Posts

PeterJ · Jan 8, 2013

cayenne said:
extremeinstability said:

Of course now I notice the card reader comment. I have always done mine via usb cable/camera to the computer. I think taking the card out, putting it in a card reader then back out and back to the camera will do more harm than deleting images on the card ever will. I've always been paranoid about that weakening a card that I just always have a big enough card each time and never take it out of the camera and use the usb route(till the usb port failed on my T2i anyway lol).

Click to expand...

Interesting, I'd also been coached by some more experienced photogs I've been talking with and picking their brains, that they said they never hook their cameras directly with USB to the computers to transfer pics...that they only did it when necessary for firmware upgrades.

Not sure how much of that was superstition....but, I figured a card reader is easy to use, often faster, I have a multiple card intake on mine, so I can plug in a CF and SD card at the same time and start copying off from both....and get back to shooting while those are copying off.

The card reader seems to transfer a bit faster than directly from the camera so far for me....anyone else experience that?

I've always assumed pros do it that way for the reasons you mention, plus buying multiple card readers is pretty economical if you want to download a few CF cards at the same time. And they are often swapping multiple cards anyway for redundancy / capacity reasons.

Being an amateur I'm not too concerned with speed so use the USB path. Most of the time I'm only using a single card and my reasoning is the USB port is probably more robust and cheaper / easier to repair than a CF card slot if it does fail. Plus while I have a 5D3 now previously my cameras were single slot, so a broken USB port would give me the 'Plan B' of using a reader until it was repaired.

anand · Jan 8, 2013

Nice image and story. Most of the wild life are photographed whether they like it or not. And they do not even know or care how the image is .............

christianronnel · Jan 7, 2013

Thanks Neuro. I didn't see it on their website either. I just thought DxO's lens correction profile might be better than ACR/LR so I was interested in adding it to my workflow. I'll get the trial version and see for myself.

pwp · Jan 7, 2013

I have worked a 17-40 pretty hard since I bought it in 2003, and it still works like new. Even so, they're inexpensive and you may as well get a new one. You'll know its history, and benefit from the possible silent updates Dr Neuro referred to. The 17-40 is a beauty. It's light, takes 77mm filters and matches the 16-35 f/2.8II from f/5.6 - f/11. However if you're hoping for stellar output wide open, you'll possibly be disappointed.

-PW

Mt Spokane Photography · Jan 7, 2013

The poster apparently thinks that rumors posted here are due to some magical link into Canon.

There is no such thing. The rumors are based on input from e-mails, and receive a CR rating based on their reliability, CR1 being the lowest reliability, while CR3 means a sure thing.
Its all for what -if and fun, and if you have to take it seriously, a rumor site will definitely leave you unhappy.
Canon is extremely protective about letting information out, and lenses are the hardest to predict. Usually, the CR3 rumors happen because someone somewhere makes a accidental slip and posts embargoed information.

victorwol · Jan 7, 2013

I ordered the RRS full gimbal and the TVC-34L Versa Series 3 Tripod since I'm 6' 8.5" but the tripod is out of stock for now... I have another Gitzo Carbon tripod, but is not tall enough for me.

Now I have to find good locations in VA or MD to get some good photos.... anyone in VA or MD with good advise?

bycostello · Jan 7, 2013

some wild titles for those images!

Ryan708 · Jan 7, 2013

if you can gets your hands on a old used fild rebel (mine was 5$ with a 35-80 lens) they could really see how it works up close, and play with shutter speeds and watch the curtain, and play with the aperature opening. I wouldnt let them play with my main body I know that

al2 · Jan 7, 2013

The AFMA setting is dependent on distance. If your shot was at a significantly different distance than what you used to make the AFMA adjustment the focus could be visibly wrong. With a zoom lens not only do you have to account for the change in focal length, you also might have to allow for a change in distance.

K-amps · Jan 7, 2013

thebowtie said:
Folks,
Thanks to all for your advice and opinions - it has helped me make a simple (mostly financial) decision - I'll add the Extender EF 2x III to my collection.

An additional benefit will be that I will be able to take the 70-200 lens and get into a venue (I live in Sydney, Australia) for Twenty20 cricket whilst keeping the 2xIII in my pocket - and not get hassled for a too-large lens.

I already have a Manfrotto CF monopod and head - hopefully the gate people won't give me grief about that (no problems last time - I extended it and used it as a walking-stick on the way in!)

Cheers

I would have done the same!

Having said that, a used 7D can be had for $800-900 these days. If you use that with your 280mm, you get about 450mm and an extra body

Quasimodo · Jan 7, 2013

Just unboxed my copy this night. It is not a picture to remember, but to my unskilled eyes it looks quite sharp. Camera 5D II and ISO 100, AWB. The first is the original downsized to 150 to get the file small enough, and the other one is a 100 percent crop of the first knife in focus.

G.

Jan 7, 2013

Thanx !

Nick Gombinsky · Jan 7, 2013

Same optics, different housing.

dswatson83 · Jan 7, 2013

It is unfortunate that the 6D feels like it was designed in a board room and not by engineers trying to bring the best tech possible to a $2000 camera based on the needs of photographers using $2000 cameras. Fortunately for Canon, Nikon continues to struggle when it comes to video and the D600 was a pain to use for video giving the 6D an edge. Though Nikon is still killing canon in dynamic range, especially in the shadows. I'm having a difficult time recommending the 6D to anyone who shoots primarily photos unless they NEED wifii. And even then...

HurtinMinorKey · Jan 7, 2013

ddashti said:
I wonder if this type of cinema DSLR is really needed...

Canon has nothing that competes with the BMC Camera. Your options for Raw video with Canon is c500 or nothing.

JurijTurnsek · Jan 7, 2013

Crap, no 1080p60 in their flagship HF G20, what gives?

Jan 7, 2013

thebowtie said:
Mencho(22) said:

an you please tell me what distance did you set your camera when doing AFMA with your 70-200?

Thanks.

Mencho

Click to expand...

Hi Mencho,
for the plain lens, I used the recommended 20-50x focal length rule. For 70mm I used 4.2m (60x), for 200mm I used 6.8m (34x) - that's all the room I had in my backyard.

When I attached the 1.4x, I did the AFMA at about 9.3m - 33x (I had to put the target at the end of the yard, and the camera in the house, shooting through the open door.

HTH

I am trying to honor the 50x focal lenght with all my lenses... Besides I have doubts with focal lenghts larger than 200mm.

For a 300mm ... microadjusting at 15mm seems to be a lot.

petrosv · Jan 7, 2013

I just buy my new 5d3 and making the comparison with my 1dsmarkIII in low iso , 1ds3 was superior specially in skin tones and sharpness I think cause antaliasing filter . But in high iso, day and night for 5d3 ,that make my main job back stage cine and tv photographer, a piece of cake from now on.
Sorry about my very bad English .

syder · Jan 7, 2013

Dylan777 said:
IIIHobbs said:

I understand the need to raise funds for the zoom, but at the loss of the 24LII?!? That I think is a mistake. Being that the cost of the new 24-70 is steep, you may want to try it before you buy it.

Click to expand...

How do you know? have you ever try 24-70 II? I tried 24mm and currently own 24-70 II....IT'S NOT A MISTAKE.

I use both the 24mm and 24-70 ii. They're different tools for different purposes. The 24mm lets in up to 4x as much light, and allows you to create wide shots with a shallow depth of field that simply cannot be achieved with the 24-70. If you don't use it for low light or shallow dof, say for example if you're mainly shooting landscapes at f8 then there's little reason to keep the 24mm.

However, the 24mm is a great lens which does things you cannot do with a f2.8 zoom. Whether its worth keeping alongside a zoom lens which covers 24mm depends on your style of photography/cinematography.

Videoshooter · Jan 7, 2013

AprilForever said:
Those sort of lenses are in broadcasting. I once saw a 18-300 (I think...) f 1.4!!!

These lenses are designed for 2/3 inch cameras outputting 1080p, not FF DSLR's resolving upwards of 20mp. It's much easier to design a lens for a smaller sensor.

sandymandy · Jan 7, 2013

The closer u fit the pixels on the sensor near each other the easier noise will start to appear. And any kind of noise even if so subtle means image loss.
In worst case u have a P&S camera with a really tiny sensor with many pixels so close to each other that it will be outresolved by the same sensor with less megapixels.
Some people even say the 1100D has the best IQ in the APS-C line due to this. It just got 12MP but "perceptual MP" is more like 16MP.
But i think this is really not an issue on APS-C or FF sensors. APS-C would be like 60megapixels or such before the pixels come too close to each other.

Jan 7, 2013

Lance James said:
Ryan, thanks so much for taking the time to respond. I bit the bullet tonight and ordered the Mark III =)

Can't wait to get it now and start learning how to use the dang thing. My next posts will be questions about how to use it.

Thanks everyone for your input.

Lance

Hi, so that was april... Are you happy with it ?

Jan 6, 2013

my 10d is still working well, it goes with me everywhere since summer '03, just got new shutter for 86 bucks. other than that, it still a great camera !!!!

wD_Boston · Jan 6, 2013

They extended most of the rebates to Feb. 2nd on Friday afternoon. I didn't pay attention and missed out on the 24-70 2.8 II but that was a separate promotion. Good luck with your purchases as it's one of the lens on my list.

bdunbar79 · Jan 6, 2013

EOBeav said:
awinphoto said:

For what it's worth... if F4 isn't enough to stop action, F2.8 likely wont either,

Click to expand...

Huh? Then why do lens companies spend the extra R&D money developing lenses an entire stop faster?

OP: For $1200, you should be able to get the 135 f/2 L as well as a 50mm f/1.4. Those two lenses would go a long ways in shooting the events you described.

Exactly. 95% of my sports photos are at f/2.8. I wouldn't shoot at f/4 indoors; that's an entire stop of light!

Posts

Posts

Attachments

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics