Messages

106

EOS Bodies / Re: What do you want from the 5D mk III

« on: May 16, 2011, 04:28:08 PM »

Yeah I hear you about the ISO 50,  I just wish they took that to the next level. For any kind of long-ish exposure in daylight, you're still stuck with stacking filters. So I'm waiting for that ISO -800 LOL :-)

107

EOS Bodies / Re: What do you want from the 5D mk III

« on: May 16, 2011, 04:06:21 PM »

I'd like to believe that they can create in-camera ND filters via some kind of reduced sensitivity mode instead of an actual physical filter. It might be realm of science fiction, but could they create a software override where they simply discard X percentage of photons which reach sensor nodes? That way, they reduce exposure, thus simulating an ND filter? I'm just thinking out loud...

About IS:

Again, may sound like science fiction (or plain stupidity :-)), but how about a secondary in-body IS system which can work in CONJUNCTION with the lens IS (if available) to even further enhance "hand holdability"?

108

EOS Bodies / Re: What am I getting out of my upgrade?

« on: May 16, 2011, 03:11:23 PM »

stealthscrape, the difference between XTi and 7D will be night and day. I own XTi, 7D and 5D Mark II bodies, and I can tell you that the 7D is in a lot of ways a better camera than 5DMK2 even (except for noise levels).

But back to your question - this is what you'd be gaining:

- Low light performance which is simply orders of magnitude better than XTi. You'll be shooting at ISO1600 when you need to and you won't even think twice. With XTi, I would cringe every time I needed to shoot at ISO 400.

- Autofocus system which makes XTi look like a joke. It's not just the number of focus points (to be honest with you, I use 3 focus points 99% of the time anyway) but it's the speed and precision with which it focuses.

- Construction quality which simply can't be compared with plastic XTi toy body. Simply holding the 7D will motivate you to push yourself and get better.

- 8fps is more than I'll ever need, but if you want to shoot sports, you'll be happy you have it

-1080p video! You'll never want a camcorder after you see what 7D does with your 50mm f/1.2

- I won't even talk about megapixels because they are far less important than spec sheets would have you believe. This alone should never be a reason for an upgrade.

- You can use 7D's built in flash as a slave trigger for external speedlight flashes. This in itself is HUGE for creative options. I wish 5DMK2 had this.

- High resolution screen which is actually useful for telling whether the picture is in focus or not before uploading to computer. XTi's screen is useless.

- Live view is useful if you do product/tripod photography


The list goes on

109

Lenses / Re: Canon 135mm on full frame

« on: May 13, 2011, 09:41:18 AM »

I have to agree with neuroanatomist... to consider lack of IS as a plus, has to be the strangest comment I've heard.

But back to the original question - if you're expecting a "significant increase in image quality", you'll be very disappointed. 70-200 f/4 IS is one of the best zooms on the market. Furthermore, it's one of the few zooms which are optically better than a lot of primes out there.

The only real reason to get the 135mm would be the f/2. And if you do, be prepared for a bit of a learning curve - wide aperture comes with its own challenges. Also, as with any other prime, you will walk around a lot more - but that's a good thing.

110

Lenses / Re: buying the 5DII and need two amazing primes to cover my range??

« on: May 12, 2011, 10:00:23 PM »

Axilrod, it's possible that it was a bad copy, I didn't bother trying to get samples from another copy, but now that I have the 100mm L, I don't think I'll bother finding out because I'm more than happy with it. I also have the 85mm 1.2 L and the 35mm f/1.4 L, both fantastic lenses (although I hate the size of the 85mm, I'm planning to get the f/1.8 version for carrying around) The other thing that slighlty annoys me with the 85mm f/1.2 is the slow AF, lack of IS and pronounced CA at f/1.2, but I guess I'm just being greedy now :-)

35 L is by far my favorite lens - I can't say enough about it. FOV with a FF camera is really fun, and it actually changed the style of my photography, because I find myself rarely using long lenses now.

50L is on the list for sure, but I think I want the 45mm 2.8 TS first :-)

111

EOS Bodies / Re: What do you want from the 5D mk III

« on: May 12, 2011, 04:55:49 PM »

Here is what I'd love to see in 5DMK3:

1. Built-in radio slave trigger with ETTL support, compatible with next gen Canon radio flashes so that I dont require any third party triggers once and for all (yes I'm looking at you PocketWizard)
2. Built-in ND (and graduated ND??) filters so I can shoot video outside at f/1.4 and not have to use filters. I'm sure they could do this via reduced sensor sensitivity.
3. Faster AF system - PLEASE!!!!! And don't release a 7DMk2 6 months later with an even better AF to make me regret my purchase.
4. No more megapixels. I dont need 30MP, stop the nonsense please
5. Double memory card slot with redundancy mode
6. at least 60fps video if not 120fps. I like smooth slow motion
7. Fix the aliasing issue with the video if you can, I hate seeing those straight lines all jagged-y
8. 6fps fire rate would be nice
9. higher dynamic range would be nice
10. if you can improve signal to noise ratio even more, I'll love you even more

112

Lenses / Re: buying the 5DII and need two amazing primes to cover my range??

« on: May 12, 2011, 04:29:19 PM »

Iggyotis, honestly if you can live with 100mm, forget the 135mm f/2 and go with the 100mm f/2.8 Macro IS. It is not only a much better low light lens than the 135mm, but it's better all around. It's noticeably sharper than 135 at f/2.8, with way less vignetting. The IS DOES matter, because to get a sharp pic with the 135mm you need at least 1/135sec shutter, whereas with the 100mm Macro, because of the hybrid IS, you can handhold and get a sharp pic even at 1/25 sec, so you can more than make up the one stop f difference between the 2 lenses.

Secondly, the 135 does not look that good wide open, I personally wouldn't use it at f/2 - it's a tad too soft for my taste. Even when you stop it down to 2.8, the 100mm macro makes it look silly in comparison. 

Thirdly, if you happen to need to shoot something that's closer than the minimum focusing distance that the 135mm allows (I think it's a minimum of 1m or so, maybe more) you'll be happy you have the 100mm macro on, because you can shoot from a foot away, if not closer.

Last year I was trying to decide between these 2 lenses, tried both of them, analyzed test shots on a pixel level, and I hate to say it but 135mm did not live up to the hype. It looks impressive mounted on the camera, but way too limiting, and ultimately not as good.

Cheers