That's what I would tend to think about the 5D4 announcement as well. However we DID just have the 5DS arrive. So it's like they went through the 10 year anniversary with nothing to show for it. I think the 5DS gets some breathing room for sales before they show off the 5D4. Maybe we see a release next April with some announcement late this year. August I think we'll see an official announcement on the 1DX II. I don't see that camera missing the Olympics next summer.

cosmopotter said:

It wouldn't be much of an anniversary if they didn't launch the 5DMkIV! This video looks like a precursor to an announcement. It may not be August but I think we'll see the MkIV in 2015.

BTW My lens bet is a 70-300 IS USM replacement. I don't think it gets STM however.

Click to expand...

if possible send in camera lens & ex together to be tuned or repaired

Even more to the point, it is unreasonable to compare a Zeiss prime to any high quality zoom, whatever the format.

The only time I had a problem with a lens was with my 135L. It was on my 6D, and refused to focus. The camera had frozen up completely. I followed the IT crowd advice and turned it off removed battery etc... and restarted as if and nothing had ever happened. It's never happened ever again. I think it might have been a 6D firmware issue as I had gotten one of the first batches of 6D bodies.

I accidentally dropped my 24L II off a 4 foot high counter. Half stopped the fall with my foot cracking the reversed lens hood (Which needed replacement) but the lens itself is still working 100% fine optically and suffered no cosmetic exterior damage either. I now stow my camera bag and equipment on the ground whenever I work. It can't fall if it's already on the ground.

Pookie said:

Cheap, easy and superb... don't forget the 135L.

Click to expand...

Will do... it's on my wish list! Great shot by the way. I love it, perfect lighting. I especially love the dark, rich greens in the background which really helps your subject pop with perfect contrast between the two.

I have to ask, what do you use for outdoor strobes? And how do you remote fire them? I have a handful of cheap yongnuo speedlites and some light stands/umbrellas and they work excellent for indoors. The latest ones have the built in RF so it's a single 603c in the hot shoe and I'm up and running quickly. But I've been wanting to "control the light" outdoors and have not been sure what the best route to go, especially on sunny days. ND filters, or high speed sync? Will my speedlites have enough power? I'm just not sure where to go.

I would choose an EF-s 10-18 stm is (£165 once you get the cashback) and look out for a nice clean nearly new 35 is with the change.

I think it means it will have the virtual appearance to the user of being 2 meters away from a 98 inch display.

Again, its a virtual effect.

Source: used an old pair of the Sony travel visor screen and this was similarly noted there (different figures though).

grahamclarkphoto said:

Returns and exchanges

Click to expand...

Ok, thanks. So...I'd observe that of thousands shipped, the odds of three flawed filters going to one customer and none to others are, shall we say, slim to the point of being anorexic.

The OP's request to have a hand-inspected re-re-re-replacement seems pretty reasonable, assuming he wants one (as I stated, personally I'd be done trying).

Regardless, thanks for your presence here and your excellent customer support.

Halfrack said:

Which version of the Odin are you using? The Odin II has an AF assist beam...

http://journal.phottix.com/photo-accessory-news/phottix-announces-odin-ii-ttl-trigger/

Click to expand...

The original. However I'd purchase this one if I could find it for sale anywhere but I can't? Did it get released yet?

GMCPhotographics said:

A 24-85 f2 is going to be huge, it's twice the brightness of the existing 24-70 f2.8, which will require a 4x increase in optical mass and probably weight.

Click to expand...

Is the 24-70/2.8 twice the weight of the 24-70/4?

I'm not a fan of the focal range. It's reasonably wide to slightly wide.

It will need to be blindingly sharp with good transmission and low vignette at 35mm for you to have some cropping potential to give you more flexibility. Obviously when it's dark you generally want to keep as many pixels as you can so cropping is not ideal.

I would have much preferred an f/2 zoom range like 28-55mm for shooting dancing or 35-85mm for portraiture. An f/2 zoom with that range and good IQ would have me reconsider my lens collection. I mean my 35L, 50/1.4 and 24-70 are all potentially on the chopping board.

P.S. Sigma's 18-35mm f/1.8 roughly equates to 28-55mm in terms of full frame angle of view. Surely full-frame users are also interested in having a fast zoom in this focal range ???

I sent my 7D2 into Canon back in May. They sent it back in early June and I have been quite happy with it since.
I hope you have the same results as I've had since getting it back.
When I talked to the customer service rep at Tamron around the same time, he told me that their 7D2 had a severe back focusing problem and to tell Canon to zero out the focus. He said that after they got theirs back from repair, everything was fine.
I used mine at NASCAR practice in Daytona yesterday and am very happy with the results.

bdunbar79 said:

Hillsilly said:

Just wanted to point out that:-

1. DSLR AF points are heavily clustered around the centre, whereas mirrorless AF points cover most of the sensor;
2. Mirrorless AF sensors are more accurate (even moreso if you have to focus and recompose your DSLR due to the problems associated with much smaller AF coverage.)

I'm not very good at maths, but I get the impression that this formula suggests that mirrorless AF is inferior to DLSR AF? I would have thought it would be the other way around, with mirrorless AF far superior in every aspect except AF tracking.

Click to expand...

Why do you say mirrorless sensors are more accurate? Traditionally they have been mostly contrast-detect which while more accurate than phase, is much slower.

Secondly, why do you think phase-detect sensors on sensor are more accurate? Traditionally they have been less accurate. Then you have the whole precision thing, with cross-types and dual cross-types, where up until now, mirrorless cannot compete. Think 1Dx vs. A7R II. Which would you pick if you had one NFL game where you were going to be paid $1 million.

Tracking is horrendous in mirrorless vs. DSLR's.

Click to expand...

The only on sensor phase detect AF I've been impressed with was the 70D. It really is sweet but even then it's slow.

I think it comes down to the color reproduction. There are various color spaces, like sRGB, Adobe RGB, NTSC and other newer ones.

If I read the specs right, the NEC supports 92.4% of the very wide NTSC color gamut, whilst the Asus does 80%.
I can't find specs on the Samsung and some forum threads seem to suggest that the LG does more than 100% NTSC, but I'm not sure I believe that.
The NEC seems to have a ton of options to connect lots of stuff to it. But I'm not really sure of what the other differences could be, I'm not really into monitor specifications as much as I could be.

http://www.necdisplay.com/p/desktop-monitors/pa322uhd-bk
https://www.asus.com/Monitors/PQ321Q/specifications/

Another vote for the added -- very simple -- Buff trigger in the hot shoe and the CyberCommander in your pocket (lanyard a nice touch). I did yesterday notice that its flash meter result differed a lot from my Sekonic L558 and I was not able to take the time on site to try out more angles, potential shadow of my body, etc... Went with the Sekonic and that higher reading was correct.

Usually they agree.

BTW, if there is no easy access to an answer on the tech forum the company takes phone calls for tech questions. Very nice people there.

You will probably love your Einsteins. Great gear.

I don't know how you can re-create information (sharpness) once it has been obliterated (blurred). USM etc. only accentuate existing information (increase contrast at various scales), which gives impression of sharpness. Although I have not done comparisons or seen it, I strongly suspect that USM 5ds and 5dsr images so that the final image has same perceived overall sharpness will lead to more sharpening artifacts on the 5ds image. The differences will be subtle, but if you wonder, you are picky.

An interesting question is the f/11-13 condition. Here lens diffraction blur will be at or above pixel size, and f/11-13 is beyond sharpness sweet spot of most lenses (1-2 f-stops down from fully open). I would think that regardless, you will get more detail out of a 50 MP body as opposed to a ~20MP counterpart. Setting f/11-13 on 5dsr will pretty much have the same effect as AA filter, or on other words, the blur from AA filter is only a minor part of overall blur at f/11-13. I don't have data for this, but sounds right to me.

So the question is, do you want to have sharpness edge at open or optimum f-stop with 5dsr or not. I have a 5dsr on order for that very reason.

niels123 said:

Don Haines said:

Things are never that simple.....

How much of the light entering the sensor is blocked by the electronics? This depends on the design of the sensor, the fineness of the lithography, and the number of pixels....

an approximation that is good at one end of the scale may not be good at the other end of the scale.... At low ISO you can "convert" to a standard number of pixels, but at high ISO, even though you can convert, the larger pixels can give you enough shutter speed to get the shot, so people start to change shutter speed and ISO values differently on a camera with big pixels than they do on a camera with small pixels and the comparison falls apart....

Click to expand...

Because with more pixels you will quicker see motion blur? What would happen then if you take two identical shots with the 5D3 and the 5Ds. Then at pixel size (real 1:1) you do see motion blur only in the 5Ds shot. If you then "convert" the 5Ds image to 22 megapixel, do you then "lose" the motion bur?

Click to expand...

Since the 5d3 behaves better at high ISO, you are more likely to shoot at a higher ISO to avoid the motion blur, but at the expense of worse noise....

but even then, the noise is not easy to figure out.... yes, at the same ISO the larger pixels will have less noise, but the downsampling of the image with more of the smaller pixels will reduce the apparent noise on that image.... and how far you crank up the ISO on the larger pixels makes it's noise greater... no easy answers here....

for example.... say that at 1/500 of a second you would get 4 pixels of blur on a 5D3, where at the same ISO on a 5Ds you would get 6 pixels of motion blur.... once you downsize the 5Ds image to the size of the 5D3 image, you get 4 pixels of motion blur on the downsized 5Ds image.... BUT, since the 5D3 works belter at high ISO, the user is likely to shoot at higher ISO and the shutter becomes (for example) 1/1000 of a second and ends up with 2 pixels of motion blur.... so the user ends up with a less blurred picture that MAY have greater noise....

dilbert said:

If...

...if...

...might...

Now... tell me where I'm wrong

Click to expand...

Done.

I think YAPODFC and DMMBOTS are closely related enough to make YAPODFCDMMBOTS justifiable, but only if used in direct conjunction with squirrels... Which would probably get you banned but man it would be worth it!

wsmith96 said:

privatebydesign said:

I have changed my travel kit many times over the years but it is currently, the 11-24, the 35 f2 IS, and the very versatile 100 L Macro.

Click to expand...

How many kits do you have????

I was also considering the 35 f2 IS against the 100L. It popped back up on the rewards page. I was making a kit that would have the zoom range covered from wide angle to telephoto (10-22, 17-55, 70-200) then adding a macro and portrait primes (50, 85, 135). Having a crop camera, equivalent lenses would have been the 85 1.8, 50 1.4, and 35 f2 IS. But then I bought that 5D. There is something about a FF camera that changes your pictures. They seem more pleasing to me - especially for portraits. I can't put my finger on it, but FF pictures of people seem to pop more than they do with my 60D. My 60D does fine for wildlife and sports (front yard wildlife and children's sports) - especially when I'm limited on my telephoto end, but I find myself using the 5D for everything else now.

I guess it's a part of G.A.S. I was almost done with the kit I wanted and I did a bone headed thing like buy a FF camera. Now my wants for my kit are changing again

Click to expand...

Maybe wrong choice of words

The equipment I choose to take with me when I travel has evolved, I leave more stuff at home than ever from my one 'kit', I just get very selective on the lenses that get me the most shots and give me the greatest IQ and flexibility in the lightest and smallest package.

The 100L Macro has replaced the 70-200 f2.8 IS when I travel. The 11-24 has replaced the 17TS-E, and the 35 f2 IS has replaced the 24-70 f2.8, I still have the other three and the 11-24 is bigger and heavier than the 17 TS-E but it does 'more' for me at this point.

Chuck Alaimo said:

Don Haines said:

privatebydesign said:

Chuck,

The first time you lose a key shot because it takes you hours to not get rid of the moire in a brides veil you will wish you had listened to your inner voice. For weddings, where you just don't have the time to check and reshoot, I think the R is a mistake waiting to really kick you in the balls.

Click to expand...

I agree. Experimenting with gear for a paid shoot like a wedding is asking for trouble...

Click to expand...

True, I'm going with the S. Getting it a few days before the wedding so I can get a feel for it - I'll still have a md3 and a 6d with me so if I feel squimish I can always just use the familiar. But, I am looking forward to the challenge of using the 5ds....

Click to expand...

I shot a my first wedding last weekend and had one shot that had three images in it, all telling beautiful stories. My lighting was good so the crops hold up reasonably well but with the extra resolution they would undoubtedly been better and more usable for larger prints in the album.

StudentOfLight said:

I can't afford to pay for a funeral for my 5D-III. I guess I will just have to keep on shooting with it :-[

Click to expand...

How sad for you to be stuck with antiquated technology. How do you manage to sleep at night, much less take pictures??

HighLowISO said:

What is that streak across the frame, was there something in front of the lens?

Click to expand...

More than likely, it is a support/tension wire on another aircraft wing.

neuroanatomist said:

risc32 said:

I also just got a kick out of someone saying that a lenses true fstp is different than what's advertised. This I don't believe but I see it mentioned now and then. I'm not referring to tstops, but you guys are very welcome to show me that a 100mm f2 doesn't have a 50mm aperture. Horseshoes and hand grenade rules of course, we live in an imperfect world.

Click to expand...

400mm f/5.6, has a 71.4mm aperture – right?

The patent for the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II is:

Example 3
Zoom ratio 3.75
Focal length f = 104.16-166.66-391.00mm
Fno. 4.60-5.20-5.80

So the lens is really 391mm f/5.8, that's a 67.4mm aperture. A 6% difference? Maybe that's close enough.

Click to expand...

Dunno how it is in the US but in Europe(Germany) with many things its legally OK if you re within plus minus 10% of the advertised performance specifications (e.g. horsepower of cars, square footage of rental units, etc)

Might be a fine lens but I still cannot get past 400mm at F5.6! The loss of light is so severe that it's practically useless for wildlife during sunrise or sunset or under a forest canopy. Add a couple of clicks to tighten the lines and you are at F8! May be fine for air shows and surfing which are typically occurring in bright sun but for a wildlife lens, this is for harry homeowner.

I will stick with my 300 f2.8 and crop a bit.