I MADE A PURCHASE FROM B&H ON JULY 25, 2014. THERE IS A MAIL AND REBATE PROMOTIONAL ID THAT I NEED TO REGISTER MY CLAIM. WHERE AND HOW DO I FIND IT?

Great pics. Thank you for sharing

privatebydesign said:

EchoLocation said:

privatebydesign said:

Who cares? Every thread will be hijacked by people telling us our cameras are crap, even if we are happy with them they will try and tell us why we shouldn't be, even when we tell them we understand their point, and it is valid, they will still go on and on and on and on..........

Click to expand...

serenity now!

Click to expand...

I try, I truthfully try, but it is like a car accident, you really don't want to look as you drive by but for some morbid reason you can't stop yourself. Now they are saying you can't print a Canon file from any camera above 13" x 19", they honestly believe there is a 36% deficiency in Canon sensors, though how you can quantify that to 36% is a mystery, they are crazy, truthfully crazy. Don't they realise they sound like the crazy guy in the parking lot at the mall?

I think I am not going to log in for a few days.

Click to expand...

Don't beat around the bush, man. Why not actually use my name? Just call me crazy and be done with it.

BTW, I went through the math. You can disagree with the method if you wish, that's your prerogative, but you know EXACTLY HOW I quantified that 36%. You have also gravely misinterpreted what those calculations represented...or, since I know your an intelligent individual, your just purposely misrepresenting what I said. In the end, I still demonstrated that the 1D X had the advantage...so either you only read part of that post, or, again, your purposely misrepresenting.

Anyway, not here to hijack the thread. Just, PBD, you want to call me out...call me out. Don't beat around the bush.

Don't worry too much about pixel density - pixel quality/performance is much more important.
I went from APSC (1.6 crop) to APSH (1.3 crop) to one of the lowest MP full frame cameras on today's market at 18Mp (Nikon do some 16Mp full frame bodies). My most used lens is a Canon 800mm F5.6 L IS so according to many commentators I am losing 480mm compared to 1.6 crop and 240mm compared to 1.3 crop. Am I missing the loss of reach? To put it mildly - no!
My previous camera (a Canon 1D4) made the likes of the 7D look somewhat wanting and my current (relatively low MP) 1DX is significantly better in this and all other respects than the 1D4 was.
The only advantages of the APSC cameras is that they offer decent/good quality images in a lighter and cheaper package - probably why they are so popular!

LovePhotography said:

Well, I haven't tried this with other lenses, but this certainly seems disturbing... Is this true at other f/stops as well?
Could you post pictures of the second lens trial?
Does this mean that, as of now, this lens should not be on my wish list? The only reason I wanted one is for the sharpness! I have several other lens (less sharp) that cover 50mm (or come close).
I had a Canon 50mm 1.4 that I sold in anticipation of buying this lens, but is the 1.4 a better lens (at 1/3rd the price)?

Click to expand...

I really love the sharpness. As long as you focus using center AF point and then recompose, you're completely safe. Attached is a small test using the Spyder lenscal where you can compare its sharpness at f/1.4 using manual and AF. Both are a crop from the midframe.

I haven't tried it at other f-stops so this I don't know. I would still keep it on the wish list. Apparently Sigma can fix this issue and using only center AF is no problem for portrets (which I use it a lot for).

Just one unavoidable disappointing fact: it has ugly bokeh compared to the canon 50 1.4.

Hey CR Team,

I tried searching this in the forums, but couldn't effectively isolate my question.

Metabones speed booster ultra

http://www.metabones.com/products/details/MB_SPEF-E-BM2

Its idea is to increase the amount of light and reduce CA, vignetting, etc blah blah blah

So for a 24-70 2.8, it changes it to a 17-50 F2.

Is this a legitimate accessory to have, especially while travelling so don't need a dedicated wide angle lens.
I am assuming not because otherwise no one would buy 16-35/17-40, but just wondering if anyone had any experience at all with them

Thanks guys & girls

Dylan777 said:

cellomaster27 said:

Random Orbits said:

Dylan777 said:

tolusina said:

Not the official photographer?
Then just the 50, be everywhere while staying out of the way.

Click to expand...

+1...let's the pro does his/her best.

Click to expand...

Although I would love to have a capable "photographer" at every table/group if possible. There are many moments that are missed because there is only so much one or two pros can cover.

I remember placing those disposable 35mm film cameras at each table when my wife and I got married. I was expecting a lot of shots to be bad, but I wasn't expecting THAT many shots to be bad. I'm pretty sure it was not worth the cost of those disposable cameras and the cost of processing the film for what we got out of it. Cell phone cameras are a lot better than those crappy disposable cameras, but a lot of those shots are still no better (as observed from all the FB links from a recent wedding we attended).

Click to expand...

I was attending a wedding recently.. did not take my camera but what I saw was disturbing.. 24-105, 24-70 F4, 16-35, on both wedding shooters. Then I saw an audience attendee with a nikon D4s and a 70-200 2.8 (hopefully saved the day). And just by observing the wedding photographers, no offense, made me very worried as to if they will get many usable shots. The moments, which I would consider important (kissing, putting on the ring, etc), they were shooting at the sides or far down the aisle with those lenses. yikes. Since you're not the official photog, you don't need all that gear. But if I were you, I would take the 50 and the 70-200. The 70-200 is definitely a large lens but allows you to stay back and snap some shots. Maybe take the wide angle? Definitely not the flash if you take the 50. Spare batteries and most importantly, enjoy the wedding. cheers

Click to expand...

The important thing is, did you see they carry any flashes?

To get sharper images, most wedding pros prefer to shoot with flashes indoor.

Click to expand...

Well, the wedding was outdoors so no need for flashes at that point. But I mean one photographer with the 24-105 was way down the aisle when the bride and groom kissed (not paying attention) and the other was taking photos of the wedding party from the sides with a wide lens. I was so disturbed. Plus you could hear the shutter going spray mode while the photographer(s) was moving.. Yikes. I was so distracted.
They did have some flashes setup for the indoor reception in various strategic locations.

wickidwombat said:

great review and not unexpected outcome i think i agree the 28-300 might be a better option even on a crop
especially since canon have the 10-18 to make a much better crop wide end

i still think you need to review the samyang/ rokinon 8mm f2.8 on the eos M its fantastic

Click to expand...

I'll give it a try at some point. I'm interested in seeing how the 12mm f/2 performs (it's on the way to me right now), and would like to get a copy of the EF-M 11-22mm to compare it to.

Oops, I posted this under a parallel thread and should have done it here:

Keep in mind that the "price drops" largely match rebate pricing. I don't think we should assume too much until we see if rebates return with even lower prices.

For the past few years, Canon (and others) have pretty much had a constant cycle of never-ending rebates. Perhaps their marketing research has show that rebates are no longer effective and permanent price drops are a better approach. (With the price "drop" actually being about the same as rebate pricing in most cases)

I also wonder about the impact on the MAP system. Rebate periods were used to enforce MAP. Yet, MAP has proven to be virtually unenforceable no matter what manufacturers try. If Canon permanently lowers prices and then no longer uses rebates to enforce MAP, they may be throwing in the towel and effectively giving retailers more flexibility on pricing. From Canon's perspective, MAP was done as a favor to retailers and had no impact on the company's profits. Perhaps they just decided that it's not worth the hassle to try to swim against the current and try to enforce prices that retailers refuse to charge anyway.

Hello
www.500px.com/Vgramatikov

As per my opinion tamron 150-600 is much better than stacked tc`s on vario lens.
So far i thing it is even as good as 300 2.8L IS mk1 + 1.4 or as good as 400 5.6L on equivalent focal lenght.
I mean may be little bit softer but on the field optically is close witch is good for zoom with such a price tag.

Of course i speak only optically. Like AF, and other features i can not tell. I have experience with 300 2.8 IS L and 400 5.6L both owned.

Tamron seems to be best value/choice for the money!!! If i don`t have 400 5.6L the tamron i next in my list.
But for now i thing 400 5.6L have some advantages optically and like AF speed and accuracy witch for me is far more important than zoom and i have 200 2.8L if i decide to work with close subjects.

Of course vario is more flexy at some moments and thats why i highly recommended the Tamron.
Good pack for the money and why not best zoom in it`s class. Better than all Sigmas and as good as Nikon and Canon versions for much less money.

Of course third party means problems with AF but now always.
And don`t forget the IS in Tamron. Canon 400 5.6 do not have it.
It is usable at many cases on the field. Yes you can not freeze action with IS but this is not the case when IS can save a shot!!! All long handholdable lens need IS/VR/VC.

i have always really liked this lens, originally i got it for doing full panoramas. its really sharp and has good color and contrast. its more useful with today's software tools like dxo than it used to be. poor fisheye gets left out of all the best ultrawide talks but i think it deserves an honorable mention.

If I were you I'd buy a 50 1.8 and see how often you actually use it.

Click to expand...

I had the 50 f/1.8 when I only had an 18-55mm and a 75-300 (and eventually the 55-250mm). But the lens is soft from f/1.8 and sharpens up around f/2.8... which is where I mostly shot with it. I eventually upgraded to a canon 50mm f/1.4, but at that time I had a 24-105mm and I think a 100L... so by comparison, the 50 wasn't really that good. Not enough reach (on my crop 60D), and not wide enough to use indoors. So even though the f/1.4 is an overall better lens, it was my least used.

It's a fine lens. So is the 85 1.8.

Click to expand...

I had the 85 f/1.8 and I liked it. I took a bunch of photos of my new born... but the minimum focusing distance (and I realize the 85L mkii also has a mfd of 3ft) was annoying... and I sold my 100L after getting the 70-200mm f/2.8L mkii, thinking it was redundant... it wasn't. I missed the 100L's MFD and just dramatic sharpness... So I sold the 85 f/1.8 and I bought the 100L again.

The 85 1.2 is good in a studio on a tripod. It's harder to use in the fly. At 1.2 there isn't much forgiveness in depth of field and you need an ND filter in sunlight.

Click to expand...

I was using a depth of field calculator and the 100L @ 12 inches away has a SIGNIFICANTLY thinner depth of field than the 85L at f/1.2 and 36 inches away. It can be a challenge working at thin dof's... but not impossible... and if I can get a decent amount of hits with the 100L... the 85L doesn't scare me...

The 40 2.8 Is an option I don't use it enough but is also quite a nice lens.

Click to expand...

I bought one for my daughter... she doesn't use the camera or the lens... but it's an option there. F2.8 is fine... but I do want something with a wide aperture for situations like last night... we were at an amusement park and it was dark save for the lights off the rides and lamp posts... but I wanted a wider aperture to increase shutter speed/lower the iso... Funny thing... that's why I got the 85mm, for campfires and the like... but evidently I forgot that I need a wider aperture lens when I sold it.
I can see you are going for quality over quantity on you lenses which is quite sensible.

With your buying pattern I'd say the Sigma art is the best choice for you.

Click to expand...

I want the 50 art... and I'm willing to only use the center AF point and only use manual focus... I was comparing the 50 art to the 55 otus (test charts) and the otus is impressive from center to corner, but I can be content just having a really good performance and great performance compared to the rest of the 50's.

e17paul said:

Was it actually from Amazon? Or fulfilled by an Amazon seller?

Click to expand...

I was sold by Amazon.

I use the Acratech 2179 plate, http://www.acratech.net/quick-release-plates/2179. With it mounted it is possible to open the battery chamber, and it have a great fitting to the camera.

LuCoOc said:

Thank you all for your opinions!

It is interesting that a third of you voted for "none of the above" but all the answers were pro the 70-200.
I was also thinking about only bringing the 15-85 and 40 (wich I will not leave at home ) but my room mate made me think about bringing another lens.

More opinions are still welcome.

Any tips for must see place and hidden highlights (smaller state parks, etc) als well!

Click to expand...

Get a SL1 that weights light a compact camera, 15-85, 40 and 70-200 lenses.

No. They tend to be much too large, our servers are not Amazon S3 servers. A cr2 or dng file requires external software to convert to something viewable. That means every user would have to download the file in order to see it. For cr2, the user would have to have software that supports the camera used, and for dng, they would need software that supports dng.

I suggest that you link users to a offsite service like drop box. They can download and then play with the file.

Don Haines said:

wanner said:

When can we expect a new XXD body to be announced/released?

Click to expand...

The 50D was announced in August 2008

The 60D was announced 24 months later in August 2010

The 70D was announced 35 months later in July 2013

If the pattern continues, expect the 80D in July or August of 2017....

Click to expand...

are you excited yet?

jdramirez said:

As a quick alternative to canon rumors... you could go to camelcamelcamel dot com and they only track the historic prices of Amazon, but you can also see the prices of 3rd party sellers or the used market. I use that a lot when trying to determine market value for a used lens.

Click to expand...

Thank you, jd, for the tip about the camelcamelcamel.com site. I didn't know about it until now. Very useful!

Vivid

I like your composition, but what about exposing a little more for the shadows? I'd use your photos if I was out to advertise their uniforms but I'd open it a little to get faces.

Jim

Yup, mine was 2nd hand too...

I've quite a few bits of kit that seem to have been purchased by someone else on a whim and then sold on after they 'didn't work' ;-)

JonAustin said:

Mitch.Conner said:

neuroanatomist said:

Mitch.Conner said:

I feel stupid now for ordering the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II USM. It will be here Tuesday. I got the rebate and all, but the street price with the rebate is still $200 less than I paid. I bought it through B&H. Thought I was getting a really good deal. :

Click to expand...

Call them after their price drops, see what they say. Maybe you'll get a double dip?

Click to expand...

I suppose it couldn't hurt to try.

Click to expand...

Definitely call them. I bought 4 600EX-RTs on one order a couple of years ago, and there was a significant price drop (when multiplied by 4) within 30 days of my date of purchase (in other words, within the product return window). I contacted B&H by e-mail, and they immediately credited my charge account for the difference between the old and new prices, no questions asked.

By the way, I purchased the 70-200 II from B&H in June, at $2,499 before $300 rebate and ~ $50 in B&H reward credits, for a net price of about $2,150. It was an upgrade from the 70-200/2.8L IS mark I, and I'm totally satisfied, even though it cost about $550 more (net) than I paid for the new mark I 8 years ago.

Click to expand...

Ditto with Adorama. I bought a CF card and 3 price drops later... I'm saying they were nice enough to give me the discounted price each time.

After all is said and done... you might get the rebate plus a price break... and that is a thing of beauty.

Hi FEBS,

Thanks for the reply. I can use the 430 as a optical slave, but if I need extra range of there is no line of sight, I need to use a radio trigger. I'll try a pass through TLL cable.
Thanks

Mt Spokane Photography said:

To be fair, I believe that the LCD monitors are calibrated at the factory, so there could be a issue that others do not have. Its been a issue with tablets as well, the quality of factory calibration is a variable.

Click to expand...

Good point. Come to think of it, there was a large batch of iPhones with a 'yellow' display. I had one, Apple replaced it for free.

I guess they had to drop prices on the refurbs. The 24-70 f/4 was not selling, and many users who are spending a lot of money would step up to the f/2.8 model. It is about the same quality as the 24-105L at a huge price differential. They will drop to $7oo by Christmas.

drjlo said:

PicaPica said:

that the sensor performance is reported to be the same or slightly worse than the G1X sensor is a bit disappointing of course.

Click to expand...

It's the usual Canon Sensor story :'(

Quote from DPReview:

"These examples (and our test scene on the coming pages) suggest that the RX100 II's sensor is so much better than the G1 X II's that it cancels-out much of the dynamic range and high ISO noise advantages that the G1 X II's larger sensor should bring...

Overall, though, the larger sensor in the Canon is much of the reason that the camera is so much less pocketable than the Sony, yet the full benefits of that additional sensor size are not realized: the Canon's image quality advantage isn't proportionate with its greater bulk."

Click to expand...

All that is basically saying that for its size, the Sony sensor is very good, but it still does not match the larger Canon sensor. So if almost as good means better to some, that's fine. The small size of the RX100 to me was a deal breaker, its too small for my hands. For others, its ideal.