Now that these guys have had their images and their vehicle type made public, they're screwed. No way they'll stay hidden forever.

I have a Canon 5D III and a recently acquired Metz 45CL-4 Digital, which came with a Metz SCA 3045 (and a Nikon foot). I have been told by Metz's superb advice desk that I need an SCA 3102 M6 hot shoe to get E-TTL working. For now I can let the flash measure the exposure when linked to the camera in manual mode via a regular synch cord. That works fine.

It has been difficult to source an SCA 3102 M6, not easy to find at all, though at the time of writing I think I have two on the way, via friends in other countries!

Incidentally, I now have the newer NiMH battery packs and 970 chargers (B46 set, about £75), which work with both my recent acquisition and my trusty old Metz 45 CT-5s. Metz assure me that they too can be connected to my Canon and can't harm it as they 'are equipped with a low voltage-ignition (ISO 10330)'.

Canon is offering deals thru company discount programs, the 5D MK IV is around $2940 including the remote microphone for employees / retires. This is direct from the Canon Store. There are also sites like Greentoe which negotiate discounts.

jolyonralph said:

Don Haines said:

This is because the shorter the mount, the greater the angle that light will hit the sensor....

Click to expand...

Not totally correct.

This is ENTIRELY dependent on lens design.

An EF lens attached to an adaptor projects light onto the FF Mirrorless sensor in exactly the same way as it would do on a standard DSLR EF mount camera.

IF your new EF-M lens was to have the elements as far back as could physically fit then yes, there could be a problem (although a problem that Sony seem to have solved with FE lenses.)

But... there is also a middle ground. A new FF EF-M lens could fit somewhere in the middle, ie have some gap between the rear elements and the mount, but still be closer to the sensor than an EF lens.

Then it becomes an issue of working out the best combination of size/weight and optical performance that you can get for these lenses. For many optical formulae there is likely to be a size/weight benefit to using EF glass while retaining excellent optical quality.

Using the EF-M mount gives you the flexibility to do this. Sticking to the EF mount might require new EF Mirrorless lenses that stick further into the body than EF-S does, but I think that's a less elegant solution than using EF-M mount.

Click to expand...

Adding "empty" space at the rear of the lens negates the size advantage of the smaller flange distance. Others have reported that this is what Sony was forced to do after their early lenses for the A7 series had very poor results. It is debatable whether these larger lenses would be worth it in order to keep the smaller flange distance which would allow using other brand lenses with adapters. Using these other lenses would seem to be the only real advantage to the EF-M mount, in my opinion.

To me it looks like the sample image has some tilt applied, certainly that is how the dof falls off when you apply tilt. There is a very good spread of dof on the street yet nothing sharp at all in the top third of the image.

Chapman Baxter said:

Maybe Yongnuo will be along shortly with some cheap copies.

Click to expand...

;D ;D ;D

takesome1 said:

Bryan's reviews have gotten longer and longer over the years.
To the point they are almost unbearable to read.
Far to much cut and paste and stock comments from previous reviews.
Luckily I have read enough of his reviews to know which parts matter and skim to those areas, but if I were new to this game and trying to read this review I am not sure I would have made it to the end where the buy now link is.

Click to expand...

I like the longer reviews as you just opt in for what you care about.

For instance, astro folks have a review shorthand that's quite efficient:

1) Hit Ctrl-F or Command-F
2) Type in "Coma"
3) Read, weep, seek counseling and move on.

- A

CanonGuy said:

I'm an avid sigma fan (see my previous posts haha). But I'm seriously disappointed with the 135 art pricing to be honest. No way I'm paying that much for a 135 art

Click to expand...

Ya but the manufacturing cost of f/1.8 for this size lens with 13 elements vs 8 elements in the Canon 135 f/2 makes sense as far as the increase in price.

Honestly I was expecting $1799 or something ridiculous...if the f/1.8 version is hint better than Canon I can see people justifying the overall cost over the Canon's.

"It’s nice to see Canon opening up a bit about how they manufacture what we think are consistently the best lenses in the world" - I just made an update below on the best full frame lenses, and the 12 Canon winners out of 35 focal length categories mainly do only slightly outperform their rivals, or are winners because they have no competition like the fisheye zoom. The truth is that in 2017 it is easier than ever to shoot the highest quality with Canon mount cameras, while not using one single Canon branded lens.

Canon 8-15/4 Fisheye
Sigma Art 12-24/4
Canon 16-35/2.8 III
Sony 24-70/2.8 GM
Nikon 70-200/2.8 VR FL
Canon 100-400/4.5-5.6 II IS
Canon 200-400/4 IS +1.4EXT
Sony 24-240/3.5-6.3 (Allround)

Voigtländer 10/5.6
Voigtländer 12/5.6
Sigma Art 14/1.8
Zeiss Batis 18/2.8
Zeiss Milvus 21/2.8
Sigma Art 24/1.4
Zeiss Otus 28/1.4
Canon 35/1.4 II
Zeiss Milvus 50/2 Macro
Zeiss Otus 55/1.4
Canon 65/2.8 Macro 1-5x
Sigma Art 85/1.4
Zeiss Milvus 100/2 Macro
Nikon 105/1.4
Sigma Art 135/1.8
Sigma 180/2.8 OS Macro
Nikon 200/2 VR II
Canon 300/2.8 II IS
Canon 400/2.8 II IS
Canon 500/4 II IS
Canon 600/4 II IS
Nikon 800/5.6 VR FL

Canon 17/4 TS
Nikon 19/4 TS
Canon 24/3.5 TS
Nikon 45/2.8 TS
Nikon 90/2.8 TS

You can use FoCal in manual mode as Neuro prefers if it is not compatible.

kphoto99 said:

3kramd5 said:

Maybe he does mean that, but the notion that a Sony exec has such a flawed understanding of his market that he thinks Sony has a monopoly on sensor based phase detect seems preposterous.

"Managing" is a perplexing term... he might be referring to what Sony deems "intelligent sensors," about which there is a vacuum of information.

Click to expand...

The "intelligent sensors" triggered an idea, what if the CPU is part of the sensor. On the back side of the silicon die. This would be an extension of the BSI concept. The CPU could address each half of DP element. You would need an A2D for every pixel and you would have to be able to deal with the heat generated by the CPU, but this would open a world of new possibilities. I wonder how far in the future this will be implemented.

Click to expand...

That's pretty much what I expect it means. It also satisfies the language (the sensor manages AF, as opposed to DIGIC or EXPEED).

iowapipe said:

"The build quality appears military-grade"

I highly doubt there is any MIL-SPEC rating for this lens. I know, I know - it's all about attracting interest and clicks.
It's just a silly thing to write when it's a mostly adults reading the post. Kids on the other hand... I suppose the carbon fiber hood gives the illusion? (checked Sigma's site just to cover my bases: no MIL-SPEC rating)

Click to expand...

Mil-spec / military grade can opener. MIL-SPEC has nothing to do with quality... only the specifications the military requires for an item, which can be sub-par compared to civilian items for the same use. There is no such thing as a MIL-SPEC rating. MIL-SPEC is a document.

These little can openers worked great in the field for c-rations, but their construction, while military grade, is far inferior to what was available on the civilian market.

Mt Spokane Photography said:

I downloaded it, but there is nothing as simple as a .exe file for windows, I'll wait for someone to create one. I think the tools are there, but I have no clue as to how to use them.

Click to expand...

There is: https://github.com/google/guetzli/releases/download/v1.0/guetzli_windows_x86-64.exe - needs only two parameters: input and output file.
But the first photo I've tried to convert and the result:
produced bigger and less contrast/sharp image (consuming lots of CPU the long time [about 2 minutes]) than 95% qulity jpeg from http://www.faststone.org/FSViewerDetail.htm
File sizes (Source 729x1080pixels, 24bit png 2 366 945B):
FSV-95 jpg│ 174 516B
FSV-89 jpg│ 103 234B
guetzli jpg│ 207 239B

YuengLinger said:

Most of the gear I own is in the "big seller" category: lenses and bodies familiar to many CR members, reviewed by popular and generally reputable review sites and individuals.

However, I recently picked up a Sigma 180mm f/2.8 APO OS. The lens was rarely reviewed; despite popping up quite a bit in Google, most of the "reviews" are rehashes of the original press release. By coincidence, just in the past day or two a new thread was started about this lens, the first discussion of it in years on CR. The OP was asking for those with personal experience for a comparison between the Sigma and the Canon 180mm f/3.5.

What surprises me, now that I have a piece of gear relatively few people buy, try, or know anything about, is how much completely wrong info is so quickly passed around. Ok, I'm naïve. But the number of posts with fragments of poorly remembered bits of reviews or rumors or just complete BS is incredible.

So, I'm asking other CR members to talk about HOW DO YOU SEPARATE FACT FROM FANTASY (aka BS) when making gear purchasing decisions? Many of us are now living in areas hundreds of miles from the nearest camera shop.

Thanks!

Click to expand...

The Sigma 180 has many stellar reviews on Fred Miranda's site. There are as many reviews combined on Amazon for the different available mounts (but one must watch for "fake reviews" on Amazon now).

I'd guess that this lens/focal length is "fairly uncommon" compared to the 135mm and smaller lenses, so fewer sales.

The only thing one can do is due diligence and scour the internet for reviews across many forums... and make an educated guess.

Being able to return the item is a big plus.

....my, what a surprise....

Diko said:

Mirrorless, will increase by numbers. However this particular article is quite general and not specific.

Indeed the stress will be on industrial equipment (generally as all vendors are following the trend).

Let us also not forget that the 250 APS-C was officially stated as a part of technology for surveillance cameras.

I was also hoping Neuro would be more nerding on the medical part, but obviously was too busy on joking on my mistakes ;-) Thanks for pointing it out though.

Is there any Canon equipment that you, guys use?

Click to expand...

After all the camera thefts, I decided to purchase some surveillance cameras. Since Canon owns Axis, I checked there as well as the Canon branded ip cameras. Their customers are pretty obviously government agencies and rich corporations, out of my class.

Even so, I ended up with almost $1300 for two PTZ IP cameras. Thats almost as much as my cameras are worth

I bought from B&H and have the first one now and am playing at configuring it, I have it setup on my NAS, but have yet to configure a storage volume, its almost ready. I can also view and configure on my TV sets thru my Amazon Fire TV. My Apple TV box does not yet have the active x drivers needed, and probably never will. I might get a android tablet and set it up by the front door, I don't currently have any Android tablets or phones, just the Fire TV.

The things the cameras can do amazes me, facial recognition, tracking, line crossing, persons entering or leaving a area, objects leaving a area, the more expensive model I bought even has a heater to keep fog/frost off the lens. some have a wiper.

Actually, we have had some shady characters around, so my wife wanted some better visibility. We are blocked from seeing my studio, or our 1/4 mile long driveway, but not any more.

The cameras have tiny sensors and inexpensive lenses. Obviously, I'll try to spot birds and wildlife, but in reality, photos will not be as good as a camera phone photo, not even close. The area where most of the deer come up every day is not part of the coverage.

Dylan777 said:

As a friend requested, I was a primary photographer in her family funeral. It was harder than I thought - not IQ or AF - it's more capturing those moments through viewfinder and editing the photos.

Click to expand...

As weird as as it may sound. That is something I really want to do at least once. But generally now when I have your emotional feedback, would prefer the job to be coming from someone distant to me.

RickSpringfield said:

"Canon EOS 5DS & Canon EOS 5DS R There will be no new high megapixel camera in 2017"

Boooo to that! Was really hoping for a 5DSR with all 5D Mark IV upgrades.

(here's hoping the OP is misinformed!)

Click to expand...

Canon has pretty much never fast tracked a new camera. The 5DS/5DSR are still new, I wouldn't expect a new version until 2019 at the earliest. But if Canon continues to be a creature of habit, I'd say a new 5DS/DSR II will come out in 2020.

YellowJersey said:

I was disappointed by the review. The Batis is so ideal for my application, but the Milvus just doesn't seem to nail the coma as well. Coma's not terrible, but not great either.

Click to expand...

OT, but I can't see any coma in my initial wide open astro shots with the Rokinon 14mm 2.4.

docsmith said:

jd7 said:

slclick said:

I must be the only person on the planet to have a Sigma Art lens that focuses fast and consistently. Talk about copy variation!

Click to expand...

No, I am happy to say you are not alone, as I'm happy with the AF on my Sigma lenses too.

PS I cannot say that for a couple of older Sigma lenses I've owned in the past.

Click to expand...

There are at least 3 of us. I wouldn't hesitate to pick up a Sigma lens that is dock compatible.

Click to expand...

Make that 4. I am glad that Sigma and Tamron have started making dock-reprogrammable lenses. Olympus started doing this over ten years ago..... they used the camera body as the dock..... and updating firmware was easy as could be... Canon! Are you listening?

They make pretty damn ugly slide-decks...

Of little interest in North America, but all the main manufacturers including Canon will be at the NEC in Birmingham from tomorrow until Tuesday next week. The show is larger this year with many different workshops and lectures along with the stands.

For some reason, I still find myself contemplating whether to go for it or not. I think ultimately it's going to come down to image quality and distortion handling at 24mm...thinking whether to consolidate the 24-70 f4 and V1 24-105 to one V2 24-105 that can handle still life (superior IS), shoot buildings (less/fixable distortion mechanics) AND have good enough sharpness for closeups (poor MFD resolving power of 24-70).

LonelyBoy said:

But if you want the light-equivalent of the 70-200/2.8 for crop, so a ~45-120/1.8 or so, it'll be the same size except for the rear elements, and so as expensive as the 70-200/2.8. And for the body, yes, 10FPS is great for sports. Do you really think Canon can, or will, give a no-compromise body with FF and speed for mid-range price? I'm about to buy a 4Runner, wish I could afford a GX460, but I know Toyota can't (or won't) give me the premium version for the same price.

The zoom isn't mandatory; people can and do shoot basketball with a crop + 85/1.8. If you want to be all-in for less than $2000, there will be some compromises compared to the full pro-setup. And for a lot of people even $2000 is too much, so they'll just have to rely on whatever photographer is there from the school or paper (or go with a yet-cheaper option than you're talking about and manage to make do...).

Click to expand...

It seems to me too that they don't get much smaller or cheaper at least for tele range. But isn't that different on the wide side?

And again, since the body difference is $2000, lenses don't need to be that much cheaper.

Primes are certainly good for indoor sports. I have used 50 1.4 and 85 1.8 for that many times, even if I much more often prefer zooms. When your photographing time is limited, you may not have a lot of opportunities and with primes they get even fewer.

With mid-price I refered to a 7D2 with suitable fast lenses. But Canon may not be the one to make those lenses.