Posts

Kernuak · Aug 26, 2013

sama said:
Anybody here have the experience to use gelatin filter on a Canon 17 40 L ? May be some never realize that there is a built-in slot on this lens.

What is the purpose of this design as people mentioned that gelatin filter will probably degrade IQ badly. others stated "As long as it isn't scratched, a proper optical-grade gelatin filter (like Kodak) will be optically superior to any front-mounted glass or plastic filter."

Please share your views, experience etc.

I think with the slimline filters that are now available, there is less need to use one, unless wider or due to a bulging front element. I certainly didn't feel the need to use one when I had my 17-40.

gjones5252 · Aug 26, 2013

Ok awesome it good to know that they are working so well fo reveryone else! I am starting to learn the weakeness so i can be more proficient at using them. I am excited for canon direct refurbished to have them on sale!

CowGummy · Aug 26, 2013

sjschall said:
and there me be a small possibility that I may end up treating myself to a little 'souvenir' while out there... maybe 85mm f1.8?

Click to expand...

You should hit up the B&H store while you're in NY, if you have the time. Definitely a cool spot to look around and try out gear.

Thanks for the tip sjschall! Just had a look at their website and indeed this looks close to photo equipment Nirvana.

Marsu42 · Aug 26, 2013

FTBPhotography said:
Ever shot 1600 speed 35mm film? Probably not. My 7D easily has a 2 stop advantage over 35mm film.

I shot at iso 1000

... but then the print was only 9x13 cm max, so it didn't really matter. You have to correlate noise to the camera resolution and the export size, the current crop sensors only can make use of the full res at low iso but at high iso like the marketing-induced 25600 you have to downscale. Also the color rendition is degraded starting even at medium iso in contrast to a ff sensor.

That doesn't make the 70d a bad camera, or my 60d, or your 7d - but @iso800+ the noise starts killing detail @100% crop, though of course I can shoot action @iso3200 if the export is web sized.

scottkinfw · Aug 26, 2013

I Vote 7D2. But wait, what if I have different needs/expectations than you? Oh well, I guess you have to make up your own mind.

RGF said:
Wait an extra month or a camera that you can own versus perhaps 6 months for an unknown future product. Unless you really want the features you expect on the future 7DM2, I would buy now.

LSV · Aug 26, 2013

Very enjoyable reading Canon Rumormongers (I am one) making fun of Facebookies. It's like heroin addicts looking down their noses at those common alcoholics.

Ewinter · Aug 25, 2013

Sounds good to me. Thanks for weighing in! Just counting down the days now...

Mt Spokane Photography · Aug 25, 2013

Firebird said:
Thanks for your reply!

But would professional cinematographers use DLSR-Bodies at all? Wouldn't they use dedicated movie cameras?

Professional film makers and video makers have been using DSLR's for video since shortly after the 5D MK II came out.

The reasons are many, but it boils down to Technical capability for the cost. A whole industry supporting DSLR's and video has been launched, Canon is selling $50,000 video lenses, and has a large support facility in Hollywood for film makers. Its big business, and rapidly growing. The dual pixel capability along with touch screens means that a high priced focus puller may no longer be needed, just touch the actor or spot on the video LCD and the camera focus will smoothly shift to that point. Add in facial recognition, and clever and innovative people and even more amazing things will be possible.

TWI by Dustin Abbott · Aug 25, 2013

sagittariansrock said:
neuroanatomist said:

sagittariansrock said:

By the way, what surprises me is that Canon still makes and sells the old, crappy 75-300 and even more surprising, even people using Rebels buy them!

Click to expand...

I think a lot of people buy them - because it's cheap, common in retail stores (Target sells them for example, but not the 55-250), and because 300mm sounds better than 250mm, it's a popular lens.

Click to expand...

I had one of those lenses for about five minutes. I am super steady in my hands, but trying to handhold that @ 300mm (480mm equiv) is near impossible!
I guess so, and somehow Canon manages to convince people it is okay to get a non-IS telephoto lens on a crop-sensor camera for people who might not have plenty of light all the time. It took a lot of convincing to get my brother-in-law to buy the 55-250 instead.

Viggo · Aug 25, 2013

I must say i can't imagine using the old way anymore, and I felt that way after about, hm, oh, 3 minutes of owning the 1dX. I set the "SET"-button to jump directly to 100% at the used focus point and never looked back. a VERY good decision by Canon. That not all new cameras run the same feature is pretty hopeless if anyone wants a camera number 2 to use along side one that does.

ajfotofilmagem · Aug 25, 2013

moreorless said:
Personally I'd say the most obvious gap is a wider prime, either something like a 30mm 1.4 ala Sigma or a 20-25mmish pancake to go with the SL-1/100D.

I have my doubts as to whether theres a market for a 50-150mm f/2.8, I think crop users tend to want the extra reach so will go for a FF 70-200mm f/2.8 instead, as I understand it going EF-S isn't going to effect the size/price of tele's much.

One zoom that I think might be interesting is something between your typical normal and UWA ranges. Tokina seem to be targeting this with there new 12-28mm, I think something like a 14-35mm could be very popular if the price wasn't too high.

It is. Canon offers fast primes that are wide angle on APS-C ... EF14mm f2.8 $ 2100, also TS-E 17mm f4 $ 2300. I do not seem suitable to the purpose of the user 7D, for example. Tokina and Sigma has experienced major innovations in this area. Maybe a 15-45mm F2.8 costing $ 800?

Aug 25, 2013

dilbert said:
So is it a dust issue or an oil issue? The post is about dust and the link to Nikon provides advice for dealing with dust (which is a problem for all interchangeable lens cameras.) It may be that people who are having problems with oil don't recognise it for being such but it is wrong to think that Canon DSLRs do not have dust problems or to say that they do not.

When did I state Canon sensors don't get dust on them? The link is talking about a known issue of the D600, not a 'problem for all interchangeable lens cameras' (having your car run out of gas is a problem for all cars, did your car maker issue a service advisory for your specific model telling you to put gas in the tank? :

).

The 'customer friendly' Nikon folks of whom you're so fond may be slow (they take weeks to service a lens), but they aren't stupid enough to call it oil. So, they state, "Some D600 users have reported the appearance of random spots on their images which is generally attributed to the natural accumulation of dust...It has come to our attention that, in some rare cases, they may be reflected noticeably in images and removal may be difficult using normal measures." Since 'normal measures' are usually sufficient for removing dust, they're clearly not talking about dust alone.

jdramirez · Aug 25, 2013

same answer as everyone else.

when you afma, you are correcting the alliance of manufacturing tolerances for both bodies and lenses. so each body can be within a certain limit and same with the lenses. if you do the math, you can find out what the exact number is for your lenses and both bodies.

CANONisOK · Aug 25, 2013

VelocideX said:
I'm from Australia... Central America is not that close

Touché. If you are going to make it a photo-focused honeymoon, take your good equipment and just be smart. At the resorts where I stay, its not uncommon to see tourists with 1-series bodies hanging around their necks, so you won't be the only person there with nice gear. My vote goes for the simple and effective combo of 24-70 plus 70-300. I agree a fill flash is a good idea.

VelocideX said:
The consensus seems to be to take a telephoto over the UWA, which is helpful to know.

When visiting the jungle with waterfalls, caves, large Mayan complexes, and whatnot - there are ample opportunities to use the UWA. But if you want to pack light, just reply on the wide end of the 24-70.

northbyten · Aug 25, 2013

bsbeamer said:
how can these new cameras shoot 1080/60p but the new T5i and 70D cannot? humm...

DIGIC 6.

I'm hoping the EOS M/SL1 successor has it.

Viggo · Aug 25, 2013

Haven't heard back from Focal about the focusing issue, but after extensive trial and error I landed at+9 which looks great at distances. And what a lens, I don't think I want to keep the 70-200, I would regret mounting it instead of the 200 every time, lol.

Anybody have a tip for a lens case? Which holds only the lens as snug as possible. I like the Lowepro lens cases.

Aug 24, 2013

7d 600d tok 11-16 sig 18-50 can 70-200, beachtek, sennheiser k6/me66

All natural lighting. Had softbox kit on hand but didn't need, reservations about using cabled mains lights on train platform.

hovland · Aug 24, 2013

Mt Spokane Photography said:
I occasionally find the site below invaluable for downloading free copies of old cameras flashes, and light meters.

Be sure to donate a few dollars to help keep it going.

http://butkus.org/chinon/index.html

Thanks

Daniel Flather · Aug 24, 2013

The AF died in a 200/2.8L I owned once. I bought it new and it died a week later.

thgmuffin · Aug 24, 2013

Long exposures at night, and uploading through FB! Unfortunately you can see the compression and detail loss from the JPEG the camera converts for your phone. :-\

thgmuffin · Aug 24, 2013

Seen this a few times already...

dgatwood · Aug 24, 2013

paul13walnut5 said:
I personally like the dofp button. Prefer the position on my 3 (similar to the 1 series) but it is useful for me at times, especially if using off camera flash on a stand, gives me a visual preview of flash modelling.

It also makes a handy flashlight in a pinch.

deleteme · Aug 24, 2013

Meh said:
Well, there is either 1) something wrong with the lens, 2) something wrong with the body, or 3) something wrong with the particular combination of body + lens. Or you are just being punished by camera fairies for some offense you have caused them.

I'm going with the camera fairies.

Thanks for the ideas. I do feel that I can understand some of the issues better now.

Mt Spokane Photography · Aug 23, 2013

Pi said:
Terry Rogers said:

I read that modern full frame cameras 'expose' or 'reveal' the flaws in lesser lenses more than crop cameras. To me this doesn't make sense save a couple caveats.

Click to expand...

There is a good reason that it does not make sense to you because it is false, in the majority of the cases.

+1

FF sensors will always produce a sharper image on a given EF lens. I would not believe everything I hear. Its true that there is more viginetting.

Aug 23, 2013

Jess_Ryan SM_READERS

Broadcast on Scottish Television in March

Posts

Posts

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics