Ha! I just noticed the 2x 1dx Brent, Dang! I'm jealous.

I ended up with 10,163 images that got posted of my own. The images at my earlier post were images i took, but they were screen shots of my marketing for the event.

Thanks everyone. I had already heard about the limitation of writing to CF / SD at the same time, but having an SD card to use as an interim is a good plan. I shoot a lot of sport, so normally get down to about 100 shots to go and then look for a good point to switch cards. Having the SD might give me a bit of extra room to pick the card switch point.

Lexar 1000's look to be the way to go, although I'll probably go for 16GB's.

I ordered the 135 f/2 today, $879 from Amazon. Can't wait to get it and start shooting some pics with it.

Im leaning toward a 5dII and 17-40 myself. 17-40 first, ditch my 17-70(even though I love it) and then get a 5dII

Taken in a photowalk (on my own) in London last night...


Just off St Martin's Lane by RCARCARCA, on Flickr

EXIF: 5Diii, 24-105 @ 50mm, 1/40 sec, f5.0, ISO3200


Covent Garden by RCARCARCA, on Flickr

EXIF: as above, except 65mm, 1/13 sec


The Actors' church by RCARCARCA, on Flickr

EXIF: as above, except 28mm, 1/10 sec.

All handheld

Its a bit early to wish you a happy high ISO Christmas, but the shops are determined! Actually, the first shot had nothing Christmassy about it, apart from the feel...

Richard

Hi everyone

Recently bought a 200L f2.8 mk I used in excellent condition and I'm very pleased with it, unless I'm shooting in low light situations. I have a 5Dii and in low light this lens hunts too much to grab focus and sometimes it wont grab it at all. Hence, my question: does anyone know if the 200L f2.8 mk II has any improvements regarding focusing from the mk I?

I know the main difference between them is that the mk II lost that useless built-in hood that the mk I had. I also know that the 5Dii autofocus system is crap in low light, but that's what I have.

Thank you all.

Lots of limitations.... it's a DSLR, it wasn't made for filming.

Anyhoo, here's the worst:

- Lack of XLR audio inputs
- Lack of XLR audio inputs.......
- Terrible sound quality beyond the lack of XLR inputs (compared to proper video and sound gear)
- Rolling shutter
- Aliasing
- Morie
- DSLR lenses are terrible at racking focus.

Again, Canon is like Apple; full of fanbois who swear it's amazing.

But hey, you can still get some amazing shots out of it that somewhat resemble what people think is cinematic.

If you are getting this for the video part... don't get it. Look around. Sony are better at making sensors and they are crushing Canon on EVERY area right now.

For still photography in the DSLR class, Canon is still ok, but they really have to shape up.

Remember, the number 1 reason so many people adore Canon is because they are tied up in Canon lenses they don't want to part with.
Fortunately in the video area, the market for adapters is large and therefore you don't NEED a Canon body to use their pretty good lenses. But again.... they are still only DSLR lenses.

emag said:

In a previous I made a living working on optics. A little internal dust is not worth worrying about. A small chip or scratch is not worth worrying about (a dab of flat black paint on a chip is an acceptable treatment). A lot of internal dust is not really worth worrying about, you'd be surprised how much dust it takes to have any effect on images. A fingerprint IS worth worrying about, never allow a fingerprint to remain on a lens. I keep a bottle of ROR and some cotton swabs on hand at all times for just that reason. Dust on the sensor IS worth worrying about - have it cleaned, better yet, get comfortable doing it yourself. Internal fungus is worth worrying about - have it cleaned. Go out and use your lens.

Click to expand...

Dear sir (emag)
Thank you so very much for your given facts to me!
I would be quite sure that it is NOT fungus - and there are kind of dust yes but this is like a scratch on the surface more or less what I first tried to gently swab away with a new and clean LensPen and also tried a brand new and clear lenspaper from Kodak but it clearly was INSIDE the and between the two most rear lens-elements.
The good news is that it does not affect the picture as far as I have seen - and also - the fact that I seldom or never use this Canon EF 135mm f/2L stopped down more than about f/5.6 - because one reason to purchase in this type of fast prime is to use it wide open or maybe at f/2.8 - if I need more DOF I usually change to EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM.
I also checked my EF300mm f/2.8L IS USM that I purchased as brand new and I have been extremely cautious in the process of change of lenses/extenders with this lens and I could not see one single dust particle inside internally in this lens and when I checked my EF 135 f/2L I was quite surprised to find dust in a quality built "L"-lens , that to my understanding maybe should have some kind of dust prevention in the construction/sealings=?

Anyhow I do appreciate your answer as well as all your others answers to my kind of novice level question - but I am quite relieved by all your answers and no I think I wish not to give my money to Canon for some small fraction of "scratch" on the surface of the coating and some additional dust particles inside this fast lens!
Thank you so very much for your contributions to my first question here on this knowledge-treasure-forum - because of ALL of YOU!

Wishing you all excellent shoots with your also excellent lenses and DSLRs and much fun and joy when enjoying the IQ and results of your photographing!

//All the Best!
///Charl

Just use any... the difference will be negligible.

jrista said:

Is the price drop really from Canon, or is it from retailers? I would be really curious to know whether Canon themselves is actually getting less per unit with recent drops to $3100 and $2900 and such, or whether it is simply that the initial 5D III Feaver has warn off? That all the pre-orders and early buyers who were anticipating the 5D III for years and were going to get one regardless are now done, and now retailers are trying to attract the more careful, price-wary buyers? Canon doesn't get $3500 a pop for each 5D III sold...they get something in the mid $2000 range. It is the retailers who are trying to build sales...and I assume that for all the prices down to the low of around $2700 I saw recently, they are still making a profit...as is Canon.

Click to expand...

I got my 5dIII for 2500EUR from a small shop. If you substract the sales tax of 19% you are at 2025EUR. The shop wants to earn something as well as the distributor. So my guess is that canon is getting something in the mid 1000EUR/$ (because EUR=$ for some unknown reason) range.

New shutter required per Canon service today at total cost of $303. Still think I'm on the winning side for a 1D4 with a new heart (shutter) for just under $3K. :

Would rather have a 1DX but really can't afford it unless someone wants to trade theirs for a 1D4 and/or 7D plus a bunch of Canon L glass. Lets make a deal! ;D

http://www.canonwatch.com/chuck-westfall-shows-the-canon-eos-6d-wireless-connectivity/

Looks like fun!

Thanks,
Drew

florian said:

Thanks neuroanatomist good to know that they are the same, didn´t know that. thought they changed something that would not make it fit.
PackLight : That´s what worries me too. I use the B+W nano Käsemann CPL on my other lenses with my 5D III.
But I think they don´t make the optical quality of the pictures better if you don´t need them.
I have the 16-35 II and 70-200 IS II and I only get it on the lens when I have blue skies and have to fight reflections or need some better colors.
With the 600 I think I will use it most to take pictures of Wildlife and most of the time I would worry if the picture would be better without it.
When I get my lens I´ll go and get some pictures of parrots and beeeaters from around where I live and if I´m happy with the colors I will not get a CPL.
Would be intresting to know if you could put a 52mm B+W CPL in, like the Käsemann´s I have. They are the best for a good price and then you could compare if it´s the Canon CPL that´s causing loss of IQ.

Click to expand...

I also have the B+W Nano Kaesman CPL that I use on other lenses. I like the job it does.
I have several older B+W filters that are not as good.
I don't think Canon's CPL is as good as the older B+W's that I have, and not any where close to the class of the Nano Kaesman.
For the most part I do not use the Canon CPL on my supertele's unless I just have to have it. Unlike the Nano Kaseman where during the day I might put it on one of the other lenses and leave it and not think twice.

Hey Folks,
Every time I put my 580EXII as master, he suddenly begins to fail. Every 4 or 5 shots, sometimes at one of these i have the correct exposure, and in others it just sends pre-flashes, but does not fire nor the principal nor the slave.
When I use the STE2, it works 100% perfect.
When the master flash is in manual power, it also works perfect, flawless. Always do this for weddings and indoor photography, so are never at maximum power.
I believe then be a system problem ETTL.
Always use all my flashes (master and slaves) with charged batteries and the battery packs.
On the menu, already assured that the master is to shoot (arrows symbol and light in the master flash).

What should I do?
Getting crazy with that!!!

iaind said:

PhyloGuy said:

1. Set up portable clean room
2. Put on clean room suit (otherwise known as a "bunny suit")
3. Enter portable clean room
4. Remove lens from camera
5. Unscrew cap from lens to be mounted
6. Mount lens
7. Screw cap onto originally-mounted lens
8. Exit clean room
9. Remove bunny suit
10. Break down portable clean room

This procedure is somewhat involved, but I have never gotten dust on my sensor!

Click to expand...

An easier solution for those with deep pockets is to keep a body permanently attached to each lens.

Click to expand...

+1 and an assistant per camera/lens combo to hold all of that gear. 8)

DB said:

jdramirez said:

PackLight said:

jdramirez said:

I have a theory about bokeh and how it relates to the function of the human eye and sexual desire. So no one steal my wild and crazy idea.

So if I may, when a person sees an attractive person they are sexually interested in, their pupils widen. I think this is relatively tantamount to a camera lens being wide open on the largest aperture. Consequently, we place our focus on the subject and the surrounding information is processed by the subconscious.

So when we see a still image with a very pleasing bokeh, it is the image which is conveying to the mind that they are seeing something sexual despite the pupils not dilating. It is a rough consideration... I'd like to test the theory, but I have no professors I'm on good terms with who would share an interest in the above... Alas.

Click to expand...

:-\ I thought the creamy bokeh of the 180mm was just the best. What is the implication?

Click to expand...

I guess I wasn't clear. Bokeh's mimic subconscious sexual desire. And since the iris is perfectly round, people gravitate to lenses which have more blades and again mimic a perfectly round blurring effect.

Click to expand...

@jdramirez You were crystal clear, in every respect. Perhaps PackLight by name is no coincidence, so if he is packing light, then perhaps the long lens is compensatory, personally I favor the EF 14mm f/2.8

Click to expand...

But the 14mm f/2.8 has very little if any Bokeh at all. With jdramirez's theory you would be gravitating to a lens that would mimic no sexual desire whatsoever. There are many commercials about this problem on late night television.

Definitely yes, it will be a major step for you. I did the same from T2 to 5D2 and I never looked back.

RLPhoto said:

tron said:

pwp said:

RLPhoto said:

Give me a 135L f/1.8 IS. The current 135L is already perfection, but IS and f/1.8 would only make it irresistible.

Click to expand...

+1
How do you improve on the 135 f/2? The only meaningful way forward is 135 f/1.8is. It's almost certain to be bigger. But it's unlikely to be such astonishing value as the current lens; it could not sell anywhere near the price of the 135 f/2 which is easily found for under $1k new.

-PW

Click to expand...

IS possibly. BUT, it would cost close to 2K$ and ... who would dare to sell his/hers own superb existing 135mm copy if Canon were to stop its production. I wouldn't ! In addition 1.8 is too much. I cannot find a real reason as it would skyrocket the cost...

Click to expand...

Zeiss already makes a 135 f1.8, adding IS should be straightforward. Its entirely probable and stupendously practical in reach, and speed limited situations.

It'd be around 85L II price territory but I'd be ok with that.

Click to expand...

same as long as they dont use the poxy MF focus by wire thing like the 85 has that would anoy me on a lens that costs that much but i'd be super happy for a 135 f1.8 IS

Standard said:

I have the Mark II and don't plan on selling it. I don't yet have the Mark III but will likely pick one up in the future.

I have no issues with the 5D Mark II's autofocus capability and isn't quite sure what all the complains regarding its AF are about. While I don't yet have the Mark III to make comparisons, everything that I have read has unanimously agreed and praised its vastly improved AF system. It's a major selling point for many that have upgraded. However, my Mark II continues to deliver beautiful, crisp images for me. I use center point focusing with back focusing to recompose and the technique is simple and natural.

Blurred images I have seen are generally a result of my incorrect settings – too low an ISO setting in dimlight which is easily fixed by pushing up the ISO to get a faster shutter speed for handholding. I rarely get blurred images. Most would fall in user's error and not in the fault of the camera. In my opinion, unless you're a professional pushing the limits shooting fast action or extreme lowlight, the Mark II is plenty of camera that can handle most situations. I've seen amazing images shot with the Mark II and even from the Rebel line and equally have seen bad images shot with the Mark III or 1D-X. In the end, I think it's really the skills of the photographer and rarely the fault of the camera. Sure, having the Mark III, a 1D-X or even a D800 certainly helps, but I also think exercising better shooting/focusing techniques will also vastly improve the final results of an image using any camera.

Click to expand...

I'm with you on this.

I have some big mits and it supposed to pretty much be a 60D, but my hands dont dwarf my 60D! Andre the giant lives!

I love my 7D / 17-55mm combo and yes, I use (and depend on the IS). I am ordering the 5D MkIII and will primarely use my 70-200mm IS MkII on it, but will not give up my 7D 17-55 until Canon adds IS to the 24-70.

OR:

I depend on IS (I am a senior & not as steady as I once was) and shoot a lot of events in low light. I am trying to convince myself to get the current version of the 24-70mm MkII to use with the 5D MkIII and just push the ISO to gain more shutter speed. And I am hoping the 5D MkIII's shutter is not as heavy handed as my 7D. I find myself really pushing down hard on the 7D shutter. I am glad that shutter is not the trigger on my 9mm!!

Exited is good.

A fixed focal length of 600mm and (preferably) f/5.6 would be a much better choice and it would be a little easier I guess to achieve good optical quality. YMMV.

Seems like the Poop Deck has been cleaned. Sail on.