Posts

Freshprince08 · Oct 11, 2012

3 lenses to lust after!!

Beautiful shots, love the colours and the lighting, fab!

jrista · Oct 11, 2012

expo01 said:
A company like Canon is doing alot of R&D. The magic phrase for prototypes like the 120MP sensor is "proof of concept". You are testing certain aspects. The 120MP sensor has shown that you can do multiple line read outs at a time and produce stunning speeds, which is now famously featured in the 1DX. There you go, a 2010 prototype lead the way for 12 FPS. Another issue they observed with the sensor was, that you are getting diffraction blur at such a wide open aperture that it is currently (2010) not managable to deal with in a finished product.

Even with diffraction at wider apertures, a 120mp sensor is going to resolve far more detail than a lower resolution sensor. Even stopped down to f/8, f/16, etc. the 120mp sensor will still be better...you just get diminishing returns. At NO POINT, EVER, will a 120mp sensor produce WORSE results than a lower resolution sensor. That is a common misunderstanding, but a misunderstanding nevertheless. Diffraction, once it occurs, does not degrade IQ below that of a lower resolution sensor. At worst, you would get the same IQ as a lower resolution sensor. It's an asymptotic relationship.

A 120mp sensor would be entirely viable today, and would probably produce better IQ as well. Not only that, you could ALWAYS scale your images down to reduce noise, and still print large. Or simply keep it at native size and print HUGE. No matter how you slice it, diffraction is not the thing keeping a 120mp sensor off the market.

drmikeinpdx · Oct 11, 2012

I'm having a hard time selling my 5D classic for a good price, because I can't tell buyers what the shutter count is. Based on this experience, I would have to say that the lack of a shutter count feature reduces the resale value.

I could send it in to Canon, but the last time I sent it in for focus adjustment they charged me $200. They did include a shutter count report at that price, but I had to specifically request it. I had just purchased the camera used and guess what? I wanted to know the true shutter count! LOL

Razor2012 · Oct 11, 2012

Marsu42 said:
Razor2012 said:

Btw, who is really trying to catch up to who here? Competition is good, so expect the race to go back-and-forth.

Click to expand...

Imho atm Canon is hard-pressed to catch up to reality and sanity again. Given the current feature/price combinations this doesn't seem to be the usual volatile "AMD in front of Intel, then the other way around" situation, because once AMD falls behind Intel they concentrate on releasing products with more attractive prices. Conservative Canon with its immovable userbase seems to try "more of the same" no matter what the competition is up to (like 6d vs d600).

That's a nice way of pussy-footing around who's really in top spot.

Oct 11, 2012

10s timelapse = between 240 and 300 frames depending on your movie frame rate.

Can add up quite quickly. Not just on the shutter, but on the aperture blades.

Oct 11, 2012

@Marsu42

I guess it'll take Canon aps-c at least another 5 years to get to 5d3 level, but I'm certain they'll get there eventually - the limitations of aps-c are lens resolution and pixel density, I don't see why there would be physical any constraints to low light capability.

If Canon were to release a new APS-C camera with 10MP but 5D3 low light performance would anybody buy it?

7D is niche, and rebel target market get sold on silly things like numbers.

What about an APS-C camera with 6 or 8MP with 1DX low light performance?

I personally don't really need anything more than 6MP if I'm being honest, and I'm sure most of the APS-C market are the same...

Canon reduced the resolution of their premium compacts a while back and have reduced the resolution of their flagship model... all for IQ dividend.

Apart from the benefits in pixel size, the vast majority of EF lenses would better fit with the lower resolution sensors and have more usable aperture range too.

Folk may salivate at the D800, I don't, I wanna go 'backwards'!

Marsu42 · Oct 11, 2012

jdramirez said:
Do you own the 100mm? I do and i love it. The picture quality is spectacular and provides added functionality. The 135 is amazing but so is the 100.

+1 ... the 100L is the most fun lens, too, because it has (nearly) no min. focusing distance, so no need to get it only for 1:1 macro but rather for general closer-up nature shots. And with the hybrid IS and sharp f2.8 it's very versatile, too - definitely overkill only for macro shots, but a great choice since you seem to have no budget constraints

Menace · Oct 11, 2012

I've had an Ex580 II for nearly two years and it gets a lot of use - its has never let me down.

To answer OP's question, I'd suggest the Ex580 II

Cheers

rlarsen · Oct 11, 2012

The two Pixel grips for the 5D MK lll I've used have good fit and finish and seem fine, especially for the price.
The shutter and AF buttons work well.

The problem is the electronics. When the grips are turned on, the multi- controller on the camera body doesn't work properly. Turn off the Pixel grip and normal function returns to the body.

It's too bad because the price is great. I don't know if the problem has ever been corrected. I've heard of battery drain problems but haven't experienced that.

I'm saving for the Canon grip. I won't return the Pixel grips because the high cost of return shipping and it's not clear the company would return my money.

It's the last time I buy outside of the USA and Canada.

ChrisAnderson · Oct 11, 2012

I rented this lens for some work events and its performance absolutely blew me away (as did the weight!)
Definitely in my top tier, once I start making enough dough at this.

Tried to find a few bokeh-centric shots to add

Oct 11, 2012

Joining the Professional Photographers Association is an easy way to get $15,000 in gear insurance, non-scheduled.

There is a scheduled option for added cost also. http://www.ppa.com/

Aglet · Oct 10, 2012

That's a general problem of most lenses.

Nikon and possibly Zeiss?.. made a line of lenses called Noctor I think. These are specifically optimized for use AT NIGHT because they reduce this coma effect of regular lens designs especially when used wide open.

I'd seen a sample shot of a night scene with bright hilites done with the regular lens vs the noctor -
heck of a difference!

-

jthomson · Oct 10, 2012

The 10K price doesn't make much sense.

The Nikon 200-400 is $1000 less than the Nikon 500mm.

I can't see the Canon unit being more expensive than the Canon 500mm.
If it really is 10 K then the Nikon 200-400 plus a converter plus a camera would be less than the Canon lens.

I like the Idea of the 200-400 1.4x, but if it is more expensive and heavier than a 500mm then i don't think it will sell well.

xps · Oct 10, 2012

neuroanatomist said:
wickidwombat said:

seriously have a look at the sigma 85 f1.4
at f2 to f2.8 it is super sharp, blows away even the 70-200 mk2

Click to expand...

"Blows away"? Wombat, you been smoking powdered KR rolled in DxOMark papers again? :

I

That would bei THE idea! Someone should tell Canon to add a little bit of LE or angel dust into their rubber grips. The we would all be a little bit more happy and satisfied ba the product Canon sells.
It makes happy, believe.

The Canon 100mm 2.8 is an good lens (850€ L, non L half of it) . Sigma EX 1.4 85mm DG HSM too (1000€). Don´t forget about the Canon 2.8 60mm (450€)or the Sigma EX 2.8 50mm DG (360€).
Maybe you try one of the cheaper macros. So you get "two for one" (macro too).

If you take the Macros, the filter diameter is quite smaller. So the filters are cheaper - if you want to to do so.

Synomis192 · Oct 10, 2012

KyleSTL said:
I've only taken my 5D out in low light a few times since I bought it a few weeks ago. My camera shows banding at 3200, and some noise (with no obvious patterning) at 1600 and 800. The 800 and 1600 noise is pretty easily correctable in DPP (I always shoot raw), but the 3200 requires the slider to move further than I'm accustommed to and results in blurring of details easily visible at 50%. Overall, I'm very happy with my 5Dc. I did miss the extra 'reach' of my previous cameras (XT, XTi, 30D) when I went to a baseball game last week (front row, right field line, ~50 ft beyond 1st base), but I can always buy longer lenses in the future, or crop when necessary.

Glad to know that RAW files are handled well using PP. I still don't know how to use NR setting correctly though, is there a certain value that you use when you use NR levels?

Interestingly enough, I was reading your gear list on your sig, you have the same lenses. On a side note, how well does the 28-105mm f/3.5-5.6 work on a 5Dc. I think that's my go to EF lens for now once I upgrade that is.

Oct 10, 2012

christianronnel said:
Congrats on acquiring the 5D3! Have you tried your 35/1.4 on it yet?

Not on MY unit, but I was able to put it on a store demo unit about a week ago. To be quite honest I didn't really like the field of view on FF as much as I did on APS-C where I felt it was perfect (why I bought the lens in the first place). On FF it's a bit wide for me, prefer the FOV of 50mm. Problem is, I tried the 50 1.2 and it seemed to exhibit some backfocus at around 2.8 which I couldn't really seem to get rid of even after dialing in some AF correction quickly (and it screws up the other settings on top of that)...other than that I would certainly make the swap. I tried a used Sigma 50 1.4 which seemed great (apart from softness at 1.4), but I don't really wish to go 3rd party again and I would prefer a weather-sealed lens.

I was in the same situation as you when trying to find a FF zoom lens as sharp as my Sigma 17-50. I had both the 24-70 mk1 and 24-105. With the copies I tested, the 24-70 is sharper at f4 at all focal lengths so I ended up keeping it. One negative is that it is much larger and heavier than the 24-105. My suggestion, while you still have the 60D is to keep the 17-55 and for your 5D3, pick-up a 16-35 or another wide angle lens like 14L or 24L II first and supplement it with a 50/1.4 or 40mm (or your awesome 35L). The 16-35 will open up new creative outlets that you couldn't get before with the 60D and 24-105 or 17-55.

I guess I could do that but it's really too late on the 17-55. It's in auction on ebay (and there have been bids) so it's going to end up going to the highest bidder. I intend on getting the new 24-70 II as a replacement for use on the 5D3, as soon as my local store gets some good copies in.

I would be interested in seeing how wide 16 or 17mm is on FF...not much of a wide-angle shooter here, not really my style, but might be interesting to play around. After the 5D purchase and the 24-70 that's about it for my current funds though...so wouldn't be able to afford 16-35 or 14 (at least not right away)...perhaps a used 17-40 might be an option though- but I've heard it's not that good?

Basically, I'm only keeping the 60D for two main reasons: a) getting maximum reach out of my 70-200 2.8 and 70-300L for sports & events that call for it and b) for use with the 40mm 2.8 as a backup camera/2nd body. When I get more $ again I'll think about possibly trading in for a used 7D (much closer to the 5D3 in terms of operation it seems). The 5D3 will become my main camera with various lenses like the 24-105, 24-70 (when I get it), 70-200 and 70-300. I might trade in the 35 for a 50. that'll likely do it in terms of lenses unless I can find good deals on perhaps a 17-40 or something.

Btw, with the 24-70mk1, the 5d3's focusing points' usefulness really become apparent because you can't re-frame with that lens after focusing.

Why? Limited DOF?

hiplnsdrftr · Oct 10, 2012

It seems to me (and in line with Canon's typical behavior) the EOS-M is intended to be a mediocre offering that simultaneously (and halfheartedly) gets them into this market segment and gives Canon some idea of how well it sells without hurting dSLR sales.

Keep in mind these classic moves by Canon- killing the Pro1, removing RAW from the S80, killing the G line after the G6, reintroducing the G line minus RAW with the G7, removing HD video from the G10 etc. This is a very conservative and very cautious company. Obviously, very reluctant to infringe upon their dSLR sales in any way.

My guess is that there were some serious internal battles about launching the EOS-M. Obviously, some design concessions were made to assuage the dSLR department and their accountants.

I for one am looking forward to buying a Canon mirrorless camera once they make a serious attempt at it.

Studio1930 · Oct 10, 2012

And for pro users, don't forget a quick dust check. 8)

Oct 10, 2012

The talk about pre-1999 lenses is that for them, there's no option or ambiguity - you need to turn IS off. FWIW, my 600mm f/4L IS II manual has exactly the same statement about the IS as the 70-200 II. It doesn't mention the secondary IS mode that automatically senses a tripod being used and compensates for mirror slap, shutter vibrations, etc., at shutter speeds between 1/30th and 1 second. That info comes from Chuck Westfall, but AFAIK it only applies to the superteles, not lenses like the 70-200 II or 100L. So, that lens manual 'tip' sounds like a CYA statement from Canon (not the only one, either - the 600 II manual also indicates that I should send my lens to Canon to have them change the lens foot, as if I can't tighten four screws and use a bit of Loctite if necessary :

).

verysimplejason · Oct 10, 2012

skozachuk said:
If you are shooting landscapes why not to consider Samyang 14 2.8? sharpness and CA control is awesome even wide open!
[/quote

It has the same problem as Tokina 16-28. You can't put any filter. I consider it a must to be able to use filters when doing landscape photos most of the time.

dpedro · Oct 9, 2012

So don't get 24-70 2.8? You thinking 35L 85L 100 Macro and upgrade 70-200 to the IS 70-200. Keeping it all prime? If you have 35/85, do you get a 50 still?

Oct 9, 2012

verysimplejason said:
It's easier to lose your S95 from your pants pocket than when you put it inside a small belt bag.

FWIW for the S95/S100, the Lowepro Napoli 20 is the perfect size.

CHROME77 · Oct 9, 2012

i used these which i got from amazon. I was surprised by the quality seeing how cheap they were. I actually ALMOST bought the tube instead. I may go ahead and order the tube versions anyways since they have them for like 10 bucks.

i really wish i had some L glass. then maybe these would be way nicer. still not bad for a kit lens

Oct 9, 2012

I think I'm going to stick with the 6D + 105 as that will be the best all around purchase for now. The 24-70 is on the top of my list for next purchase, maybe the wait will bring it down a bit before I need to convince the wife that I need more glass.

Quackator · Oct 9, 2012

You may yawn, but he is right.

(Where'd you buy that degree from?)

Posts

Posts

Attachments

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics