I haven't watched any of his videos and now that I read this thread I do not think I will in the future!

rmfagan said:

dcm- fair question. I'd appreciate the ability to create portraits that truly pop, which is what leads me to the 85L. I like narrow DOF, but mostly I love the color, contrast, and (relative) light weight and size compared to my only other portrait alternative.

With the 24TS-E, I'm curious to experiment with the darn near infinite DOF that tilt provides for landscapes, especially on my trip to Iceland in February. I could, I suppose, focus stack the 16-35. But that sharpness! And living near NYC grants extra utility to architecture shots.

I'd also entertain other options, but those are the two areas I isolated as biggest areas of need.

As far long, I'm set on the 500 II, when I get it next fall, and have and will continue to rent it until then.

Click to expand...

I'm surprised nobody already suggested these. For portraits that truly pop you might consider the Otus 85 f/1.4 or Zeiss 135 f/2 that Eldar and Dustin highly recommend. You seem to have some manual focus experience already with TSEs and Rokinons so this shouldn't be much of a stretch. I've not had the pleasure of using these myself yet, but they are on the bucket list.

StudentOfLight said:

There are a number of cameras now which use an RGB metering sensor which feeds data into the AF tracking system. (All Nikon's high-end bodies as well as Canon's 1D-X and 7D-II) So in that sense the AF system is no longer cutting-edge, but it is far from what I would call "behind the times." In terms of the imaging sensor yes, it is behind the times.

Click to expand...

Agreed, and if Nikon really has caught up with it (not convinced) then I wonder if Nikon fora are overrun with people complaining that a new Nikon has only just caught up with something Canon have had all this time . . .

StudentOfLight said:

Lee Jay said:

Which would you rather have, one pixel with a SnR or 100 or four pixels each with an SnR of 50?

Click to expand...

Which would you rather have, one pixel with SnR of 2, or four pixels with an SnR of 1?

Click to expand...

Neither. However, either one will do.

The ideal situation is to have each and every photon's position and wavelength recorded separately. That's equivalent to an infinite number of pixels. That will produce the most information possible and thus the best image possible from that exposure (scene, FOV, illuminance, shutter period, etc.).

pwp said:

Well thanks for the responses. The 7D MkII doesn't sound like it's quite a match for the 1D MkIV on a number of relevant criteria, at least as far as my work-day requirements go. Another 5D MkIII or a 1DX might be more useful.

Even so...for a very tempting $2k it's almost worth adding one to the kit.

-pw

Click to expand...

1/3 the price with 2/3 the ability.... it is a tempting solution!

luckydude said:

OK so the title is BS but I'm sitting here watching Californcation on netflix and thinking this was all done with cameras with a lot of noise. And they use that noise. To good effect.

Anyone else seen that and care to comment?

I post this because there are endless threads here about all the noise in pictures. Here's a 7D example:

http://www.mcvoy.com/lm/bill+pam/32.html

Yup, if I'm looking for the noise I see it. But if I'm looking at the picture I don't. I just see a guy I know in low light, in a picture I like. I know, the noise is awful. But the pic is not bad, it's one of my favorites.

So are we all too focussed on the noise and not enough on the picture?

Click to expand...

Yes, sometimes we are. I think it's worth reading some of the critique on here, however undiplomatically it's worded in places. Manners and technique don't always go hand in hand it seems.

I would guess that you just captured a moment. I'm sure you'd rather that boy wasn't in the background for example but that's what happens when you capture something on the spur of the moment and if you wanted to you could edit it. A lot of what is being suggested is good "technical" advice. Sure, wait for the boy to leave the background, take the time to compose, focus, change the camera settings to get a good, technical picture.

But then, he's looking the other way, he has a different expression. It's better technically but it ends up in the Recycle Bin with a lot of other near identical, technically superior photos.

Just enjoy your picture, a lot of us can see exactly why you like it!

Mt Spokane Photography said:

Pitbullo said:

If/when canon brings out a FF mirrorless, would it be possible to have a built in adapter for EF lenses? Compact cameras have "telescope" lenses that collapse into the camera when turned off, would this technology be possible to implement in a mirrorless camera? Would be great if we could mount an EF lens, and the camera would automatically adjust to the correct flange distance.

Click to expand...

I'd not want a EF 600mm lens hanging from some sort of telescoping mechanism, it might last for 1 shot. I'm sure someone could design something, but I believe that any new lens mount would have to be larger than the EF mount. If smaller, it would block the image circle.

It does not sound practical on the surface, but it might be a way for Canon to design something that would not work with 3rd party lenses.

Click to expand...

Perhaps a mirrorless with this built in is not for you then? Canon offers 3 FF dSLRs, I think they will offer more than one mirrorless when they launch their own system.
Or, mabye the mount could be solid, and the sensor could be moved instead? IBIS moves the sensor around, moving the sensor to increase or shorten the distance to the lens could be an option.

NadaMal said:

I've never had this with regular batteries, but the recharge times I've had with regular batteries can be so slow it impedes my shooting, so I much prefer Lithium.

Click to expand...

Well, that's what the external power port is for, isn't it? I don't know what shooting frequency you can achieve with a li battery inside that flash, but I cannot imagine it comes near using an external power block - and then, our only source of heat is the flash tube.

preppyak said:

The leaked price is apparently $1499, which makes it a pretty interesting option if they've kept the lens sharp at 15mm f/2.8.

Translated press release is here: https://translate.google.com/translate?depth=1&hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://www.tamron.co.jp/news/release_2014/1218.html

http://www.canonwatch.com/tamron-sp-15-30mm-f2-8-di-vc-lens-officialy-announced/

Click to expand...

it is an interesting lens, but I find when i shoot UWA i also shoot higher f-value as it tends to be a landscape... the appeal of fast UWA is minimal for me.

A bigger question will be for astro and how the AF can keep up.

Fantastic info guys! I have nothing to contribute, but appreciated the info for my own use!

Thanks!

If I had $600 to spend I would look at a flash. It would also be useful on next year's new camera.

I am not sure how mraw or sraw is created but I have become a big believer in downsampling with the bicubic sharper algorithm when converting raw to jpeg for online viewing. You dont need to do any sharpening first and you get a really nice clean and sharp image but its only 5mpx. If a big megapixel camera could give you that same benefit while creating a 10mpx raw file then that would be fabulous.

Tinky said:

i think Canon rightly see EF / 135 as their holy grail and would rather adapt new camera systems to that than convert existing lens designs to different back focus registers such as EF-s and EF -m.

But I suppose there is some kind of precedent in the DO lenses which enable telephotos to be reduced in size somewhat... is it worth hacking a 400 5.6L to find out?

Also not keen on too many links, lens to fl reducer to ef-m mount?.. too many fine tolerances, too many e to e contacts for my tastes.

i just think canon want you to use big pixels with big lenses and that means bigger cameras.. the m is perfect with a pancake, anything else looks like an unwieldy chimera...

Click to expand...

Heh, sorry, I wasn't actually thinking about the 400mm lens still by the point I got onto the focal reducer/EOS M idea (I was tired and following tangents) - but was just thinking in terms of how people have focal reducers to use FF lenses on Sony NEX models and other brands, but never anything for EOS M!

Also, this little focal reducer I've been playing with actually fits inside the 400mm lens with a few mm around it - I'm curious how this might work as a bit of an in-lens speed booster/focal reducer on, say, an SL1, or even a 7D II or ather APS-C camera... the connections are still all there! The image would need cropping though, 0.5x is quite a boost/reduction! (and beyond the lens design's parameters)


This is all just hypothetical btw, guys - I'm in no hurry to hack an inch off the body of my lens but it does seem like a workable idea to "speed boost" for aps-c... just thinking out loud and invite other curious minds to, and educated minds to set us straight and fill in the gaps, too

meli said:

Second hand and slightly expensive but worth a look: nikon's 50/1.2, Olympus Zuiko 55/1.2

Click to expand...

If going for a vintage manual focus lens the Olympus Zuiko 50/1.4 is also excellent.

Thanks. Done.

weixing said:

troy19 said:

Samsung tech specs say:

Shutter Speed: Auto : 1/8000 sec. - 1/4 sec. / Manual : 1/8000 sec. - 30 sec. /

This puzzles me as I'm not familiar with Samsung gear (put aside mobile phones).

Does "Auto" refer to the Auto-modes (Av, Tv, P), that can only be set to 1/4 sec at max.? Is the NX1 not able to shoot up to e.g. 30 sec in Auto-modes?

Maybe someone has better knowledge and can clarify on this?

Click to expand...

Hi,
May be you should ask in the dpreview samsung forum... better chance of someone who had the camera to answer your question.

Have a nice day.

Click to expand...

henryp said:

sagittariansrock said:

I had a bad experience with UPS and B&H's response was disappointing. I was at home all day to receive the 6D + Pro-10 and at 4.30 I receive an email saying UPS tried to deliver at 2.30, but I wasn't at home...B&H's response was lukewarm, but at least they filed a claim right away.

Click to expand...

I am sorry you were dissatisfied. I do not know when this took place but I'd be happy to look into it for you. Email order info to me at henryp[at]bhphoto.com

Click to expand...

I was disappointed at the moment, but I received the package afterwards and notified Customer care about it thereafter.
Thanks for following up on this forum.

Thanks for this.
Just got 50mm L. After previously owning 35mm F2 IS and 40mm STM (which nail viewfinder focus almost every time) on my 6D.
Now, I got this doubt feeling every time I AF on 50L. So was thinking to purchase Reikan Focal. Or ask Canon service to AFMA which is more costly. (Get rid of the variable and Isolate the problem more).
And my 70D AF worst (not as good as my 6D) - idk if this is user error or expected.
On the other side, I am aware of focus shift. And still need to learn a lot regarding subject distance and F value. I tend to always use F1.2 no matter what subject distance. I am still in the learning experience stage.

The Rumor may have some truth behind it. AT Amazon Japan, The EOS-M2 with 22/2.0 and the 16-55 zoom is at about US$465 and Canon gives almost US$60 rebate.
I doubt that Canon will be in the FF mirrorless market in the foreseeable future. It will be to much capital investment, ( all new lenses, "buying" pattern from other companies, etc ) even for Canon.

knw said:

They knew some combination of buttons to reset the firmware of the speedlite.

Click to expand...

They do? What are these :-o ? And what's resetting a flash as simple as the 430ex2 supposed to achieve?

knw said:

Does anybody know if this has been described for the 430ex ii as well in the meantime?

Click to expand...

A flash is a flash, and a cracked tube is a cracked tube.

Mt Spokane Photography said:

knw said:

The symptoms remind me of the known issue with the 580ex ii that are detailed here:
http://lpadesign.com/580EXII.pdf

Click to expand...

That link was a excuse made up by LPA design because their product (Pocket Wizard) was frying flashes.

Click to expand...

My understanding is that this is a problem with the 580ex2 in general when working a lot in high powered hss. I researched that when buying my flashes, and it has been fixed on the newer 430ex2 and 600rt units.

Mt Spokane Photography said:

They say that its many times cheaper than competing lenses, but fail to say which one costs many times the $1000 price.

Is there a 15-30 f/2.8 IS that costs 6 or 8 thousand? Three thousand?

My virtually unused Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L is out for pickup this morning, it sold for $1075. Ultra wide angle lenses are just not something I use, I sold my 15mm FE and now the 16-35.

I kept my Tokina 17mm f/3.5 just in case. I actually liked it better than many ultra wide lenses I've tried, and it cost me $125 used. Tokina has been one of the better third party ultra wide lens makers in the past, but they do not seem to be selling or introducing many new models.

Click to expand...

There's been a lot of comparing same-brand new vs old models here recently so I guess it's worth mentioning this lovely little lens I've got sat here which discreetly disappeared off the market a few years back: Tamron's own 17-35mm f/2.8-4 Di LD ASPHERICAL (IF) AF ABCDEFG...

So: ~£170 Vs... never mind.

As another occasional uwa shooter, I love this (old) thing. Think I'll save my pennies!

neuroanatomist said:

DanN said:

I think the only way this lens is going to sell really well is if it proves to be essentially a 400mm version of the 300mm 2.8 II; that is, a lens with just legendary sharpness. Otherwise, I don't know how you justify the almost $5000.00 difference between it and the new 100-400.

Click to expand...

How do you justify the 200/2L IS, when there's the excellent 70-200/2.8L IS II and the relatively inexpensive but still excellent 200/2.8L II? Twice as much light.

Click to expand...

Well, I personally don't justify it, because never, not once, have I ever contemplated paying $6,000 for a 200mm F2.0 lens. It just isn't the kind of photography I do. But the 200 2.0 apparently does possess the kind of sharpness I was talking about, where it's noticeably better than the less expensive lenses.

More careful testing results.

This afternoon, since there were no birds, I tested the old and new 100-400 lenses at 400mm against the 500 V.1 again. I used the chart from Bob Atkins printed on a 13x19 sheet. There is no doubt in my mind now that the zoom is not quite as sharp or contrasty as the 500. It is close however.
I set up the tripod on a concrete floor, MLU, focused live view with a loupe, remote with 2-second delay with a monopod supporting the camera body itself IS was off, etc. I took several shots with each lens while watching live view for vibrations. It was quite solid and there were none. The various test shots were quite consistent in appearance so I think this is a correct test. The tests showed what would be expected. The 500 is at the top of the heap with best sharpness and contrast, the new zoom is a VERY close second and the old zoom (which is a pretty good copy) is falling behind the new zoom by more of a gap than the new zoom falls behind the 500. CA is also much better with the new zoom. Mystery solved.

too many curve balls here mate.

most manufacturers let you download a pdf of the manuals these days. For a definitive answer try that.

The Canon EF lenses launched in the last decade are designed to provide clear images even in 80 megapixel sensors (at least in the sweet spot of the lens). While Canon Cine lenses are designed to provide high quality images at up to 32 megapixel sensors.
High quality images in Cine lenses, means:

*Do not have breath focus, noticeable.

*Making extremely precise manual focus through a ring that rotates 180 degrees about.

*Do not have vignettes, chromatic aberration, barrel distortion, noticeable to the point they need to be corrected in post (as is done in stills photo).

I believe the Canon cine lenses can produce better images than old EF models, but should not reach the sharpness of the Sigma 50mm Art.

Why buy a 20 MP camera and then throw pixels away.

I can understand not needing them, but its a expensive camera, and you can never recover the lost resolution if you shoot in mraw. Memory cards and hard drive space are so cheap in relation to the price of the camera that its not a factor. You must still convert to jpg for either mraw or raw, and the image size can be set during that process without affecting the original.