Messages

31

Lenses / Re: 5DIII/X Kit Lens? (please vote)

« on: February 24, 2012, 07:50:46 AM »

I'd like to see a kit include a prime for once.  Maybe the new 35mm f1.4 L II.   

32

Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: Eneloop batteries for my flash

« on: February 19, 2012, 08:11:24 AM »

I'm also an eneloop user.  While I agree the charger it comes with takes a shade under a decade to charge batteries, I just have multiple sets and charge overnight.  IMO its not worth the risk of trashing the batteries.

I do not store batteries in the flash though as I had a battery explode in one once.  Granted, I hadn't used the flash for a few weeks, but it made me nervous going forward.  It trashed the flash, but the battery company (Rayovac) replaced it for me.  Good customer service at least!

33

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II

« on: February 06, 2012, 08:39:49 PM »

Proof the image is fake:

The lens is set at 24mm and is fully retracted. Canon lenses extend when they get wider, and retract when zoomed.

My 17-55mm is disagreeing with you.

34

EOS Bodies / Re: *UPDATE* 5D Mark III Sighting?

« on: January 24, 2012, 08:11:19 AM »

Click here for full size (1600x1400)

Lots of good discussion.  I'm not sure if this has been mentioned, but the battery door/compartment for the grip has definitely been redesigned, likely because of the inclusion of a joystick on the grip.  The battery door and release do not appear to be on the same plane as the back of the camera anymore.  From what I can tell, it looks like battery(ies) will load on the side, similar to the 1D series.  The grip also appear to have a lower profile on the back, which is a welcome change.  It looks significantly more ergonomic than current grips.

35

EOS Bodies / Re: 1DX and focusing screens

« on: October 30, 2011, 11:17:40 PM »

Awesome!  Thanks for that.  Was somewhat concerned that some of my fast MF-only glass would become unusable like it is on the 7D, but it looks like it will be ok on the 1Dx based on your link.

@Picsfor - I prefer the build of the 1D series significantly over the 5D series.  Additionally, I'm excited about the new sensor, specifically using it in low light situations where I typically prefer to use manual focus (even though AF systems are getting better in low light settings, I still find MF quicker and more accurate).  Also, it would be a pity for fast Zeiss glass to be essentially unusable at max aperture.

@Picsfor - "who needs MF, and if you do, just use a different camera," nice, helpful answer. Also, the AF system never cares what aperture you use, only the max aperture of the lens. An f/2.8 max aperture activates the most precise points, but accuracy is driven by the f/2.8 baseline for triangulation by the AF system, even with an f/1.2 lens. That means MF has the potential to be more accurate with a lens faster than f/2.8, if you can install a focusing screen that shows the true DoF of a lens faster than f/2.5 (the approximate cutoff of the standard focus screen).

@Isurus - should be possible. The Canon USA page on the 1D X lists five different focusing screens (and the popup compatibility lists do include the 1D X).

36

EOS Bodies / 1DX and focusing screens

« on: October 30, 2011, 02:19:42 PM »

Has any one seen any info on whether or not interchangeable focus screens will be available for the 1DX?  Given that the viewfinder has an electronic overlay like the 7D, I'm guessing we will be stuck with the standard focusing screen like the 7D as well.  This will be unfortunate for those of us that manually focus a lot, as the standard focusing screen blows for it and is damn near impossible to use at large apertures.

Any word on this?

37

Lenses / Re: Good yet affordable telephoto lens?

« on: September 08, 2011, 07:44:59 AM »

In order to get a telephoto lens on the cheaper side, you are going to have to sacrifice the aperture of the lens and go with a wide open f4 or f5.6 instead of f2.8 most likely.  You could try the Canon 70-300L or 70-200 f/4 L (I/S).  Both of these are very nice lenses and cost significantly less than the 70-200 f2.8 IS II.

I'm not sure what you are reading, but I disagree that the Sigma lens has the same image quality as the Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS II (assuming you are speaking to newest version).  Wide open my copy of the Canon is very, very sharp and it says that way until about f/8 and then starts to decrease slightly as expected.  When I tested the Sigma the Canon clearly beat it from at least f2.8 to f5.6 across the zoom range. 

38

Canon General / Re: shutter noise in 1DMark III

« on: July 24, 2011, 09:47:48 PM »

The only thing I'm aware of is a blimp.  Basically, it is a foam lined case that fits over the camera to reduce noise.  They are cumbersome at best though.  I've seen people use them at events like golf and tennis though.  Here is a link:

http://www.soundblimp.com/canon.htm

39

Contests / Re: Holga Giveaway

« on: July 20, 2011, 07:48:19 AM »

Woot.  Looks interesting.

40

Contests / Re: Giveaway - Blue Crane Digital DVD's

« on: March 01, 2011, 07:37:12 AM »

* Digital Rebel / 300D (first affordable)
* 5D Mark II (first HD video)
* 1Ds (first FF)
* 1D Mark IV (high ISO)

Prefer the flash video.

Thanks for the fun contest.

41

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS Announced

« on: February 08, 2011, 07:44:07 AM »

Thanks for the link to the larger pic.  You can easily see how it will work from that.

I agree with your thoughts on the 70-200mm f2.8 IS L II and a long prime being a good alternative to this (and maybe preferred for that matter).  It will be interesting to see how this lens actually performs optically, as well as how fast and accurate the auto focus is.  For me the biggest advantage of the 400mm f5.6 prime over the 100-400 is auto focus speed and accuracy, especially when tracking BIF. 

So how exactly does "switching off the teleconverter" work?  That's the part that has me most intrigued.  You can't remove it, but you can turn it off?

If you look at a larger image of the lens, you can see a 'bump' behind the lug for the lens carrying strap, right under the switch for the internal extender.  That switch appears to be a small lever, which I presume swings the lens elements for the internal 1.4x extender out of the optical path and into that 'bump' when the extender is 'off'. 

I got my number by taking the 100-400, and adding 50%; but looking at the pricing of f/4L primes in that range, your numbers look more realistic.

A constant f/4 zoom is a whole different beast than a variable (f/4.5-5.6) zoom like the 100-400mm.  As others have stated, this new Canon lens is most similar to the Nikon 200-400mm f/4, which is 15" long, nearly 8 pounds, and costs $6800.  The Canon has a built-in TC, and that expensive white paint, meaning it will come in at least $1K more than the Nikon counterpart.

In my opinion a better option is to have the 70-200mm with a 2x extender which pretty much gives you a 100-400mm, although obviously not as sharp and the length (which is the major point of this discussion) etc then it is 2 lenses in one.

Ah, but it's not really two lenses in one.  First off, even the new 2x III has a noticeable negative impact on IQ of the 70-200 II.  Second, adding a teleconverter to a lens in the field is actually much more difficult than simply switching lenses (which I guess is one big reason Canon built it in to the new zoom).  IMO, the better bet is a 70-200mm zoom paired with a longer prime lens.  If Canon were to release a 400mm f/5.6L IS for around $1700 or a 500mm f/5.6L IS for under $2300, that would be a big seller, I think, and a great complement to the 70-200mm II.

42

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS Announced

« on: February 07, 2011, 10:37:40 PM »

Check the cost of Nikon's.  That's probably a decent reference point and it currently runs for $6800 at B&H.  $7500 is a very reasonable estimate.

So how exactly does "switching off the teleconverter" work?  That's the part that has me most intrigued.  You can't remove it, but you can turn it off?

I will wager $7499 USD.

I got my number by taking the 100-400, and adding 50%; but looking at the pricing of f/4L primes in that range, your numbers look more realistic.

43

Lenses / Re: Canon 400 f/5.6L IS in April? [CR1]

« on: February 05, 2011, 08:21:21 PM »

Like others, I'm not buying this rumor.  I don't see it as being a priority.  Canon probably feels that, if a person wants a budget 400mm with IS they can buy the 100-400mm L.  Plus adding IS to the lens would probably also bring a decent price hike, which would make the lens less attractive.

44

EOS Bodies / Re: 600D/T3i Specs [CR2]

« on: February 03, 2011, 08:14:39 PM »

I agree.  This seems like a 60D in a slightly smaller form factor with lower fps.  There just doesn't seem like enough differentiation to me, especially since they've effectively rebelized the XXD series.

That will make it almost like a 60D except the size and the grip.  What is the point of having this model??

45

EOS Bodies / Re: Deep Hidden Meanings? EOS 6D/3D?

« on: February 02, 2011, 10:13:23 PM »

I'd say that the 24mm f/1.4 L II is also a low light wide-angle, even more so than that 16-35 actually.  Although, it is still only wide on a FF.

I'm still guessing it is just a printer and possibly a rebel.  Maybe they printed the invite on the new printer or something.  I just have a hard time believing they'll be announcing a new FF camera within a week without any leaks of the body yet.  With the Internet the way it is now, pretty much everything leaks before hand (see Apple products, for example).

Sometimes it is right in front of your face....

1. Canon likely has shown a pictures from the advertising for the new camera.

2. Canon always has only photographs taken with the new body except for those photographs of the camera itself.

3. The photograph of the cranes is taken in low light with a very wide angle lens.

4. The only low light wide angle lens is the 16-35 f2.8 and it is only wide angle on a FF body.

Therefore, new camera is FF. Eithere that or they are going to announce a new printer.

Now if I could only count the pixels.....