Posts

wsmith96 · May 22, 2014

tevscale said:
Thanks again for all the advice. I've just ordered a 6D + 24-105 kit; once it arrives and I get some time to get used to it I'll post again.

Congrats on the purchase!

neoday2 · May 22, 2014

Hello all, I am heading to Moab with the family and can only sneak away for sunrise photography sessions. Any recommendations for locations within about 3 to 5 miles from an access point?
Looking forward to the ideas!

mackguyver · May 22, 2014

Thanks - it was kind of fun to shoot - I used to do fashion many years ago - but haven't done so much since I got married ;D.

On the variable ND filter, they are handy, but I'm not sure if you're aware of the dreaded "X" you can get with them at higher (i.e. darker settings). Essentially they are two polarizers fitted together and you turn them to increase or decrease the amount of light being filtered. The trade off is the flexibility for changing light, particularly when shooting video.

I went for this set from Tiffen and have been very pleased with it - it comes with a 0.6, 0.9, and 1.2 filter in 82mm: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/674667-REG/Tiffen_82NDK3_82mm_Digital_Neutral_Density.html

The 0.9 (3-stop) filter is probably all you need for this purpose, though the 1.2 might be needed on bright days. I have Hoya, Tiffen, and B+W ND filters and this Tiffen set seems to be the best in terms of value, but the B+W filters are really nice and a bit thinner.

skitron · May 22, 2014

One question I'd ask is do you really want/need a fast prime for portrait? I'm not a portrait shooter but have read (mainly here) how pro portrait shooters are often stopping down to get enough dof to keep the model's features all in reasonable focus. In that situation the 24-105 and the 70-200 may both be worth consideration for that application.

Lawliet · May 22, 2014

Don Haines said:
We just got back a damaged pelican case at work.... Air Canada ran a forklift through it.

We once had a case fall overboard - and promptly having an argument with the boats propeller. Ended not that pretty for either, but the gear inside the case was fine.

lescrane · May 22, 2014

dgatwood said:
Mr_Canuck said:

Keep your 17-85. You seem to be satisfied with it.

If you get a full-frame camera in the future, then buy the full-frame lens at that time. There may be new ones coming, or you might find a deal when it's relevant. But why spend money on a lens that you apparently don't need, for a camera you don't own?

Click to expand...

Agreed. The 17-85 is a solid lens. The 15-85 is a step up, but probably not enough to justify the cost. And if you ever go full-frame later, that's money down the drain.

http://www.juzaphoto.com/article.php?l=en&article=32

Alternatively, you might wait, save up the extra few hundred bucks, and buy a 6D/24-105L kit. That will do far more for your image quality than any lens upgrade by itself, and it's not a lot more than the eBay prices for the original 24-70 f/2.8 lenses. And the 24-105 is also sharper than the original 24-70 L f/2.8 even when stopped down to f/4, according to LensRentals.

So IMO, the only reason you should even consider the original 24-70 f/2.8 L is if you shoot a lot of sports and really need the f/2.8. Maybe not even then. The increased ISO capabilities of a full-frame body will usually do a lot more for you in terms of usable low-light performance than a single extra f-stop on the lens.

I found that the upgrade from 17-85 USM IS to the 15-85 USM was well worth the cost. The lens is somewhat sharper, much less CA and I find that those 2mm are a big difference for wide landscapes. I think the 15-85 is a great value. before buying a I rented it along with the 24-105 L and could barely see a difference in tests in overlapping focal lengths. Can't speak to video at all as i don't do it.

NancyP · May 22, 2014

Buy a bigger size coat

I have a camouflage number that I could fit a view camera under. Or, carry a plastic bag and stick the camera into the bag when you go inside.

For long exposures (time-lapse) you could consider the chemical hand warmer wrapped around the lens. Kevin Adams in N.C., USA has a little nylon and velcro holder for the hand warmer, fits reasonable sized SLR lenses: Lens Muff . very handy for astrophotography, prevents condensation on front element over the evening. Or, if you are at all handy and don't mind having an attached battery, you could rig a resistance heater in a fabric band, something like what the astronomy folks use to drive away fog from their optical tubes and eyepieces.

Marsu42 · May 22, 2014

neuroanatomist said:
That's my point. They could easily do so from a technical standpoint, as they could have with the 430EX II, but they didn't and they won't

Let's hope someone codes an inofficial fw update for the 440rt flashes

... some people at least managed to add an external power connector to the 430ex, also seems to be no real problem.

AcutancePhotography · May 22, 2014

Thanks, I never noticed the year markings. I will have to check mine.

What did Canon say when you told them your battery was 2010 after they claimed it was 2013?

Gary W. · May 22, 2014

Hey all,

Thanks for the info! I was planning on using it as a fill/hair light. The voltage did concern me, but now i feel a little better! Thanks again!!

Gary W.

privatebydesign · May 22, 2014

There is no 540EX, it was a 540EZ and it only works as a dumb flash on ETTL II cameras, that is, any digital camera.

For any kind of automated use, or integration with your 550 or any other EX flash, the 540 is worthless. It would make some sense to sell the 540 and get a 430 instead, then, at least, the flashes would be the same generation with the same features, primarily auto exposure with digital bodies.

The 550EX is a very good flash, indeed it is the best bang for the buck regarding Canon flashes and I highly recommend it unless you need the radio triggering of the 600EX, but then only having one 600 is close to pointless if you already have a 550.

mbiondo25 · May 22, 2014

In Real Life on Vimeo

I would love to get some feedback on this.

Thanks for watching.

Mike

BL · May 22, 2014

Mk I is awesome. Biggest advantage of mkII is the improved MFD imho

Mt Spokane Photography · May 22, 2014

They are usually well protected, but it all depends on just how the box lands. I sell very sensitive equipment online, and ship all over. I tried various packing methods and kicked and dropped the package numerous times, and then checked the internal accelerometer of the equipment, as well as some other parameters that are affected by shock. Eventually, I decided on the best packing method, and rarely have a item damaged in shipping. I am pretty sure that Canon and others have recommended packing practices for their resale dealers.

Mt Spokane Photography · May 22, 2014

I remember that lens when it came out, it went with the Canon 7 series rangefinder body, and, at first, it looked fantastic. It was sold as being for newspaper photographers to allow shooting in low light. Then I read the reviews, and they were not very good. A guy who sat next to me at work bought the camera and lens, he might still have it, I haven't talked to him since I retired in 1998.

sagittariansrock · May 21, 2014

This shows that being at the right time at the right place can put you in the Outlook magazine.
Congratulations, squirrel!

P.S. Great shot, Michael.

Jim Saunders · May 21, 2014

Thanks! It's a very unique car around here so I'm not going to discuss it publicly, but once I get through some restoration I have before me I'll get some more photos.

Jim

Quasimodo · May 21, 2014

privatebydesign said:
All recalibration does is measure the amount of power the battery holds at full charge, obviously as they get older the capacity decreases, this is then used by the camera to report charge levels more accurately.

The best method for recalibration is to fully charge the battery first, then take it off the charger, then put it back on and push the Calibrate/Performance button. The three lights then flash red, as the battery discharges two, then one, then none light, then the recharge cycle starts automatically if the charger is plugged in and the three lights start to go green, first one, then tw,o then when the charge is complete all three.

Thank you.

ecka · May 21, 2014

Ruined said:
ecka said:

Ruined said:

e17paul said:

Back to zooms, if Canon do release the mythical 14-24/2.8, that would leave a gap in the range for a better quality 18ish-35/2.8. That would allow better quality optics than the existing 2.8 without much extra weight.

I read in (I think) the dpreview review of the 24-70/2.8 that Canon did not make an IS version of the 2.8 because the weight would increase. If Canon made an 18ish-35 2.8/IS, it would be excellent and versatile for low light interiors. I know that is far from the only use for ultra wide zooms, but it would be smart to cover all the bases.

On the other hand, a good prime at or just below 20mm, would be awesome, especially with reasonably sized filters. As a prime fan, I will cross my fingers, watch and wait. My credit card is safe for now.

Click to expand...

Just to keep in mind, I believe the only example put out thus far of a f/2.8 16mm-ish lens without bulbous element sharper than the 16-35 II was the Zeiss 15mm, which has a 95mm filter thread. Could you imagine how large that would be if made into a zoom?

While I think we will see small improvements in quality similar to the 16-35 I to 16-35 II generation, I don't think we will see an improvement the 24-70 got unless the 16-35 is made significantly larger/heavier (arguably incompatible with its target market). Which is also why I think the 16-35 II will not be updated for a long time, with a wider bulbous zoom complementing it instead (i.e 12-24, 14-24, etc).

Click to expand...

Yes. The new 16-35/4L IS USM is almost as big and heavy as the 16-35/2.8L II USM. IS is nice for videos, but if it's not much better than the 17-40/4L, then it may end up on the same shelf with 70-300 DO, 200/2.8II and 28-300L.

Click to expand...

well, I think the 16-35 f/4 *will* be significantly better than the 17-40 and based on the mtf sharper than the 16-35 II. But, while it replaces the 17-40 it does not replace the 16-35 II as it is a full stop slower. In low light for event photographers/journalists that will likely be a deal breaker regardless of the sharpness. The market is there for both though as landscape photographers won't use f/2.8 much and would rather have the sharpness.

I hope it *will* be significantly better than 17-40L, which has very soft corners at 17mm. However, it may be considered sharper than 16-35L'II, because that one has a bit blurry corners as well

. I know many "landscapers" who prefer Sigma 12-24mm or even adapting Nikkor 14-24mm over Canon L UWA zooms, because of the bad corners. If Sigma releases a cheaper and perfectly sharp 12-24mm ART, then it could hurt Canon sales very much. That could explain why did they put the IS in it - to add one more reason for choosing Canon over the competition.

Mr_Canuck · May 21, 2014

Probably not while there's a warehouse full of 24-105's waiting to unload. I imagine that sales of the 24-70/4 have been on the slow side, and I'd guess it's because the 24-105's go for 500-600 bucks in a kit, which is half or less than half the 24-70/4 price. But I hope Canon doesn't take that as an indicator of preference. It's merely people's budgets talking. I've already got a 6D and I had no interest in the 24-105 kit. But might've looked seriously at a 24-70 kit if it were available. Start a petition...

MichaelHodges · May 21, 2014

Huge fan of this lens. And I was lucky to get a good copy optically (it needs a MFA adjust of +5).

I can't see myself dumping it, even for the 16-35 IS. Maybe I'll look at a 14mm prime.

Extremely reliable, workhorse of a lens that has lived through brutal drops and abuse. Still looks great.

mackguyver · May 21, 2014

Dylan777 said:
So you have to select ISO in M mode with 1D X? This is one the reason I didn't like about 5D II + AF of course.

Eldar beat me to it, but here's my reply as well:

No, but in his case, he's using the unsupported screen and in the 5DIII he would have to set ISO manually in the 5DIII to add 2/3 EV. In the 1D X with the new firmware, you can set Auto ISO in Manual mode AND dial in +2/3 EV and the ISO will automatically adjust to keep the +2/3 EV, just like it would in Av of T mode. It's one of the cooler features of the new firmware and one that many of us have asked for for years. It's also one, along with the Auto ISO minimum shutter speed going above 1/250s that we all wish they would add to the 5DIII

Mt Spokane Photography · May 20, 2014

klickflip said:
Took it to repair shop today, apparently they are very delicate and even a really minor bump will cause the heavy elements to come off the plastic rails they are aligned with. So not built like a take at all!! would be that the flimsy feeling 1.4 is much more tougher inside, but certainly doesn't feel that way.
Bad news it it may need a whole new barrel assembly as its quicker/easier for them to do that but prob more costly in the end.

Dropping a heavy lens 30 cm (a foot) to a concrete floor is a huge shock, even if it has some carpet on it. Those heavy lens elements magnify the shock. A drop like that will do some level of damage to most lenses, even if its not readily apparent. The amount of damage depends on how it lands.

Make sure the shop is a Canon Authorized Repair facility, it depends on the Country, but in the USA, Canon does not supply the software and test fixtures required to align and adjust the autofocus to independent repair shops. That means that it might be repaired, but still need to be sent to Canon for a expensive adjustment.