jefflinde said:

Maybe I am just clueless but what is the point of doing this? Other than to say that you can? Is there some advantage to holding a camera like this? People complain about not having a viewfinder and how unimaginablely difficult it is to frame a shot but with this you have to look down and not even close to where your subject is. Please let me know if I am missing something. Honestly I am curious what the draw to this is

Click to expand...

This is great for street photography. You want to avoid eye contact as you want to avoid interacting with the people you photograph as a street photographer to preserve the authenticity of the situation. You do not want people to pose but to act as normal as they do when they do not know that they are photographed.

Re: Using the 11-24

keithcooper said:

The 11-24 is so good that the rectilinear distortion of such a wide angle could look very wrong. What I've not tested with this lens is using FE Hemi on an 11mm lens where I've deliberately added some barrel distortion (see the review of FEH on my site for an example with my old 16-35) There is also DxO's Viewpoint to try.

Click to expand...

I shoot a lot (I mean a LOT!) with my Sigma 15mm fisheye on full-frame. It's vertical field of view is about the equivalent of the vertical field of view of an 11mm rectilinear. It's horizontal field of view is much wider.

Lightroom has a profile for the 15mm fisheye. If you select it, it corrects vignetting and distortion, effectively making it an 11mm rectilinear lens. I find virtually no use for that.

However, there's a really cool feature that the distortion correction has a slider. It goes from 0 to 200, with 100 the default if the profile is active. I've recently been playing with that slider a lot, and even going back to many old pictures and playing with it.

What I've found is that I almost never like 0 and I NEVER* like 100 (rectilinear). I usually settle somewhere between 20 and 50 with an occasional 70.

* There is one case where I like 100 - where I crop to 14mm equivalent rectilinear or greater.

What I'm saying is that the idea of adding something like barrel distortion, fisheye projection or what Fisheye Hemi does (which can also be done in Hugin) may well improve many shots taken below 14mm on the 11-24.

drindrin said:

hey guys just wondering what you guys think about this lens? I'm new to the camera world, and just want a wide lens to take some cool photos is this a good lens, i have a 600d.

Click to expand...

I have one, but never tried to mount it on my EF camera, it's still used only on the (film) FD cameras it was designed for. It is a decent lens, but not a stellar performer. Back then, zooms didn't achieve yet the performance they reached in the past years thanks to improved computer design and process making special glasses less expensive.

Moreover as other explained, the design of the new EF mount makes impossible to use the older FD lenses without an adapter using an optical element and still achieve infinity focus (because they were designed to be mounted closer to the focal plane) - and an optical element means 1) magnification - making the lens even less "wide" (and on a "crop" body a 28mm is not wide at all) 2) image degradation, especially if the optical element is not "perfect". Also, FD lenses used mechanical couplings to set the aperture, while EF use a electric couplings. If you're new to photography, it means a much more complex procedure to meter exposure and focus. You will spend more time fighting with the camera/lens combo than learning photography.

And all those lenses are, after so many years, getting "old", it could be difficult to find one still in good working conditions (and some collector-quality lens can be expensive) - and that specific lens was one of the first using extensively plastic instead of metal in its construction, it was light but not regarded very "sturdy".

My suggestion is to buy one of the wide angle zoom designed for the EF cameras, there are non-Canon branded ones as well, in the used market should not be difficult to find one without spending too much, and it would even be easier to re-sell it later if you want to move to something else.

The Digital Picture now has the 11-24 up. I am really impressed at how it looks wide open at 11mm. When stopped down, it's crazy sharp! The distortion looks about the same as the Nikon 14-24, which is around 4%. Pretty good considering it's 11mm!

What do you guys think? Better or worse than expected?

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=977&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=615&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

janewolowitz said:

hi.. I am new here.,,,,

Click to expand...

Welcome on CR

If you might have a question you can always start a thread and of course you can answer and give your opinion on others to. Have a nice time over here.

I guess my next question should be, "Do you speak Vietnamese?"

Hopefully you have other lenses and can still get some good shots and enjoyment from your travels. Terrible time for a fail.

But, since you are welcoming guesses, sounds like a bad AF motor and/or gear. I've traveled in Vietnam. If you can walk in to a true Canon service center, sounds good--if you have the time to wait. But nobody can tell you how long or how much except the techs at the service center you go to. I understand the anxiety and waiting until Monday, though.

But, wow, finding somebody who can tell you about a repair in Vietnam, based on your description...Even if a US CPS tech were here to chime in, that's a bit of a stretch.

If you have ever used CPS, you know the price could be pretty much anything they decide, and then it might change upwards.

Hope the rest of your trip goes better.

Hi Don.
You are very lucky to be the temporary custodian of such a beautiful piece of craftsmanship. I bet the varnish work keeps you busy when you can't get it on the water.
Owner of a 1980's GRP canoe made by a British Hovercraft Apprentice. It's a bit like a supertanker, heavy, goes well in a straight line but won't turn in less than a lake!

Cheers, Graham.

Don Haines said:

We just suffered through the coldest February on record and the ice is 40 inches thick out back.... it has been 2 1/2 months since the temperature was above freezing and I am getting restless for spring and want to go paddling.... so I thought I would start a thread on wooden canoes....

To start it off, here is the oldest one of the fleet... an 1895 Walter Dean racing canoe

Click to expand...

Re: Free Firmware Upgrades For Canon XF205 and XF200 Professional Camcorders Deliver Improved Basic

"Slow- and fast-motion video capture in MP4 formatWhen recording in the MP4 format, users will be able to slow down the action up to 40 percent or speed up video up to 250 percent, facilitating the creation of high-impact and expressive footage."

I am surprised that those cameras did not already do that, since the XA20/25/G30 had the ability to do that from the start.

Well, I removed the sticker to see if the screws were loose and they all seemed to be tight and secure. So I put the sticker back on. Did some limited testing and I don't see any major issues. I stopped down to f8 which maybe skewed the tests a bit but I figure if there was something really wrong with the lens it'd show up regardless of aperture.

One thing I noticed is that when zoomed to 105, the front assembly is much tighter than it is at 24mm. I wouldn't say 100% like my 16-35 but very close to it.

Pretty sure I'm out of warranty so I'll let it rock for now. Appreciate the help!

Seems to me, this price point at 4K will have a huge market, (selling to people like, I don't know, perhaps... me?):
http://shop.panasonic.com/cameras-and-camcorders/camcorders/HC-X1000.html

I realize it's not the sensor size of a C500 or FS7, but I think Canon ignores this 4K price/performance point at its peril.

Am I wrong? Thoughts?

Friends in Australia… I am in the process of selling my 1dc and am wondering if there would be a market for a used 1dc in Australia. My sister is visiting me from there and can carry it with her and put it up for sale on ebay/amazon. My other option is to sell it in USA but then I will have to ship it such other complications. Any thoughts? Will it sell for a decent price there?

Mitch.Conner said:

I was just reading that Nikon might be coming out with a 24-70 f2.8 VR. It might be a PF lens, which would make it lighter than usual (PF is Nikon's version of DO).

It got me remembering that the supposed reason Canon has yet to release a 24-70 f/2.8L IS is due to it being large and heavy. Then I thought, "Isn't the new 11-24 f/4 large and heavy?" So far I don't see people really complaining.

Do you all speculate that a 24-70 f/2.8L IS would be larger or smaller than AND weigh more or less than the 11-24? Or would it be about the same?

Obviously, this would be mostly pure speculation. Perhaps the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC could be used for comparison though.

Click to expand...

I'll be honest after some experience with it, I wouldn't buy an IS version of the 24-70 II if it were bigger/heavier. It is pretty much perfect as-is. And I was an advocate of incorporating IS at some point into it, too.

Also, one of the big reasons I bought the 16-35mm f/4L IS over the 11-24mm f/4L for landscape was due to the too-large/too-heavy size of the 11-24. I waited until the 11-24 came out before I bought either and once I saw the size/weight I knew it was too cumbersome for my landscape stuff.

The only lens I have I'd say that I would say there is not much option but to deal with the extra size/weight is the 70-200 f/2.8L II IS. Due to the focal length both f/2.8 and IS are much appreciated if not often needed.

It's a plastics conference, and Canon Virginia (manufacturing not cameras) will be one of the companies I'll be interviewing while doing video coverage there. Not exactly amazing, but I'm pretty excited.

Any rumors about injection molds you all would like me to ask?

I have a 1DX ;D and a 5D3 ;D.

I cannot for the life of me see why I would want to drop $4K (gripped) for these offerings . . .

You pay sales tax on that so in California where i'm from, it will cost a little under $780.
I'd much rather go through Canonpricewatch and pay the street price of $810 total shipped and get the full Sigma 3 yr warranty for just $30 more

A very reliable source has told me today Canon will not be launching or showing anything above the C500 MKII at NAB. Stated this camera will come at 2016 NAB.

mrsheel4 said:

I want to upgrade to a better photo/video DSLR. I am interested in the Canon 6D. I have read it is a great camera but its main down fall is that it doesn't have continuous focus and it doesn't shoot RAW?. (of course I wish I could afford the 5d mkiii but that it not in my price range right now)

Click to expand...

Canon 6D do not continuously focus during video or live view. 6D shoot RAW, but only photo, not in video mode.

At this time, 70D offers the best automatic focus for video (and 7D Mark ii).

T5i does continuously focus on video, but is not fast enough for fast moving objects. The new T6i, and T6s promise an improvement in the focus speed, compared to T5i.

I know they're only cheap in the US, $15 to $20, but we get ripped-off by Canon in Aus so they are 40 to 50 bucks here... I can think of much better things to spend that much money on than a redundant remote.

distant.star said:

.
Thanks for asking.

Calibrated monitor here.

On the monitor, I prefer the second. If I were to print and put on the wall, I'd go with the first.

Click to expand...

This is what my wife thinks. The first one makes her "happier", but on a screen the darker one looks a bit better.
Thank you all very much for your comments. I really do appreciate this. Thanks!

This thread is a little old, so I thought I'd bring it back to life now that there are new bodies on the horizon.
I'm thinking of buying the 135 f2 lens for a 6D, is there any reason that I should hold off (any talk of newer version on the horizon?) since it's getting a little long in the tooth as a nearly 2 decade old lens? How future-proof do you think this lens will be - ex, Do you think it'll maintain its renowned sharpness on the newer high res bodies (5DS, 5DSR?)

Zeidora said:

I would think that the biggest problem is internal reflection of light inside the mouth, so that it will affect color the the target area. It is like bounce flash in a room with pink walls: the shots will have a pink tinge.

Click to expand...

+1

Perio said:

sometimes I don't like the colors of the mouth tissues

Click to expand...

I think you should try colored flash-lights rather than grey-cards or xrite-cards.

A mouth is mostly red hues (even teeth is red hue), and then you have the white tissues.
If you experiment with colored flash-light, you may be able to achieve a much more pleasing color-palette. It can be as simple as putting some colored plastic over your flash. Try a red or pink bag for example, or whatever color gives you the result you prefer. A tiny thin plastic-bag, it doesn't have to be transparent, just thin enough to allow the flash to shine through.
Which color is ideal for what you want, I don't know, but I would start with reddish hues, then orange. Green, and to some extent blue, will likely make the mouth look very dark or even blackish like.

http://www.canon.co.uk/springcashback/

Canon 5D MKIII £ 250 cash-back
Canon 6D £ 100 cash-back
Canon 70D £ 50 Cash-back

Plus on certain lenses and printers etc.

gqllc007 said:

Maybe I did the lighting thing all wrong...I used a 150 watt flood light from Home depot and mounted it in a reflector work light from home depot and placed it 2 feet from the chart at a 30 degree angle. The focal program said EV of 10.9 and that is all I used???

Click to expand...

I use something similar with no problems - a pair of 75 watt equivalent floods clamped to a lightstand. Just make sure to set the white balance to the color temperature of the bulbs. This did make a difference in my tests.

I tried similar LED based floods with mixed results - sometimes you would notice the scanning in liveview which suggested they had AC flicker problems similar to fluorescent bulbs. I get more consistent results with the halogens.

Photos taken with a cell phone, talk about lack of DR

Thank you for your help. My questions have been answered.

The Digital Picture has the crops up for comparison:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=14614

It looks very good to me, and I'm pleased to see how sharp it is compared to the other lenses in the range. It holds its own against the 16-35 f/4 IS, with less distortion, is better at 24mm than the 24-70 f/2.8 II, kills the Sigma 12-24 II, and stopped down, is as sharper or sharper than all but the TS-E 17 and 24II lenses. It sure makes me feel better about the money spent.