Posts

tcmatthews · Feb 21, 2013

For some reason I am just not interested. I think I would rather buy a metabones adapter capable of maintaining a full frame image circle and is self update-able. So that if Sony releases a full frame NEX I could use my EF lenses on it as well as my NEX6

I have a manual adapter and all of my EF lenses are just huge on a NEX6. Almost as ridiculous as putting my EX430 II flash. The flash does work as a manual flash at least. They also defeat the purpose of having a small camera. But I do like using my dads 135F2.5 FD, I would be interested if they made a manual Canon FD adapter to breath new life in those old lenses. But a EF adapter I think I will pass for the price they are asking.

RLPhoto · Feb 21, 2013

AvTvM said:
RustyTheGeek said:

MY ideal DSLR would have fast WiFi, reliable integrated wireless flash and shutter control that is universal (not proprietary) and even maybe wireless charging. Maybe bluetooth too? Most of the roadblocks are power related IMO. I am anticipating the day when the flash has a hot shoe on top for backwards compatibility but the camera easily communicates with the flash wirelessly (without a master flash) and I can simply grab the flash and move it around while shooting without extra devices (ie PocketWizard) attached to both or the need to have a master flash on the hot shoe just to talk to the wireless flash. I was sort of expecting the 5DIII or 5DX to have this but unfortunately, all they did was add some RF to the new 600RT flash and charge a mint for it. Big whoop. Not much improvement there if you ask me. The writing is on the wall for the need of true integrated wireless flash control. Why doesn't Canon just do it right already??

Click to expand...

+10000
AGree totally.

It is totally beyond me, why Canon does not FULLY exploit the one unique advantage their eco-system currently has over all competitors: integrated radio-wireless flash ETTL-control

Ridiculously little needs to be done:
1. Built in RT-flash commander in every new EOS body - cheap and easy
2. updated wireless ETTL protocol that enables 2nd curtain sync and control of flash-head zoom
3. Sensibly priced RT-receivers for 580/EX II and 430EX / II - linking them into the system, full mix and match with new units
4. 440EX-RT

only 4 simple steps.

* dramatically improved flash functionality and flexibility in different usage scenarios for the entire Canon user base

* no more wires, no more costly extra devices. no more extra batteries. no additional source of RF-interference and communication problems between gear from different suppliers

* PW looses loads of business. Higly-deserved punishment for those monopolists with their overpriced gadgets. For 25 years the have inhibited development of wireless radio flash control at reasonable cost, integrated into camera and speedlites

* massive, tangible advantage over any other camera eco-system - Canon would have a lead of 1-2 years, until Nikon, Sony are able to follow suit. The longer they wait, the more likely Canon will be leapfrogged by their competitors.

but .. NO. Canon geriatric ward is unable to see the flash light.

Ahh, but why do that when you could be willing to pay for just one of these features? They will spread these over many generations of camera to make more profit.

I'd love all these features in a camera body, but lets be realistic, Canon Inc. is a for profit business. :|

Cgdillan · Feb 21, 2013

kdw75 said:
With all the police I thought a foreign army was invading.

Shots look good, but oh what a difference anti-shake filtering would make.

Yeah no kidding. And for the filter.. i rode over there on my bike and was mostly handheld with one hand and wanted to get it all in the computer quick and online.. I had totally forgot about stabilization =-/

glongstaff · Feb 21, 2013

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?

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!)

RLPhoto · Feb 21, 2013

24L II @1.4 on 7D.

bdunbar79 · Feb 21, 2013

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.

AvTvM · Feb 21, 2013

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!!

exactly. 35mm. yuck.

barracuda · Feb 21, 2013

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.)

+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!

SJ · Feb 21, 2013

Thanks for the information/guide/advice

Menace · Feb 21, 2013

70-200 f4 is a great lens. Recommended

RMC33 · Feb 21, 2013

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.

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.

Menace · Feb 21, 2013

Eagerly looking forward to the the update

eninja · Feb 20, 2013

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.

Mt Spokane Photography · Feb 20, 2013

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)

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

tazdog · Feb 20, 2013

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

Thanks ;D

brad-man · Feb 20, 2013

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.

+1

Policar · Feb 20, 2013

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$ !!!

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.

bwfishing · Feb 20, 2013

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.

Kernuak · Feb 20, 2013

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!

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.

dswatson83 · Feb 20, 2013

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