December 18, 2014, 01:32:18 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 - Act444

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 23
46
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Canon EF 16-35 f/4L IS Shipping This Week
« on: June 23, 2014, 08:18:31 PM »
I can understand 17-40 owners wanting to upgrade, but if you've already got the 2.8 version...

I dunno, even if the 4 is slightly better optically it still feels like a side-grade/downgrade to me (mainly the loss of a stop). What I really want is a 2.8 version III to feature these same improvements.

47
Lenses / Re: EF 16-35 F/4L IS corner samples & comparison
« on: June 22, 2014, 05:38:46 PM »
Thanks for posting. And yes, in my experience the 2.8 really IS that underwhelming in the corners, even at f8.

The new 4 shows significant improvement here at the wide end, but otherwise there really seems to be little to no difference at the other settings based on what I've seen so far.

48
Trying out DPP 4 in a real-world setting after shooting a signing with my 6D this evening.

I like many of the extra features but there are a few somewhat annoying kinks they still need to work out...and it would be nice to edit crop camera images as well (from my 7D, SL1 and M) instead of being limited to just FF.

49
EOS-M / Re: Canon EF-M 55-200 f/4.5-6.3 IS STM Gets Official
« on: June 19, 2014, 01:56:18 PM »
Sounds cool but as I already have the 55-250 STM for the SL1, there's little to gain for me here. OTOH, a compact super zoom like an 18-200 would be nice.

50
This will be something to look into for my M. As long as the lens isn't too big, heavy or cumbersome, and has decent quality at least at the wide end of the range, it should be a good option...

And it's available stateside as well. Even better.

51
EOS-M / Re: Canon EF-M 55-200 f/4.5-6.3 IS STM Gets Official
« on: June 17, 2014, 07:52:03 PM »
Looks like Canada will get it too so for those in the US that want this lens but don't want to pay crazy Euro/Asian prices, Canadian retailers should stock it for around $420:

http://www.canon.ca/inetCA/newsroom?m=getPress&pid=2167

52
EOS Bodies / Re: More EOS 7D Replacement Buzz Going Around [CR2]
« on: June 10, 2014, 08:18:04 PM »
There's one situation where that's not true, though.  Depending on the mix of full-frame and EF-S lenses that you own, some 7D users who decide to upgrade to full-frame might end up selling several of their lenses anyway, not to mention upgrading to lenses with longer focal lengths to make up for the lack of the 1.6x crop factor.
Entirely fair.  Current EF-S mount users choosing between a 6D/5D3 or waiting for a 7D2 absolutely are out there.  But I don't really see that as a Nikon conversion risk.  I see that as a one-time ripping off of the EF-S band-aid that you have to do to migrate to FF regardless of what company's products you use.

I see that less as a "Because I am mad at waiting for Canon" and more of a "Movin' on up (movin' on up) to deeeeluxe apartment in the sky-hiiiiiiigh".   ::)

But yes, you are right.  Leaving crop altogether costs money, well above the cost of the body itself.  This burden varies depending on what you shoot:

  • Best case:  You just have a standard EF-S zoom, like an 18-55 or 18-135 --> You go and get a 'pried-from-a-kit' 24-105L for $750ish or a 28-135 for $475ish.  Ouch, but small change compared to a FF rig. 
    ([Sigh] "Yeah, there's that... But it's worth it.")

  • Slightly painful case:  You have a standard EF-S zoom and an ultrawide --> Same as above, but now you need a 17-40L for $800ish as well.  Painful. But doable. 
    ([Deep breaths] "I can do this...  I'll just get that 17-40L next year.")
     
  • Really painful case:  You have have a standard EF-S zoom, an ultrawide and a 55-250 and enjoy shooting around 250 on the crop --> Same as above, but now you need a 100-400L as well.  Oof. 
    (The value proposition is starting to take on water rapidly...)

  • You-are-totally-screwed case:  You are a seasoned vet who shoots a 300 or higher prime on your 7D for wildlife or birding.  You have the comically painful choice of settling for the downsides of T/Cs, investing in $10K superteles, or simply not ever making the jump to FF because the glass will bankrupt you for what you shoot.  That's a buckler.
    (Hint to Canon:  You kind of own these people.  The 7D2 could be $4k and these people might still the first in line for pre-orders, b/c $4k is still less than Supertele prices.  Check and mate.) 

Thank goodness I had a succession plan when I bought my third and fourth lenses.  I opted for EF glass long before I made the move to FF and my only headache was doing without a 16-24mm FL option after I migrated (sold the EF-S 10-22 but the 24-70 I owned covered the wide end on FF pretty well).

- A

Or this case: you use a 1.6x with a 70-200 2.8 in low-light venues...there is no real FF equivalent that gives you that kind of reach while remaining fast. At least there isn't one that's really practical...

53
EOS Bodies / Re: More EOS 7D Replacement Buzz Going Around [CR2]
« on: June 10, 2014, 04:27:41 PM »
The 7D is a great camera. BUT...its high ISO performance leaves a lot to be desired. As I find myself at dimly lit sporting events with it, I'd appreciate an upgrade here...I was hoping a 7D2 would be here by Sept but that's obviously not going to happen. I've been starting to investigate the 1D4 (sounds like it may only be a marginal improvement though).

54
When I had it, I loved it. It was great. Ultimately I parted with it to help finance a FF camera (wanted better low-light performance at indoor events), but especially at that price it's definitely a great value.

55
EOS Bodies / Re: More EOS 7D Replacement Buzz Going Around [CR2]
« on: June 09, 2014, 04:57:16 PM »
I have used the 55-250 STM as a test for concerts and animal shooting. I haven't measured it, but to me the STM seems to work just fine, although it feels a tad slower (?) than USM (still significantly quicker than non-USM though). The one thing to keep in mind is that the focus on these STM lenses is electronic, so you can't "full-time manual focus" without power to the camera.

I don't want to be a lens snob, but as a still shooter with a bag full of USM glass, I only see STM as an improvement over the non-USM lenses I left behind years ago.  I have yet to hear of a single thing it does better than USM for stills.

So STM, for me, says 'for video', and as such, won't be getting any of my money.

- A

As a stills shooter I prefer USM. But as you said, STM is a nice improvement over the stiff, noisy AF motor it replaces. So it's good when viewed in that respect, but it is no replacement for USM (and probably why we haven't seen an "L" lens with STM at this point).

But, even with that said, I think the only times you'll notice a difference are when 1) you are tracking a moving subject in Servo (less snappy although still quick enough in most situations) and 2) when manual focusing, unless you have an electronic USM lens like the 85 1.2.

I wouldn't recommend any of the STM lenses for serious (stills) work but for everyday/travel use, I gotta say they're quite nice...pleasantly surprised. Good if you don't want to risk more expensive stuff on a trip, etc.

56
EOS Bodies / Re: More EOS 7D Replacement Buzz Going Around [CR2]
« on: June 09, 2014, 04:03:58 PM »
I take it all ranges will get an "STM" lens. They've got normal (18-55, 18-135), telephoto (55-250), and now wide-angle (10-18). Only things left are super zoom (18-200 or 18-300) and macro. Canon's 18-200 is quite old and lacks USM so I all but expect an STM update of that lens at some point. I think this would be a good time to do so.


Just to throw this out there... If Dual pixel tech is ever going to hit full frame cameras like the 5d4 or 6d2 or 4d then FF will need a compatable STM lens too.

Good point. We already have the 40, but a slow zoom is the typical deployment of such technology. These EF-S zooms so far been optically very good, and very cheap. Does anyone see an EF 28-135/3.5-5.6 IS STM on the horizon? Nikon recently refreshed their budget full frame variable aperture zoom.

This is entirely ignorance on my part as the only STM I own is the pancake, so I'll ask:

1) Do any still shooters who are shooting moving subjects use STM glass at all? 

2) Has STM focusing speed improved to catch up with USM speed? 

3) Does STM work well in Servo for moving subjects?

Please educate me, as I think my first go at STM with the pancake was not impressive on those three fronts.   That lens is a marvel, but only for static shots in my book.

Maybe more recent STM glass is better?

- A

I have used the 55-250 STM as a test for concerts and animal shooting. I haven't measured it, but to me the STM seems to work just fine, although it feels a tad slower (?) than USM (still significantly quicker than non-USM though). The one thing to keep in mind is that the focus on these STM lenses is electronic, so you can't "full-time manual focus" without power to the camera.

57
Lenses / Re: What was your first L lens?
« on: June 05, 2014, 02:45:05 PM »
The 24-105, which I still have (albeit a different copy).

58
Lenses / Re: 24-105 vs 24-70 2.8 ii
« on: June 03, 2014, 07:24:06 AM »
Yeah, the f4 24-70, or at least the one I tried at the local store, is DEFINITELY weakest at 50mm. Dare I say that one was worse than my 24-105 is at 24, its weakest point (w/o the distortion)...there was NO sharp area of the image at 50mm f4. Anyway, I'd like to try another copy - maybe that was just a mediocre one.

Between the 24-105 and the 2.8 24-70 - unless you shoot a lot of indoor social events (and thus need the 2.8 / IS mattering less in those situations), or you have a big budget, then the 24-105 is still a good lens with decent sharpness and great value for price. Plus IS makes it more versatile, too.

59
Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM
« on: June 02, 2014, 08:32:59 PM »
At the moment, Canon's message seems to be that if you want anything more exotic that a slow zoom, you need to go full frame.

Not really, TBH...you can still use FF lenses on the Rebels after all. The only issue would be cost, I suppose - can they make an EF-S 70-200 2.8 equivalent for $1K or less? If not, no use trying IMO.

60
Lenses / Re: EF-S 10-18 review
« on: June 02, 2014, 02:25:34 PM »
I did get a little flare in one shot- think I was shooting a building with the sun JUST to the left of the camera.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 23