November 27, 2014, 05:04:20 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 - sagittariansrock

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 100
46
Software & Accessories / Re: Ballhead for Gitzo 2542L
« on: October 27, 2014, 05:08:11 PM »
Going to replace ballhead and would like to get RRS BH-55 but thinking the size/weight might make a 2 series top heavy. Any thoughts if this is too big of head for these legs?

If 55 is too big, any other recommendations between BH-40, Kirk, Markins Q20, Acratech that would fit these legs better? Right now biggest lens is 70-300L and not sure if I would go much bigger (maybe 400 5.6) and if I did I would probably have to go to gitzo 3 series anyway.

I use an Arca Swiss monoball Z. It is much heavier than the BH-40 but lighter than the BH-55. It does make my GT 2541 a bit top-heavy, but not nearly as much as the RRS leveling base TA-U-LB does.
In my opinion, the top heaviness isn't an issue. When you use it, it will have a much heavier camera+lens combo anyway, and you should add sandbags etc. to stabilize it in any case.
However, a less ergonomic ballhead will be a bigger problem, and most people who've used both say the BH-40 isn't as ergonomic as the BH-55. Of course, I think the Arca Swiss is more ergonomic than either (review below):
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Arca-Swiss-Monoball-Z1-Ballhead-Review.aspx



47
The only best landscape and portrait for APS-C sensors is the all-aroud 17-55mm f2.8 IS lens. It covers the wide angle (17mm-21mm with 27mm-35mm equivalent) and small part of the portrait focal lenght (50-55mm with 80-88mm equivalent).
For Macro, the best way to go is the 100mm f2L IS, that will also serve as good headshots portrait lens.
Wildlife lens, this is a good aspect to consider since strong rumors indicate the current 100-400mm lens is going to be replaced soon. As well, there are two Sigma lenses already anounced and coming to stores soon that covers longer focal lenght (150-600mm) so, I would suggest to wait a little bit.
Canon EF 24-70mm f/4 L IS USM will not give you a wide angle coverage in APS-C sensor so, I would take the 17-55mm instead.
Canon EF-S 10-22MM 3.5-4.5 USM is an excellent lens but I would also look at the new 10-18mm for half of the price.
Canon EF 16-35MM F2.8 L II USM doesn't have IS and isn't very good in sharpness at the borders wide open. I would suggest the 16-35mm f4L IS instead.
For the 35mm focal lenght, I would drop the canon 35L and take the 35mm f2 IS, it's cheaper, sharper and lighter.

The problem I'm having is for each review/comment of a lens that says "this is the best/buy this lens" I also see one that says "don't buy this lens". It's very frustrating :(

oops I did mean the 16-35 F4, just wrote the wrong one there. I'm torn between the 16-35 and the 17-55 right now. I like the 16-35 since it's a L series that should be more "protected" since I do a lot of hiking and travelling in all kind of places + winter shooting. Correct me if I'm wrong on the lens protection.


I had the 17-55 IS. I have used it in dusty (Antelope canyon) and rainy (Oregon) conditions without any problem. I always kept a filter on, and zoomed slowly if I was worried about dust. I never had any dust inside my lens (not that it affects IQ anyway).
The 16-35 is weather sealed, of course, but if you are careful enough then I would weigh that sole advantage over the several that the 17-55 offers:
1. Two to three stops of image stabilization.
2. Less than half the price
3. Fully usable (sharpness, vignetting, etc.) wide open and quite acceptable corners
4. Much lighter and slightly smaller
5. The 35-55mm focal range, which makes it a very good portrait lens (and the bokeh is quite nice)






48
Hmm... That'd require a lens with IS.

49
Photography Technique / Need air show advice- Wings over Houston
« on: October 26, 2014, 10:50:17 PM »
Hi all
I shall be attending the Wings over Houston airshow next Sunday. I shall be taking my 5DIII, 5Dc, 24-70II, 70-200II and both TCs. I wish I received the 7DII before that, but I doubt that will happen. In any case, gear is pretty much decided- I shall just take what I have. And I decided to take my monopod.
I would greatly appreciate any air show-related advice (or related to shooting aircrafts). I have seen some amazing threads in these forums, and I know there are a few experts and a lot who are good all round. It will be great to get some tips re shooting planes on the ground, in flight, solos and formations, tracking, pre focusing or not, shutter speeds for props, etc. I have zero experience.
If you have experience of going to Ellington and are willing to share, that will also be much appreciated.
Can't offer much in return except I will post all the reasonably acceptable pictures :)
Thanks in advance.

50
EOS Bodies / Re: It's just me but...
« on: October 26, 2014, 02:52:14 PM »
As the Canon's "Year of the Lens" closes I find myself disappointed with the new offerings. 

So far, no lenses have inspired me to upgrade ( last lens 24-70 2.8II, and it is excellent).  Otherwise, the lens announcements don't resonate.  I am still waiting for  great improvement in the full frame camera lines to replace the aging 5DIII or 1DX.

I'm a loyal Canon fan, however tech along with the propaganda from the other companies does appear  to leave the canon sensor in the dust.  A lot of the criticism is warranted and it  is starting to have an impact on how I view the company and its rivals.

Anyone else feel this way.

Hoping that 2015 will be Cannon's "Year of Revolutionary New Cameras, sensors, Focusing, and all things that make other camera companies wet their panties".

I'm wearing asbestos so I'm ready.  I intentionally did not mention dr, or talk numbers here, so I'm interested in how people feel.


sek

You're not alone.  I held out last year with all of the hype about 2014 and feel like an idiot now.  There's still some time though.

As for the sensor, I agree that some of the discussions on this site and others have me hoping that the new multi layer sensors (or whatever the future of Canon holds) addresses them.

My plan is to purchase things that I know I want, and that have the features that will keep me satisfied a good while.

What did you hold out for, and felt like an idiot when it didn't come? Just curious.

OP, what lenses would have inspired you to upgrade?

Are we just lusting after lenses instead of using the heck out of what we have, and coming up with real gaps instead of imagined ones?
I posted a thread few weeks back wondering what lens would fill a gap I had in my arsenal. The good forum members made me realize how the gap was imagined rather than real and what I had was more than sufficient (it was as anti-G.A.S. as a thread can get).

As PBD said, our productivity can often be more impacted by the tools instead of lenses or bodies.

51
EOS Bodies / Re: It's just me but...
« on: October 26, 2014, 02:45:23 PM »
I can't even remember any lenses released this year besides the 400 DO...

Ummm.... 10-18, 16-35, 55-200, 24, 24-105... makes a total of 6 lenses... in what year did Canon last release 6 lenses? :D
*sigh* I didn't say that they hadn't released any. And I'm sorry that I need to explain everything when I'm not understood; I assume, perhaps wrongfully, that people more fluent in English than I am, are able to comprehend my way of writing and reasoning. None of the released ones have had any impact on me and are not of the kind I can see myself use much, hence I don't feel the need to explicitly remember them. The Otus'es I would remember since they're more of a revolution and a great leap in technology, even though those are not on my near-future got-to-have-list.

I think you (and many others on the forum) were better off being misunderstood as being misinformed about Canon releases rather than being correctly understood as one of those who cares only about ""what has Canon done for ME lately?" as Soulless Polack aptly put.


52
Hello!

Well, so far I've only used point-and-shoot cameras in my life. I'm at a point where I want to make the jump to DSLR and really get serious about photography (still a hobby though), so I'm currently trying to decide what I'd need to buy. I'm also reading tons of materials on photography, watching videos, anything I can absorb to learn more. I also love to read tons of reviews but right now I think I've read so much I'm just completely confused. Hopefully you guys can help me a bit :)

What I enjoy to photograph, in order (unfortunately, everything) :
- Wildlife
- Landscape
- Macro
- Portraits

The body is set in stone, I'm really going for the Canon EOS 7D Mark II (getting the body only though, no kit lens).

As for each category, some I know what to get and some I'm not sure anymore.

- Wildlife (and some sports) : Going for the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM (decided)
- Landscape : I don't know anymore.. any help appreciated
- Macro : Canon EF 100MM F2.8 L Macro IS USM (decided, might buy a bit later though)
- Portraits : I don't know anymore.. any help appreciated

I am hoping to combine the Landscape and Portraits into one lens, if possible (but a quality one). That would help keep the cost down and also to not switch lens too often. Would be great on trips to just carry one lens while walking. I do take a lot more landscape photos than portrait though. I would prefer (and feel safer) if that lens had image stabilization. I'd say my budget for that combined lens would be 1500$ or lower (lower would be nice of course!).

Some lens I've looked into so far :
 - Canon EF 24-70mm f/4 L IS USM (could come with the body as a very nice rebate)
 - Canon EF-S 10-22MM 3.5-4.5 USM
 - Canon EF 35MM F1.4L USM
 - Canon EF 16-35MM F2.8 L II USM LENS
etc.

Please keep in mind that this is a crop body so I need something that will still be able to get some beautiful large landscapes, if possible!

Thank you for any help :)

Here are some choices I would consider for landscape/standard zoom (in order of priority):

1. 17-55 f/2.8 IS: provides a longer range, so you can use it for portraits on crop, has IS, about $ 800, very sharp and an excellent lens to boot
2. 15-85 f/3.5-5.6 IS: much longer range and therefore very versatile, has IS, about $ 600, as sharp as the 17-55.
3. 16-35 f/4 L IS: good focal length on crops for landscape, has IS, about 1.2K, tack sharp acc. to reviews
[I would advice against the 16-35 f/2.8 as it provides narrower range, no IS, and is not very sharp wide open according to most users. I haven't used it, and it is probably a great lens on FF- but provides NO advantage over the 17-55 on crop sensors, especially since you are probably not switching to FF right after buying a brand new lens. The 24-70 is not a good range on crop if you shoot landscapes more and don't KNOW yet if you will be satisfied being limited to a 35mm FF equivalent. The 35/1.4 is a great lens on FF and a fantastic street/low light full body portrait lens on crop. It is a great lens if you are okay with a limited focal length, but probably not the ideal first lens to buy]

Options 1 and 2 will let you avoid getting a portrait lens for a while. Both lenses are very usable wide open, and 50-55mm is a great range for portrait on APS-C. On the other hand, 3 and 4 are far better lenses for landscape and generally newer, sharper lenses, but will require you get a separate portrait lens.

I didn't mention the 18-135 because the 15-85 is a far better choice IMO- the difference between 15mm and 18mm is significant on the wide end, but on the tele end 85mm-135mm might not be that beneficial, especially if you have a dedicated tele lens. Plus the IQ and build quality is significantly better on the 15-85 wrt the 18-135. And I feel STM is too slow and noisy compared to USM, but that might just be me (it's okay on the pancakes, tho').

Here are some portrait choices:
1. As Neuro mentioned: 85/1.8 if you prefer headshots
2. 50/1.8 or 50/1.4 if you prefer more half-body traditional portraits: DO NOT get the 50/1.4 if you are getting the 17-55. The 50/1.4 isn't that sharp wider than f/2.8 and the 17-55 is better wide open than the 50mm at the same aperture. You can, however, get the 50/1.8 as it will serve as a low-light lens in a pinch and has a really low price. In fact, I almost always recommend the 50/1.8 as the first prime as the images wide open will feel like magic (yeah, the 50/1.4 is slightly better but not worth the extra price IMO given its performance below f/2.8 ).

By the way, the 18-55mm is a perfectly capable lens for all the purposes. So you might just want to use it for a year or so until you know what you want and then make a more informed purchase.

53
To be clear to all, when I asked if it was DO, I wasn't hoping that it's DO.  To be honest, I don't care one way or another AS LONG AS THE IQ IS THERE.

I was merely remembering the announcement from September 17 of this year that more DO lenses are coming - and in the same announcement talking about the 100-400 replacement.... and then in the same announcement also mentioning that Canon has a patent on a 100-400 DO zoom.

Canon Rumors link here: Canon Confirms Replacement of 100-400 Coming, More DO & EF-M Lenses

CNET Source link here: Canon Reveals Details For Future Telephoto Lens Line
A new 400mm supertele is just the beginning. Canon also says it plans a replacement for its 100-400mm zoom and new compact models using diffractive optics.


Well, you will note that the 100-400 and the DO lenses are mentioned as separate matters.

Quote
The 100-400mm zoom is a good example. Canon introduced it in 1998 with its first-generation image stablization technology, which counteracts some camera shake, and still sells it for $1,700. But a new model is in the works, said Canon technical advisor Chuck Westfall in an interview here at the Photokina show Monday. "It's definitely on the boards for replacement," he said, though declining to say when.

In addition, Canon is working to spread a technology called diffractive optics, or DO, into more lenses, he added -- maybe even cheaper lenses.

CR mentioned these as separate matters, but then added the information about the patent anecdotally- which confused some and started a couple of threads. I would have said I don't think the 100-400 II will be a DO, but then I am not sure there is a 100-400 II to begin with!

[In any case, just because Chuck Westfall mentioned a 100-400 replacement, do not start planning a bank robbery. He specifically mentioned (without being asked) how they were working on AF illumination in the 5DIII, which never materialized. So Canon USA has little idea about what Canon Inc. does.]

I can't find a link for Chuck Westfall mentioning af illumination on the 5d3.  Where is that?  Was it after the 5d3 came out, as in a firmware update?  That's my biggest complaint with my 5d3.  Any chance it will still come?

I doubt it. Here's the post and the accompanying video.

http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/05/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii-ai-servo-af-point-issue/

54
Time has passed this lens by - it is two years to late.

The 150-600 zoom is the new kid on the block...

Indeed, and like much of America's youth, the 'new kids' are big and overweight.  The retracted 100-400L is the size of a 70-200/2.8, a very convenient size for a 400mm lens.  Considering the optical improvements going from original to MkII of the 70-200/2.8 IS, a new 100-400 should be excellent.  Mount a 1.4x TC behind it, you'll have a 140-560mm f/8 lens that will AF on recent higher-end bodies, deliver great IQ, and be a heck of a lot more portable than those "I'm not fat, I'm big-boned" new kids.  ;)

The only problem will be the price. Canon will ask for an arm and a leg for it, and that makes it really difficult to balance a telephoto lens, IS or no IS.

55
I actually drove from Eugene, OR to Houston, TX about 2.5 years back and plan to go the opposite route in about 6 months.
It takes about 3 days straight to drive from El Paso, TX to Portland, OR. going via Denver, or Salt Lake City or Reno, NV or Sacramento, CA. I am excluding the route via LA because the South-North part isn't that scenic. So you have about 7 days worth of sightseeing- not bad at all.
Things to see in Oregon:
1. Crater Lake will be mostly closed in November, but they might have the Snowshoeing trips on. It is quite nice, actually, and I liked it more than Crater Lake in summer bustling with people. But check on the entry routes. I believe one of the entrances is closed in Winter, and if it is the South one, then it will be too much of going around to make it worthwhile for you. So, check with the Park authorities.
2. I would recommend hitting the coast early around the Redwoods, then go North up to Coos Bay. The coast will be much cooler North of that. Then cross over East via 42 and then 62 to Crater Lake. Then from there you can go North to visit Bend, and then Columbia River Gorge and Portland.
I am not very familiar with vistas in North Cali, but I am sure you've got a lot of ideas re that already.
Happy driving!

56
To be clear to all, when I asked if it was DO, I wasn't hoping that it's DO.  To be honest, I don't care one way or another AS LONG AS THE IQ IS THERE.

I was merely remembering the announcement from September 17 of this year that more DO lenses are coming - and in the same announcement talking about the 100-400 replacement.... and then in the same announcement also mentioning that Canon has a patent on a 100-400 DO zoom.

Canon Rumors link here: Canon Confirms Replacement of 100-400 Coming, More DO & EF-M Lenses

CNET Source link here: Canon Reveals Details For Future Telephoto Lens Line
A new 400mm supertele is just the beginning. Canon also says it plans a replacement for its 100-400mm zoom and new compact models using diffractive optics.


Well, you will note that the 100-400 and the DO lenses are mentioned as separate matters.

Quote
The 100-400mm zoom is a good example. Canon introduced it in 1998 with its first-generation image stablization technology, which counteracts some camera shake, and still sells it for $1,700. But a new model is in the works, said Canon technical advisor Chuck Westfall in an interview here at the Photokina show Monday. "It's definitely on the boards for replacement," he said, though declining to say when.

In addition, Canon is working to spread a technology called diffractive optics, or DO, into more lenses, he added -- maybe even cheaper lenses.

CR mentioned these as separate matters, but then added the information about the patent anecdotally- which confused some and started a couple of threads. I would have said I don't think the 100-400 II will be a DO, but then I am not sure there is a 100-400 II to begin with!

[In any case, just because Chuck Westfall mentioned a 100-400 replacement, do not start planning a bank robbery. He specifically mentioned (without being asked) how they were working on AF illumination in the 5DIII, which never materialized. So Canon USA has little idea about what Canon Inc. does.]

57
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: How Strong is a Sony Lens Mount
« on: October 24, 2014, 04:52:33 PM »
But yeah anything can happen especially when you try to lift that sony a7+ Metabones adapter + Sigma 200-500 f2.8 combination by the camera grip so better get that tough e-mount to be safe.

Except, I'd prefer a broken mount than the front of my camera being wrenched out if I were to do something as silly as that.

58
Portrait / Re: Post Your Self Portraits Here
« on: October 24, 2014, 04:48:49 PM »
FYI, there's already a long-running thread on this topic.
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=6114.msg115068#msg115068

59
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: How Strong is a Sony Lens Mount
« on: October 23, 2014, 02:29:00 AM »
I'll agree with tcmatthews. The NEX/A7 cameras are tiny. If you use a small enough lens, the plastic mount is strong enough for that. If you use a big lens, and the camera literally hangs on to the lens, the mount is sufficient for that too. If anything untoward happens, you don't wrench the front of your tiny camera out, you only have a plastic lens mount to replace.
Canon dSLRs are much tougher built, and designed to support heavier lenses.
I think this is just an instance when a demand is 'created' in order to sell a product. It might be okay to get the Tough mount, but better not get a false sense of security that you can hang a 200/2 off an A7 all day and everything will be hunky dory. Just my 2 cents.

60
Lenses / Re: Zoom or 135 in Place of 100 and 200?
« on: October 20, 2014, 11:49:57 PM »
I am curious why conspicuousness might be an issue in indoor/outdoor sports, especially as every fifth person I see nowadays near a sporting event (not a pro) carries a white zoom.
Would using a lenscoat/gaffer's tape wrap solve that issue?
Clearly, what would serve you best is the 70-200 II.
I think I have to come to grips with that and not fight it.  I just like small and compact, but I think it's time.  I  have some more winners to post, but my latest round of favorites (with the 100 and 200) are at the top of www.flickr.com/photos/corysteiner/ if you'd like to see.

Beautiful images, thanks for sharing. You clearly know what you are doing :)
I hear you- I almost never take my 70-200 for travel, and my 135L is always with me. Consequently, it sees a lot of use. However, when I absolutely need to take a shot and have no guarantee that the 135 will be wide enough, I don't think twice before taking my 70-200 instead. Also, even if the prime works fine, it is better IMO to have a bit of flexibility in terms of composition. For example, in IMG_7364, you would have the flexibility to include the faces of the team mates as your daughter (I am guessing) bumps the ball.


Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 100