Messages

46

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 28-135 / EF-S 17-85 / EF-S 15-85

« on: October 02, 2012, 08:29:30 PM »

Are you aware of the creep on the 15-85 though?  Ours has started to get pretty bad after a year from new, but a chunk of that's been with the lens hanging downwards from the body on a strap, so possibly not the best care regime.

-Evie

I've had mine for about a year (I carry mine around as an all-purposes lens, FWIW) and no lens creep, with a small caveat:  if the lens is pointed down and between 15-28mm or between 50-85mm then no creep whatsoever--go ahead and run with it.  But if you leave it in the in between area of 30-45mm or so, it will start to creep a bit. But not as bad as my old 18-135mm and not an issue for me since I keep it at 15mm when not actively shooting.

(I believe this was noted in some review I read a while back, and this proved true in my case).

47

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 28-135 / EF-S 17-85 / EF-S 15-85

« on: October 02, 2012, 03:47:26 PM »

I strongly recommend the 15-85 and have to disagree a bit about the build quality. I've been banging this lens around for the past three years with no issues.

When someone says it doesn't have "L" build quality – well that depends on what "L" lens you are referring to, since Canon has absolutely no standards or consistency for defining an "L" lens. The 15-85 is not weather-sealed, but neither are many of the "L" lenses. It's not made of metal, but it's certainly not lightweight or plastic-y either.

The 15-85 is definitely not lightweight.  It required me adding a grip to the T1i so that I could hold it up and balance properly. 

48

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 28-135 / EF-S 17-85 / EF-S 15-85

« on: October 02, 2012, 03:00:01 PM »

Is the 17-85 an improvement over the 28-135?  And is the 15-85 worth paying almost twice as much for than the 17-85.

No, and IMO, yes.  The 15-85mm delivers L-series optical quality (but not L-series build).

I second the recommendation for the 15-85mm.  I do interior shoots with this lens at f8 and it holds it's own against L lenses.  Even though it's not particularly fast (and variable aperture), it looks very nearly as good wide-open as it does as it's sharpest (f8) and this makes it very versatile for me.

49

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Upgrading from 500D to 5D Mark 2 or 3

« on: October 01, 2012, 12:58:34 PM »

I just added a 5D3 to my 500D, and I couldn't be happier.  Here is a horrible analogy:  I feel like shooting the 500D (which I still love) at 95% of it capability is equivalent to shooting the 5D3 at around 50%.  All else being equal, my shots looks better coming straight out of the 5D3.  (DOF, lens availability, etc..., etc, notwithstanding....)

That said, I agree that while the camera is extremely capable, it really comes down to the shooter.  I have handed the 5D3 over to friends who wanted to see what I have been raving about and they take a few clicks: crappy snapshots at best, every last one of them.

To this point: Eddie Van Halen was interviewed years back when he was promoting a new signature guitar and amp and the magazine asked if guitar players could get closer to the "Van Halen" sound if they bought his new signature gear.  He responded candidly, "It's all in the fingers.  You can give my personal guitar to Ted Nugent and it would still sound like Ted Nugent."

50

5D MK III Sample Images / Re: 5D MK III Images

« on: September 26, 2012, 08:07:45 PM »

This is a magnificent shot!  Please reveal any details of the capture that you are willing to share.  Bravo!

51

EOS Bodies / Re: Adorama is selling 5d3 for $2745 on eBay now

« on: September 21, 2012, 07:43:50 PM »

She's here!  She's beautiful! (And I probably not going to be posting for a while.  ) Painfully long weekend averted.  Here come the snaps!

52

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Watch those CF pins on your 5D3

« on: September 21, 2012, 04:04:03 PM »

A little piece of me died seeing the picture of the 50/1.0, I sure hope they bought the insurance.

+100%

The horror..... the horror....

53

Canon General / Re: How many of us are making money out of photography ?

« on: September 20, 2012, 02:02:33 AM »

I'm making just enough so far to cover equipment but I've only just begun and its not a full time gig yet.  Gotta start somewhere. 

54

EOS Bodies / Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon

« on: September 19, 2012, 08:27:06 PM »

The 5D Mark II's won easily; the D7000's were actually worse in color and more prone to blowing highlights.

A camera being prone to blowing highlights says more about its metering than its dynamic range. The dynamic range of the D7000 is demonstrably worlds above that of any of the 5D cameras. Yes, despite its price. It's all about saturation well capacity & read noise (& megapixel count of course, if we're talking about normalized results).

As I wrote, the problem was the color in portraits was distinctly worse.  The blown highlights were an added problem.  I'm talking about using the cameras for actual photography, not lab tests.  So, yes, consistent with its price, the D7000 was distinctly worse in actual photography.  The D7000 was a bit like a kid who scores great on a standardized test, but is lacking in essential people skills.

+1

55

EOS Bodies / Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon

« on: September 19, 2012, 03:59:58 PM »

Having worked with both Nikon and Canon RAW files, I respectfully disagree.  The "quality of the RAW file" includes the quality of the color.  Both RAW files have a certain color cast to them.  As I stated originally, you can post-process quite a bit, but just as some prefer the shadow recovery of Nikon RAW files, I prefer how color is captured (and corrected if necessary) with Canon RAW.  For me, I can get the right exposure most of the time so shadow recovery is less of a concern for me than getting the colors just right.  Can I post-process Nikon files and make them look great?  Sure.  For the look I want, it's less work with Canon RAW.

(And, I agree the lens matters a tremendous amount...)

1. Have you worked with Nikon RAW files from the latest generation - D800, D800E, D600, D4, D3200?
If you're talking about Nikons from 2008, forget it. Stone age, comparatively speaking.

2. "For the look I want" - ah, a personal opinion. Your taste. Well gee, that's important to us all 

1.  I've  worked with D700, D7000, D5100, D5000 & D3100, so not the most current, no.  Has Nikon recently lost it's bluish/green cast?  That would be exciting news indeed.

2. Yes, personal opinion and purposefully couched as such because, sometimes, "objectively" better isn't what you (or the client) actually want.

To everyone who found my post useless, please excuse the inclusion of subjectivity and proceed with the  DXO/Canon bashing based on "objective" tests.

56

EOS Bodies / Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon

« on: September 19, 2012, 01:44:53 PM »

Perhaps this has been stated before, but I tend to view the sensor as the "digital film" of the camera.  Every film has a different grain structure and some will test "better/higher" than other film depending on how you structure the test.  (Therefore, you can get different scores depending on how you weigh things).  You can post-process just about anything to look just like just about anything these days, but in the end, you pick the "digital film" that you prefer.  I've always preferred the look of Canon "film" for it's skin tones and visual pop.  This is even when I used old Nikon prime lens with an adapter.  No score can convince me otherwise.

In the high-end audio world, forums would blow up about tube vs. solid state amps and the argument always ended up being how cleanly an amp "measured" vs. how pleasing it actually sounds, and there was rarely a correlation between the two.

This is true because film is a hardware device, or can be true if you shoot JPG.

Shooting RAW you can work on whatever you want, the only limit being the quality of the RAW file and the amout of information stored. DXO score is useful in comparing this.

Shooting RAW it really doesn't make sense to say "Oh, the Canon colors!". That is today more a lens trait than a sensor's.

Having worked with both Nikon and Canon RAW files, I respectfully disagree.  The "quality of the RAW file" includes the quality of the color.  Both RAW files have a certain color cast to them.  As I stated originally, you can post-process quite a bit, but just as some prefer the shadow recovery of Nikon RAW files, I prefer how color is captured (and corrected if necessary) with Canon RAW.  For me, I can get the right exposure most of the time so shadow recovery is less of a concern for me than getting the colors just right.  Can I post-process Nikon files and make them look great?  Sure.  For the look I want, it's less work with Canon RAW.

(And, I agree the lens matters a tremendous amount...)

57

EOS Bodies / Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon

« on: September 19, 2012, 01:25:30 PM »

Perhaps this has been stated before, but I tend to view the sensor as the "digital film" of the camera.  Every film has a different grain structure and some will test "better/higher" than other film depending on how you structure the test.  (Therefore, you can get different scores depending on how you weigh things).  You can post-process just about anything to look just like just about anything these days, but in the end, you pick the "digital film" that you prefer.  I've always preferred the look of Canon "film" for it's skin tones and visual pop.  This is even when I used old Nikon prime lens with an adapter.  No score can convince me otherwise.

In the high-end audio world, forums would blow up about tube vs. solid state amps and the argument always ended up being how cleanly an amp "measured" vs. how pleasing it actually sounds, and there was rarely a correlation between the two.

58

EOS Bodies / Re: POLL: With what features would you consider the 6d?

« on: September 18, 2012, 07:53:33 PM »

For me the sensor, the AF, and Viewfinder are the essence of the camera.  Everything else is bells and whistles to me.  If the essentials aren't adequate, then no amount of the "pro features" are going to make up for the fact that I did not get the shot I was expecting.  As stated elsewhere, I would have considered it at around $2K if it had 11 proper cross-type points (and 100% viewfinder, although I'm not sure how accurate 100% really is, so this might not have been the deal breaker the AF was). Everything else is pretty much what I expected (Wi-Fi and GPS notwithstanding).

(The flash sync and shutter speeds down grades are just silly in my mind, because the "entry-level" Rebel audience doesn't care and better specs for these alone would not have drawn away 5D3 customers, IMHO.)

59

EOS Bodies / Re: Adorama is selling 5d3 for $2745 on eBay now

« on: September 18, 2012, 02:31:58 PM »

Not sure which number I am, but it still hasn't been picked up by UPS.  I won't believe it until I'm holding it in my hands.  That may not be until next week.  It'll be a looooooong weekend.

60

EOS Bodies / Re: At what price point will you consider buying the Canon 6D?

« on: September 18, 2012, 01:50:46 PM »

The rumored spec list (largely true) and the Adorama Saturday-night special caused me to pull the trigger on the 5D3.  At $2750 vs. $2100, there was at least $650 worth of value for me to get what I really wanted.  That said, I would gladly pay circa $2k for a full frame camera with the 6D features provided I didn't have to focus and recompose for portraits (that's where they flubbed); with only a center cross-type, the 6D is no more useful to me than my trusty T1i (sensor aside). Having borrowed a friend's 5D3 for a shoot, I've come to appreciate that nailing focus is that much more critical with a full-frame sensor when shoot at a wide aperture (i.e., 1.4 on a crop vs. 1.4 on FF) because of the shallower DOF.  Because the 5D3 had useful focus points where I needed them, I didn't have to worry about getting a sharp picture; all I worried about was capturing the right moment.  That is worth every penny.

I'm still willing to bet that Canon will be successful with the 6D for the same reasons it was with the 5D2.  Folks who want a FF sensor for video will not have to get the 5D3 for very similar output.  Just my $0.02.