Messages

121

Lenses / Re: Do you still love 24-105L?

« on: April 25, 2013, 06:36:42 PM »

It's good for what it is. I never loved it and always regretted not buying the original 24-70 instead when it was still available and only very little extra money. The results are certainly more than "good enough" but I never liked the f/4 limitation which makes it actually not a versatile lens for my preferences. I rarely ever leave the house with just the 24-105. It's good for studio style portraits though or anything else where you'd stop down anyway.

+1  My sentiments exactly, for the same reasons. I've said in several posts on CR that I like it but I don't love it.  It's the only lens I have that I don't love...

I decided today that mine is going up for sale.  I just don't use it near enough.  Hmm, I think I've only locked it on my body 3 times... 24-70mm is definitely in my immediate future... Hmm, May even be willing to give that new Tammi a try...

122

Lenses / Re: Budget lens for birding ?

« on: April 23, 2013, 11:01:01 PM »

The push me pull me is a dust hog. Birding is field photography ergo I find the 400 prime a better selection.

The "dust hog" or "dust pump" nonsense is just that - a silly internet myth propagated by people who have never actually used the lens.

If the OP is planning to buy a newer lens, he shouldn't worry about getting a "soft copy" - the early problems with quality control were cleaned up about 10 or 12 years ago (this lens has been in production since 1998).

Why would people lie?  I heard that the 100-400mm and the 17-55 were dust collectors.  I don't have any experience with them, but I do stay away from them because of the rumors.  Of course I have spent a ton of cash on other lenses... so it's not like I'm missing out.

So you might have missed out on using great lenses because of those rumors.  The rumors did their job! 

I had the 17-55 for about five years, and it gathered a few specks of dust that I could see, but nothing that would qualify as a "dust pump."  None of the lenses are air tight, so dust can get in any lens.  If you have questions about a particular lens, it's more accurate to get informed opinions from those that have used the item.  The internet has many opinions and a lot of them are wrong or not representative of the collective user base.

I wasn't interested in the 17-55 because I knew at some point I was going full frame... so that was NEVER on my radar screen.  As for the 100-400... I just don't like the pump... it's wholly irrational, but it just doesn't appeal to me at all.

I quite honestly didn't like the slide action of the 100-400mm either.  I bought it because that was the only way it came and I needed the flexibility out in the field to go back to 100mm or 200mm without changing lenses.  The 100-400mm served that purpose.  A little MFA on both my bodies and it's been a wonderful lens and a joy to use.  I got used to the sliding telephoto action quite easily and I've never regretted the purchase, although I had a lot of doubts when I ordered it, due to the sliding barrel, before using it, it just didn't set well with me.

I would be an adopter of the next generation for sure.  That being said, although I am well acustom to the slide, I'd much prefer the next version to not slide... 

123

EOS Bodies / Re: The sound of silence

« on: April 23, 2013, 10:51:31 PM »

I had to jump in here. Whenever I get new cameraitis I get my 7D out and go take some pictures. Tonight I used my tripod and took several shots off of my patio as the sun was going down. I used my 24-105 at 28 mm and F8. I tried a few little tweaks like bumping the saturation up to 1 in the Neutral setting and increasing the sharpness to 2. I tried different focus modes from my usual "Single point AF", including the manual zone select shifted to the left for a particular tree. I played with white balance settings. I shot in Live mode with a 2 second timer for many of the shots. I took 19 shots all in all. Brought them inside and pixel peeped the heck out of them. I made some crops, kept one in the original framing, and made a watercolor out of a crop of the tree that caught my eye. The crummy old 7D will still take better images than I can visualize. I don't use the fast focus on mine so much, stills and macro are more my thing. My point is, the camera isn't the limitation, I am.

 Still, the new ones will make it easier to get good images (we used to say exposures) and I like the idea of higher res. With high resolution you can use a really good fixed lens and crop your zoom later. I feel like I am missing out on something not having a new way cool camera right now! I guess I'll just try to get more things framed correctly the first time and learn how to use the camera I have with more skill!!! LOL

I have a 5D Mk III and a 7D.  I pulled out my 7D today.  I still love it, it's still a "way cool" camera!  Just sayin... 

124

EOS Bodies / Re: The sound of silence

« on: April 23, 2013, 10:49:03 PM »

canon just anncounced that they will make no annocument today.

I guess that still counts as an announcement

+1 

125

EOS Bodies / Re: *UPDATE* A Bit of EOS 70D Info [CR1-CR2]

« on: April 23, 2013, 10:47:40 PM »

no it looks not like that, se the difference above, the aa-filter together with the sensor is a package and which canon changes and "improve" by the time, to me with the same sharpening the new camera has more details and shows also more moire in this case and  in this detail and structure

Sure, it does have more detail. It also has moire. In my opinion, moire is an UNACCEPTABLE artifact, and indicates the AA filter is TOO WEAK. I don't want moire. It is a pain in the ass. It serves no purpose, and depending on exactly how it manifests, it might be impossible to eliminate. There isn't any point in having an AA filter at all if you are not eliminating or nearly eliminating moire. The amounts in all the other photographs are so significant that I don't understand why they have an AA filter at all. The entire goal is to ELIMINATE moire, or at least reduce it to levels where it is not obvious without deeper examination (which is the case with the 7D, which actually indicates the AA filter is still ever so slightly too weak).

MOIRE == BAD!
Softness == manageable!

You can sharpen a photo with ease, and extract detail that is there. Particularly today, with tools like those from Topaz and Nik, the ability to not only sharpen but REVERSE blurring gives us unprecedented ability to recover detail that is lost in a GLOBAL, LINEAR process like blurring from an AA filter or diffraction.

On a camera like the 7D, which is primarily built for action shooting...applications where you need reach...I expect the AA filter to be perfect. I don't want to be shooting anything...a baseball player wearing fabric, a bird with detailed feathers, an elk with its striated fur, or anything else that is likely to be shot with the 7D line of DSLRs with a weak AA filter. No one does. We don't like Moire. The only time you can actually get away without having an OLPF of the proper thickness (strength is determined by the thickness of the filters) is when you know for a fact that you will never have repeating patterns.

Landscapes is the only thing that really comes to mind as a viable situation where you would never have to worry about it, in which case it would be better to forego the AA filter entirely rather than have a weak one that needlessly softens detail without purpose. Ironically, that is also one of the only time I think most people really need two extra stops of DR, too. Well, the D800E is certainly king of the landscape photography world...but that does not mean a weak AA filter is a good thing all the time. It is not. Moire is bad news, and I believe it is even more important to make sure that consumer-grade cameras like the 650D, 700D, D7200, whatever, have properly designed OLPF filters such that they anti-alias at least as well as the 7D does, therefor serving their purpose: to eliminate moire.

Now, it is obvious you don't understand the purpose of an AA filter, are unwilling to acknowledge that the 7D's AA filter is doing EXACTLY what it is supposed to do to near-perfection, and are just here to argue the benefits of anyone other than Canon and deride Canon themselves once again. I am therefor done with this conversation. I've made my points. Multiple times. Until you acknowledge that raw IQ, regardless of how it is achieved, especially if it is achieved "at any cost", is not the only thing that matters in photography, I'm out.

Agreed, this argument and post is getting old!

126

1D X Sample Images / Re: Any Thing shot with a 1Dx

« on: April 23, 2013, 10:43:07 PM »

Sigh... You guys are slaying me with these 1Dx images...

127

Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits

« on: April 23, 2013, 10:41:26 PM »

I've only recently started but here's a few of mine. All hand-held, 7D, usually ISO 800 or 1600, no idea of the other settings.

Geese Flying (100-400 L)

IM130780.jpg by sm_carey, on Flickr

Swans Flying (100-400 L):

IM131697.jpg by sm_carey, on Flickr

Wren (70-300 L):

IM132508.jpg by sm_carey, on Flickr

Swans Fightling (100-400 L)

IM131916.jpg by sm_carey, on Flickr

Starlings (70-300 L)

IM132740.jpg by sm_carey, on Flickr

Blackbird (70-300 L)

IM133941.jpg by sm_carey, on Flickr

Love the pairs Scarey! 

128

Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits

« on: April 23, 2013, 10:39:41 PM »

House Sparrows with the 100-400mm

Nice!

129

Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits

« on: April 23, 2013, 10:39:16 PM »

Just went out and did some bird photography for the first time in a good while. My EF 100-400mm lens was dropped, and I had to get it repaired. Finally got it back (although there is a story about that, resulting in the lens getting dropped AGAIN, which affected IQ, but not enough to be a huge problem.) Anyway, first time I've ever photographed an American Avocet. BEAUTIFUL BIRDS! They are rather large for a shore bird, with a slightly up-curved bill, with a beautiful rusty-colored head and white-ringed eyes. A fairly large group, at leas 12 strong at my highest count, was distributed along the sandy shore and mud flats of Cherry Creek Reservoir, in a wetland reserve area along the south east shore. This was one of the last few shots of the day, when the sun finally came out and was in the perfect position behind my, nicely illuminating the bird:



See more at my site (including the story about my lens).

Nice one J.  I haven't caught one of these yet either.  I was just thinking today that I need to put it on my list.  They really are beautiful!

130

Lenses / Re: Budget lens for birding ?

« on: April 23, 2013, 10:36:04 PM »

The push me pull me is a dust hog. Birding is field photography ergo I find the 400 prime a better selection.

The "dust hog" or "dust pump" nonsense is just that - a silly internet myth propagated by people who have never actually used the lens.

If the OP is planning to buy a newer lens, he shouldn't worry about getting a "soft copy" - the early problems with quality control were cleaned up about 10 or 12 years ago (this lens has been in production since 1998).

Why would people lie?  I heard that the 100-400mm and the 17-55 were dust collectors.  I don't have any experience with them, but I do stay away from them because of the rumors.  Of course I have spent a ton of cash on other lenses... so it's not like I'm missing out.

So you might have missed out on using great lenses because of those rumors.  The rumors did their job! 

I had the 17-55 for about five years, and it gathered a few specks of dust that I could see, but nothing that would qualify as a "dust pump."  None of the lenses are air tight, so dust can get in any lens.  If you have questions about a particular lens, it's more accurate to get informed opinions from those that have used the item.  The internet has many opinions and a lot of them are wrong or not representative of the collective user base.

+10  Additonally, we have no idea if these people  reporting these issues have a clue as how to properly switch a lens out with another one or even just to take a lens off to put the gear up.

My dad taught me almost 30 years ago with my AE1 and F-1 that the most crucial thing I did with his cameras was putting on and/or taking off lenses.  He drilled it into me and I've always taken great care and maximized my speed and efficiency at switching lenses in the field.  I guard the openings like they are my last dollar!  I check everything twice before I start a change and then do it very safely and very quickly.  I've never had dust issues.. just haven't. 

My uncle on the other hand, very good photographer yet all his images are filled with dust particles, with lenses not "known" for being dust pumps!

131

Canon General / Re: Selling / Buying gear in Florida ?

« on: April 23, 2013, 10:23:43 PM »

With the tourist season ending it's getting very quiet here...I am trying Craigslist for the first time, and might try Amazon too. Id' give up a couple of 100s to avoid the hassle

What are you getting rid of?

132

Lenses / Re: Budget lens for birding ?

« on: April 23, 2013, 10:19:56 PM »

The push me pull me is a dust hog. Birding is field photography ergo I find the 400 prime a better selection.

The "dust hog" or "dust pump" nonsense is just that - a silly internet myth propagated by people who have never actually used the lens.

If the OP is planning to buy a newer lens, he shouldn't worry about getting a "soft copy" - the early problems with quality control were cleaned up about 10 or 12 years ago (this lens has been in production since 1998).

Why would people lie?  I heard that the 100-400mm and the 17-55 were dust collectors.  I don't have any experience with them, but I do stay away from them because of the rumors.  Of course I have spent a ton of cash on other lenses... so it's not like I'm missing out.

I've had my 100-400L for over 2.5 years and had my 17-55mm f/2.8 for over 2 years and have no dust in them at all... I use them all the time, especially the 100-400L.  I used it today in fact. 

That being said, I do keep good B&H filters on them at all times.   Not only is my 100-400 crazy sharp and dust free, I guess it's overdue for regular servicing maintenance!  Maybe I should send it in for a check up and clean up!

133

EOS Bodies / Re: Bye Canon?

« on: April 23, 2013, 07:02:21 PM »

I'm just frustated and i want canon to know!
I mean i love the 60d, but no real video af. I want a seald dslr
with a big viewfinder -and a good video af. Maybe even a gps since i do make most of my photos outdoor on many different locations...again, frustrated.

Yes, that'll show them!  After being ten years in the #1 spot globally, you saying goodbye to Canon is surely going to rock their boat!

So, are you selling all your old gear and lenses?  Someone here may be interested...

134

Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Lightroom 5 Public Beta Available

« on: April 23, 2013, 06:55:39 PM »

When I use the Adjustment Brush and check mark "Show Selected Mask Overlay" box it only shows the red overlay color for the first time ... but the moment I try to make brush strokes again, the red overlay color dissapears, prompting me to deselect and select the "Show Selected Mask Overly" box ... did anyone else notice this?
This never used to happen in the earlier versions.

Hey Rienz, I used that as well but I haven't had any issues with it on my version.  It's working properly.  I did notice that the beta version has slowed down a bit since I first started using it though...

135

Canon General / Re: Selling / Buying gear in Florida ?

« on: April 23, 2013, 06:44:46 PM »

Hey,

I just moved to Florida 5 months ago (Naples). I am not aware of any camera store in the vicinity and I was thinking of selling a couple of things (body and lens). Beside ebay, craigslist, could any local advise on places to go to ? (for info I am thinking of selling a canon 50D, canon 70-300L ans buy a canon 70-200 2. .

Thanks !

 
You will likely get the most by selling on ebay, and very little tradein.  Craigslist falls in the middel.
 
Fred Miranda has a very active selling forum, and there are likely lots of Florida members who would pay cash in person.  http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/board/2

I live in Central Florida, near Orlando.  I always check prices on ebay and Amazon before I sell anything.  Doing so, I've listed quite a few items on Craigslist and always gotten more than I would have on Ebay, always...

Sometimes I can get Amazon money for an item, sometimes just under... Craigslist has worked out well for me.