Posts

9VIII · Jul 10, 2014

That list makes suddenly makes me feel ok about the idea of owning a Big White.

igbass · Jul 10, 2014

I recently upgraded from the original 5D to the MKIII, wanting video capability, but having never done video before. Thought I'd share my first clips and ask for any advice on how to improve. I'd like to practice the technical aspects of capturing video correctly before I stray too far into the editing side of it, and am still struggling with things like flicker in the time lapse bits, etc. Thanks for watching!

Croatia:
https://vimeo.com/98848299

Budapest + Prague:
https://vimeo.com/99523779

Turkey:
https://vimeo.com/100424635

TLN · Jul 10, 2014

Here's even older canon 80-200L from 1989. My copy was made in 1994 so it's anniversary lens this year

That's shot wide open, f/2.8 at 170mm. 1/500 and 5d2 if anyone cares.
70-200L is modern design, and should be on par with that.

For $780 I'd pull a trigger, especially if you don't have a zoom in that range.

mrsfotografie · Jul 10, 2014

GammyKnee said:
Arty said:

What do you mean by "longer focal length" on a 30 mm prime?

Click to expand...

Given the context I'm sure he means that a misfocus became more and more likely as the distance to the subject increased.

That's what I meant, yes.

eninja · Jul 9, 2014

skoobey said:
If it doesn't affect your WB across the frame just live with it.

I agree, thanks.

I will test flash, for awhile. If the output is negligible or does not matter at all. I leave it that way, I even often use diffuser and shoot within 100mm focal length.

LetTheRightLensIn · Jul 9, 2014

l_d_allan said:
However, DxoMark specs showed the 6d and 5d3 very close (~2300), the 1Dx significantly better (~2800), and the older 5d2 (~1800) lagging the 6d and 5d3 in what they term "Sports (low light ISO)". For reference, the Nikon D4 was about 2950.

Looking at the plots the SNR between the three (1DX, 5D3, 6D) is really close. DR better at high ISO for 6D and 1DX and at low ISO for 6D.

ianc · Jul 9, 2014

henrywang said:
That's just how he reviews products, he's telling it honestly and calls it as he sees it. The team at DigitalRev works hard bringing unique photography reviews that no one else does.

We all have a different view on humor, and some may find his humorous approach enjoyable and useful. No need to tear on how he chooses to do his reviews.

His "humor" is offputting and obnoxious, not clever and amusing. His entire delivery, even when not trying to tell crappy jokes, just comes across as harsh and grating. I'll never forget one review of his I watched, trying to ignore his awful delivery, and he starts cracking jokes about disabled people. Give me a break, that's not funny at all. The guy is just offensive.

And, the "team at DigitalRev" sells cameras, so I'm not giving them brownie points for doing video reviews on the things they're trying to sell.

skoobey · Jul 9, 2014

About remotely controlling power... well I have Bowens system that uses a remote, and sometimes it's the power, angle, modifier, combo of these... so assistants are a MUST for location shooting, and you need to test the setup beforehand as well.

As for the triggering... Cable is the best, I was sick and tired of radio triggers working with one system or the other, light meter working with one or the other, so in the end... switched back to the good old wire and had 0 issues.

skoobey · Jul 9, 2014

Have the Phottix L Bracket one, I guess it's from China, but it's made of metal. Love it! And it's 25$.

Country of origin has nothing to do with the product quality.

NancyP · Jul 9, 2014

The lens is a hiker's dream lens. I could imagine a great lightweight landscape kit composed of 6D, 16-35 f/4L IS, and one or two other lenses depending on shooting style - 70-200 f/4L IS, or 85mm f/1.8 +/- 50 f/1.8 II.

pdirestajr · Jul 9, 2014

The reason I love BBF so much is that it really allows you to take advantage of full time manual focus. Otherwise, when you touch the shutter again you are fighting yourself.
It really shines with weaker AF cameras like the 5DII, as I use center point AF to grab focus, then recompose and tweak focus manually while shooting. Really increases hit rate with shallow DOF shots.

Jul 9, 2014

Jglaser757 said:
I'm not surprised by this at all. I thought this was normal. When ever I put my eye up to the lens, the exposure reading is lower than when I pull my eye away leaving the viewfinder exposed to light coming in. I always compensate for this by either covering up with my thumb or bracketing.

Clearly, you don't understand what this Product Advisory is about.

Canon provides an eyepiece cover for the 'issue' you describe...RTFM.

Marsu42 · Jul 9, 2014

JohanCruyff said:
That's what is happening to me: I can't convince myself that I need a new Full Frame body, so I'm keeping my 5Dc plus my EOS M when I need to shoot videos or to travel light.

The 5d3 has full res raw video capability (with Magic Lantern) so that's a decisive feature added, of course apart from everything else ML offers as it isn't available on the 5dc.

Otherwise only upgrading a body after knowing what exactly the required improvement is imho is the best advice. Much more sense putting $$$ into lenses and esp. lighting gear (1x 600rt = €500 ...). It's easy to test-drive a new camera nowadays either via rental or in a shop, if it doesn't immediately deliver the "that's worth a couple of thousand $$$" impression the money might be better saved.

Mt Spokane Photography · Jul 8, 2014

Sony has so many lens types already, I'd find it hard to believe that they would add three more lens types.

The curved sensor might find a home in a fixed lens camera, or a cell phone.

LetTheRightLensIn · Jul 8, 2014

unfocused said:
Okay, I'm having a really difficult time getting past the whole concept here.

The OP is planning to go to one sporting event, and wants to buy a lens based on the length of its barrel, without any consideration as to what other lenses he already owns or would like to own and what he ordinarily shoots.

I am assuming the OP is a man, BTW because no woman would be that bat-guano crazy.

That sounds all a bit presumptuous.

Mt Spokane Photography · Jul 8, 2014

I would not expect it to perform equal to a much more expensive lens, but, I'd have had Sigma check it before dumping it.

I am not a Sigma fan, far from it, but I do individual samples can be bad.

The review sites generally do not measure AF speeds, and do not usually test sharpness of a telephoto near MFD.

NancyP · Jul 8, 2014

Heck, for that amount of money, one could get a full digital MF setup, IQ260 back, mini-ArcaSwiss Metric view camera for digital back, several digital grade MF view camera lenses for the ultimate in landscape photography - and still have some money left over for travel.

AcutancePhotography · Jul 8, 2014

Hannes said:
Funnily enough the Olympic arena had led lights to simulate flashes in the stands, I never realised until I sat there.

I am not sure I understand this. Could you explain this a bit more?

e17paul · Jul 8, 2014

Meanwhile, here are some photos taken with my cheap and cheerful 50/2.5 compact macro

crashpc · Jul 8, 2014

Hello. Nice comparison.
I´d correct the conclusion a bit. It might be nit picking or rhetorics, but it is very important in real life: Noise amount, and noise performance are two very different things. And I believe 70D gains another stop here, because the noise is better, easier to clean up. And that makes closer to two stops overall, which means lowering the final output noise to 25% of 350D. Sounds fair to me. But we are on the edge of fall. You might consider Canon made 3,5 stops of imrovement two months later, and that is not bad at all. No car models goes 3x faster, no sportsman runs 3x fater or throws 3x further, no thing will make you 3x happier if you´re already happy.
But Intel did it, and Canon did it too!
And then in this lazy sunny day we put half empty beer bottle on the table, clean our beards and say "Nah, not enaugh Canon, not enaugh!" :-D

P.S.: Take it with ease, I wanted to make it fun.

ScottyP · Jul 7, 2014

Well, here's what Bryan Carnathan at The Digital Picture suggests:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Canon-Wedding-Lens.aspx

Be sure to skip past the "for APS-c cameras" list if you are shooting full frame.

bosshog7_2000 · Jul 7, 2014

sagittariansrock said:
So, why is not having a low-pass filter (810) better than having one that doesn't anti-alias (800E)? I thought the low-pass filter is useful for protecting the sensor from dust... ???

dilbert said:

If your camera is in good enough condition to be sold as "mint" or "near mint" condition then you obviously haven't used it very much.

Click to expand...

There is a difference between 'use' and 'abuse'. I sold my 2-year old iPhone 4S back to Apple and got their maximum possible buyback price (for 'mint'- which anyone who sold back to Apple will know, is pretty rare). And I used my phone every day, all the time.

Snobbish generalizations aside, these incremental improvements will send a bunch of Nikonians scurrying to pick up the last of the 800s at their current price before they are discontinued. Maybe that was the ulterior motive- to boost D800 sales!

bosshog7_2000 said:

Better lenses...yeah, as long as you don't shoot UWA...cus besides the 17mm TSE Canon is pretty weak in that regard. I'm still using my old 5D2 but I would be a pretty happy camper if Canon came out with something like the D810.

Click to expand...

Nikon has one excellent fast UWA zoom, yes. But the other three are quite mediocre. And with the new 16-35 IS, Canon has closed that gap quite a bit (if early samples can be believed).
It is funny how people read posts on the forums and make these generalized comments! Other than a fast UWA, Nikon isn't significantly better in ANY aspect compared to Canon lenses. Head-to-head they are either close or Canon is much better. And that fast UWA isn't the paragon of lenses. Short range, difficult to use a filter, expensive, and prone to flare. How many Nikonians use the 14-24, I ask?

I never said Nikon was better than Canon in the lens dept...I qualified it with 'UWA'. And give me a break...lots of Nikonians use the 14-24...like most of them that are serious about landscape photography. Aside from that...there are considerable Canon photogs who go to the trouble and expense to use that saem Nikon lens on their Canon...surely you know this. I hope you are right about the new Canon 16-35f4...

mackguyver · Jul 7, 2014

ahsanford said:
Thanks for posting -- the hard work is appreciated!

- A

I'm happy to be of assistance - I just wish I had more time to do the review.

mackguyver · Jul 7, 2014

Northstar said:
nice composition Mack...you're making me want to go buy a wide angle! 24mm is all i got but the new 16-35 f4 looks tempting.

Thanks, Northstar. I was actually out playing around with my new 16-35 f/4 IS when I took this shot

It's a fantastic lens and I'm sure you would take great shots with it given your other work.

Jack56 · Jul 7, 2014

Thank you all very, very much. Very kind of you to share your thoughts. Great feeling when you come back from work and read all these replies.

Renting the two lenses is what I will do. I've send the shop a mail and hope to hear from them very soon.
I made photos with the 15-85mm lens and I was very pleased with the results. I can imagine that both 24-70 lenses will deliver at least that quality.
I will let you know when I made my decision.

Posts

Posts

Attachments

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics