privatebydesign said:

You used to be able to get the tubes new off eBay for very little money. They are a bit of a fiddle to change but very doeable with a set of small screwdrivers. If you don't want to do it then any camera repair shop could do it for you too. Much better option than giving up on the flash.

Click to expand...

Yup paid full price when it came out so may be worth saving. Not too good at do-it-yourself so I will have to take it to the local store and start there.

The real thing to consider is - do you go with FD or EOS film.

In the FD world, there are lots of good cameras for just a little money - but - you'll need the glass too.

In the EOS world... you're limited a bit. I've had two EOS5's (A2e's), and still have one, just to have it. They're ok, but compared to todays digital, are a very clunky and odd design.

The EOS3 is also very good... amazingly so. If you can find one in good shape, its not a bad "film camera" to have.

These days, all my film work is with Leica. I just love it. Wish the M9 was more affordable, and had a bit better sensor (but I can live with the sensor).

Cheers

Last year I took a virtually new 24-70L to Canon in Irvine, California, to be electronically recalibrated because it was back-focusing. I was assured by Canon that the lens would not be dismantled. However, when I returned to pickup the lens, I was told that three collars were replaced (on a brand news lens, go figure). I was upset because I had specifically instructed the service center to not open the lens because it was new and I was going to return it if it could not be electronically recalibrated. Also, after the "service" the barrel was slightly loose and the focusing inconsistent, so I called and complained to Canon corporate in NY. A really nice lady at Canon confirmed that my request was not honored and authorized a free replacement lens, which I received and was very pleased with because the AF is accurate on the new lens.

a big cup of Deal with it

Radiating said:

Most review sites buy their equipment or borrow it through normal market chanels. This is one of the reason why reviews tend to be so uneven and contradictory, copies of certain Canon lenses can have as much as 30% variation in performance. That's thirty percent.

Click to expand...

That might be as well 30% variation of the accuracy of the tests, not the lenses.

neuroanatomist said:

ishdakuteb said:

here is my thought:

70-300l for more reach: imo, i would not choose this one... for more reach, i would wait to get 7d mark ii or 70d so that i would add another body to my list and it will be obviously more reach than what you have planned when pairing with 70-200mm. someone here might claim that 5d mark iii is better at high ISO... sure, but keep in mind that lens is f/4-5.6.... at most two stops and think about it, you can shoot at f/2.8 with focal length of 320mm instead of f/5.6 at 300mm

Click to expand...

This applies only if you're making big prints (larger than 16x24"), submitting for publication, or have some other need for high MP, the cropped 5DIII image will have equivalent IQ to the APS-C image (and better IQ at higher ISO). The 'reach' of APS-C is often an illusion.

Plus, the OP's talking about lightening his load - does carrying two bodies make sense?

KKCFamilyman said:

The part about the primes that kills me is to keep two people in focus I end up having to stop it down so wondering what other benefits the primes will have besides subject isolation options and compositional thinking vs zoom.

Click to expand...

With the MkII zooms that you have, when stopped down to f/2.8 or narrower, the primes' advantages are negated, except sometimes size/weight (e.g., 135L vs. 70-200 II).

Hesbehindyou said:

KKCFamilyman said:

Then picking up a 270ex for a lighter travel flash.

Click to expand...

You can't bounce this so I'd avoid it; direct flash is horrible.

Click to expand...

Might want to check your facts before making an assertion like that...

Click to expand...

I was thinking the same thing about the 270 while weak it is a good travel flash.

Lago Atitlan, Guatemala. Notice the trash in the lower left... : (

unfocused said:

The rest of the story:

After a drink or two, Nikon and Canon head to their homes in the suburbs. They have a good laugh on the train ride home as they think about the guys sitting in the corner, still living in their mom's basements without much hope of ever getting a date, much less finding a wife.

Then their thoughts turn to Leica. Some people are jealous of him, but really, to them he's just an object of pity any more. He was once married to the most beautiful and desirable woman on the planet, a real Looker, she was more exciting than Life itself, no one could Match her and she never uttered a Stern word. But, alas, she died decades ago and poor Leica has never been the same. Now he has to content himself with the company of those with more money than brains, movie stars and others. Sometimes they don't even know enough to take his lens cap off.

Nikon and Canon smile. They know they've put on a few pounds and when they look in the mirror in the morning they are surprised at how much hair they have lost and how many wrinkles they have gained. They once dreamed of a life as jet-setters and even had a taste of it, but they were born too late. Still, as they walk through the doors of their safe, suburban homes, they think of their loving wives and happy children and realize that even if this isn't the life they once imagined, it's a pretty good one just the same.

But...that Fuji kid, he is a hard one to figure out. His family made their fortune in an industry that is now dead, yet they managed to survive and prosper while others hit the skids. Nikon and Canon aren't quite sure if he comes calling on their daughters, should they welcome him in or should they stand at the door with a shotgun?

Click to expand...

It would be interesting if Canon (or Nikon) would welcome Fuji into their household. Fresh blood is always good for the gene pool.

Mt Spokane Photography said:

Wow, that first one had some severe problems. I hope the 2nd one holds up better. Keep us informed.

Click to expand...

Yeah, it sure did. This new one is working brilliantly - no more focus issues, no more soft images, and overall just a joy to shoot with.

Thank you again for your help on the matter, as always! I'll post again if anything should go wrong with this copy of the lens.

JESUS, guys! Thank you! It was because my noise reduction was turned on! Thank you! I'm glad it was a simple fix!

Glad to help!

These are shot with a Canon EF 100-400 L IS USM and Canon 1.4 X TC combo. Canon 7D.

It is indeed a strange issue..i wonder if Canon has some QC problems. So far all the 5D3 owners that i know of don'thave sharpness issues....although we all wished it has more resolution...22mp isn't enough sometimes...not often...
BUt we never had issues with sharpness. Maybe it's because you're shooting with wideangle lenses wide open? You mentioned center is ok but nor corners..maybe thats why....if the corners are still soft at f8 and up then you do have a camera or lens problem.

Nick Gombinsky said:

g.

As for which super zoom, the Tamron 18-270 VC seems to be the best of the bunch.

EDIT: The 18-270 VC weighs almost the same as the Sigma 17-70, it is also the lightest super zoom.

Click to expand...

Well, I asked her about this weight question and she said she wants something that won't be cumbersome for me in my backpack (-.-)

Weight really isn't a priority for us. It's mainly more of a convenience for when we go backpacking this summer. She wants to pick up any shots that I miss. It's kind of like having a backup photographer. I'll be packing an UWA and a TELE (2 zooms).

sdsr said:

What range is included in your "does it all"? As you doubtless know, no superzoom lens goes really wide, and the longest zooms don't go wide at all (barring point-and-shoots such as the Canon sx50). And what does "best quality" mean? (If she likes low light photography, aps-c + superzoom = inferior quality.) What's more, if she "hates the gear", she should see how such a lens feels when attached to that little camera - it might be quite unbalanced and unpleasant to use....

But are you sure she wants a dslr at all? If she doesn't need to zoom in terribly far, a Sony RX100 might make more sense - near-dslr quality, tiny, no lenses to change and easy to use (if you like handling point-and-shoots, that is). Or, if her dislike of the gear relates mainly to size and weight, what about micro 4/3, where the cameras and lenses are all much smaller and lighter than dslr gear?

Click to expand...

I've tried to tell her that the Sony RX100 will be fine for her use but she's been accustomed to using DSLRs after I've let her play with mine. It's more of a personal preference for her. Although her hands are tiny and cute, she loves feeling in full control.

I'm bringing my S100 if she needs it haha. The Sony NEX C3 is something that she's looking at too. Thanks for the heads up

AlanF said:

For sheer quality, the EF-S 15-85. It's a much better lens than the 17-85, as well as being significantly wider, and is of L quality. The 15mm at the wide end is more useful in many ways than the loss of length as the better IQ allows you to crop. Also, its size is suitable for the small camera

Click to expand...

That Canon EF-s 15-85mm is actually a good choice, but she wants to see if theres any other choices before she pops $700 for a lens. haha

fosterscape said:

My 7D body has been shipped and should be delivered tomorrow, hopefully. So for now it will be the 18-55 kit lens I have. But since my full frame camera purchase is years away, I'm going to take the suggestions/advice of sticking to EF-S for the near future.

I'm still flip-flopping between the Canon EF-S 17-55 and the EF-S 15-85 as my "walkabout" lens. I know the 17-55 is better for low light and the 15-85 has more range.

Either way I hope to pair the "walkabout" with an ultrawide, either the Canon 10-22 or the Sigma 10-20.

My budget is limited so, I may only be able to get one lens for now and maybe another next year, in that case I'm leaning towards the Canon 15-85.

Thanks for all the input.

Click to expand...

I have only one suggestion based on my own experience.
Considering the fact that you are losing both exposure and shallowness of field (at equivalent FoV) with a smaller sensor, I'd recommend the fastest zoom you can get. In this case it is the 17-55, which incidentally is very sharp even wide open (won't compare it with my 70-200 II, but let's just say I spend a lot of time blurring skin in PP unless it's a child's portrait ).

learncanon said:

thank you very much guys.

I have decided to turn it off against all the recommendation of switching it on for astrophotography on the net. Will do a manual dark frame separately.

Click to expand...

I shoot with a 60D..... exact same problem..... I leave noise reduction off.

I'll admit to using a small fraction of the capabilities of the 600EX-RT, but I can say that what I use hits the mark more often than the 580EXII.

I don't know if it is the extra power or something in the metering, but I have noticed a difference for the better.

I am afraid that Canon might redesign the 35LII after the Sigma release. The weakest point of the 35L is the bokeh. The Sigma bokeh is worse but the sharpnes wide open is better. I guess, it was a design choice for Sigma to appeal to the chart shooters. This seems to work, and Canon is in the business of selling lenses, so ...

I would prefer a Zeiss-like approach. Make bokeh matter, increase contrast with new coating (they will do this for sure) and exotic glass (the 35L has none), improve the comma in the corners wide open. Do not be afraid if the 35LII scores worse than the Sigma on PZ. If they do that, I will pay $1k upgrade price and will replace my 35L with the II. If they do not improve the bokeh, they will save me $1K. Win-win.

privatebydesign said:

AdamJ said:

Just to confirm what others have suggested, an ST-E2 (Canon or Yongnuo) or a 90EX will give you full manual or E-TTL II control of your two 270 EX II flashes, complete with ratio control, FEC and 1st/2nd curtain sync, all through your 5D II's flash menu.

The 90EX can be set so that it doesn't contribute to the exposure when used as the on-camera master.

Click to expand...

Adam, how do you assign groups to the 270EX II's? On all other Canon flashes you have to do that on the flash, even when you control them via the camera, there is no way, that I can see, that you could assign one 90EX to group A and another to group B. Further, no Canon flashes do remote second curtain sync. Once you go to remote triggering you can't select it, you can do HSS in remote, but not second curtain sync.

Click to expand...

You're right - my bad. I didn't take into account the 270EX II's lack of group selection. It's a pity as it would make it much more useful.

I am in a similar situation, though perhaps looking for something a bit more compact. My criteria in rough order of importance are
1) Able to support a full frame camera with a pano head and 24-105-size lens, or a 70-200 2.8 without a pano head
2) Tall enough for me to use comfortably (I am about 6'2")
3) Short enough folded and with ballhead on to fit in carry-on or inside a regular backpack (<18" preferred)
4) Price
5) Weight

My current top contender is probably a Feisol 3442 (http://reallybigcameras.com/Feisol/Tripods). I would probably get a PhotoClam 44 ballhead with that (which is currently cheaper than the 40mm head) and the optional center column. The legs on this tripod fold "backwards" over the head, which reduces the folded length. Feisol also has other travel tripods with the backwards folding legs; the 3441T is tall enough for me, but has a permanently mounted center column and not take as large of a head, the 3441S is too short without the two-stage center column.

I am also considering the Gitzo Traveler and Ocean Traveler lines (http://www.gitzo.us/photo-tripods-traveler and http://www.gitzo.us/series-1-6x-ocean-traveler-kit). The legs on these also fold "backwards" over the head, and the storage length is a bit less than the Feisol; however I would have to raise the center column to use these, and I am a little worried about affecting stability.

The Really Right Stuff TQC-14 looks interesting, but it seems that the legs can not fold backwards over the head to reduce stored length (legs + head overall length of 20.5", which is a bit too long). However, if its easy enough to remove the center column or head to reduce the folded length, this tripod might be an option. This tripod is also a little short for me without the center column extended, which raises the same issue as above.

Hope this helps the original poster and, if anyone else has any input, it would be greatly appreciated.

thanks everyone for the messages.

I've sent an email to the shop. I'll definitely return if for another copy. I want it for use @ 1.4 and if the AF is not perfect out the box. I'm not interested. (particularly for £1200!)

It's probably easier to produce compelling "astro" images from close up abstracts of something else like strawberry jam, than it is to do the real thing. A LOT less costly, as well...Did anyone not try to save the image and see if any exif data showed? Perhaps there was none. But if there is, it should show a 100mm lens was used, in which case you would have to look closer to earth for an explanation of what the shot portrays.

Certainly art is in the eye of the beholder, but I wonder what would have happened if GuyF had tried to sell prints of the image (or even just digital copies) and pass it off as a real astro pic? Assuming there would be buyers, of course...I presume it wouldn't have taken long for someone to debunk it.

It also seems he was trying to provoke Nikon lurkers just a wee bit...hahaha...I can imagine them immediately going out on a sunny day to try to capture a planetary transit with magical "universe shine" on the shaded side, which is somehow comparable to the sun's relative close-proximity light output...hahahahaha!!! Fried eyeballs and big melted black lenses might result, but no "universe shine" :-D...

Albi86 said:

I went FF with a Nikon D600 and I'm very happy. While Canon can still hold an edge in the pro segment, Nikon offers much more in the enthusiast segment. I experienced that first-hand.

However, I'm still in the market for a fast crop body for my wildlife shooting. I would be happy to buy a Canon body to pair with the 70-300 L or the 100-400 L. However, if Canon keeps going on offering less for more money, I'll switch completely to Nikon. The D7100 is a hell of a camera at a very reasonable price point; the D5200 is even better value for money, and the flip screen is nice for macro shots and a couple other things. I'm also interested in Sony: their 70-400 is a great lens and the traslucent mirror thing allows them to reach 12 fps on the a77.

If you need a good camera now, buy a D5200 or a D7100. You're hardly going to regret it. I'm planning this purchase in around 1 year from now. We'll see how the situation will look like...

Click to expand...

+1
ditto Pentax. Excellent enthusiast cameras, pro-capable certainly, tho a smaller overall ecosystem of accessories.

Marsu42 said:

Mt Spokane Photography said:

Its a good idea to understand what the settings do before turning them on.

Click to expand...

:-> btw: With Magic Lantern there's an option to enable mlu on self-timer only and a feature (if you want it) for "handheld mlu" - the camera releases the shutter after a very short time, but long enough to take away some shake from pressing the shutter button by hand.

Click to expand...

With Focal, save your settings before starting a test. Then you have a backup and can restore from the backup if it crashes.

Enough of this. Brand new: 400 f/2.8 11,489, or 10,999 grey market. 300 f/2.8 is 6799 both USA and grey market. These lenses are aimed at pro sports photogs and you won't find them cheaper than those right now. I still have the version I's of each lens so I don't really need the version II's yet.