter would be great too, even if it has to be 18-28

321
Lenses / Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« on: June 20, 2013, 04:26:24 AM »
I guess I'm the odd guy out here, because I don't get the interest in 16-50 at f/4 over 16-35 f/2.8 even with the IS.

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE image stabilization, and I like it on the new 28 2.8 IS. But f/4 does nothing for me, especially in the longer focal length; f/2.8 give me a lot of extra light when I need it.

The 14-24 could be interesting if it doesn't flare like the 4th of July as it does in Nikon-land. Otherwise I am only interested in replacing my 16-35 2.8 II ...  IF version III is significantly better, and the upgrade doesn't kill my bank account.

I'm with you there! The problem with the Nikkor 14-24mm lens is that there is a very vocal group who keep telling every one that it's the best wide lens ever....and yet filters are a pain. The curved front element is very prone to damage and even water drops seem to get magnified on it. Sure it's image corners are sharp wide open, but it's not a lot greater than mose wides when stopped down (ie landscapes). It flares badly due to the bulbous front element and the angular distortion is quite high at 14mm. I don't really see much photographic value of those extra 2mm over the far more versatile 16-35IIL.

The 16-35IIL is a little dated as a design. Newer coatings would be good and less CA. Sharpness, well it's OK but I'm sure Canon can coax a little more line resolution out of a re-design. The thing I love about the 16-35IIL is that it is so versatile. It does so much so well. If I need a wide lens I can rely on...its a 16-35IIL.

I had a 17-40L for a few years. It was very nice and almost the equal to the 16-35IIL optically, except the f4 and focal range. I really liked this lens but I needed the extra stop. I used to have an ef-s 10-22mm, which again was very simular. Not as bright but again very simular to the 16-35IIL. I'm sure the extra focal range will be welcome by many although not the revised entry price I'm guessing! I don't really see the need for an image stabiliser on a wide lens. Although a lot of people will be using this lens on a 1.6x crop...so I guess it makes a bridge lens for 1.6x to full frame migrators. on a 1.6x crop it's an effective 25-80mm, quite a nice range.

Given that all of Canon's recent lens releases have been steller (I think everything AFTER the 50mm f1.2L have been amazing optically), I'm sure these two new lenses will be remarkable.

+1

Agreed ... the 16-35 II is extremely versatile. It's very resistant to flare and possibly the only UW zoom that can get a decent shot even with the sun in the frame.

Of course I wish it was better in some areas. I wish that with every one of my lenses. But at the end of the day, it's the best, and most versatile, UW zoom available for Canon FF today, including the Nikon 14-24 with adapter.

Still, I hope they release a new, sharper, smaller, lighter version III with even better contrast and lower CA's.

322
Lenses / Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« on: June 20, 2013, 02:56:54 AM »
I guess I'm the odd guy out here, because I don't get the interest in 16-50 at f/4 over 16-35 f/2.8 even with the IS.

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE image stabilization, and I like it on the new 28 2.8 IS. But f/4 does nothing for me, especially in the longer focal length; f/2.8 give me a lot of extra light when I need it.

The 14-24 could be interesting if it doesn't flare like the 4th of July as it does in Nikon-land. Otherwise I am only interested in replacing my 16-35 2.8 II ...  IF version III is significantly better, and the upgrade doesn't kill my bank account.

323
EOS Bodies / Re: Patents: New 50mm, 85mm & 135mm Lenses
« on: June 15, 2013, 11:02:40 PM »
Sharp, great-contrast 50 1.4 with IS and I'm in!

324
Lenses / Re: Review - Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II
« on: June 15, 2013, 10:57:15 PM »
There's a reason why so many award-winning photojournalism shots are made with this lens: it is extremely versatile.

Sure it can be soft at 2.8
You don't have to use it 2.8 for everything, but 2.8 is available when needed.
It's pretty good at f/4 and 5.6 and above it's quite good.
You can shoot directly into the sun, and get a decent picture. Try that with the Nikon 14-24 or the Tokina 11-16 (on APS-C). It's almost impossible to avoid a direct light source when using UW lenses.
It's my most frequently used lens, and the best option for UW zoom for canon FF.
I love mine and wont give it up unless Canon releases a version III that is significantly better.
I would even take a 18-28 2.8 if it could be sharper, smaller, and lighter, but a UW prime is too limiting for my taste.

325
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 DC Available for Preorder
« on: June 14, 2013, 01:00:33 PM »
I don't recall seeing a f1.8 zoom until now :o


How about 6-60mm F/1.6 for US$410? Or 8-48mm F/1.2 for US$460?

It's all a question of image circle diameter and back focus length, and it's about time that crop camera users get to take full advantage of their smaller sensor and mirror.


You forgot, for a 1/3". :D    And that's a F1.6 lens.  I don't think you can compare that F1.6 lens on a 1/3 sensor to a F1.8 lens on a 1/1.6 sensor.  That's F1.8 at almost twice the sensor area.


Actually APSC is about 10 times the sensor area of a 1/3 sensor

326
Lenses / Re: Is the 16-35 L II worth its price?
« on: June 05, 2013, 08:59:34 PM »
The 16-35L II 2.8 is my most used lens. YMMV

It is great inside cars, trains, buses, planes, boats.
I think it is the best general purpose wide lens available for Canon.

btw ... a lot of amazing photojournalism shots have been taken with this lens.

327
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III with Continuous RAW Video Recording
« on: May 13, 2013, 09:29:39 AM »
Great news ! ... my 5DIII has an even longer, and more productive future!

aside ... why doesn't Canon hire these guys (ML), and blow every other brand out of the water?

328
PowerShot / Re: A New Large Sensor PowerShot Coming [CR1]
« on: May 08, 2013, 03:05:08 PM »
Why change the form factor? The s110 is finicky. They should keep the nice big dials and buttons even if the body needs to be a little larger

329
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Handicam, lens or other?
« on: May 06, 2013, 05:08:59 PM »
Audio ruins most low budget films.

Get off camera audio: Zoom H4, Tascam DR40, or even Zoom H1N. Spend a lot of attention on the audio.
Zoom H1N with cheap lavalier mic (I think olympus has one for $20) on talent works really well.

Rode videomic is crappy on a boom pole, it will pick up every little movement of the pole. Get the Rode videomic PRO; it doesn't pick up boom pole sounds, big difference.

Premiere CS4 will crash constantly and frustrate you to no end in editing. Get at least CS5. CS6 is great!
Plural Eyes will sync the multi-source audio.

330
Quick question for anyone:

How long did the firmware upgrade take?

thx

Pages: 1 ... 20 21 [22] 23 24 ... 39