It does look absolutely stellar. I would buy one but I'm really hoping the 5DMKIV is somewhere between with 28mp and 8fps that would be some camera.

m8547 said:

Someone asked why Canon didn't add UHS-II? Probably because it's still extremely new, and Canon is a conservative and slow moving company. There could also be internal limitations on how fast they can move processed images around. (readout from the CCD is of course very fast by design).

Click to expand...

I think its pretty simple. The Camera hardware specifications are set 1-2 years in advance of delivery so that orders for long lead time components can be ordered, circuit board designs completed, and a ton of breadboard testing. Then at least 4 months before delivery and likely longer, the assembly begins. It will ramp up from maybe 10,000 the first month to 35,000 the 3rd month. There are likely 150,000 - 250,000 needed to supply the first 3 months of sales. Once the pipeline is full, sales and production taper off.

That's why a new technology often does not make it in the door. Canon could, of course throw away a few million dollars worth of components and design work to slip in new tech, but then other new tech would be missed.

Sandisk came out with their super fast UHS II in 2014, and Lexar in 2015. http://www.thessdreview.com/our-reviews/lexar-professional-2000x-sdxc-uhs-ii-card-review-64gb/

The 7D II was likely already in production before Sandisk released their UHS-II card. It could have been re-tooled and delayed a few months, but even then, UHS II cards were not generally available.

Nikon jumped the gun by incorporating a XQD card in the D4. Its still the only DSLR to use them (D4 / D4s). I expect that Canon learned from Nikon's error.

I use two lens/body combos routinely in photojournalism: the 16-35 f/2.8 II L on a 5D Mark III, and the 70-200 f/2.8 L II on a 1DX. All are heavily worn. I also use the 300 f/2.8 I with and without 1.4X extender II for outdoor sports, and the 85 f/1.8 non-L and 135 f/2.0 for indoor sports. If it's not too dark I pair these with relatively new 7D Mark II.

meywd said:

... I agree with the comments, a mix of both might be awesome.

Click to expand...

dito.

I would get a fair amount of use from this, but I don't know if it can be done easily or at all. You can fool the camera with tape over the contacts, I believe, but the AF accuracy/speed on non-central AF points is said to be very much worse. It's a matter of the physics of how this kind of AF works, isn't it? So I don't know if they can improve it - certainly within their tolerances.

I guess it is a bit of a pain, well at times I think so, I rec to SD (JPG) and CF (RAW), like you at times I want to chimp my shots and remove what is defo a BIN image, and then change the playback card to do the same on the other card, guess the ultimate option would be a menu item to select delete from one or both, I guess the (without trying) advice given deletes all images from both cards? As opposed to dealing them one by one from both cards at the same time.

However there are times that deleting from both maybe a bad things, i.e the oops moment!

The R2000 actually surprised me with its print quality when I looked at it a while ago.

After making some custom profiles, even the B&W was much improved.

I'd not personally be so keen on using a printer with multiple small ink tanks like that too much, but it made some really good looking prints, especially glossy.

The P400 has 8 carts (7 colours + Gloss)
The P600 has 9 carts (8 at any time + black switch)

The P600 has multiple greys, and includes ABW in the driver (like the P600)

Assuming that the P400 is broadly similar to the R2000, then it will not have an ABW mode, but will likely print good B&W if you make the right profiles.

So yes, I expect there are some quite distinct differences (as with the R2000/R3000)

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/reviews/printer/epson_r2000.html

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/reviews/printer/epson_r3000.html

Mt Spokane Photography said:

Sporgon said:

privatebydesign said:

Surely you just mask off the area(s) to want to alter ? With the 85 mm f/1.8 I avoid wide open if there are intense highlights. Even f/2.2 virtually eliminates it. The 85/1.8 is actually a fine optical formula.

Click to expand...

The other thing is that LR/ACR give you the option of fine tuning the actual colour, and the range from it, that you desaturate in both purple and green. I am sure some people have had an issue, but it is so infrequent I have never seen an example of it impacting an actual real world image.

Click to expand...

I could not begin to imagine masking off 10,000 areas where light comes thru tree branches and has LOCA's.

Yes, I fine tuned the colors manually in order to get them all out of that badge. No one would have complained about the purple fringing in the prints, but I did not like it and reduced it. I did not try to remove the gray fringe over the black background, I had 3000 images to sort thru and process.

Click to expand...

I didn't mention the masking option, but if I had to I'd take the easier route and mask the areas of the image you didn't want desaturated, it would probably be very easy an quick.

wockawocka said:

I don't know if the 1.3x or 1.6x OVF overlays are adaptable, but wouldn't it be cool if we could select our own framing?

i.e. I shoot medium format headshots at 6x4.5 framing or 8x10. It's a nicer frame and it's also nicer for wedding portraits and couple shots. Even though the raw file remains untouched the crop mode / frame is carried over into lightroom and adobe raw as if it was shot with a different sensor shape. It would assist in composition, why shoot 2:3 when we could shoot 5:7 as another example.

It seems limited that there is just the 1.3 and 1.6x modes available?

Click to expand...

What we need is a real crop of ordinary RAW pictures that would allow for either more pictures, faster fps - or even better both. As it is now it would not change anything to shoot RAW in any other format anyway.

unfocused said:

The story: After I bought a 5DIII and made the jump to full frame, I held on to my 7D, thinking I would use it as a backup. Never happened. I really loved the 7D when I was using it, but I just found that the 5DIII was more suitable for almost everything.

Then the 7DII came out and I started to have a GAS attack, alternately trying to find a way to justify getting one and then talking myself out of it.

Well, the local Best Buy had an "open box" special on one. I checked it out. Great price, great condition, interest-free for six months on the card so I could use their money for free. Went back and forth, but decided to give it a go.

That night, I had to shoot a women's volleyball game. Took the 7DII along, thinking I'd try it out, but mainly use the 5DIII. The 5DIII never left the bag.

I'm a little rusty on sports shooting, as that's not what I normally shoot for clients, and I wasn't all that comfortable with the focus settings (although not that much different than the 5DIII). Like most school gyms, the light was less than ideal. Cranked it up to 6,400. (Would have never done that with the 7D I). Set it on high speed shooting and got to work.

The images were more than usable. I could even crop them to compensate for my being out of practice. Yeah, there's some noise but it's like Tri-X grain, which I don't mind and with a little careful work in Photoshop I can minimize it.

Shot an outdoor soccer match a few days later using the 7D. I'm really loving this camera. It's definitely going to be my sports camera from now on.

No big point here, other than to say this camera is pretty incredible and I think it bodes well for what the future holds in the next generation of the 5D.

Click to expand...

the 7D2 can do nearly thing the 5d3 can just a different sensor size a better digic 6+"dual" and slighty better noise
the 5D3 hS BETTER IQ AND LOW LIGHT
9W9A3485-1 by Bigz Ant, on Flickr
9W9A4108-1 by Bigz Ant, on Flickr
9W9A2454-1 by Bigz Ant, on Flickr

I have had excellent luck with the Canon IP7220 I bought for fun a few years back just to see what a sub-$100 printer can do. I was surprised at the quality of the output and it is now my "pick-up truck" printer dedicated to family-and-friends requests for small prints. I used to use my 9500 for such requests but discovered my friends and family couldn't tell the difference between printers.

I have owned it for a few years now and use it once or twice a quarter. I have had zero problems with clogs or dried out inks. I went on a printing spree one holiday and ended up buying a set of 3rd party inks. I wished I hadn't as I could immediately see the difference in color. However, none of my friends/family noticed, and even after I showed them they didn't care. So going forward I'll keep using 3rd party inks in it.

Self-reflection section: I think I get so used to critiquing and pixel-peeping that I forget the average person isn't going to hold the print up to the light at various angles and use a loop to intentionally look for print nuances. Instead they gaze upon the print and smile at the memory it has captured.

Tinky said:

As I recall the Sigma 70mm is what AP magazine used for studio shots when testing new bodies for reviews.

Click to expand...

and imaging-resource.com

sanj said:

Expressing gratitude to each and every contributing member of this Forum. You all have taught me so much.

Click to expand...

+1

Thank you!

Meatcurry said:

midluk said:

Meatcurry said:

I'm guessing that there are review lens out there with NDAs in place, it just hasn't expired yet. For example I'm sitting on my review of the 1DX mark 2 until next week!

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure the NDA expiry date for the 1DXmk2 would also be covered by the NDA. Are you sure you are not making things up or breaking the NDA?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Bullshit dude, utter bullshit.

hmm batteries, maybe, unless you're buying equivelent of "sigma" batteries.

As for lens hoods.. £25 for canon, £2.50 for ebay knock off... sorry canon, no thanks. Same for the remote timer flash units etc.

never the less, the first ad is great...

Cesar!

Hi wsmith!

First of all I would say that you have a really great/good/cool dilemma.
Because you now can so something you really love together with someone you (surely) love much more

Secondly: If they want to use, have or even own a camera kit your "second hand" equipment could become the next birthday or xmas present to them. Then you'll save money there for what you plan to get in the future.
And it should be well understood by your kids what kind of value they get so they shouldn't complain about the equipment not beeing brand new.

And also your plans seem to be well considered, like that one:

I still may sell the 70-300 and use the money to purchase two 55-250 STM's so both kids will have access to tele-zooms on photography walks.

Click to expand...

if that works well from the costs perspective you kids will each get a lens that'll should be optically better than the old one at the tradeoff of losing 50 mm and a better mechanical built. But both will get a good zoom


One thing at the end:

I'm a mean dad and won't let them use my 70-200.

Click to expand...

Yes you really are! Shame on you

Have fun.

takesome1 said:

chromophore said:

Thus, the only real possibility of missed focus is operator error, in the sense of incorrect technique when using manual focus in magnified Live View mode.

Click to expand...

I do not believe that is so, here is why. The shutter and mirror system in the 5Ds is all new. There is always the possibility of some bug or fault in the mechanism that under certain circumstances introduces vibration. When I hit the OOF series this thought popped in to my head since I was shooting under a very controlled situation and never get bad results.. It just didn't feel right after all the years I have been shooting with live view. I wrote mine off to human error for now. I only posted because the OP's post sounded familiar and I wanted to see if any one else had a similar experience.

Click to expand...

No, this is not a plausible explanation for the OP's situation. I can't speak to your specific experience since there are too many unaccountable possibilities. In Live View, the mirror is already locked up; otherwise, you could not SEE the Live View image. It does not flip down during the exposure unless phase detection AF mode is engaged.

In order for the shutter's movement to be solely responsible for loss of sharpness, the camera would have to be unstably supported; e.g., a cheap tripod, hanging from the camera strap, perched on a sleeping cat.... Mirror slap is WAY more powerful than the shutter movement. But even if one suspects this to be the problem, it can be tested by taking a shot in bulb mode of a completely dark (to the camera's perceived EV) scene, then pop off a flash thirty seconds after the shutter was opened; thus, the flash intensity combined with the lens aperture will determine the exposure, not the shutter. And it will be impossible to claim that any mechanical movement is causing blur or missed focus, because nothing is moving while the flash goes off.

So I was planning on ordering ggs iii screen protector for my 6d... but I'm wondering if anyone has had any issues with this version. And does this version have adhesive on it?

I like the neutral look that the 45/1.8 VC gives in the test shots; for weddings, I think it would be good for photos of dances. I think I'll get this one eventually, especially after I hear about how AF is with it.

Sporgon said:

sanj said:

How I wish I could carry a tripod with me always.

Click to expand...

You can ! Manfrotto BeFree carbon. There's no excuse not to have it any place, any time.

Best new toy I've bought in a long time.

To me the 1.4 is purely for producing a particular shallow dof effect. I don't really understand the 'low light' thing; it presumes you are never concerned with dof.

Click to expand...

I checked the tripod on internet. Very cool but still I do not think I can carry it with me to meetings etc. The camera is ok in the conference room sitting in my bag.

G3 X First Impressions

The G3 X has indeed had mixed reviews. The most positive has, as discussed here, come from the Luminous Landscape’s Michael Reichmann https://luminous-landscape.com/canon-g3x-review/, who claimed it outperformed the Sony A7II and Tamron 150-600mm and is a truly remarkable camera. Others reviewers have made scathing comments about the lack of an electronic viewfinder and the difficulty of handholding at 600mm, and the rivals that have shorter focal lengths are better value for money.

Some of those reviews are clearly silly, not appreciating the importance of a long zoom for some of us and overstating the “lack”of an evf. Other manufacturers have given up evfs, for example Sony on new models and Nikon on their 1” sensor Nikon 1 range, both J and V, where they provide an optional evf for the V3 but not the J series. Canon does have the option of adding an evf, albeit rather expensive.

I need a lightweight travel camera with long zoom to replace my old SX50, which can give good results but has a long shutter lag and lots of light. So, I ordered a G3 X plus electronic viewfinder from Digitalrev on Friday. It arrived yesterday, all taxes prepaid in Hong Kong, at 75% of the UK price – if you can get it here.

The initial impressions are that Michael Reichmann is absolutely right. The camera is very well built and designed, a class piece of kit. The first test shots of my usual street targets show that at iso 400 and 600mm the G3 X out-resolves the Sigma 150-600mm C at f/6.3 on the 5DIII at iso 640, and is comparable to and if not better than the Sigma at f/8. (Processing RAW in DPP – the in-camera jpegs are ok but I don’t like it.)

The focusing is very responsive and reproducible – using just the small centre frame so far. The shutter lag is indeed very short (stated to be 0.044 s). I found it easy to handle at 600mm with the evf. The noise is far better than that from the SX50, but I need DxO to upgrade so the G3 can be processed on DxO Prime, which I need to do with lenses on the 7DII at iso 640 for heavy cropping.

OK, it’s not the 100-400mm II on the 7DII in terms of being able to do birds in flight easily and do pinpoint focusing of a small bird half hidden in foliage, and won’t do high speed continuous with its low frame rate. But, it will be taken on every trip I do when I can’t take my 100-400, and it will be a lightweight for my wife to carry on longer hikes. And in half-decent light for bird portraits it will give comparable quality – but take a pocketful of spare batteries.

midluk said:

When you are comparing "equivalent" lenses for FF and APS-C, make sure you take into account that you not only have to scale the focal length by the crop factor but also the f-stop. For an APS-C sensor a lens has to be one stop (or more exactly 4/3 stops) faster than for a FF sensor to be equivalent. That way you will not only have the same viewing angle, but also have the same absolute aperture diameter, and therefore the same depth of field and the same light per pixel (=>similar noise).
So for really equivalent lenses there is not that much weight and size advantage of EF-S (on APS-C) vs EF (on FF).

Click to expand...

Yes, yes, of course. I'm just making a point that the upside of being able to slap an EF lens on an APS-C rig is not all good. The lenses are far bigger than an APS-C rig needs them to be.

I'm just furthering the argument than some purpose-built higher end APS-C lenses could have their advantages. You could have an EF-S f/1.4 lens at a much smaller size than an EF f/1.4 lens, that's all.

- A

ecka said:

35-105/2.8L would be nice

or 35-85/2L
:

Click to expand...

35-105 2.8 is doable as well as 28-105 2.8.

See Tamron 28-105MM F/2.8 LD Aspherical (IF)

Re: Sigma 12-24 Art & Contemporary Lenses on the Way? [CR1]

pwp said:

I've got a fair copy of the original Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6. It's fine at one aperture...f/11, which kind of limits its usefulness. It gets rolled out once or twice a year when the 16-35 f/2.8II just ain't wide enough and a stitch-up is impractical or impossible. Apparently the 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 DG HSM II was a solid improvement on the original and I'm prepared to believe an Art 12-24 would be orders of magnitude better than my unloved clunker. I want one already.

I'm taking this thread as a reminder to sell the old 12-24 when I do my next annual spring-clean sale.

-pw

Click to expand...

Yes, that's exactly my experiance too. I bought this lens literally the week it came out, back in the Eos 300D days. It really was the only wide option back in those days. Everything from Canon was silly money (16-35L mkI) and wasn't that great. But when I popped this lens on my full frame film camera...wow! So when the 5DmkI was launched...it became my main wide lens...I cobbled a filter system (way before anything commercial was available). But for landscape work, f11 is where it's at....it's really a one aperture lens. But in that zone, there has been nothing for over 10 years to touch it. I sold my copy last year and I've been getting by with my TS-e 17L. But there have been times recently where it's singular abilities would have been useful. I looked at the mkII but it didn't quite have the same look and feel the the images that the mkI had. Even at 24mm the Mk1 had a fully corrected look which I haven't seen in any other 24mm lens yet.
I'd like the Canon 11-24L...but that's a LOT of money for a very niche lens. So if Sigma bring out an art or contemporary variant with new optics which combine the strengths of both the mkI and mkII...I might well be interested. But I'm not interested in combining the weaknesses of both lenses.