March 02, 2015, 06:41:25 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 - JVLphoto

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 16

United Kingdom, 16 April 2014 – Canon today introduces a new white edition of the world’s smallest and lightest APS-C DSLR , the EOS 100D, as well as a new white version of its EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM zoom lens. Ideal for first time users looking to explore the world of DSLR photography, the new editions to the EOS range make it easy for anyone, whatever their skill level, to capture and relive special moments in stunning detail.

Measuring just 116.8 x 90.7 x 69.4mm, the EOS 100D is compact enough to always carry with you and features an 18 MP APS-C Hybrid CMOS AF II sensor and a range of simple controls and automatic shooting modes, making capturing stunning images and Full HD movies effortless. The incredibly lightweight and compact body provides a traditional DSLR shooting experience while the large 7.7cm (3.0”) ClearView II touch screen, makes it easy to adjust settings and review images straight after capture.

The white EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM lens is the perfect partner for the new EOS 100D, providing the flexibility to capture everyday subjects from sweeping landscapes to close-up portraits. An Optical Image Stabilizer ensures images are captured with impressive detail and clarity, while the near-silent STM technology also ensures noise is kept to a minimum whilst focusing in movies.

White 100D

100D Stormtrooper Edition

White EOS 100D – key features:

18.0 Megapixel Hybrid CMOS AF II sensor

Compact, portable design

Simple shooting with Scene Intelligent Auto

Optical viewfinder and large touch screen

Full-HD movies with Hybrid CMOS AF II

Creative Filters and Extra Effect Shot

Built-in Feature Guide

EOS System of lenses and accessories

White EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM – key features:

Versatile focal length range

Compact design

Four-stop optical Image Stabilizer

Smooth focusing with STM motor

0.25m closest focusing distance

Super Spectra Coating

Non-rotating front element

Manual focus ring

Circular seven-bladed aperture

Pricing and availability

The EOS 100D White will be available from May 2014 with an MSRP of £499/€599


via TDP

Canon General / Re: Review: Canon Speedlite Transmitter ST-E3-RT
« on: March 17, 2014, 01:41:56 PM »
I haven't had the same unreliable connection with my YN-E3-RT as you guys have, but It definitely feels cheaper, and didn't do well when I had it outdoors for a -30C shoot (I can't comment on if the Canon could have fared better).

It works on my 5D2 in the way's I'd want the ST-E3-RT to, and the the AF focus assist is still a nice touch. A friend of mine couldn't get it to work on his Fuji X-Pro1 (remember, this is supposed to offer control with the firmware update on other camera bodies) but again, we haven't tested it beyond that.

I still see it as a workable alternative, but yeah, I wouldn't put everything I had against it, I still pack the Canon one just in case.

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 50mm f/1.4
« on: March 06, 2014, 08:44:21 AM »
I know I'm late to the game, but I have a 50mm 1.8 that has a problem with my 6D that AFMA can't fix. Just bought the 85mm 1.8 (love it) and was considering a replacement for my 50mm 1.8. I thought it was going to be the 50mm 1.4 but after reading all this, I'm thinking I'm going to wait. Might buy the shorty 40 while I wait for Sigma to actually give us a price. If the new Sigma is as good as everyone thinks its going to be, and it costs under $800, I'm there.

I'm also very interested in what the Sigma will bring - and I'll definitely be reviewing it when it's available. If you can get the 50mm while it's on sale for less than $400 I think it's still an incredible value. Despite my "ho hum" review of the 40mm it's kind of grown on me, it's a very capable lens and if you don't have a zoom in that focal range it's a no-brainer as a buy.

Reviews / Re: Review - Sigma 24-105mm f/4 DG OS
« on: February 18, 2014, 08:48:03 AM »
I had a friend whose lens fell apart as they were shooting because the plastic screws used inside just gave up. And that's the kind of reputation Sigma has to work hard to dispel.
Your friend's experience is unfortunate ... but Sigma's reputation was mostly about AF and soft focus issues, not really about build quality. In the past when people bought Sigma lens at half the price of a Canon/Nikon lens, they knew they weren't buying the same build quality as Canon ... I've used several Sigma lenses over the past 15 or so years, they never fell apart like what happened to your friend's lens (btw, I am not disputing what happened to your friend's lens, but merely stating that build quality issues like lenses falling apart due to plastic screws giving up, are not generally associated with Sigma lenses).

I guess I should say that's their repution *for us* (me and my friends) who know this to have happened. But yes, focus issues are definitely something I've experience first hand, again, with the 70-200. I probably won't even look at Sigma's older lens lineup at this point - see what their new line brings.

Reviews / Re: Review - Sigma 24-105mm f/4 DG OS
« on: February 17, 2014, 06:07:20 PM »

Thanks for taking the time and effort to review this lens.
If people don't like your review maybe they can do one themselves....

I've had sigma lenses before and maybe these new "Art" designated lenses are higher quality than the last generation.
However, if my Canon 24-105 lens needs to be replaced, I think I'll stick to a Canon. My previous lens was a 17-70mm and I had to replace it twice to get one that was on the money.

Sigma's new lenses do look great but the ultimate question in my head is can they back it up with robust product that continually performs in its lifetime.

Excellent point, where I know buying a Canon L lens will last me a "lifetime" (this varies these days) I haven't met a Sigma that holds the same standard. But they say the standards have changed. I'm going into year 2 with the 35mm prime which, admitedly, will see less wear and tear than a zoom.

I'd like to see their 70-200 updated, I had a friend whose lens fell apart as they were shooting because the plastic screws used inside just gave up. And that's the kind of reputation Sigma has to work hard to dispel.

Reviews / Re: Review - Sigma 24-105mm f/4 DG OS
« on: February 17, 2014, 12:11:58 PM »
Gah! Charts!

Not to be rude, but the review doesn't answer some of the real world questions that I, as a Canon 24-105/4 user, have.

For example, how does the Sigma perform when using the OS to stabilize the video when following a moving subject while walking and pulling focus? This is a place where the Canon does a great job, and one of the reasons so many video guys use it.

Or, when in studio doing product photography, or other industrial/catalog work, how does the Sigma perform when shooting against lit white seamless at f/8? Do the blacks wash out, or does it stay sharp? Does kick-back from a backdrop lit a stop brighter than the subject cause the Sigma to become less contrasty? Lots of product guys use the 24-105 in this situation because it performs well under these conditions. I recall both Zarias and Ukandu lady saying the Canon 24-105 is the go-to lens in these conditions in their creative Live workshops.

Ugh, and you even specifically asked me for these. I'm the rude one for not addressing them.

To answer the video, I'm not a video shooter and any "test" I could do with it would lack any real insight into what a video shooter needs. I haven't talked about video in my other reviews because of this and held true here. I will assume that the "always on" OS being as silent as it was would suit this function incredibly well. It worked well enough for the stills.

I wanted to try the blown out backdrop, but ran out of time with the lens and had to send it away. Without testing this *specitifically* I do have a few good shots with direct light and there's still good contrast and detail. Sorry for missing this :(

Reviews / Re: Review - Sigma 24-105mm f/4 OS
« on: February 17, 2014, 11:15:12 AM »
My bookshelves are unedited though :-P

The images or the content?   ;)

Both? Some of those Manga titles are... titillating ;)

Reviews / Re: Review - Sigma 24-105mm f/4 OS
« on: February 17, 2014, 11:13:40 AM »
Why do people insist on posting images of bookshelves to demonstrate how "sharp" a lens is? There was not one detail in those images that was resolved differently by either lens, mainly due to the dearth of any high frequency detail that might show up resolution differences. If it wasn't for the distortion differences, I might have actually thought that they were samples from the same lens.

I think I'll wait for the results from Roger Cicala to decide whether the Sigma is a worthwhile upgrade. I would recommend that in future, you either do reviews properly or stop publishing this rubbish as CR's "official" review.

Out of 23 "reviews" this is the first and *only* time we posted photos of my dusty bookshelves. I certainly don't insist on it, or like it, but it does show difference of detail in the corners, vignetting and other real-world variables.

Roger is an incredible technical reviewer with all the right tools to measure and analyze lenses and I too look forward to his reviews and articles. I just pay less attention to the charts and more to how it works for me professionally. The final image is what matters to me and my clients.  I'm also open to hearing your take on what entails a "proper" review for my future rubbish.

Please accept my apologies for my last comment, it was harsh and rude; I appreciate anyone who takes the time to post a review and take the flak for it!

I wouldn't expect anyone who isn't properly set up for it to attempt quantitative testing, nor given the number of technical review sites available, would I feel the need for it. I would prefer to see you use large crops from photos taken in your professional style, like the photos that you used to illustrate the review, to demonstrate your points.

I won't mention the name of the website that uses the "bookshelf-of-doom" to "show" lens "sharpness", suffice to say that I don't put any credence in their reviews!

Accepted. Funny, I get flak when I don't do tests and when I do too (though the later I make no excuses for: I am not set up to do that *at all*).

And I'll definitely post more images in higher res as the day goes on. In most cases my images come processed to some point, I mean, most do right? My bookshelves are unedited though :-P

Reviews / Re: Review - Sigma 24-105mm f/4 DG OS
« on: February 17, 2014, 11:08:32 AM »
Is it just me that thinks the crops look very similar?

Nope, they are very close, distortion is a bit different at 24mm and the real difference are seen at the 100% crops. Even then it's not quite the res you need. See below (hope they help). Canon 24-105 f/4 IS (at f/4) 9.8MB Sigma 24-105 f/4 OS (at f/4)

Reviews / Re: Review - Sigma 24-105mm f/4 DG OS
« on: February 17, 2014, 10:50:33 AM »
Nice review ... I would have developed severe G.A.S problems if it was f/2.8 ... since it's an f/4, I have successfully avoided G.A.S

Phew. Close call.

Reviews / Re: Review - Sigma 24-105mm f/4 DG OS
« on: February 17, 2014, 10:50:11 AM »
Some of us want a lens we can know will perform in the rain and snow. Is this as weather resistant as Canon's L-series lenses? Can this lens go to the windy beach and not get clogged with sand? I've had Canon's 24-105mm f/4L IS in all sorts of conditions, and I have not thought twice about it. Dumb luck or specs, I do not know.

Is there a reliable rating system for such a question?

Hey, no weather sealing, not to mention the double-barrel zoom makes an extra area "exposed" for potential element influx. I don't think Sigma has an "All weather" rating, and neither does Canon (not even all the white L lenses are weather sealed).

Reviews / Re: Review - Sigma 24-105mm f/4 DG OS
« on: February 17, 2014, 10:39:29 AM »
Ugg. Focus shift.
Yeah, there's a term for that right? "Non-parfocal" but neither is the Canon... for what that's worth.

No, they are two different things. 

Parfocal means a lens maintains focus while being zoomed, it's a very useful feature for shooting video (whereas with stills, it's generally easy to refocus after zooming).  The Canon 24-105L is not parfocal (the 17-40, 16-35, and 70-200/2.8 non-IS are parfocal).  Not sure on the Sigma, but I'd guess it's not parfocal.

Focus shift means the focus changes when the lens is stopped down.  No problem shooting wide open, but if you stop the lens down to f/5.6 or f/8 with a close subject, that subject will likely not be in crisp focus with the Sigma 24-105.  With more distant subjects, the effect is masked by the deeper DoF.  The 50/1.2L is notorious for focus shift (people call it a 'backfocus problem' usually because of a lack of understanding the real issue).

Ah! Okay, yes, that actually makes sense. Thanks for the clarification!

Reviews / Re: Review - Sigma 24-105mm f/4 DG OS
« on: February 17, 2014, 10:21:36 AM »
For me the lens is just too heavy. I'm sure it would make an ideal lens for a lot of people though its just not really a travel lens, is it?

I also don't like the way it zooms, it looks weird.

I've only had my 24-105L for less than a year but it's already my most used lens. Yeah it has it's faults but damn that thing is just so useful. Kudos to Sigma for making a cracking lens though.

Exactly. A friend of mine *really* wanted to like it, but they wanted it as a sort of travel/backup kit lens. Too heavy for his work. I think there's a good reason that Canon is such a well travelled and sold lens: it meets a very good quality/weight/versatility balance.

Reviews / Re: Review - Sigma 24-105mm f/4 DG OS
« on: February 17, 2014, 10:19:52 AM »
Ugg. Focus shift.

Yeah, there's a term for that right? "Non-parfocal" but neither is the Canon... for what that's worth.

Reviews / Re: Review - Sigma 24-105mm f/4 OS
« on: February 17, 2014, 10:15:06 AM »
Why are there two threads for this story??

Compare this review with photozone's:

All images from

Maybe someone started one up unrelated to our review? Their own take?

charts *eyes glaze over*

But thanks for those, if I'm reading them right they confirm what I saw with my eyes, but with math.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 16