Hoenemor said:

I'm currently in the process of upgrading my camera gear and I'm at least considering either the 85 or 100mm but I don't want to buy them now if there is a newer models with IS in the works...

Click to expand...

If you indeed are in the market for a 100mm lens, why not consider the 100mm f/2.8L macro lens? The IS on this lens is amazing and you can use the 1:1 macro ability should the need arise.

Personally, I feel that if the 100mm f/2 were to be updated with the IS, the pricing would be too near or maybe even in excess of the 100L which would mean that the lens would pretty much be DOA.

Hi Neuro.
I feel for you, it took me ages to go through my 7D and write down all the menu, sub menu, custom settings etc and I'm certain there is a lot more customisation on 1Dx. Hopefully you can read them from the computer software to help ease their recreation.

Cheers, Graham

neuroanatomist said:

Annoying that I'll need to recreate all my camera settings files after the update. I have six different sets that I keep on old/small/slow CF cards.

Click to expand...

Hjalmarg1 said:

I'd like Canon to consider improvements found in ML.

Click to expand...

Ironic, Did you know 1.3.3 actually renders ML harder/impossible to use without providing any such additional functionality?

Peasants can never be better than the Lords.... We the consumers are Kings, only in our own minds, the real Kings are the shareholders...

The updates are both up - the leak was correct. No info on exactly what #1 does. I'm in no rush to update my firmware - will let the guinea pigs go first

The Flasher said:

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:

The Flasher said:

I'd hesitate to drop this kind of coin on this focal length - I find the 15mm is often not wide enough. At a similar price point, the rumored 11-24/4 I could justify.

Ok that's my only excuse, in reality, I'm drooling over this lens.

Click to expand...

That's interesting, because I have a 14mm lens and I can't imagine wanting a wider focal length than that. I have a 12mm crop sensor lens (about 19mm equiv), and it is actually a very nice landscape focal length. Composition would become really difficult at 11mm, and you would literally have to watch out for your feet getting into all your photos.

Click to expand...

For architecture 14mm often falls short. This image is with the 14mm 2.8 II, leaving out part of the house on left, glass railing and beach cabana plus environment on right. 11mm may be a bit extreme, but a rectilinear 12mm would have captured everything I wanted. It sounds like we're splitting hairs over a mm or two, but at those widths 1mm makes a difference between getting an architectural feature in the shot or cropping it out. Also, it's not always a case of having your back up against a wall, but using focal width to push features apart, opening ceiling/floor details etc.

Cheers.

Click to expand...

Now that's a great example of the "blue" hour.

dcm said:

It really depends on where you are coming from.

Ultrawide has its uses and I prefer to capture images rather than stitch or defish them. I already have the 8-15 and 17-40. I haven't felt compelled to replace the 17-40 with either 16-35 for the incremental improvement.

The 11-24 gives me some new capabilities to consider, but I won't really know if I like the extra width until I use. If the quality is as good as other recent lens releases I'm more likely to get the 11-24 as a complement to the 8-15. Not sure if I will hold on to the 17-40 since it overlaps 2 zooms.

Primes are also a part of the equation for this range. I considered the 14mm options, but am leaning towards the 17 TSE. It sits nicely in the middle of the 11-24 range and offers additional capabilities when I am ready to go down that path.

I think the 8-15, 11-24, and 17 TSE combination would cover all of my needs for the foreseeable future.

Click to expand...

Who told you that? The 16-35 f4 IS is a substantial leap in IQ over the 17-40 unless you only shoot at apertures that all lenses are equally bad.

Dear Friend Mr. FTb-n.
Wow, That are great Idea---Thanks, So Beautiful DIY, until Look like we buy from the Camera Store.
Yes, It will work too.
Surapon

For lower cost items (<$400, of course this is only "lower cost" relative to other camera gear) I'm fine trying ebay or CL or whatever.

I've learned that above that, it's best to have some level of guarantee or return policy. It's difficult, sometimes impossible, to fully test a piece of gear when you're taking test shots sitting at Starbucks. Or from ebay, you don't get a chance to test at all! Then what, you're out $250+ to have the item repaired?

Better to pay a small premium for the item refurbished or from a quality used vendor (KEH, BH, Adorama, etc) that has an established return policy and you usually get a warranty on it in addition (30 day, 90 day, 1 year)

When you buy used off forums or ebay or CL, you're depending on the honor of a stranger. Which is not always going to be bad... but an increased risk.

Roger has posted additional information.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/01/more-canon-400m-do-ii-comparisons

Re: just my opinion

Jeff said:

Having tried photo-backpacks I prefer a standard hiking day pack (panel loading) with a small camera bag insert to house the camera and lens for actual hiking. A couple of reasons, first hiking packs are designed for hiking and seem to ride better on my back, features like rain covers and water bottle holders are included. You can add gear (jackets, lunch, extra socks etc..) easier around the insert. Camera packs seem to take up all the space with that extra padding. Plus a regular hiking pack doesn't jump out to thieves as pawnable gear.

There is a downside, grabbing the camera takes a bit longer and miscellaneous gear mingles so sometimes you have to hunt for the shutter release or the extra battery.

Finally allow me to question placing camera gear on the bottom of a pack. If a water bottle, whine flask, or hydration bladder were to leak it would soak the lenses. Also if it where me I would forget about the gear, being exhausted from climbing up the trail and just haphazardly drop my pack on the ground, personally I would rather a rain jacket be on the bottom to cushion any abrupt landings.

just my thoughts

Click to expand...

PCM-madison said:

+1 on using a pack designed for hiking with camera inserts. Many camera-specific packs work ok with weights less than ~12 pounds but become increasingly uncomfortable for higher loads. A key for me is to use the pack together with a cotton carrier. The cotton carrier gives much more rapid access to the camera than any backpack. I am currently using a Kelty fury 35 with inserts for longer hikes with camera + other gear. This pack is carry on legal if you don't overstuff it, and it has an internal frame to transfer weight to your hips. It also has a rain cover. This summer I carried about 25lbs of camera + other gear (60D + 6D + 24-105L + 70-300L + clothes + water + food) on mountain hikes up to 8 hours at Glacier National Park using this pack with a cotton carrier and found the combination to work great. Picture shows the pack at Iceberg Lake at Glacier National Park.

Click to expand...

Thanks Jeff and PCM-madison for your inputs towards a normal hiking pack instead of a photo oriented backpack.

I have been using a normal hiking pack for some time now, and a separate bag inside it for my camera gear. But the pack I have is a fair bit larger then what i would want to carry around for my daily or half-day trips, hence why I'm looking for a new one now.

I agree that a hiking pack would be the best option for hiking, but I want to explore and evaluate all the options before I decide. Mainly because sometimes it is a hassle to get into the pack and get out your gear, and I cannot even count how many times I've been unpacking almost all the contents of my pack to get to my camera bag inside. By the way I keep all photography related items in one bag inside my pack so having various items floating around is not an issue for me.

My only previous experience with a photography pack was some sort of Lowepro sling pack many years ago, and it was awful. There isn't any big photo related stores in my area (closest one is 7-8 hour drive away), so if I go with a photography pack it will buy before I try.

Jeff, I understand your point regarding packing the gear in the bottom, and I appreciate you question it. I feel a bit different about the matter (I didn't necessarily mean dead on the bottom of the pack by the way). My water bottles are carried outside the pack (in mesh pockets or similar) for easy access. If I use a hydration bladder it is in a separate compartment towards my back and either inside a waterproof bag or plastic. Also if there is any other liquids carried inside the pack I always double pack it in case of leaks (something I learned my lesson on a couple of years ago, fortunately not related to camera gear). The pack I use now has a small bottom compartment where I keep my jacket or any other clothes I want fast and easy access to, and that have provided the protection I've needed so far. Adding some sort of protection or padding if needed shouldn't be an issue with the new pack. I've carried top-heavy packs before and I do try to avoid that as I find it gets really uncomfortable even after a short period. I will do what I can to pack everything significant of weight low down and close to my back.

PCM-madison, I haven't seen or heard about the cotton carrier until I read your comment today. I will have to look into what that actually is.

jman said:

I have the Guru and have used it for over 2 years. I have used it at airshows, travel and day outings. I would usually carry my 1Dx, 35mm 1.4, 85mm 1.2 and 50mm 1.2 in the small pro icu. I have found the f-stop bags to be some of the best dedicated camera bags available. When I was searching it was the only one that really met my needs at the time for a small kit and additional travel items. The Guru is the size of a normal backpack and I personally wouldn't want to go smaller than that.

I do not use the hip belt often and usually just fold it behind me and it has never uncomfortable. Most bags do not have a hip belt that can be removed and it would likely negatively impact how effective the hip belt is when it is in use. With the amount of additional items you would like to be able to carry I would not recommend a smaller bag. It seems that the Guru would be fairly well packed and would meet your needs.

I can't really recommend another bag since the Guru has worked so well for me and it was the one I chose after reading a number of reviews. I have been favoring the Loka UL recently for the additional storage but I still use the Guru when I want to keep it simple. Good luck finding the right bag for you and let us know what you decide on.

Click to expand...

jman, thank you for the insight on the Guru. My main issue is that all the reference I have on it is online. There is no way I can see it in person or try it on prior to purchasing, so your input is well appreciated.

I will be going to check out some hiking packs this weekend at local stores to find exactly what size I am after. Maybe the Guru is the right size for me, but I don't know until I've had tried some similar capacity packs for comparison.

*Edit: Forgot to mention one thing regarding the removable hip belt. The pack I have now has a removable belt, and it is quite convenient for whenever you go light. Mine doesn't have any instability due to this as it is perfectly secure once attached
-

So, to summarize a bit. Not sure whether I will go for a dedicated hiking pack with a photo bag inside again, or if I will choose something like the F-Stop Guru. Will go take a look at hiking packs at my local store this weekend to get a better idea of the size I'm after.

Are there any other viable photo related packs other then the ones F-Stop makes?

Also, if anyone know of 25-30L hiking packs that have solutions to access bottom content without emptying the pack (side or back access) I would highly appreciate it.


Thanks guys!

- Alex

dolina said:

Canon's current full frame offerings were announced on the following dates.

Canon EOS-1D X
Announced Oct 18, 2011
Canon EOS 5D Mark III
Announced Mar 2, 2012
Canon EOS-1D C
Announced Apr 12, 2012
Canon EOS 6D
Announced Sep 17, 2012

Since then Nikon, Sony and Leica have announced these full frame cameras

2012
Nikon D4
Nikon D800E
Nikon D800
Leica M-Monochrom
Sony SLT-A99
Nikon D600
Leica M-E Typ 220
Leica M Typ 240
2013
Nikon D610
Sony Alpha 7
Sony Alpha 7R
Nikon Df
2014
Nikon D4s
Sony Alpha 7S
Nikon D810
Nikon D750
Leica M Edition 60
Sony Alpha 7 II

Mar 2, 2012 would mark the third year of 5D Mark III. It isn't that far fetch that 2015 will be the year of new full frame cameras for the 1, 5 and 6 Series.

I would be very surprise if it does not have built-in WiFi or NFC as the Sony Alpha 7 II & Nikon D750 have these features.

I hope the replacement without AA filter will have these connectivity features.

Click to expand...

technically alot of those in 2012 were released after the canon releases - for example the D4 was announced Jan 2012, the D800 and D800E was announced Feb 2012. Not to mention that the D810 and D610 were released because of floundering QA issues with the prior releases.

Canon already had a full frame camera with Wifi - they were actually first out the door with that.

are all canon Full frames up for renewal - yes. I suspect we'll see the 1 series followed by 5 and 6.

I do doubt we'll see wifi / nfc on the 1Dx or the 5d bodies though.

Yiannis A - Greece said:

b) Sensors nowadays are very close in terms of performance, despite constantly being said otherwise.
c) Is this Sony's A7 2nd generation FF superiority?

Click to expand...

Per that review, while it's a second generation of the camera's design, it's the same sensor as the original model.

eml58 said:

infared said:

LOL!!! (Once again....What kind of hood do you have on that $3000 lens?). Funny post!

Click to expand...

The attached is the "Dumb assed end"

I must admit I didn't research enough before I purchased, the Images from this Lens are 2nd to none among my ultra WA lenses, of which I own several, Canon 14f/2.8L II, Canon 8-15f/4, canon 17TSE, 14-24f/2.8 Nikon, Canon 15f/2.8.

With the exception of the 17TSE, all my WA lenses are purchased first for Underwater WA, secondary function, Landscape, but I sort of suck at Landscape.

I just couldn't imagine anyone handicapping a Lens by having a fixed Lens Hood like the Zeiss 15, in my view, "Dumb Assed".

And, after trying several Circular Polariser Filters it wasn't until I found the Heliopan Slim that I found a Polariser that didn't cause Vignetting, but that Heliopan cost $500 bucks.

So, amazingly sharp, beautiful contrast, smoothest Manual Focussing system I've experienced, but a dumb assed Lens Hood system.

Yes, as has been shown by others you can remove it, but after laying out 3k for a Lens anyone that brings a spanner or a screwdriver within 3 metres of this Lens while on my Camera, is a dead man, or women.

Click to expand...

Marumi filters - there is an old test on the web placing a Marumi filter on the top 3 or 5
Not all are good, but neither are the B+H

Indeed - there is more than small distortion, less flare, more contrast and richer rendition, smoother bokeh, and flawless construction .... the major flaw is indeed the price,
Cought it up or take some cough medicine
Is not for everyone, regarding needs or wallet. Surely is for anyone taking no compromises and wanting the best available.
People complain so much about super UWA and WA prices, but I see way far less complaints with fast super-teles pricing (other than not being able to afford them, as indeed they are at least twice the zeiss 15 price).
Extreme lenses are difficult to build and take a lot of R&D money

(Yes, I have a super-sharp Samyang, TS-e 17 and even tried the 14mm II and Nikon 12-24)

I think this is a matter of taste, of weight if hiking for long distances, and sometimes a matter of multiple uses. For instance, if I combine a little golden/blue hour shooting with some astrophotography, I am going to take one or more fast primes. The f/4-ish zoom may not be the best option here, but if I am going on a 10 mile hike and I want to travel light, my 15-85 and 60D and tripod (filters, release) are the choices.

I'll be eager to see how this new Rebel compares to the 70D. I've been thinking of picking up a Rebel or 70D but wanted to wait until the 2015 refresh came out to see how the price and features compared. I haven't been in the hobby for a bit so I don't need something with a bunch of bells and whistles, but want something decent enough that I don't outgrow it too quick once I shake the rust off. I have an old EOS 3 and A2E that have been gathering dust for several years, so I am eager to start shooting again

neuroanatomist said:

LovePhotography said:

steepjay said:

I just had a lengthy conversation with a buddy of mine who was agonizing over 400/2.8 + TC vs 800/5.6, similar decision. The decision of reach without TC vs. the versatility of the faster, shorter, lighter lens plus TCs can be a challenge and is very personal. I used to have a 300/2.8, it's great for some things but I don't think it fits the bill for what you've described. 300 is too short for birding and safaris so you'd be living with a TC full time. I did a week in Tanzania with 300/4 a few years ago and had the 1.4 on a lot.

If you've already used the 500/4v1 you know the handling challenges associated with a lens this size so no point getting into that.

My vote, sell your 100-400 and get the 400/2.8. It's $1000 and a pound more than the 500/4 but you'll get 560/4 with a 1.4 and 800/5.6 if you get the 2x at some point.

Click to expand...

I kind of have a similar question. Rather then start another very similar thread, while not trying to hijack this thread, I thought I would pose my question here, since interested parties are already engaged. If money is an object, but not a prohibitive issue, I wonder about the following lens choices...

Okay, so I have the 300 mm 2.8 II. I work about 1 million hours a week, so I rarely get to go anywhere. But, I have a nice lens collection because, well, I like photography and it's something I can do in brief moments between work. So, I see that like new 800 mm I asked lenses can be purchased used for about $10,000. There aren't that many reviews of the 800, but the couple that I read said the lens is "very sharp, but not tack-sharp". And, when you look at the digital picture website lens comparison, it appears to be a little bit better than the 300 mm plus 2X Tele converter, but not strikingly better. So, the question is, when shooting long shots, is the 800 mm that much better than the 300 mm 2.8+ 2X Tele converter? Whether it's pictures of the moon, or pictures of the refrigerator magnets taken from the other end of the house, will I see that much difference? Another words, if you have the 800 mm I asked lens, or even better, have the 300 mm 2.8 with Tele converter and the 800 mm, would you get the 800 mm again? I heard from a very knowledgeable source (the Canon price watch guy) that in the last few months, the big camera stores were liquidating their 800 mm, because with all the new big white lenses, they were afraid of getting stuck with them. What is the cheapest anybody has seen them go for in the last year? Is a used one that's like new for $10,000 a great price? Or, were the big camera shops selling them new for not much more than that? Thanks.

Click to expand...

Skip the 800/5.6, it's basically superfluous. The 600 II + 1.4xIII is optically better and lighter, the 600 II + 2xIII similarly beats the 800 + 1.4x.

Click to expand...

Thank you. Appreciate the help. Don't want to spend $10k on pictures of the craters on the moon that aren't any better than what I've already got!

Dylan777 said:

candyman said:

In my opinion, the 35mm f/2 IS is a great lens!

Click to expand...

Nicely done candyman. I like background light.

Click to expand...

Thanks.
Every few seconds the light on this ice sculpture was changing. It went from blue to green to yellow and so on. With some patience something I was able to catch a good moment of light

This happened on my 7d. Turned out to be a dirty contact on the flash

Quote from: JumboShrimp on December 03, 2014, 07:18:37 PM

[Seriously considering this lens but would like to hear from the Forum Members about their experiences. Much appreciated.]

I have one and the build is excellent, the AF is fast and it is very sharp. There is some coma at the edges that is apparent in astrophotography, but this is really a portrait lens. I have used mine four times since I got it (I am just not into portraiture), so I will probably sell it.

I wanted to have an all around zoom that reaches a bit over 70mm when I travel. I went to a local dealer and tried both Canon and Sigma's 24-105, I find the Sigma sharper at 24mm and at 105mm. Then again, no AFMA done with the Canon upon testing, perhaps the copy needed AFMA on my camera body.

I am very impressed with the Sigma.

Hi.
That reminds me I need to clean the big dob of crud off my 20D sensor. I don't like to change lenses unnecessarily, but don't let it prevent me when another lens will be better. I'm trying to enlighten my friend, he takes his lens off and fits a body cap when he puts his camera away!

Cheers, Graham.

te1973 said:

You like to see at least one shot of the mirror?????????
Ever seen a DSLR without a mirror???

Ever taken a shot with f22 having blue sky in the frame?
Says it all.....

My opinion: Anybody who is serious about photography would never leave the cam open.
Only if you take pictures like Ken Rockwell you can leave your cam open all year.

Click to expand...

wockawocka said:

erjlphoto said:

wockawocka said:

I gave up waiting and bought a 645z

Don't hate me.

Click to expand...

Hope you will relate you experience with the 645z in future posts.
You know we are all secretly jealous....right?

Click to expand...

Here you go Erlj

http://chrisgilesphotography.com/blog/pentax-645z-review-pt1-the-journey/

Click to expand...

Very thorough and down to earth review. Your portrat photography is also quite inspiring.
Don't think I can justify a MF format system as a hobbyist, but it is nice to see how good a camera can be...in the right hands.

Thanks for posting your link.

jdramirez said:

IMG_0001 said:

Engineers, we are fussy nitpicking little critters aren't we? Looking back, I feel like most great things we accomplished were made to prove someone else wrong...

*EDIT: please take this post with a pinch of salt.

Click to expand...

I was a science major in college.. for me it was not finding the truth, but getting close to what may be considered the truth... I was also a philosophy minor, but that was mostly deleted over time.

Click to expand...

Truth is never found in science, its just made up from a bunch of hypotheses. Personally, the more involved in sciences I get, the more I feel like I NEED Philosophy to get by.

IgotGASbadDude said:

jdramirez said:

I like to think I take care of my stuff... I too keep the boxes... So maybe we are simply wanting to buy from those who share our presumptions... is that projecting in psychology? I took psychopathology in college... So I could diagnose cramming a lens where it doesn't belong... Butt, that is neither here nor there.

Click to expand...

I see what you did there ;D. I think I'll butt out of the conversation, it's getting stuffy in here.

Just because someone has the original box doesn't mean they've taken care of the item, but as you pointed out, those of us who do keep the original stuff feel more comfortable buying from others who do the same. Doesn't guarantee they took better care of the equipment, but it feels a bit more reassuring . . . ;D

Click to expand...

As for keeping boxes, I keep mine. However, I'm not sure how well I keep my gear compared to others. I have to admit shooting in pretty cold, or pretty wet, or dusty conditions without caring much. However, after shooting I try to clean a bit and store everything in a protective bag. I guess I'm in the lower echelons of people who take good care of their equipment.

None.

I have both Canon Full Frame (all 5D models) and Nikon bodies (D800, D800E, D810). I can choose to shoot either. It does take longer to match up the Nikon shutter cord but it is on the front where I like it. Why? I use vertical grips on all my cameras and if the push in receptacle is on the left side of the camera that is where an L bracket covers. No RRS brackets and Kirk and others carefully let you open the door(s) on the camera and RRS has a cut-out to BEND the cord, vertical shots are always a pain on a Canon. On a Nikon that has a front connector it NEVER needs to bend the cord just to make it fit in the vertical direction.

If you had to choose only one feature, I would not use this feature to be the deciding factor. The Nikon front screw mount also beats the Canon design when carrying around the mounted cable from site because of the screw mount.

Maybe when all cameras can be triggered by a radio control, cables will all go away and we can complain about the design of the remote.