11
EOS-M / Re: EOS M Firmware 2.0.2 IS faster
« Last post by tombu on Today at 03:43:08 AM »Yep!! 
June 20, 2013, 04:51:06 AM
Recent Posts
12
Lenses / Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« Last post by GMCPhotographics on Today at 03:39:28 AM »I guess I'm the odd guy out here, because I don't get the interest in 16-50 at f/4 over 16-35 f/2.8 even with the IS.
Don't get me wrong, I LOVE image stabilization, and I like it on the new 28 2.8 IS. But f/4 does nothing for me, especially in the longer focal length; f/2.8 give me a lot of extra light when I need it.
The 14-24 could be interesting if it doesn't flare like the 4th of July as it does in Nikon-land. Otherwise I am only interested in replacing my 16-35 2.8 II ... IF version III is significantly better, and the upgrade doesn't kill my bank account.
I'm with you there! The problem with the Nikkor 14-24mm lens is that there is a very vocal group who keep telling every one that it's the best wide lens ever....and yet filters are a pain. The curved front element is very prone to damage and even water drops seem to get magnified on it. Sure it's image corners are sharp wide open, but it's not a lot greater than mose wides when stopped down (ie landscapes). It flares badly due to the bulbous front element and the angular distortion is quite high at 14mm. I don't really see much photographic value of those extra 2mm over the far more versatile 16-35IIL.
The 16-35IIL is a little dated as a design. Newer coatings would be good and less CA. Sharpness, well it's OK but I'm sure Canon can coax a little more line resolution out of a re-design. The thing I love about the 16-35IIL is that it is so versatile. It does so much so well. If I need a wide lens I can rely on...its a 16-35IIL.
I had a 17-40L for a few years. It was very nice and almost the equal to the 16-35IIL optically, except the f4 and focal range. I really liked this lens but I needed the extra stop. I used to have an ef-s 10-22mm, which again was very simular. Not as bright but again very simular to the 16-35IIL. I'm sure the extra focal range will be welcome by many although not the revised entry price I'm guessing! I don't really see the need for an image stabiliser on a wide lens. Although a lot of people will be using this lens on a 1.6x crop...so I guess it makes a bridge lens for 1.6x to full frame migrators. on a 1.6x crop it's an effective 25-80mm, quite a nice range.
Given that all of Canon's recent lens releases have been steller (I think everything AFTER the 50mm f1.2L have been amazing optically), I'm sure these two new lenses will be remarkable.
13
Lenses / Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« Last post by messus on Today at 03:31:20 AM »Thoughts:
16-50 F/4 IS is an intriguing concept. A good percentage of us prefer a wider walkaround than 24-70. I certainly use the 24-50 side of my 24-70 more than the 50-70. I hope this one gets the smaller/lighter L treatment that we just saw with the currently demonized (but still an interesting design) 24-70 F/4 IS.
The 14-24 has massive shoes to fill. I am not starting a dynamic range / low ISO / Nikon D800 conversation, but landscape work has been one of the perceived chinks in the armor of Canon's armamentarium. Something that punches its weight against Nikon's seemingly legendary 14-24, possibly coupled with a high MP sensor, would be two huge steps towards correcting that perception.
For those not visible to the performance of Nikon's homerun hitter, it pulls in resolution figures right up there with the Canon 70-200 F/2.8 IS II. Landscape filter companies make products specifically to work around this lens' huge front element. Canon guys use adapters to mount this on their bodies. It's that amazing, apparently.
I still don't understand why we don't have a breathtakingly sharp autofocusing prime for landscape work. I am drowning in a sea of ultrawide zooms (soft in corners), arty huge aperture L lenses (ditto), tilt-shift (no AF), and Zeiss glass (no AF). I appreciate landscapes ==> tripods ==> liveview ==> no need for AF, but some folks just want to snap a picture of a coastline or a mountain range without all that fanfare. I'd pay $1-2K for a breathtakingly sharp autofocusing 24mm L that didn't shoot itself in the foot (i.e. corners) to offer side a wide aperture. Negative points if you tell me to just buy the 24-70 II.
- A
Totally agree!
Canon need to produce an optically competitive UWA to battle the Nikon 14-24!
I sold the 16-35 2.8 L II due to corner softness, CA, coma.. It is basically useless for low lit landscape work.
I have the 24 II 1.4, which should also be replaced soon! Corners are ridiculously bad!! The coma is the worst I have ever seen in a lens! You don't buy a 24 1.4 lens to stop it down, you buy to be able to use it wide open! Due to the bad corner performance of this lens it is also almost useless wide open.
The 24.70 II is very good! But we need a UWA lens which can compete with the Nikon 14-24!
BTW! The EF 14 L 2.8 II is also BAD in the corners, suffering from coma and CA, and needs to be replaced. As well as the 35mm 1.4, the 50mm 1.2./1.4/1.8. But it is ridiculous that those of us that actually spent 7 grand on a 1DX, and 3 grand on a 5D3, do not have a really sharp and good Canon UWA lens to use on those bodies! It is actually disrespectful to Canon FF customers!! So more important with new UWA 2.8 and 24 1.4, than 35 and 50mm.
I am using the Nikon 14-24 with adapter, and the Samyang 14. Waiting for the Canon 14-24, I will happily pay 2K for it, but I suspect it will cost 3K.
I hope the EF 14-24 2.8 L is at least equally good as the Nikon 14-24, if not, it may hurt Canon really really bad!! I think Canon is aware of this, and this may be the reason why it takes so long before this lens is announced! This lens NEEDS to be PERFECT !!
If Canon is incapable of matching the Nikon 14-24, it may be wise to just skip this lens. The negativity that will arise among Canon FF customers, if the Canon EF 14-24 is not equally good (hopefully better) as the Nikon 14-24, will be out of proportions!
14
Lenses / Re: AFMA - Is is really necessary?
« Last post by NormanBates on Today at 03:25:51 AM »My opinion:
You don't need AFMA if:
* your camera is not reflex (m43 and nex cameras don't have AFMA because they don't need it)
* your lenses don't have AF or you don't plan to use it (don't laugh, that's my personal case)
* you're not going to shoot faster than f/2.8 on APS-C or f/4 on FF
In every other case, AFMA is the one single biggest feature a camera can have. For me, it trumps everything. Even if you're starting out photography, you'll probably grow beyond "I don't need AFMA" in 6 to 12 months. I've seen it before: totally new to photography, buy a 60D with a few lenses, including a 50mm f/1.8 II, six months later sell it and get a second-hand 50D, because of AFMA. Much happier user now.
Some people may just have been lucky with their camera-lens combination. Sending lenses back until you get one that suits your body may be an option for some. For everybody else, lack of AFMA will most probably ruin most fast-aperture pictures.
You don't need AFMA if:
* your camera is not reflex (m43 and nex cameras don't have AFMA because they don't need it)
* your lenses don't have AF or you don't plan to use it (don't laugh, that's my personal case)
* you're not going to shoot faster than f/2.8 on APS-C or f/4 on FF
In every other case, AFMA is the one single biggest feature a camera can have. For me, it trumps everything. Even if you're starting out photography, you'll probably grow beyond "I don't need AFMA" in 6 to 12 months. I've seen it before: totally new to photography, buy a 60D with a few lenses, including a 50mm f/1.8 II, six months later sell it and get a second-hand 50D, because of AFMA. Much happier user now.
Some people may just have been lucky with their camera-lens combination. Sending lenses back until you get one that suits your body may be an option for some. For everybody else, lack of AFMA will most probably ruin most fast-aperture pictures.
15
EOS-M / Re: EOS M Firmware 2.0.2 IS faster
« Last post by 87vr6 on Today at 03:16:58 AM »So fast I can't even see anything!
16
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Anyone else intrigued by the new Fuji X20 and X100s
« Last post by wayno on Today at 03:10:16 AM »Am I missing something or the Fuji X100S Image quality is on pair with full frame cameras regarding high ISO performance, despite the fact that is using an APS-C sensor.....
This camera is really that good?.... in real life situations?
I have one and I really like it. Noise is very good and even a bit attractive at 3200. It kills my 5d2 for noise and also AF in the dark. It is excellent in that regard. IQ is better on the 5d2 overall ie the look and texture of the image and I'd say its approximately equivalent to the 7d/Rebels etc. That evaluation is of course, subjective.
Despite the fixed focal length, out and about its a very versatile camera.
17
Lighting / Re: On Camera Flash: Direct or Bounce, candid.
« Last post by FTb-n on Today at 03:06:13 AM »I rarely use flash for candids. That's one reason why I went FF with the 5D3 to avoid using flash, especially with candids. The flash tends to spoil the moment and one candid moment can often lead to several if the photographer's presence isn't felt.
But, if you must use flash. Bounce it or diffuse it or both and get it off camera if you can.
But, if you must use flash. Bounce it or diffuse it or both and get it off camera if you can.
18
Lenses / Re: Help complete my bundle...
« Last post by M.ST on Today at 03:03:44 AM »Do you really need a FF camera for taking pictures of your kids?
Wait what is coming next. Maybe the 7D Mark II (or whatever called) in combination with one or two L lenses is the better choice.
For the 6D or lower I recommend the 430EX II with a diffusor and/or a black foamie thing.
Don´t waste your money for the EF 17-40 L. A replacement is near.
Wait what is coming next. Maybe the 7D Mark II (or whatever called) in combination with one or two L lenses is the better choice.
For the 6D or lower I recommend the 430EX II with a diffusor and/or a black foamie thing.
Don´t waste your money for the EF 17-40 L. A replacement is near.
19
Lenses / Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« Last post by Etienne on Today at 02:56:54 AM »I guess I'm the odd guy out here, because I don't get the interest in 16-50 at f/4 over 16-35 f/2.8 even with the IS.
Don't get me wrong, I LOVE image stabilization, and I like it on the new 28 2.8 IS. But f/4 does nothing for me, especially in the longer focal length; f/2.8 give me a lot of extra light when I need it.
The 14-24 could be interesting if it doesn't flare like the 4th of July as it does in Nikon-land. Otherwise I am only interested in replacing my 16-35 2.8 II ... IF version III is significantly better, and the upgrade doesn't kill my bank account.
Don't get me wrong, I LOVE image stabilization, and I like it on the new 28 2.8 IS. But f/4 does nothing for me, especially in the longer focal length; f/2.8 give me a lot of extra light when I need it.
The 14-24 could be interesting if it doesn't flare like the 4th of July as it does in Nikon-land. Otherwise I am only interested in replacing my 16-35 2.8 II ... IF version III is significantly better, and the upgrade doesn't kill my bank account.
20
Lenses / Re: Help complete my bundle...
« Last post by FTb-n on Today at 02:56:20 AM »I love the 24-105 on my 5D3, great all around lens and love the IS. While 2.8 would be nice, the 5D3 makes the slower 24-105's f4 usable in low light. And, for more creativity, think small stream rushing over rocks at a slow shutter speed, the IS offers it.
In full disclosure, my most used lens is the 70-200 f2.8 Mark II. For fast kids, indoor sports, and even event candids, this lens is great with the 5D3 or 6D. It's one worth saving for.
For flash, EX 430 or up. But, this is a tougher call. I rarely carry my 430 with me. But, I have delved in portrait work and prefer several Yongnuo 460ii's with umbrella's. They give me more flexibility on the cheap -- especially when paired with Cowboy Studio radio triggers. It's fully manual, but easy to work with. My 430 is reserved for emergency use when low light is too low and multiple flash setup isn't practical. I often use the 430 off camera in hand-held soft box. To be fair, the 580 or 600 would give you more options within modifiers like soft boxes due to the added power.
My advice on the flash is to wait until you know the limits of the 6D in available light and you've identified what you really want in a flash.
Regarding the 40, you don't need it with the 50 1.8. But, it is fun to use. It's cheap off Canon's refurb store, focusses faster and quieter than the 50 and is sharp from corner to corner. It's my travel light lens. You don't need it now. Save this for down the road as a fun way to treat yourself with a new toy.
In full disclosure, my most used lens is the 70-200 f2.8 Mark II. For fast kids, indoor sports, and even event candids, this lens is great with the 5D3 or 6D. It's one worth saving for.
For flash, EX 430 or up. But, this is a tougher call. I rarely carry my 430 with me. But, I have delved in portrait work and prefer several Yongnuo 460ii's with umbrella's. They give me more flexibility on the cheap -- especially when paired with Cowboy Studio radio triggers. It's fully manual, but easy to work with. My 430 is reserved for emergency use when low light is too low and multiple flash setup isn't practical. I often use the 430 off camera in hand-held soft box. To be fair, the 580 or 600 would give you more options within modifiers like soft boxes due to the added power.
My advice on the flash is to wait until you know the limits of the 6D in available light and you've identified what you really want in a flash.
Regarding the 40, you don't need it with the 50 1.8. But, it is fun to use. It's cheap off Canon's refurb store, focusses faster and quieter than the 50 and is sharp from corner to corner. It's my travel light lens. You don't need it now. Save this for down the road as a fun way to treat yourself with a new toy.