Posts

tpatana · May 25, 2013

canikon said:
tpatana said:

bdunbar79 said:

tpatana said:

Does spot metering only use the center circle area?

Click to expand...

On a 5D Mark III, yes.

Click to expand...

So to use spot metering on the focus point, you actually have to select evaluative metering. Canon-logic I guess

Click to expand...

Yes exactly, on the 5D mk III actually "Evaluative" metering = AF point "spot" metering. On a low contrast scene you would not notice this, but on a high contrast scene you better to go for the old average metering if you need a consisten "reasonable" exposure. For me even for portrait the AF linked spot metering is not always trustworthy, since if I pick a eyebrow or some dark hair with a focus point, the picture will result blown up overexposed.
I do have a 40D and a 600D, none of them act like this.

So funny.

Now knowing this, it doesn't really bother me too much as I can use it to my advantage. But not knowing, that might screw up the exposure. I've never trusted the camera anyway too much, I always chimp my pictures constantly.

Mt Spokane Photography · May 25, 2013

Pi said:
Those are severely overexposed images, for the highlights. Most likely flare. What f-stop?

Yes, so badly overexposed that they can't be saved. You need to shorten the exposure, use lowest ISO, smaller aperture, and possibly a neutral density filter.

christopher.nahler · May 25, 2013

Yes, 7D. In fact that was one of the main reasons why I got it, hoping to be able to catch moving animals in focus.

LOL, yes I know what you mean Mr. Bean. The camera needs some IQ to read my mind what I want to have in focus and what not. Thanks to digital age I just take more pictures and usually at least some of them are useable, esp when using spot AF and spot metering.

I also love the 3 custom settings you can register so I am able to instantly switch between apropriate settings for a bird just flying over me and the flower I am spending time with on the ground.

TWI by Dustin Abbott · May 25, 2013

Sporgon said:
TWI by Dustin Abbott said:

Here's an interesting observation: I shot an event a weekend ago and used over the course of several days: the 135L (and, at times, 135L + 1.4x II), 100L IS, Tamron 24-70VC, and the 70-300L. I didn't even plan on using it, as I consider it too slow for indoor work. But I was surprised to find that my sharpest images from the event were actually taken with the 70-300L.

This was taken from roughly 60 feet away, 300mm, wide open (f/5.6). For this type of work, I find the result pretty stunning. I've included a 100% crop (the first square crop is already reduced slightly to get the square crop for a portrait orientation shot).

Click to expand...

I presume the 70-300 has beaten the 135 + 1.4x due to IS and greater magnification.

Anyway with lenses like this about at these functions I guess there's going to be a lot more male grooming required before speaking ;D

You are exactly right. I don't know that the 70-300L outresolves the 135L (I actually doubt that it does), but the IS is huge, as is the improved magnification. The reasons, however, matter less than the finished result, which was surprisingly good. Since I was doing a lot of spot metering under bright lights, my ISO actually stayed pretty low. Different lighting would produce different results, and the 135L would obviously fair better under more even lighting conditions because its improved light gathering would be more of a factor.

It makes me anxious to see what Sigma does with the rumored 135mm f/1.8 OS - an image stablizer in a lens like that would be huge for my event work - particularly if it handled a 1.4x extender well.

Sella174 · May 25, 2013

Canon-F1 said:
and with the PEN E-P8 ...

By that time Olympus (and Panasonic) will have figured out all the little nags and snags of mirrorless ... enabling them to upscale the sensor in the (mentioned) E-P8 effortlessly to "full-frame" size ... with Canon all the while still dicking around with the mirror-box (and its complications) and the same 18MP sensor.

Birger.Niss · May 25, 2013

Dear All,
Again a heap of thanks to you all for taking time to answer my initial question - is my copy of the 1.2 faulty or not. It certainly seems to perform precisely as everybody else's and as pointed out in various reviews. Thanks for the sample pics you've posted.
I think it is a valid discussion whether or not the 1.2 is worth the extra buck over the 1.4. You get the extra aperture, a thinner DOF, probably a better build quality (I haven't seen the 1.4 in real life, but I take your word for it), you get the red ring (but that can be remedied as pointed out by vscd

), but will that give you better pics? Well get as much information as possible and then decide for yourself. This great forum is precisely used for such information sampling.
Speaking for myself, I will go out now into the real world and enjoy my 1.2.
Please be nice to your fellow man and remember - we may be alone in the universe ;D

RGF · May 24, 2013

I have both and routinely use the 1.4 while avoid the 2x - perhaps because I put this on a 500 F4 which makes it F8 which is hard to focus. I have a mix results with the 2x, I think the problem is with the photographer, not the equipment but it is much harder to use the 2x on an F4 lens than it is to use 1.4x

I have spent much time using either TC on 2.8

jdramirez · May 24, 2013

Mt Spokane Photography said:
jdramirez said:

elharo said:

Every so often I run into a to good to be true deal like this on Amazon, and almost always it's cancelled after I order (though I did once score a used NEC 30" monitor for about half off, that is still with me and working well). I really don't understand why some sellers do this. What do they get out of this? Maybe they're playing some game where they're trying to get other sellers using automated listing software to lower their prices? I don't know.

Click to expand...

I think about doing this every now and then. I would be the lowest price, so I initially set a crazy low price, $1, and that triggers the camel price watch emails, then I raise my price so people go to the ad, they have some interest in the lens, and they seer my price which is the lowest, and they buy. I don't do that though...

Click to expand...

Amazon has lots of clueless third party sellers. If they get many complaints or cancel many orders, they are removed.

They have an 84% positive rate... they aren't bad, they just err'd this time.

hanifshootsphotos · May 24, 2013

I recently acquired the 50mm 1.2 its been a joy to shoot with, strangely enough it was produced in 2013 (UB date code) and it came with the new snazzy pinch lens cap...hubba hubba

jdramirez · May 24, 2013

Don Haines said:
I've got to say 100L for macro. There are some lenses that are such a pleasure to use that you don't know how you lived without it... And this is one. It was my first Lglass lens and the difference in quality and image over the kit lens was like night and day.

I love my 100L too, but it wasn't my first. I had a very solid 24-105, but it wasn't love the way the 100 is.

Dantana · May 24, 2013

neuroanatomist said:
munkymorgy said:

neuroanatomist said:

My solution is to use Arca Swiss type plates on body and lenses with tripod collars. I use Blackrapid straps, with a Kirk 1" clamp on the end, so I can easily connect it to body or lens, or remove it for tripod/monopod use.

Click to expand...

Is this the Kirk clamp you use ?
http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-kirk-1in-standard-quick-release-clamp/p1011194

Having not used Arca Swiss type plates before they do not look suitable for holding the camera upside down on a strap. The sliding that you have on the plate I thought would mean if not really tightened would work its way off the camera?

Click to expand...

That's the one. The clamp has good intrinsic resistance - it doesn't open up on it's own or with a casual brush against something, you've got to grab the knob and apply some force to loosen it. I attach it with the knob under the lens with a body plate, and away from my body with a lens plate, so nothing will brush it anyway. In 1.5 years of use, I've never had the clamp loosen up even slightly on it's own.

I've seen you reference this before Neuro, and now I know why. I picked up a Blackrapid Metro last week and used it during a 24 hour Relay For Life event. It was super comfortable. Having the ability to pop my camera right onto my tripod (which has an Arca-Swiss compatible plate) would make it just that much better.

By the way, the Metro seems like a great strap if your rig isn't too heavy. I shoot with mostly smaller lenses. I talked it over with the guy at my local Samy's between the Metro and the Curve, and he asked, "are you going to be walking around with a 70-200 2.8L II?" Since I can't afford heavy glass at the moment, decision made.

AcutancePhotography · May 24, 2013

Chuck Alaimo said:
That's why I stick to saying ---if you go FF - get the 24-105. then over the course of the year, check you shots and see what you shoot at the most...if your staying in the 24-35 range and wanting wider - then your in UWA territory. But if you find that your at 105 a lot and cropping, then you may want a 70-200... or, if you find all your shots at 50mm and want more control over DOF and OOF areas, snag a 50mm.

This is some of the wisest advice you will get. No one can really tell you "you need to get this lens" unless they know not only what you shoot but how and what effect you want. A lens that works for one photographer may not work for you. Only you, the photographer, can make that determination. Using a zoom lens like Chuck described is an excellent way to help you fine tune your lens collection.

Start your lens collection exactly like what you are doing now -- thinking about it and planning it.

With the priority on buying good glass (cheap glass is seldom a good investment) you want to make your lens-money efficiant in not only buying good glass but the right glass -- good glass is easy, finding the right glass takes time. I have spent a lot of money on many cheap glass in my time.

regretting all the time.

Good luck with this.

Don Haines · May 24, 2013

Try to convince a statistician that a sample depth of one makes a valid test. Now THAT would be entertaining!

BTW, many years ago I dropped a D30 from the top of a 220 foot tower and it landed on a concrete pad. It did not survive.

adhocphotographer · May 24, 2013

I havn't had a chance to try this yet, but i am looking forward to!

CanNotYet · May 24, 2013

So, since I've heard this term "microcontrast" now for a while, I thought I'd start a thread comparing and describing the EF mount lenses (Canon or 3rd party) with the best microcontrast.

As I understand it, this characteristic of a lens is essential for birders and pixel-peepers?

Please, educate me and others on the forum on this topic.

GMCPhotographics · May 24, 2013

rs said:
A 140-285/2.8 is pretty much a mythical 200-400/4 with a wider AoV and a 1.4x telecompressor built in. Use that as the basis of the price and availability, should Canon come to the conclusion that there is a market for such a lens.

With the 70-200 II and 300 II and most pros having two bodies, I'd have thought there's not much call for such a lens. Especially bearing in mind what the zoom would be likely to cost.

It would probably be more expensive and heavier than the current 300mm f2.8 L IS II...so is there a point in bringing such a lens to the market? Especially considering the failings of the Sigma 120-300 OS, it would need to be a true 300mm at the long end and keep that focal lenght through the focus range, a true f2.8 and have stellar AF and IQ. It would be bigger and heavier that the prime....so why not take a 70-200 f2.8 on one cam and the prime on another? It's not too difficult and a lot of press pros already do that.
A classic pro line up is either a 16-35/24-70/70-200 line up or a 24-70/70-200/300 line up. Each with a cam fitted, ready to shoot.

wickidwombat · May 24, 2013

cayenne said:
wickidwombat said:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/372016-REG/Impact_CT40MKIT_Master_Century_C_Stand.html

thats a c stand

polariser maybe needed if you get reflections on the glass you can eliminate by controlling the light
but i'd try set up without it first and use it if needed but you will lose a stop or so of light too not really an issue using my method though just your shutter speed will be longer

Click to expand...

Thank you!

Hey, do you have any recommendations for a decent polarizer, hopefully that won't break the bank?

I just picked up one of those refurb 600ex-rt's today...hoping it might make it here by the weekend for shooting.
I'm buying a fairly long (11ft) cable for it to shoot off camera as suggested....

Thank you,

cayenne

go with B+W or a high end hoya anything else dont waste your money for a CPL unfortunately either of those are not cheap

RGF · May 23, 2013

Wonder how many of canon 's patent make it to the market place vs simply are defensive and hold IP defensive space

Grumbaki · May 23, 2013

Something i didn't see in your OP is "I need it right now!"

Rebates come and go so this isn't the pressing issue.

Canon 2.8 II is top of the line and will stay so for a while. Might worth waiting a few months to grind the extra $$ and avoid yourself a switcharoo later...

LetTheRightLensIn · May 23, 2013

No, not the 6D for video. Too much aliasing and moire. If it is going to be a Canon, then the 1DX is definitely the best and the 5D3 the next best. The others won't do much for you.
[/quote]

VAF filter for 365 is still 700 less than 5D with same video quality.
[/quote]

With the ML hack the 5D3 is miles better than 6D+AA filter. 6D uses slow SD cards that can't support ML RAW so well.

wickidwombat · May 23, 2013

AlexB said:
Thank you guys for the replys

I feel I should clarify about me falling down the stairs and hitting my head before I go any further. It has really nothing to do with why I am downgrading my equipment, it was my vague attempt to open with a joke on why I am taking this path rather than upgrading my gear. It was an accident not related to photography at all, and it doesn't really belong in this post. I apologize, my sense of humar is rather, special. But I'm fine now, tank you for your concern.

I realise I was unclear in my original post as to why I am doing this. The short answer is cost. I will try to clarify a little further.

I can't justiify to myself owning all this expensive gear when I only use it for what it's worth 1-3 times a year. It is great having one of the best camera bodies and some of the finest glass available at my disposal, but I know I don't really need it for what I am shooting, so I am looking to get by with cheaper equipment.

Size and weight has never been an issue for me, so I am definetly staying with the DSLR platform.

As one of the most significant things I shoot is for a local music festival I was thinking to concentrate my new, cheaper collection, around this. I have sort of already decided on a 1D Mark III, so that part is alright. But I am not sure about which lenses to get. I do want low light capability, so primes are my first thought. I have never really used prmes before except for my 50mm nifty-fifty. I am mainly looking for advice regarding the more affordable Canon primes, not excluding the 135mm f/2L as it is not too expensive to buy used. But the likes of 24 1.4, 35 1.4, 50 1.2, 85 1.2 etc are all out of the question due to price.

I know that for concerts I want something wide, and I want something for tighter shots close or equal to 200mm on full frame (135mm f/2L with 1D3?). I am thinking of keeping the 24-105 so I have at least one lens that is weather sealed. But other then that I am pretty clueless on which of the Canon non-L lenses to aim for.

I hope I managed to elaborate a bit better on what my goal is.

Again, thank you for your help.

-AlexB

Sounds like my prevous advice will suit well
get the sigma 35 f1.4 for your fast wide concert option
in the APS-H the 24 f1.4L mkII would be awesome but also fails the cost test because its spendy

wickidwombat · May 23, 2013

neuroanatomist said:
wickidwombat said:

bonvoyage said:

Is it possible to stack up two extenders 1.4x Mk2 + 2x Mk2 on a canon 70-200mm f2.8 L IS lens with Canon 5d Mark iii ?
With the recent firmware update i reckon its possible to autofocus with the center point @ f8.

Click to expand...

not the genuine canons

Click to expand...

As stated above, the 'genuine Canon' TC's the OP lists can be stacked - they are the MkII versions. The 2xIII has two additional elements compared to the 2xII, and there's not enough space at the back of the rear element to accept the protrusion of the 1.4x TC.

Note that you can stack a 1.4xIII and a 2xII - the limitation is for the 2xIII.

ah woops i didnt know the mk2s could be I wonder why they killed that ability on the mk3

also I would expect having so many connecting interfaces in the optical line there is more room for off centered focus due to construction tolerances on each mounting point.

Overall I dont think stacked TC is very practical due to massive AF slowdown and quite a big IQ hit
maybe if you are shooting something totally static it might be ok but not if you intend tracking anything

Gary W. · May 23, 2013

Hey all,

Mine is.... Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD...

Gary W.

May 23, 2013

Canon service in the Uk can be pretty grim.

I actually bought a T2i for video because I couldn't depend on the 7D that I bought for video with UDMA cards until the firmware update fixed a problem Canon denied any knowledge of.

I also had a hire pool of 18 MV600 camcorders that broke with the same CCD fault, Canon denied an issue until the Sony CCD problem became widely acknowledged.

dgatwood · May 23, 2013

Re: EOS 70D & EOS 7D Mark II

x-vision said:
dgatwood said:

You know the quote "The best camera is the one you have with you?" Applies to flashes, too.

Click to expand...

Yes ... but it makes you lazy too :-*.
You end up using the on-board flash rather than an external flash, which you can bounce or use with a diffuser.

Maybe you do. I certainly don't. If I expect to need a flash, I bring one, and I use it—the on-board flash stinks on ice with most of my lenses because they're too long and it's too low.

But it is better than nothing for quick shots when I wasn't expecting to need a flash, which does happen once in a while.

Posts

Posts

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics