April 21, 2014, 10:00:15 AM

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 ... 18
46
Perhaps the biggest thing for me is somewhat mediocre AI Servo ability, even when compared to my old 60D. I would not recommend this camera for any type of action/sports shooting especially if it involves an unpredictable target. It's perfectly fine if you've a robust primary camera and have the 6D as backup or second body, but it's something to be aware of if the 6D is your ONLY camera.

Everything else is quite solid though. You get 97% of the 5D3 image quality in a smaller, lighter, cheaper package. (The other 3% accounts for the 2 extra MP in the 5D3, which makes little difference to me in practice). In terms of IQ and high ISO performance, it leaves the 60D in the dust. No comparison.

I bought the camera being aware of the above limitations, and if you can work around them it is a solid camera.

47
Lenses / Re: 16-35 f/2.8II vs 17-40 f/4
« on: June 25, 2013, 07:14:31 PM »
When I only used crop, the 17-40 was one of my most used lenses, but once I switched to FF for landscapes, it rarely found a use, except for some more creative ideas, as the corners are simply not good enough on FF, even at f/8-f/16. Mind you, the 24-105 suffers form the same deficiencies between about 24-30mm, but then I now use the 24mm f/1.4 MkII for landscapes at 24mm.

This is why when I eventually go full frame I'll also need to get a better wide angle zoom than the 17-40 I already own, otherwise I could just get a 6D and be done with it. I'm not saying you can't get decent ultrawide shots with the 17-40 on full frame, but especially for landscape use, seeing how the corner resolution falls off even using it on a crop body, I can only imagine how it would be on full frame. Interestingly this is more apparent to me for landscape work at infinity focus than it is for closer subjects.

YES! THIS! I'm noticing it on the 16-35. On close subjects it seems OK, but on landscape shots at infinity (or far away focus) I can't seem to get past the blurry/hazy extreme corners...I almost thought the lens was defective, actually, until I examined some of the shots I took at closer distance....weird.

48
EOS-M / Re: EOS M Firmware 2.0.2 IS faster
« on: June 20, 2013, 04:36:02 PM »
Nice. The current version already does a nice job for me (I use single point focus which is acceptable...it's the multiple-point modes that are crazy slow)...this is a nice bonus.

It also suggests to me that another EOS M may not come any time soon (otherwise they would simply release that camera with the improved focusing mechanism...right?) but I dunno, just a wild "out there" guess...

49
EOS-M / Re: The New EOS M Firmware in Action
« on: June 20, 2013, 03:36:54 PM »
Has anyone used a f/1.8 50mm, f/1.8 85mm or a f/2.0 100mm on their EOS-M, using the EF-EOS M lens adapter?? Is the auto-focus campareable to the EF-M f/2.0 22mm lens when using the adapted lens?

TIA

I've tested the 50 1.8 and unfortunately it is slower...significantly so. Haven't tried the other two lenses though...

50
Lenses / Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« on: June 19, 2013, 03:51:04 PM »
Just acquired a 16-35 2.8 (I didn't have a WA beforehand...this completes the range for me)...it's a decent enough lens but its flaws are clearly noticeable...soft corners even stopped down to f9 (!) that is not an issue with any of the other lenses I have, that was a bit of a surprise...I guess most WA lenses are like that? anyway, I'm really not much of a WA shooter but given the right conditions, it's certainly an interesting perspective. I like the 2.8 though, it's already come in handy a couple times...

I learned a while ago not to make decisions based on rumors...in the past I've waited forever for stuff that never materialized, or that took an eternity to do so (and "vapor ware" does no good in the present). I've heard Canon was preparing a 14-24 and that weighed in my mind but ultimately figured it would be insanely expensive and would have a bulging front element (like the Nikon version) so I'd be unable to put a filter on it (and when would such a lens actually be available? Next year? 2015?) . Besides, I appreciate having the 35mm available to me on that lens for general shooting, I think 24 would be too limiting and force it into "niche" category...

51
Quote
2. Back in March, I visited our local Zoo, as we had a miraculous day of beautiful, warm weather. I brought my 5D Mark III and (borrowed from a friend) 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS lens. I eventually found my way to the lion pit, wherein there was a group of about 15 people (families, kids, the like). They saw me coming with camera and lens, and they all sort of parted like the Red Sea, making a nice swath of open area for me.

I thought it was pretty amazing that they did this without issue-- I assume they saw the lens and thought I must've meant business, haha. As I began shooting, I heard comments from, "that's a huge lens," to "he must be a professional." One of the ladies to my left even suggested I enter into the Zoo's annual photo contest.

I've experienced that as well. When you have a "pro-looking" camera, most people will get out of your way when they realize you're trying to take a shot in their direction. That doesn't happen when you have a P&S or iPhone...

And at first, the "he must be a pro" comments irked me, but now I just laugh it off. I mean, it's true- you rarely see people carrying around massive cameras (I'm talking gripped 1DX/70-200 2.8 types) unless they shoot for a living- most others can't afford it, and/or are unwilling to put up with the tremendous weight. 

52
I just say thanks and continue on.

In the past I have been stopped by a few folks wanting to talk shop...normally I don't mind engaging but there are those times when I just want to do my thing without anyone bugging me - fortunately it's been awhile since anyone has said anything.

It's funny though, the setup that got me the most attention was the 60D + 70-300L...while I was out at a fair with the 5D3 and 24-105 people could almost care less...it's the white lens that really draws attention to itself.

53
Just took advantage of the 6D's silent mode at a recent book reading. I LOVED it! Finally I can fire away without feeling bad because the loud CLICK, CLICK, CLICK is distracting people around me...I set one of the custom modes to disable the beep and enable silent shutter (among a few other things)- it's very convenient :) It's not without its drawbacks, of course...the camera feels less responsive as a result so it is far easier to miss shots. But given the setting I was in, that wasn't a big deal.

I find the 6D to have a quiet shutter even in regular mode (definitely quieter than the 5D3 and my old 60D). The worst was when I had the T2i and the 70-200 F4 IS- not only did I have the noisy clunk of the T2i to contend with but also the (very) audible grinding noise of the IS mechanism in the 70-200...although not the reason I ultimately upgraded to the 2.8 version, that's one thing I don't miss...

54
Lenses / Re: $1000 .. what to buy
« on: June 18, 2013, 12:31:04 PM »
It seems redundant to have more than one telephoto zoom.

Not necessarily...I enjoy the flexibility of having the 70-200 2.8 for indoor use/sports, and having the option of the much smaller, lighter 70-300 for general outdoor photography because not only is it manageable for an entire day, it has 100mm extra reach...

Of course, most people are best off weighing the pros and cons and picking one. Thankfully I'm fortunate enough to be able to have both.

55
-1 at both ends seemed to help in my case. But I have not been able to test in "real-world" situation yet.

56
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 28mm F/2.8 IS USM $399 from Adorama !!
« on: June 17, 2013, 08:33:22 PM »
Back up to $649! Damn. (I suppose that's a good thing in a way though)

57
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 28mm F/2.8 IS USM $399 from Adorama !!
« on: June 17, 2013, 03:15:38 PM »
Wow, tempting...


58
Site Information / Re: CR wobbly
« on: June 14, 2013, 05:53:31 PM »
^ I got something like that too...while browsing on Mobile Safari (IOS 6)

59
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS
« on: June 13, 2013, 06:39:27 PM »
With a FF kit, this would be a tempting upgrade path from the 70-300L to get a bit more reach...but at that price point it might just make more sense to grab a 70D (when it comes out) and use the 70-300 with it when I need maximum reach (I consider it an outdoor lens anyway - I don't use it inside where FF quality makes the biggest difference)...figures.


60
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 2nd Body - your thoughts?
« on: June 13, 2013, 01:33:26 PM »
I, too, wanted a backup for my 5D3. I could afford a second 5D3, but couldn't justify the price premium when I had its features already. So I decided to go with the 6D. I think although the two cameras are somewhat different in operation, they actually complement each other really well.

- With the 6D, there is NO difference in image quality. You get the same, stunning IQ in a smaller, lighter package. High ISO is just as good...perhaps even a hair better at the extremes.
- For casual/travel photography - mostly walk around, macro work and some event photography- The 6D's AF is more than adequate for a lot of that type of work. Whenever it isn't...well, the 5D3 is sitting right there...
- The difference in size and weight is noticeable. It isn't Rebel-size but it is relatively compact without feeling cramped. Easier to manage for long periods of time.
- some other minor things not really worth mentioning.

This combo suits me quite well...YMMV.


Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 18