Gothmoth said:

to be honest, i like to see a website raise uncomfortable questions.

but today it´s all nice "blahblah".

when a website is lucky enough to get an interview, it looks like they do everthing to keep the manager comfortable.

the result is an interview that is nothing more then boring PR.
cheap advertising for the companys.

when have you read an interview with a canon manager where the interviewer asked question you would ask?

Click to expand...

Just like a lot of crap bands and movie coverage...possibly too frightened of losing their ability to get hands on testing the goods to have write-ups to beat their market companions...(ie the companies controlling access to their products for only those that are willing to kiss ass!)

24L II @1.4 on 7D.

Nobody said everybody needs mRAW and sRAW. I stated a case where it is useful. It delivers an image IQ better than jpeg at smaller file sizes. Why is this so hard to understand? If you don't need it, fine, but I've made use of sRAW a ton with shooting sports with a 1DX. If you have strict deadlines go jpg. If you have relaxed timelines, shoot full RAW. Intermediate timelines shoot smaller RAW because it affords better processing vs. jpg but you also don't fill up your card really fast or take a ton of time to upload to a computer. I can fit 1800 sRAW files on a 32GB CF card.

SylvesterPrce said:

When I saw this post this morning(i'm in China,) I instantly thought that it would be my next camera. Then I opened the posting and saw a fixed focal length!!

Click to expand...

exactly. 35mm. yuck.

michi said:

I would say, just bring a 24-105. It's good enough in the quality department and gives you both decent wide angle and a little telephoto. My second choice would be the 24-70 f4 IS and my third the 30mm 1.4. (This is assuming you are leaving the two zooms you own at home, which is what I think you are saying.)

Click to expand...

+1 on the 24-105.

Since you're considering the 24-70 f4 IS because it is smaller/lighter compared to the 24-70 II you already have, I would get the 24-105 since it is just slightly heavier (2.5 oz) than the 24-70 f4. You get a little more reach and arguably better optics than the 24-70 f4, especially in the 35-50mm range:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=823&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=355&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0

As for the 35 f2 IS vs. the Sigma 35 1.4, I think you answered your own question. Since you generally want more DOF at a place like Disneyland, you probably won't be using 1.4 too much. As you said, you usually sit between 5.6-10 when photographing your family. I'm also thinking lots of stationary poses which would be good for IS and low-light hand-holdable shooting. Also, while not 1.4, f2 is plenty fast when you want to compensate for motion blur, especially since you can safely crank up the ISO on your 5DM3.

If portability is your primary consideration, you could get the 40mm 2.8 pancake. Great optics, tiny, and inexpensive! In fact, I would bring it along as a backup. It easily fits in your pocket.

Have fun!

70-200 f4 is a great lens. Recommended

lrf said:

I will. I go back and forth. On one hand the much lighter weight is really nice. On the other hand if I get a 600 how often would I go to the 400 instead. I'll definitely let you know if I do decide to sell.

Click to expand...

I know the feeling. With my 7D being toast now I just lost my "600 and 300"

I live in the Reno/Tahoe area and drive to LA once a month for work.

Eagerly looking forward to the the update

I also got a 6D. I am an amateur.
I only like good IQ and depth of field only full frame can give.

With Canon, I get these bonuses: good low light, lighter, and I like the body lay out more.
What could I ask more.

picturesbyme said:

Mt Spokane Photography said:

emag said:

Mt Spokane Photography said:

If you listed your $2000 camera on Craigslist and tyoed in $20 in error. would you honor it?

Click to expand...

Agree.....even if it was typed (or typoed) in instead of tyoed in . Reputable companies like Adorama cancel the order before it processes, some (as mentioned by a previous poster) charge your card then credit you back....often at their leisure. Chalk it up to "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably isn't"

Click to expand...

I installed a new keyboard this morning, my old one seemed to be contributing to typo's. It was actually worse, I just returned it to Costco.
I found that I did not like any of the keyboards I saw. I wish I had my old IBM keyboard from the 1980's they were expensive and made by Keytronics right here in Spokane. I used to have several of them, but being the old connector style I got rid of them.

Click to expand...

maybe I misunderstood, but maybe you could/can use a converter
(http://www.ebay.com/itm/New-PS2-PS-2-to-USB-Mouse-Keyboard-Converter-Plug-Adapter-/310406214595?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4845a6f3c3)

Click to expand...

Maybe, but, as I said, they are long gone, 10 years gone.

Tks everyone for your commits. I am going to try the converter and see how it goes.

Thanks ;D

robbymack said:

I assume you are looking at the 70-300 non L. If so then for sure go for the 70-200 f4 L. If you can save a bit more the f4 IS is also nice but then you'd have the dilemma of whether or not to choose the 70-300L. I own and love the 70-200 f4 IS, someone will have to pry it out of my cold dead hands before I give it up. That being said I bought it when I was shooting crop, had I been shooting full frame I suspect I would have chosen the 70-300L for the added reach.

Click to expand...

+1

rh81photo said:

I thought about how they could further strip the C100 down to justify a significant pricedrop without cannibalizing C100 sales. The 8bit 420 AVCHD is quite a limitation already and getting rid of 720 50p/60p (the C100 REALLY doesn't have that?? thats so hard to believe!) leaves almost nothing to cut down. basically they are approaching the video quality of a 500D/550D/600D/650D....and that at a pricepoint of 6500$ !!!

Click to expand...

The C100's video is far beyond the 650D in my experience. I suggest processing your clips differently or respecting the superwhites if you're having DR issues. Can't help you with sharpness, the camera is already supremely sharp. Beyond that I can't suggest anything except metering and choosing your gamma carefully. From my perspective it out-performs (or at least is close enough to) the F3, which I prefer to anything below the Alexa.

I love the Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM, but the chromatic aberrations not so much. The optional lens hood does cuts down the frencency of how often it occurs. If your buying the Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM lens for mostly outdoor use I would recommend against it. My outdoor prime is the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro Lens. It has great image stabilization which is a big plus on a portrait lens. Great Bokeh with IQ and sharpness that is truly excellent.

Legio said:

stefpat said:

Clear!!!
Go with 135
Thx

Click to expand...

Good choice its fantastic!

You can buy the additional Macro lens Canon 500D in either 72mm (same as EF135) or 77mm and you will get decent macro (not 1:1) in the EF 135. Forget about handhelding it with macro thou since you will have small apertures so I would say that you need a good tripod.

But the bokeh in the 135 is so good, Ill try to have it on all the time!

Click to expand...

Or you can use the Kenko extension tubes and get close to true (1:1) macro. They vignette on full frame, but it can be corrected.

I love the new Sigma 35mm f/1.4. It is so sharp it is ridiculous. A 35mm might be a nice wide studio lens as well. The 24-105mm is also a good starter.

Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Lens Review

This video should help you out.
Canon 6D Vs. 5D Mark III Hands On Review

Re: New Canon USA Lens & Speedlite Rebates

Daniel Flather said:

The link to BH is dead, so what's the deal on the 600 speedlight if any? Will this deal migrate to Canon Canada?

Click to expand...

It is $50...which, I believe is $10 less than last time for rebates.

I forgot about the dang 135L I wanted too UGH

Did you sell that TC? How old is it?

at heathrow... vat off... u can get a bit cheaper in HK if you go tho Nathan road, but know your prices before you go in as they will have your eyes out...

prestonpalmer said:

Viggo said:

prestonpalmer said:

The RODE does a pretty good job in my experience. If you want super clean audio, you will need an off camera source. Take a look at my video equipment page and let me know if you have questions. The Zoom h1n's are really good for off camera audio.

http://www.brovadoweddings.com/blog/equipment/

Click to expand...

Do you use the Rode into one of those external recorders? Because I'm not being picky about the sound quality, my experience with 6 different cameras and 3 mics is that the internal mic gives a better result for speach, MUCH better.

How diffcult is it and in what software do you sync the sound when using an external recorder like that h4n?

Click to expand...

No, the RODE always goes into camera. We always have at LEAST 2 sources of audio. Sometimes 3. Use Plural eyes for Syncing Audio. Putting the RODE on a h4n would probably reduce audio quality.

http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/04/nab-2012-singular-software-pluraleyes/

Click to expand...

Any microphone plugged into the DSLR instead of an external recorder will degrade sound quality significantly. Sometimes it's more useful in a workflow to have a shotgun mic going into the DSLR directly (at the expense of quality), but plugging into an external recorder will improve audio quality, not reduce it.

(edit) Depending on what type of sound you need, directional vs a stereo spread, the video mic may not sound as good for your purpose as the external recorder's mics. Any mic will sound better in an external recorder and worse in the DSLR, but if you need a stereo spread a videomic won't be as good of a choice as the built in mics on the recorder.

I shoot with both the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II and the f/4L IS. Since moving up to the 5D3 from the T2i, I have hardly used the f/2.8 version at all - the f/4 version is just as sharp. That said, I primarily shoot outdoors and in decent lighting. If I were shooting weddings where lighting tends to be challenging, I would still think that having an f/2.8 would be required. I think your approach on getting one f/2.8, one f/4 and then sharing one with your husband would potentially work. I also think that the 135 f/2L and 70-200 f/4L IS option would be useful and overall lighter and cheaper.

I want one

Ray2021 said:

Brand new, even with best rebates, you should not expect any lower than $1299 however long you wait... Used or refurbished it can be had for lower now.

Part of that high pricing can be due to that little extra magic some claim it produces and the rest certainly due to the branding and marketing by Canon. Beyond that I don't want to get into the value of this lens at that price and how much more or less you get compared to its cheaper, but definitely a well-performing cousin f1.4 That dead horse of a topic has been resurrected here more times than Betty White's career

Click to expand...

I have noticed that as I have been doing my research! I was leaning towards the 50 1.4, but after a bunch of research I decided that I should invest in a higher-quality lens for a focal length I plan on using a lot.

I also just discovered a rebate on the Canon Pro-100, 10, or 1 printers when purchasing a Canon lens or Camera on Adorama and B&H. You can get the Pro-100 printer for almost $100 with this rebate. Pretty good deal for a $500 printer.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/FrameWork/Rebates_Promos/033113_CANON_PRO-100.pdf