Messages

31

Lenses / Re: f2 2x zooms

« on: January 25, 2012, 11:00:17 AM »

I know a 24-70L f/2 would be very heavy (and expensive), so I would settle for a 35-70L f/2 if it existed.

32

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Meet Canon's C300 In Person

« on: January 23, 2012, 07:17:10 PM »

There's demos all over the place.
I received FOUR invitations myself for a C300 demonstration in Holland, here's the places and dates for anyone interested. Some are open to public.

30 January: CameraTools, Apeldoorn (http://www.cameratools.nl/Default.asp?newsitem=687&pageid=115, EF mount, lenses unknown)
31 January: CameraNU, Urk (http://www.cameranu.nl/nl/content/1354/Canon-C300-Inloopdag.html, EF mount, lenses unknown)
1 February: Nivo Schweitser, Amsterdam (www.nivo-schweitzer.nl, EF mount, lenses unkown)
2 February: Canon Business Center, Amstelveen (platinum/gold/video CPS members only, both EF and PL mounts, some lenses)
3 February: Canon Business Center, Amstelveen (platinum/gold/video CPS members only, both EF and PL mounts, some lenses)

Edit: added info about mounts and lenses

33

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III Sighting?

« on: January 23, 2012, 04:17:36 PM »

I can't read the text right at the top of the LCD though.

It says "ONE SHOT".

SOMETHING looks fishy.  If you look at this site : http://blog.apertureacademy.com/2012/01/canon-200-400mm-and-600mm-prototype.html  you will see there are 6 pictures of this fellow shooting with the mystery camera.  IN THE THIRD PICTURE from the top there is NO TAPE over the canon logo at the bottom of the screen on the back, yet every other picture has the tape on which leads me to believe that someone has done something to the photograph(s) as I don't think the tape fell off for one only one of the pictures.

Pictures 1, 2 and 3 are obviously the 1D X. It's the body mounted to the 600mm we want to know more about.

34

Lenses / Re: How will new ultra high ISO bodies impact f/2.8 telephoto zoom lenses?

« on: January 23, 2012, 02:43:39 PM »

Speaking of sensors, there is also another factor at play here that has an even greater impact and that is the crop factor.

For your 5D, you can get a 300 mm f2.8 for $7,300. But, with a 7D you can get an effective 320mm from the 70-200mm f2.8 zoom for $2,100. The 300mm f4 is still a cheaper option for the 5D, but again, on the 7D that's effectively almost a 500 mm f4 (actually 480mm), which is a $6,800 lens.

Don't forget that on the 7D a f/2.8 lens has DOF f/4.5 effectively, and the 300mm f/4 becomes a 480mm with DOF f/6.4.
This is not necessarily bad, I actually love this feature on 1.6x crop bodies.

Back on subject, GoldenEagle has a point. I shoot indoor group sports at ISO 6400 and f/4 just to get a few more eyes in focus. If the AF would be up to it I would even try f/5.6. But I still prefer f/2.8 or faster lenses, not just for shallower DOF, but also because the viewfinder would be a lot darker with an f/5.6 lens.

35

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III Sighting?

« on: January 23, 2012, 02:19:19 PM »

The center lock on the mode dial seems to be inherited from the 60D.
The "Canon" brand is positioned below the LCD, just like on the 7D and 1D IV, but on the 5D II it's on the edge.

The body in the second picture is a 1D X by the way.  (edit: nicely spotted, Joes Dad)

One novelty is separate switch photo/movie mode on right to viewfinder. I don't think there were any switches like that before in Canon DLSR

The 7D has one.

36

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III Sighting?

« on: January 23, 2012, 01:56:17 PM »

Or a 7D Mk II without a flash?

37

Lenses / Re: Going Wide on FF but which.

« on: January 20, 2012, 04:57:08 PM »

What's the huge deal with the 200-400?  It is a nice range to have ... and Canon has 400mm covered in 4-5 lenses at different price points  does it not?

It has a built-in 1.4x extender which makes it a 280-560mm f/5.6 lens as well.
That's 900mm on a 1.6x body, with AF.

38

Canon General / Re: Patent - Short Range Wireless Lens Mount & Other Accessories

« on: January 12, 2012, 04:40:02 AM »

This could be great for third-party or homemade extenders/extension tubes.
But I think they just want to improve the weather sealing.

39

Lenses / Re: Lens recommendations for fashion photography (catwalk)

« on: January 07, 2012, 08:29:13 PM »

Here's a few links that might get you started:

http://photo.net/learn/runway-fashion-photography/fashion-week-nyc/
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/features/London_Fashion_Week__how_to_shoot_a_catwalk_show_features_305793.html

40

Lenses / Re: A tale of 3 Lenses 70-200 F4 IS vs 70-200 F2.8 vs 70-300 F4.5 IS

« on: January 06, 2012, 08:35:46 PM »

.... If I understood neuro's tech posts correctly, the DOF will be more shallow on FF for the same subject distance and framing.
..

I thought for the same subject distance, the Crop has more OOF blur, but for the same framing the FF has more OOF blur...

Yes but what if you have both the same subject distance and the same framing, i.e. only a different focal length?

41

Lenses / Re: A tale of 3 Lenses 70-200 F4 IS vs 70-200 F2.8 vs 70-300 F4.5 IS

« on: January 06, 2012, 08:40:04 AM »

You do know a new 100-400 is coming out?

It's still only a CR2 rumor: http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/11/canon-ef-100-400-f4-5-6l-is-soonish-cr2/

[...]
I found myself wanting to blow out the back more in some cases, and since moving to the FF 5D MKII I am actually surprised how much I have been shooting the with the 70-200 indoors.
so now, what is a complete change, is I am leaning to the 2.8 IS either MK I or MK II.

If I understood neuro's tech posts correctly, the DOF will be more shallow on FF for the same subject distance and framing.
Did you try the 70-200 f/4 on a 5D?

Anyways, congrats on your purchase. The 70-200 f/2.8 is one of my favourite lenses.
Because of the weight I recommend a comfortable strap (BlackRapid or the like).

42

Software & Accessories / Re: Monitor recomendations for viewing and editing

« on: December 16, 2011, 04:36:17 AM »

I really recommend 24 inch or larger.
The Dell Ultrasharp U2410 and U2711 are on my watchlist at the moment, U3011 is above my budget.
I might also get a 27" iMac next year, until then I'm "stuck" with dual Acers (24" + 19").

43

Lens Gallery / Re: Canon 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

« on: December 16, 2011, 04:23:05 AM »

The 15-85mm is probably the best EF-S kit lens out there, better than the 17-85 and obviously the 18-55/18-135 "toy" zooms. Great for walk-around, smooth zoom ring, fast USM and of course IS. The lens is a bit heavy for Rebels but matches the 7D perfectly.

15mm is pretty wide (24mm FF) but in the end I wanted something even wider so I sold my copy after getting the 10-22 + 24-105L combination. Still highly recommended as general purpose lens, along with the 17-55 f/2.8 but I don't see that one in any kit.

44

Portrait / Re: Portraits of my "Better" half

« on: December 14, 2011, 06:36:34 AM »

Btw, Canon really needs to let us save more than one custom WB. What do most Nikon's allow? 5 or so?

The Canon EOS 5D Mk II has 3 personal presets, the  EOS-1Ds Mk III and EOS-1D Mk IV have 5.
The Nikon D700 and D90 have 4, and the D300s and D3s have 5.

45

EOS Bodies / Re: 7D + 10-22mm or 5D III + 16-35mm L II?

« on: December 13, 2011, 07:55:07 PM »

Will it buy me enough OVER AND BEYOND my current EF 16-36mm f/2.8 L II lens?

The EF-S 15-85 was not wide enough for me, so if you feel the same about your 16-35 then you should definately try an ultra-wide angle lens. The Canon 10-22 is a solid one, but any UWA lens that at least covers the 11-15mm range could be working for you. Note that Canon EF-S lenses as well as the Tokina, Tamron and Sigma UWA's are not weather sealed, so if you're shooting in a lake you might want to consider using a rainsleeve.

What about Sigma 8-16??  I am considering Sigma 8-16 or Canon 10-22 on 450d.

These two seem to be very close. I'd say the Canon one wins because you can put a filter on it (never had a problem with non-slim ones myself) and is therefore also easier to clean, it has a bit less vignette and distortion, and being 2/3 stop faster on the wide end comes in useful too.
The Sigma has less CA, and although the zoom range is smaller the extra 2mm on the wide end really count. It seems AF works accurately too.