Hi YuengLinger.
I found the tip at the Canon site, the link takes it out of their pretty format,
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/tipsandtricks/1942.do
I'm guessing it is JavaScript or something as copying the page link takes you to the start of the list.
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/tipsandtricks.do?filter=ex_speedlites

Cheers, Graham.

YuengLinger said:

Valvebounce said:

Hi Snappy.
A tip from the Canon web tutorials site, (can't locate the article at present, but sure it was there) set the flash to HSS all the time, it will behave normally at or below the cameras sync speed, then when you push the shutter speed up it will automatically go in to HSS, I sometimes use this on my workshop camera (a 40D) and it works nicely.
The obvious caveat is that the flash power is reduced as you get in to HSS. I think the amount varies dependant on how fast you push the shutter, but I am not certain what the relationship is between power loss and shutter speed, more info on this there too, I did find that!

Cheers, Graham.

Click to expand...

Never knew this! Thank you, Graham.

Click to expand...

When I purchased my first Canon, the Rebel 300, I also added the 28-135mm IS. Eventually the IS began to chatter, and made any picture blurry. I could even see it in the viewfinder. Later I added my first FF body, a second hand 5D classic, and it came with another 28-135mm IS lens. It, too, would occasionally chatter if the IS was turned ON. Both lenses were given away with the caution to not use the IS feature. I have never seen any IS problems on any of my other lenses you can see on my profile. My 24-105mm (old version) has been a workhorse lens for me when I am only carrying one body and lens.

Don Haines said:

jeffa4444 said:

All
Its the weekend go and shoot some photos this thread is now boring and counter productive.

Click to expand...

But I don't have a FF mirrorless camera! I am doomed!

Click to expand...

You can compromise by using your 7DII in Live-view mode.

neuroanatomist said:

Importantly, when it comes time to buy, the 6D remains a very popular choice...and the 6DII will be, as well.

Overall, Nikon and Sony have generally better specs in many areas. In aggregate, buyers consistently choose Canon. But people will continue to believe that the spec sheet is what matters most, and claim that Canon is doomed becuase Models S and N have this or that feature and that Model C is 'crippled' by the lack thereof. Well, that's what 'no room for reason' looks like, in practice.

Click to expand...

It's a constant that internet discussions of anything with a spec sheet will almost always come down to massive arguments about the spec sheet vs preference. It happens in cars (a Corvette is much faster than a Cayman, but a lot of people would rather have the Cayman), it happens with computers and phones (not even getting close to going into detail for fear of derailing the discussion), and it certainly happens here with cameras. The spec sheet brigade insists that the fattest spec sheet, or fastest car, is clearly best, and anyone who prefers another is a badwrong fanboy.

Meanwhile, off-forum, people seem a lot more reasonably. I know Nikon shooters and we've never once gotten snotty about each other's gear. Car guys tend to appreciate each other's cars. Spec sheets are only part of the ownership experience of a product, but it's harder to demonstrate "this feels better in my hands" online, while it's very easy to show a spec sheet comparison.

Or for a personal example, a decade ago or so I bought a GTI instead of a Mazdaspeed3. Yes, the Mazdaspeed was faster. For actually getting to work and doing errands, the GTI felt much better. If someone else preferred the Mazdaspeed, great for them! It's nice that people with different desires can purchase different products.

The strange thing is the insistence that Canon must make the product that these people want, and they don't seem actually interested in the Nikon they keep claiming is clearly superior. My assumption is that these people also actually prefer Canon, no matter what they say about Nikon (or Sony), and they want the best overall package with the best spec sheet, which almost never happens. This is why I keep asking certain people why they'd rather complain about Canon instead of switching to Nikon, because I think if they really explored that in their heads they'd come to the same conclusion, but they've never once answered me.

[email protected] said:

On the a9 possibility: if they have a native mount solution, then you can get 20fps, and that sounds pretty cool. If it is through an adapter, the AF slows and you can only shoot 10 fps.

That said, I think I'd have this lens over the Canon simply for price with roughly equal quality. I will wait on thinking about a9s and the like, though, until they work out a few things, including giving me the ability to use my glass with zippy AF and fps.

-tig
PS: I'm a believer that mirrorless versus mirrored cameras don't matter much at all. It's all about performance, and I don't care what mechanism is inside. Mirrorless makes sense to me for the future, but I'm not going to switch until it is at least as good in the viewfinder and equivalent in other key performance measures, such as AF and frames per second. To my mind that means the a9 is probably the camera just before this inflection point is reached.

Click to expand...

Couple of thoughts,
1) With no view finder black out, you have a chance at focus pulling in manual focus - small but a chance, I have shot w/ the a6500 that has -0- black out, focusing would be tough (as it was "back in the day" before autofocus)
2) The costs of a $12,000 ish lens that gets obsoleted in 10 years is only $1,200/year - pretty much outside the range of this enthusiast.
3) Though it is a Canon Forum, if the A-9 or its 2 years from now follow up, gets traction, then an E-mount on Sigma Art series make for a very interesting debate. I know Canon has a zillion lenses but how many are redundant consumer (still very good) versions vs. top of the heap. I don't expect anyone to have an 85 1.8 AND and 85 1.4 for example. This begs the interoperability convergence - Sony body w/ Sigma glass or will Sigma make a really top of the line body and be native?

Sony is going to get better, as will Sigma, as well Canon. As some 99+% of images are now viewed on a browser an awful of this incremental improvement is lost on an awful lot of the viewing public. 8 bit viewing w/ 14 (or 16) bit capture. If one is going to chase the hyper image quality turn it into a 8' poster use a larger format image capture. (pls recall I have done 200+ frame 5Dsr imaged stitched pano)

What I think is really cool, is that in the not so distant future, one could be truly vexed in a Brand X vs. Canon system of image capture and not have any compromise. Lastly, the hyper IQ imaging market is not expanding nearly as fast as the cell phone vid/still market, if it is expanding at all.

Was the use of a tiny font in the video done to emphasize that it's difficult to read in the dark underwater? Well done!

Dylan777 said:

Keith_Reeder said:

So nothing that's achievable only by mirrorless then.

That's fine - but it does rather confirm my suspicion that there's nothing intrinsically unique about mirrorless' capabilities.

Not sure I understand this one: "More proper exposure through EVF". Are you saying that EVF = more accurate exposure? If you are, that strikes me as being rather far-fetched.

Or are you simply saying that exposure information is visible in an EVF?

Got that on my 7D Mk II...

Click to expand...

Just a few years back, I was a DSLR guy owning 1dx, 5d3 and your 7d II.

The chance of me buying another DSLR/OVF is down to zero. Let me know when you get a chance shooting with EVF for few weeks or months.

Click to expand...

Definitely not knocking your uses. But for me as a pro sports photographer, MILC is absolutely useless. And yes I've tried many. So for that it is absolutely useless compared to current 1Dx2 offerings with big glass

I guess I should have budgeted for the Sigma dock when I bought this lens, but the combo is still only 43% of the cost of (and 90+% as good as) the Canon 100-400 II.

neuroanatomist said:

You need to work on your formatting skills...

Click to expand...

Thank you! It was copy and paste. And the formatting issue showed up after publication...

Beautiful series, Glenn.

Sharlin said:

syder said:

This has a better non-RAW code (10 bit), in body IS, and should have better high frame rate (240 vs 180)

Click to expand...

In-body digital IS. The sensor does not move.

Click to expand...

It's still an improvement on having no IS. And with the oversampling from a 5.7K sensor you almost certainly dont lose anything in terms of resolution.

Doesn't make it a better camera than a C200, but if you shoot a lot of handheld footage with fast primes it'd certainly be a factor in your decision.

For me personally, and for documentary/event work generally, DPAF is probably more useful than anything the EVA-1 does. I really would have liked a 10-bit internal codec though, and budget wont stretch to the C300mkii. As it is, I'll likely wait to see what the C200 xf-avc update offers.

Extension-tubes to stack 2 TCs... Ok This is getting a bit too long-haired for my taste I think

I do have a set of extension-tubes, but after reading all this I think I'll just keep it simple and live with Canon limiting things to the 2 or the 1.4 (they seem to know what they're doing, so if they don't make it possible it's likely not really worth it )

In fact I think the 2 is bringing things up close to the max I'd like to go to anyway. 700mm is already very shaky (I've used a 700mm refractor telescope earlier. Lousy image-quality and shaking all over the place), so I can only imagine 800mm (or whatever mm a 2.0 TC actually takes the lens to, I know it's not a strictly linear relationship) is even tougher to work with

Had the 1.4 and 2 stacked in this order: lens, 1.4, 2, body, then I would obviously have tried it, but with all the trickery it seems to take to get it working I'm less tempted.

Thanks for all the good info
Happy snapping.

http://zedpromedia.com/videos/

The reason the 12-24mm is a G rather than a GM, as well as why it isn't an 11-24mm, is likely related to the difficulty in making ultra wide angle lenses for a 135 format mount with an APS-C dimension flange distance. Without a curved sensor, ultra wide angle focal lengths cause the corner angle of incidence to become too steep.

Here's an interesting discussion on this subject:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1352641

The problem for Sony is a simple geometric problem. For Sony to design any E-Mount lens whose rear element falls at the 18mm minimum flange distance they will be limited to a maximum angle of 50° off vertical or a 100° FOV for a FF sensor. Or, the FOV of an 18mm lens @ FF.

The math for that is this...

Where X2 = Rear element distance from sensor, Y2 = 1/2 distance of diagonal measure of sensor, we can then derive the Tangent of A°2. Thusly...

Tan A°2 = Y2 / X2
Tan A°2 = ~21.63mm / 18mm flange distance = ~1.202 = ~50.2°

Therefore maximum FOV @ 18mm flange optic distance = 2 x 50.2° or ~100.4°, or, roughly, the FOV of an 18mm lens.

If the promise of the Sony a7-series is to deliver compact cameras, with compact lenses of all focal lengths then they've clearly got their work cut out for themselves on the UWA end of things.

FWIW, to achieve the 16mm FL of the Zeiss 16-35mm f/4 for E-Mount the folks at Zeiss had to both move their optics to a greater distance than 18mm and they had to incorporate a double concave lens element sensor-side to to project the image onto the sensor. Based on my perusal of online tests of this lens, this move seems to have cost them corner sharpness and introduced extra CA.

Click to expand...

Coming out with a 28mm L lens just makes things more expensive for lens collectors like myself. 14L, 24L, 35L, 50L, 85L, 100L, 135L, 200L, is enough for me. I only have two of those so far, so please Canon, stop it! Shoulda just stuck to zooms.

£860 compared with £715 at HDEW

justbeingmiko said:

The incremental takes an excellent camera (5d3) and turns it into an amazing camera (5d4). The focus is better, faster, more accurate. The exposure metering provides far more consistent results in all types of lighting. But the crowning glory...image quality. The raw files are so clean, so well rendered in colour and tone that they are a pleasure to work with.

The 5d3 files were good but sometimes needed some extra care and attention, to squeeze that desired quality out of them. The 5d4....no effort. Almost perfect.

Click to expand...

I haven't used the 5DmkIII but I can really do nothing but agree to the above: with my previous four bodies (70D, 5DmkII, 550D, 350D), I've been constantly worried about getting exposure dead-on, used nothing but sunny WB preset on camera outdoors and tungsten preset indoors, flipped AF points like no tomorrow, used my own camera colour profiles for consistent colour and even resorted to hand-held light meter for ambient when in doubt. And still had to tweak colours in post. 5DmkIV on Faithful picture style, auto whitebalance, auto ISO and auto AF point selection with face priority and I get more consistent output just taking the SOOC JPEGs.

So good and consistent it's almost ruining the fun.

What I should have asked is who would automatically--without even trying it--a lens (or body) that was clearly somebody else's return?

luckydude said:

The 5D does much better at not gathering that noise. Has anyone else noticed that?

Click to expand...

Well it's full frame, so that's what you'd expect.

That said - the 7DMk II is brilliant at higher ISOs (for a crop camera) if you convert the files well.

This is a 100% crop of one of my files at 4000 ISO - and it's noiseless.

And here's 6400 ISO at 100% - again, no noise.

These are straight out of the converter, with no additional PP NR applied. Admittedly the 4000 ISO one was in decent light, but the 6400 ISO crop was in very dull low light.

And in both cases, the full image is sharp, squeaky-clean, and full of detail.

The Canon 135 L is optically very good at f2 even on the 5Ds, and at f4 close to perfect across the frame. AF is fast and accurate. The Sigma is obviously even better optically, but I don't believe the difference can be sufficient enough that I would pick it over the much smaller and lighter Canon.

I would much rather have IS than better optical performance from my 135mm lens.

If I could have either one for free/same price, I would pick the Canon due to size and weight. If wide open optical performance is the one and only priority, the Sigma will be the way to go.

RGF said:

I'd gladly sacrifice pixels to get getter IQ

Click to expand...

The one does not result in the other.

Close up...

sanjosedave said:

I can probably turn a spare light stand into a mic holder. I think the ambient noise of the fair could be a positive.

Click to expand...

If its general and appropriate rodeo noise, it may be fine, but you can't control what you are going to get, anything from low flying aircraft to PA's blaring to ... You name it. You can record background noise, and mix it in at a controlled level if it enhances the video. Many Many Many years ago, I rented a Sony Betamovie camcorder with the betamax casette tape (This was when the betamovie camcorders first came out around 1983. ) My daughter was in 4H and competing in the equestrian categories. I was very pleased with the outcome, but this was early 1980's. Technology is far better now. I've transferred the video to DVD, but it is definitely now looking dated. It was difficult to edit at the time, so editing had was best done by paying attention and only shooting what you wanted to keep. A few years later, I bought a editing VCR and programmable controller, they became obsolete in no time. After chasing video tech development and throwing money at it for years, I lost interest.

Cory said:

Since my last post I stepped it up a bit with a Canon 6D. We also changed our upcoming 6 days in Cinque Terre to 3 in Cinque Terre, 3 in Florence and 1 in Lake Como.
In the name of traveling light and keeping it simple might a 6D/35 2.0 IS work well most of the time? I'm considering replacing that with a 16-35 or 24-70, but maybe not.
Thanks for your insight and experience.

Click to expand...

A 35mm will work much of the time, but I like to travel with a good ultrawide zoom and a fast prime. On my last trip to the UK, I took a 17-40 and
a 35F2IS. I like the 35 for dark interiors, like cathedrals, museums, and exterior use as well. Spaces are much tighter in Italy, especially in
Florence. I have been to Florence, Padua, Rome, and San Marino. You should have an ultrawide in Florence.
Personally, I always travel with two lenses. I once broke a lens in an accident in Rome. I was left with a 50 mm macro on a crop body then. I found
it was too narrow a view for my needs. If I make another trip to Italy, I will be taking a 35 and a wide zoom, either an ultrawide or a 24-105 IS.
A friend of mine lost his AF on his only lens while on a trip to Ireland. One lens is never enough when overseas. Overlap in focal lengths is not a problem here.
The "correct" choice in focal lengths depends on what you want to photograph. I would not bother with a fast telephoto prime on a trip to Italy, but that is my
preference. A fast prime, like a fast 50 or 85 could work in some instance, but subject matter is the key here, along with distances and lighting.
A good pocket camera can be useful for going out at night, when you don't want to carry too much camera.

Nikon just announced their new Nikkor 28mm f/1.4E ED to replace the older Nikon 28mm f/1.4 AF-D and still no word from Canon. Nikon has a ton of 28mm F mount options but seems Canon has no interest.
PLEASE Canon!!