dtaylor said:

RLPhoto said:

I made a statement, You said I'm wrong. The burden of proof is on you.

I've provided many, many samples of the 5Dc's superb IQ. You have provided none.

Click to expand...

You haven't provided a single sample for comparison. Nor could you provide one on request here, even though you claim to have handled both.

Your statement claims the opposite of published, professional test data and sample images (DPReview; Imaging Resource). Therefore the burden of proof is entirely on you.

But go ahead and rant in 36 point again like a spoiled child throwing a temper tantrum.

Click to expand...

[size=24pt]Your plainly mistaken Mr. Taylor. I was a Avid 5Dc + 7D combo user.[/size]

1. http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=9773.45

2. http://ramonlperez.tumblr.com/post/34906285033/fast-prime-shoot-out-pt-2-50mm-1-2l-review

3. http://images.us.viewbook.com/9a8bb8062cdfc9b86e057b85a601e742.jpg

Since I don't shoot test charts and my experience is real world, If you don't get what not only myself have been saying but other 5Dc users have also agreed on. There is no helping you.

Please, I would love to see some of your ISO 3200 Shots from the 7D, Because I already know what they're going to look like.

xps said:

But I do not understand, why they reduce the number of the cross type sensors. What is the technical reason for it? There must be one.

Click to expand...

Not at all, imho this is simply to protect the 5d3 - Canon isn't in the habit of internal cannibalization, look at what they did to the 60d to protect the 7d.

As for the af system: I didn't give up hope completely yet - it might still be a lot better as the 5d2 because not only the specs count, but the 6d might have a closed loop system that works better with newer lenses (like my 100L, 70-300L and maybe 24-70ii).

I'd stick with the current body if you are happy with it.

Bodies are made obsolete in mere years.

Lenses are made obsolete in decades.

The 1-Series bodies generally have a 3 year or longer product cycle. My 1D4 was just a crummy 2 years.

The predecessor to the Canon EF 200mm f/2L IS USM enjoyed a product cycle starting from 1988 through 2003. The lens you are contemplating was marketed in 2008. Chances are it wont get replaced anytime soon even if there are rumors to this effect.

Two decades for a lens that sold barely 8,000 copies worldwide. Not bad, not bad at all.

Ah, thank you! I can stop worrying now!

neuroanatomist said:

You need to do some more Rithmetic.

The 300D at 400mm gives you a 640mm FF-equivalent FoV, and a 6.3 MP image. The 5DIII at 400mm gives you a 400mm FoV, and a 22 MP image. If you crop the 5DIII image to the 640mm FoV, you'll have an 8.6 MP image with better IQ than the 300D image.

As I've said before, the 'crop factor' reach is an illusion when it comes to IQ - the only thing you're usually giving up is MP in the final image...and in the case of an old APS-C camera like the 300D, you're actually gaining MP with the cropped FF image.

Click to expand...

You are right. I cant believe I did this calculation and forgot about it. I think it is perceived reach had my camera been a 7D/60D/650D...

My wife first started out with a t3i, but switched to a 60d(after playing with my 7d) because she could change settings a little faster, the top LCD screen and to use the same battery as me(battery life on the 60d is better than the t3i/t4i).

The 60d is a little bigger, but she's 5'3 and she hasn't complained about weight/size once

However, the t4i video autofocus could be important, depending on how much you do video

Yeah tested all my newly calibrated lenses. They are all sharp and very clear under good light. So the method is super crucial.
On a side note the reason all this afma started was because I was not happy with the quality of pictures on my 24-105mm. Even after focal adjustment this is not really what I would be expecting out of such a highly regarded L lens. I want to go use it some more since it is often mentioned as good quality I would expect this is another case of user error

wickidwombat said:

cayenne said:

pwp said:

There's plenty of advice on how to select your focus points already, so I'll pass on info as to why Focus & Recompose Sucks...
http://www.visual-vacations.com/Photography/focus-recompose_sucks.htm
http://digital-photography-school.com/the-problem-with-the-focus-recompose-method

-PW

Click to expand...

WOW!!!

Thank you, that really illustrates things!! This may be why I've had so many soft shots starting off with my camera....I was thinking I sucked, or that maybe my lenses and camera were faulty...but this may explain a LOT.

Thank you,

cayenne

Click to expand...

those descriptions are not correct, they are overexagerating the effect unless they are refocusing on the other part. if you keep your technique good when you recompose the distance does not change THAT much

Click to expand...

Applying some trigonometry, varying the angle, keeping distance to focus point the same, one gets the following:
Distance=8', angle=5 deg, the error is 0.3667"
Distance=8', angle=10 deg, the error is 1.481"
Distance=8', angle=15 deg, the error is 3.386"

So depending on DOF you may or may not notice too much of focus error...

I guess the CCD will probably only have 480 lines or so vertical resolution? If so sounds like you're on the right track using a relatively crappy lens with a longer focal length because you won't have much room for digital cropping.

I borrowed a similar lens from a friend a while back (can't remember brand, but similar class to those) to have a play with and at 650mm versus a 70-200L f/2.8 and cropping to 1920 x 1200 the 650mm had a fraction more detail but the Canon had better contrast and colour so was better for general photography. But if your CCD is reasonably low-res in comparison would expect you'd get much better results with the longer focal length.

I gather this will be some sort of automated target identification system and the still shots just for later confirmation / testing so you won't want the usual aspects of a 'nice' photo anyway?

Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS

By the way, thanks for the reference to high speed SS in conjunction with IS. I remembered I had read it in the past but to tell the truth I had forgotten...

I think the only lens that ight have a chance of being better than the Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS II is the new sigma 120-300 f2.8 OS. I very much doubt the Tamron will come remotely close to the canon L

Dylan777 said:

bycostello said:

none... leave your lens hood on to protect your lens, the more glass you add the more you reduce the quality of your lens

Click to expand...

-1.....not when you use high quality filter. With B&W Clear, I don't see the effect in my photos.

Click to expand...

I agree with you...to all the goys that are saying no filter..when I get my lens I will shoot two raw files off a tripod..one with a B&W MRC filter and one without...and you have to tell me which is which...doubtful that anyone could. truly...

When is this thing supposed to come out? Should I put a pre-order in right now? Who do you think will be the first place to receive the camera?

PeterJ said:

Thanks everyone, based on the feedback I'll sell my 24-70 and get the 24-105. Looking at used prices locally it looks like I should be able to get a new 24-105 for about $0 - $100 more so think I'll go that way.

Click to expand...

This is a great time to shift a MkI 24-70 f/2.8. I got $1400 for my last one, sold not long after the 24-70MkII was released, sold on Gumtree in under 3 hours. From the number of enquiries I could have asked for more. The stratospheric price of the MkII has had the effect of ramping up the price of good, pre-owned 24-70 MkI lenses. There are great deals around on 24-105's right now. You'll come out with spare change.

-PW

That's true and of course if you are going underwater you will need to use an underwater housing that includes a filter in front.

For all other uses, forget the filter.

neuroanatomist said:

East Wind Photography said:

Dont use a filter on any L glass unless you need to use a polarizer. Filters generally degrade IQ even if ever so slightly. I would not buy an L lens if you prefer to have a filter in front of it. YOu're not taking advantage of everything the lens has to offer.

Click to expand...

I'll just point out that in some cases (16-35L II, 17-40L, 50L), Canon specifically states that a filter is required to complete the dust/weather sealing for the lens. Also, all of the uber expensive supertelephoto lenses (300/2.8 and up) have a drop in filter slot, and Canon states that a filter is part of the optical design so the glass insert should be left in the holder.

Click to expand...

Hello everyone,

I am going to pre-order a 6D. However, I don't know whether to order it locally or through B&H, Amazon, or other US dealer.

Speed in arrival is my key concern. Do Canadian stores usually receive cameras the same day as a company like B&H?

I understand Canon's no shipping to Canada policy, but I have a USA forwarding address I'm thinking of using. I have Amazon Prime shipping to this address as well.

In your previous experience, would I get it faster if I ordered from a USA store, or a Canadian store?

I think one of the benefits of FF is the shallow DoF you can get for an equivalent FoV (compared to smaller sensors). So f/2.8 is better than f/4.
However, it really depends on usage. I think I shall have to make a decision between keeping the 70-200 f/2.8 IS (or getting the MkII) vs getting a 70-200 f/4 IS AND the 135 f/2 when I go full frame. Note that either way the cost will be similar, so it boils down to whether I want the convenience of a fast zoom compared to the versatility offered by the combination of a slower but more portable (and more likely to be carried) zoom and a faster prime for shallow DoF and larger aperture when needed.

that is an amazing buy ...is this hollow?...or is there glass in it?.. just kidding....
the price is so low...

this lens is a real gem.... as everyone knows

it solves so many issues... except weight....
when you are going to be @ f2.8...or above....

that -again - is so way below what I paid... and I accept my price for the performance I get....
well done

enjoy it

TOM

Jont said:

Not sure why people would go with 6D rather than 5Dii if it doesn't have the extra gadgets if it's indeed 2100$.

Click to expand...

Probably cuz the 6D will replace the 5d mk2 and people just prefer to buy the "new stuff" cuz its supposed to be better. IQ should be a tad better with 6D than 5dmk2 aswell, so why not? I dont need a hardcore enduring camera case nor Wifi, GPS or great video functions since im not strolling around in jungles or beaches or such. 99,9% of my time im around in cities taking single shots and never video. Anyway price will drop in the future. Always nonsense to buy anything (electronic stuff mostly) on the release day except u REALLY depend on it (e.g. u only have 1 week before ur eyesight disappears)
But if i ever have the money to buy a FF camera there will probably the 6D mk2 or mk3 available already :-\

I totally agree with the foreground - IMHO it adds a great deal to an ocean/wave image. I think the context added from that plus the tripod you mentioned will help your already nice images. I started using a full tripod, cable release and filter landscape setup about a year ago, and found that while it does take a bit to set up shots, the extra time and effort has made me think through the composition and settings of my shots much more and has resulted in images I am much happier with than before. These two were from a trip to Big Sur last week, and I think start to show a little of the context that foreground can add

Rick Massie said:

They look good! If you want to improve them, I think your best bet is to wait for better light. It looks duskish, or very cloudy in these photos, but if you get a low sun shining through, it'll add contrast and clarity to the waves and splashes, and possibly nice colours as well. Keep trying the location in different light to get a feel for what works best.

Also, it may help to add something to the foreground (ie, a person in the frame - don't let them get too close to the waves though!) to give a sense of scale. Waves and rocks can greatly vary in size, and without something in your frame for size reference, it's sometimes hard to tell whether the wave is big or small.

Just some thoughts from my years shooting beaches and ocean in Newfoundland.

Click to expand...

Croubie, you mad fool, you'll start an internet sensation with that sort of anarchy!

I used to use Agfachrome 200 all the time for motorsport but the thought of going back to waiting for the results would drive me nuts. I want to be disappointed by my results straight away!

l loved my 1Ds Mark III but if you're concerned about low light/high iso shooting I'd recommend the 5D Mark III hands down.

The 24-105L has a longer range, but it's not so good at 24mm. In fact at 24mm it's not very good at all.
The MFD charts for the 24-70L look much better.
The 24-70L is a lot smaller and maybe a better choice for travelling. It also combos with a 70-200 f4 L IS very well too.

Anyone tried this remote on a 7D shooting at 8fps, does it work ok?

indeed my best 50mm to be shot in 1.2, great article. This kind of blur is indeed one of a kind.