I believe the 5D3 is the camera of the year but... Just not for 3500$ :/

This might sound stupid, but does anyone know (or tried) if the VAF-5D2 anti moire filter for the mark II could fit/work on the 6D?

What I'd use with the 5D3….

Macro Ring light/flash
Kirk focus rail
100 2.8 Macro
ground level tripod (Regded rta-320)

crop away

tortilla said:

Amazon Germany offers the 60d for 750 EUR (Canon offers also an additional 50 EUR cashback). Amazon marks the 60d as a disontinued item, unlike the 7d - which keeps me thinking if we'll see a 700d/70d before the 7d successor...

Click to expand...

MediaMarkt (biggest electronicstore in Europe) dropped (in 48 hours) from 939 to 729,- with canon-cashback you're looking at a price of 679,- euro's . But...every year in january they have an "taxfree sale". In The Netherlands the tax on electronics is 21%, every year the MediaMarkt holds a sale and gives 21% discount on everything in the megastores. So in the 3rd week of january 2013 the price of the 60D in The Netherlands will be: 729 x 0,79% = 575,91 - 50,00 = 525,91...talking about making a good deal.

Two shots from a recent visit to Washington, DC.

Click to expand...

Very nice pics nonac

Ray2021 said:

As for IS, as I said earlier in a 135L thread, "Why paint the peacock?

Click to expand...

You speak the truth. I just recently rented this lens. Sending it back was very, very difficult. It's now at the top of my list.

risc32 said:

I've long read how most of the current lenses are more than capable of out resolving anything on the MP horizon, and I thought it very likely to be true, but when i look at DXO's "mpix" rating of lenses, i start to wonder.

BTW-I'm ISF certified, yet i have no idea what a quad-HD television is, but i don't disagree with Bob's point.

Click to expand...

Sorry, 3840 X 2160

rj79in said:

Hi,

I upgraded to the 5D3 this October and since then my 7D has been gathering dust....

...I don't think that I'll need the 7D for any other purposes....

Click to expand...

I would sell it as soon as possible in that case. I would expect the resale of used 7Ds to steadily drop as more talk and rumors of the 7D mkII surface and due to the now available 6D.

rj79in said:

I also own the 70-200 f/4 non-IS. Now I am pondering whether I should sell the 7D and the 70-200 f/4, put in some more money and buy the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II. In the alternate, I could sell only the 7D and buy the 135L. Any suggestions?

Click to expand...

Sell both and pick up the f/4 IS or 2.8 II

Horrible 1 and Horrible 2 are indeed, pretty horrible. :|

Continued... Next Good Place:

Christian Point Trail:
Winter (When dry): almost nothing, occasional osprey and red bellied flickers though, and warblers.
Summer (When wet): Rosette Spoonbills, Great White Egrets, Snakes, Black-necked Stilts, Mosquitos (bring your macros!!!), Red Shouldered Hawks, Osprey, Warblers (not many...), Flickers (sometimes...)
The birds here will be more skittish, but are more abundant in the summer because in the summer, the birds tend to dissappear into the depths of the Everglads, and this rather in there... also a great place for landscape images!

Paurotis Pond:
Only during late winter early spring will much be around worth trying for. You will find woodstorks nesting here at that time, and spoonbills flying overhead, and occasional other random species.

Mrazek Pond:
Only good during the winter. At times, you will see snowy egret feeding frenzies, a mad acrobatic display beyond description! But, these happen mostly in the morning, and they will be backlit most of the time. You may find some good shots here of SE, CE, TCH, MH, coots, grebes, ibises, and blue-winged teals. GBH sometimes here, as well as the rather ubiquitous anhingas. Mostly, choose the nearby Eco pond over this place...

Eco Pond:
In the summer, this place will be rather dead and foul-smelling (its purpose causes thus...); random small birds will be here, and occasional wading birds and raptors will patrol, but it is vastly better in the winter.

Winter: Arrive in the morning while it is still dark to get into position (an hour before official sunrise). Then, await an amazing spectacle: the feeding frenzy! Rosette Spoonbills, Great White Egrets, White Ibises, Snowy Egrets, Cattle Egrets, Tricolor Herons, and Black Necked Stilts will appear in huge numbers, feeding with wild abandon! The frenzy may not last long. You will need lens speed here, as the feeding often occurs early, and the sun does not shine directly on them until after 8:00 am, when the frenzy is usually mostly over. Wait long after the fenzy, and capture behaviour of individual birds. Osprey nest in the trees, and gulls fly overhead. Many great bird-in-flight images are to be made here, as well as epic feeding behaviours. The very very best place to stand in just as you enter the area, just a bit to the east, to give you full view of their approach in the place where they usually land to feed.

Flamingo and the Florida Bay:
Summer: Many shorebirds will linger on the sandbars in low tide, and feed on the shores at higher tides, or just dissappear altogether. A few birds may be found here, mainly Osprey, RSH, flickers, and warblers and pelicans... often, egrets, herons, and spoonbills will roost on the islands, providing nothing but frustration if you lack a canoe and bravery.

Winter: A lot more to be seen; go here if looking for sunrise and sunset images especially, as the Florida bay will provide you views of both over the water! Pelicans, Osprey, RSH, flickers, shorebirds; egrets and herons sometimes, mainly when the tide is low they feed on the sandbar and roost in the islands.

Regardless of where you go, if you are near the roads there will be an infinity of black vultures and ravens. Limpkins are randomly about, usually in the open prairie areas, though never in large groups. White ibises are rather everywhere also. I forgot to mention in the previous post, but you can usually find barred owls on the roadside, at the southern end of the road, but only with great perception (they are well hidden). Alligators may often be seen in the culverts (beware!). I have never seen a Sandhill Crane here, though supposedly there are some around, as well as Bald Eagles.

Loop Road, past Shark Valley, provides an excellent place to see night herons, especially around the sweetwater slough area.

lego_boy said:

Given the non-canon thing aside (im willing to take my chance given the cost difference) do you not reckon much to those lenses? Which do you think is the best of the bunch??


phoenix7:

Yes, I am looking at upping my budget.....it seems I'm going to have to.... For some reason (maybe it's my naivety) but I have always disliked the "fish-eye" look....I have always seen distortion as a negative quality..and I agree you can improve this with Photoshop...but I think the less work you have to do the better. So I don't really feel I want SUPER-wider.....just wide enough.

You mention the Samyang 14mm over the lenses I'd suggested.....those were the 10-20mm ish...giving me quite a nice range...do you think the 14mm is far superior in quality than those to justify the increased range? Are those lenses not regarded as good?

That little lens is mind blowing....I need to take a trip to Russia to find me one of those!!
Yes sorry...I'd glanced over your M42 suggestion....Just because I wouldn't really know where to start with them...a quick ebay search throws up these (industar/pentax/Carl zeiss): http://bit.ly/UmIGne

Click to expand...

given architecture as your main focus I wouldn't bother with a 35mm, or even the 50mm
tho if you want to take portraits (esp. posed) of friends and family the 50mm f/1.8 II is the one
to get on on a crop sensor. As I mentioned I've had enjoyed the one Tamron lens I do have
and so would recommend that brand. I haven't heard as many good things about Sigma until
lately, especially with customer service but that seems to be changing for the better as much
as their new 35mm appears to be changing their lens quality.

Yes, I'm not much for that fisheye look either; just threw that out for another option. Probably
have too many now.

I think 14mm would be a good option, no fisheye though some distortion from what I've read
but nothing odd that can't be easily fixed, and it's fairly fast if you need the extra light. The only
cravat is manual focus only. That has been why I've hesitated. I still have issues getting focus
on AF lenses sometimes.

Don't forget, you've already mentioned the fov was something you didn't care for at 18mm as
it is, so the tele end of those 10-20/22 lens aren't something you may use much. Of course that's
situational and with a tripod to help out you may find that it isn't as bad as you had thought.

Zeiss are good, new or old. But the first ones I heard about were the (Super)Takumar/SMC from
Pentax. http://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_nkw=super+takumar&_sacat=0&_odkw=m42+50mm&_sop=1&_osacat=0&_from=R40
I keep lurking on ebay for one of the 28mm f/3.5 SMC.
http://www.panoramaplanet.de/comp/index.html#Pentax
Since there are 2 out of 3 types shown in the list are "green". I really want the radioactive 50 1.4...
just because.



As an aside... wow https://store.canon-europe.com/ really sucks. Hard to navigate, not much
stock and no refurbs that I could find.

Orangutan said:

I also did the survey. I told them their lenses were too expensive, and my future lenses might not be Canon brand.

Click to expand...

Funny, I told them most of my current lenses aren't Canon brand. They aren't really competing for crop consumers, lens wise, like companies like Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina do. At each level (ultra-wide, standard zoom, tele), those 3rd party companies all make multiple options at multiple price ranges. Canon, they basically make one ok/cheap version (18-55, 55-250, 18-135), and one L-level expensive version (10-22, 17-55, 24-105, etc). Only in the tele range do they have options with their 70-300 and 70-200 f/4 non-is.

You'd think they would want to compete in those areas, because there are a LOT more crop users than full-frame, thus a lot more potential sales. Yet, Canon doesnt have anything in the 10-14mm range than can do f/2.8 (Tokina and Samyang do, Samyang soon to have 2 lenses). Canon doesn't have an affordable option like Sigma's 17-70, Tamrons 17-50, etc.

I told them I'd like them to innovate in that realm; but, then again, with how good Tamron's customer service already is, and how Sigma's is improving, maybe I'd rather not deal with Canon for my lenses

My 24-105 gets constant use in extremely dusty environments I've had to have lens cleaned out when dust made it into the focus ring and it was making crunchy noises no dust has gotten further than this into the lens. But the amount of fine dust this lens is exposed to far exceeds that which most people would subject their gear to. I keep single use alcohol wipes with me and if I know its gotten very dusty I'll give the lens and particularly the extending barrel a wipe down in the field and clean the whole camera and lens in detail daily

willis said:

Anyone else found that F2.8 pictures are way too soft almost unusable, pump it up to 3.2 and this is BEAST with it so sharp.. and then from 3.5 to 7.1 a bit jumping up and down and then again at F8 it amazingly sharp.

Anyone noticed this, or is it just for me?

Click to expand...

That's very odd in your case, how can stopping down 1/3 stop take it from super soft to razor sharp? It usually takes 1-2 stops to improve lens IQ.

They had charts and comparison pics a few days before but now it seems to be a full review. Looks good to me.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-6D-Digital-SLR-Camera-Review.aspx

@tarei99

The new IS technology is basically free. That why it is used on the EF-S 18-55mm F3,5-5,6 IS II lens. It makes no sense to produce two versions of a lens with a price difference of a few dollars.

Click to expand...

Ok, that makes no sense.

1st reason why not..

Current EF-s 18-55 IS vs 18-55 III non-IS

2nd reason why not..
Old 24, 28, 35 primes vs new versions with IS costing 3x, 4x the price.

To my mind it makes no sense to stop producing a lens for which the R&D and tooling etc has been done, unless it's not selling enough to make it viable.

I have the 70-200 f2.8L and it was a perfect fit for me (don't need IS but want f2.8 for video) and am sad to see it go, but there are plenty kicking about used if any body is dead keen.

It was a good value lens in canons line up, whilst not cheap, the current range equivalent is essentially double the price in the UK. Yes it's a better lens, for all sorts of reasons, but if I didn't already have my canon 70-200 f2.8L I would be looking at a sigma or tokina equivalent instead.

And that is the choice Canon are giving folk these days...

They have done wonders at the entry end. The 1100D and 600D are brilliant value well specified cameras capable of great images, the 18-55 IS and IS II and the 55-250 IS & IS II are all the lens a lot of folk are really seriously likely to need, they are very very good for the money, and for the most part the upgrades are operational rather than vastly improved IQ. For folk who don't need f2.8s they are great.

For folk who do need f2.8's. Well you are going to need a lot lot more money in the future.

witeken said:

neuroanatomist said:

Ummm...no, it's pixel density as stated, not sensor size. Compare the 5DII to the 20D, FF and APS-C with the same pixel density - does the 20D have a 'magnification' advantage? No.

Click to expand...

It's about the raw magnification advantage. Not the advantage you get with post processing or digital zoom . It's obvious that a recent camera has a higher pixel density, better high-iso performance,... then a very old camera... Do you also compare computers of 1990 with computers you can buy today? No?

Click to expand...

There is NO real (i.e. optical) magnification advantage to APS-C. None. The 'advantage' is only due the usually higher pixel density of APS-C. A lens will project an image onto the image plane, a FF sensor 'sees' a 36x24mm portion of that image circle, an APS-C sensor only 'sees' a 22x15mm portion of that same image circle. So, at 1:1, the FF sensor can image a larger subject (e.g., almost a whole US quarter, while an APS-C sensor can't even capture a dime at 1:1). In fact, 'digital zoom' is closer to the truth than 'raw magnification'.

The 5DII vs. 20D is a convenient comparison because they have the same pixel density. If you'd like to compare current cameras, I invite you to explain how the APS-C T3/1100D has a 'raw magnification advantage' over the FF Nikon D800.

rpt said:

Kernuak said:

DB said:

@Kernauk - great insect shots

Click to expand...

Thanks, insects and spiders are where my real macro interests lie, although I also photograph the occasional plant and fungi when I find them.

Click to expand...

DB, You should see Kernauk's pics. They are great.

Kernuak, Your pictures inspire me. Thank you.

Click to expand...

Thanks, that is probably just about the biggest accolade a photographer can have. One of my aims is always to try to show that things can be done differently and that you don't have to rely on Photoshop, so it's nice to know that I succeed sometimes.

I see. Thanks.
This way of working is timesaving but can cause errors. I see this happening daily in ICT (coding and documentation) though I understand the reasons of working that way.

asmundma said:

This is my Christmas gift - but taken with a 5D3 and 24-70 II

http://asmundma.smugmug.com/Other/The-Car/27170387_qdb57r#!i=2281624460&k=n829Hvj

Click to expand...

Nice car but cover the license plate for security sake.

So I finally got my 5D3 last week and I got around to testing it with my current flash, the Nissin Di866 II. I seem to recall hearing about 5D3 having trouble using the AF beams of the 580 and 600 speedlites. I don't have any of those flashes to give a comparison but I can say that the AF assist with the Nissin was very reliable in low light!

I've tried using the AF beam both with and without actually firing the flash and in both cases, the unit actually manages to find the target even in a pitch black room. Heck, I couldn't even see what I was aiming at! All my subjective testing was done using the Tamron 24-70 lens on the 5D3 and from what I noticed, focusing with the AF beam seems to be just a tad slower than focusing with sufficient light.

Are there any users of both the 5D3 and the Nissin flash that can confirm these? Again, I have no experience with the 580/600 so I can't do even subjective comparisons.

Axilrod said:

I used my 5D2 the other day after not using it for a while, and honestly it seems like the images may be a bit sharper on the Mark II. Not necessarily better, but sharper.

Click to expand...

That is one of the reasons I sold the 5d3 to get the 1d X, IQ really wasn't improved, except for color-accuracy, from the 5d2. It was more bang in the sharpness, and I love sharpness and detail, with the 5d2. Above 1600 iso the 5d3 is clearly better, but 100-400, I just liked the 5d2 much better.

But I also had this experience as my gf still uses the 5d2 for food-photography, and I use the 1d X, there is a slight difference between those two cameras, going back to the 5d2 feels like going in slow-mo ;D That being said, I always found the 5d2 extremely sluggish and slow even when new. After using the 1d3 and 1d4 (along with 5d1 and 5d2) the only reason being FF, I was sooo happy to see the FF 1dx announced. The 5d3 seemed like a better bang for the buck, but after using the 5d3 for four months and then switching to the 1d x half a year it's pretty obvious it isn't.

Renegade Runner said:

Why can't Canon make an affordable supertelephoto lens? I am sure they could get more people buying their products if they did this. It's fine to make the expensive one for people with deep pockets and for those who demand the best. But what about the rest of us?

Click to expand...

300 f4 L?
400 L 5.6?
100-400L ?

i believe around the 1200-1500 USD range

So, thank you so much for your answers and very instructive discussion. I didn´t expected to induce sucha a technical debate. ;D
I ordered the Canon 85mm 1.8 and I will give it a try. Even if I am a bit sceptical about the CA´s.

The Bokeh of the sigma looks nice, but since it is a bit of an investment and I already have the sigma 17 50 2.8 I would like to try another focal length.

Saludos.

Re: Canon L Lens Deals at B&H Photo

This is nice, but for Canadians B&H is not always the cheapest. For example the 70-200 can be had at Aden's for
2339 total compared to 2,373.03 total at B&H. I've always had shipping included at that price. The 24-70 is the same thing. Brokerage fees and shipping fees in one transaction have always bin a pet peeve of mine. If you decide not to pay the brokerage fees and just pay for shipping watch out, shipping goes through the roof. I've bin hit buy Purolator, Fedex and UPS. B&H don't do USPS. USPS has bin the most honest carrier for me. I always get a border customs receipt if there was duty to be paid, never by those other guys.

http://www.adencamera.com/default.asp