Mt Spokane Photography said:

leecheeyee said:

The current type is old which producted from 1998. Now, I have one lens 70-200mm. But it is diffcult to snipe. I wish I can add from 200~400mm. Balance the cost and demand, 100~400 f/4-5.6 is so much suitable for me. Who do know it accurate day to deploy in market?

Click to expand...

Rumors often do not actually happen. A new 100-400mm L has been discussed for many years. The cost of designing a new one that can outperform the existing one may be very high, so I'd just get the existing one and, if a new version shows up in the next few years, you can decide.

In order to keep the length short, Canon is using a rear focus design on the 70-300mm L, which will not accept a teleconverter. You might want to use one someday.

Click to expand...

70-300mm L is not my choice. As I have 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II now.

I prefer to use my own gear. I have rented some equipment from Lensrentals when I feel there is a need outside the items in my bag. That is how I feel in love (and later bought) the new 70-200mm f2.8 IS II. And I am thinking that is exactly what I will do when LR gets the new 5D in stock.

This is the same way I felt when I had my new 1967 GTO, I loved it but was eventually tempted by the '69 Grand Prix. Traded and have never forgiven myself. My 7D is the same thing, I love it but there is this dang itch for a FF.

Thanks to everyone for their help. So now instead of more advice, just send money!!! LOL

Where I find the extra bit most helpful is in the post processing stage.

Most outdoor scenes exceed the range of the sensor and some very dark shadow detail is lost, but the brain of the viewer is easily fooled into thinking the range is fuller if the midtones and 3/4 tones are lightened beyond what the SOOC file shows by various adjustments at the RAW or CS5 stages.

The simplest way to see this is to open an outdoor shot exposed for highlight detail in Levels and move the middle slider left towards the shadows. A relatively minor tweek will produce a significant increase in the amount of detail the photo appears to have. The DR isn't expanded, but the brain looking at a photo with a 0,0,0 black and 255,255,255 white areas to anchor it's perception of the overall tonal range as being "normal" will equate any lighter shadow tones with detail even when there isn't any there. Surrounding an overall dark photo with a 0.0,0 mat has the same effect perceptually — 10,10,10 level tones will be assumed to have detail by comparison, at least in smaller insignificant areas of the photo. Photography is after all just an optical illusion, tricking the brain into recognizing 2D contrast patterns memories of 3D objects previously seen in person.

Back in the days of 8-bit workflow a Levels manipulation like that would often cause banding in the sky and other smooth gradients as a result of the original values being shifted — evidenced by gaps in the histogram depiction. But with thousands of data points per color vs. just 256 in a 16-bit workflow that same degree of manipulation doesn't result in any visible defects in the image.

Forcing the mid- and 3/4-tones lighter will amplify any inherent noise in the shadows but I address that problem in editing by apply NR to a duplicate layer then with a mask blend in the reduced noise layer in the shadows where the noise it noticeable. Since there isn't much important detail there to begin with in term of story content the loss of detail due it the NR doesn't have an net impact on the image — the more important information in the mid-tones and highlights remain the same, the viewer is just tricked into thinking a full tonal range was recorded.

ereka said:

Have you tried using ISO 1600 or 3200 on the 1DMkII? :-\

Click to expand...

I haven't come closer to any 1D body than though a shopping windows

But I can tell you something about my 18MP standard aps-c sensor using lightroom and raw: up to iso 400 sharpness is just the same even after a tiny noise reduction, iso 800 is just fine even at 100% but the sharpness/nr tradeoff begins, and iso 1000 is usable if the exposure was right to start with. I also took good pictures with iso 2000, but in this case there really shouldn't be any underexposure to raise in post processing and you cannot crop/print as much as with lower iso levels.

Concerning noise reduction: Using Lightroom 4 instead of 3 takes nr to a new level because a) of of the non-global nr brush and b) the 2012 process is much more clever than the 2003/2010 one because you don't need to raise exposure (= noise) as high as before on underexposed shots but can use the smarter shadow recovery.

ramon123 said:

where is the press invite for 2nd march? and I am not talking about the IXUS event!

Click to expand...

Admin just updated~!! March 2

wockawocka said:

For IQ the 1Ds3 is the best Camera Canon has, that you can buy. (1Dx isn't out at the time of writing).

Guaranteed, no contest. I use it for every wedding and portrait I do.

I own a 5D2 and 1D4 as backup.

The only things better are medium format and film.

Click to expand...

The skin tones from the 1Ds3 have the edge of those from the 5DII - cant say why though, just look better

tt said:

Canon could hinder the video more this time and make sure another cinema model has better features.

Click to expand...

So let's hope that at least they still don't protect their firmware effectively so add-ons like magic lantern are possible with the 5d3, too.

Radiating said:

The old 5D2 actually used one of the cheapest and least efficient sensors possible.

Click to expand...

Watch out for your life whenever you'll meet a 5d2 user in the future

... but on a more matter of fact level: Where does your information come from that the 5d2 sensor was mediocre to begin with and now is even more outdated? If this was the case, this would mean that by your standards the 18MP aps-c sensor is junk, too.

I have used both the 14mm (II) and the 16-35 (II) and they are both below par on full frame due to average corner sharpness compared to eg. samyang 14mm and nikon 14-24.

On a crop APS-C camera as the 7D you might not see the softness in the corners, but it is a total waste of money to buy any of these lenses to use on a 7D.

Buy a Tokina 11-16, which is an excellent wide angle lens for the 7D, fast (2.8), and sharp edge-to-edge... The upcoming Tokina 11-16 2.8 II might be even better..

If you insist on buying a prime, I would save the cash and buy a samyang 14..

Yep the benro is a great tripod although i use a custom novoflex ball head setup instead but the carbon legs are very good quality the benro ball head is good though i gave that away since i use diferent one. I also have the benro gimal and it is really nice with the big lens

ScottyP said:

I actually like that the controls are just simple analog switches. Nice to have something on the camera that does not have a menu to hunt through.

Click to expand...

With my 580 EX I use the on/off switch and the master/slave/off switch. It has menus but in the time honoured fashion I dont use them

marekjoz said:

You might be surprised if it becomes true...
+1

Click to expand...

Can you get a 1.4 for it? If not I will be switching to canon

Well whatever Canons thoughts are, They have lost a very old and loyal customer unless they anounce their 45MP camera before Nikon ships me the new D800E I have on order. They have been milking the technology for several years now. Most landscape shooters have been requesting more MP and 16 Bits for at least 5 years while Canon caters to the PJs. My 1DS3 was allways considered a stopgap. Other that the sensor there is probably not over $200.00 worth of parts in the 1DS3, but we photographers who are not engineers are not knowledgable enough to know that. So even at 10 times the cost thats still only $2000.00 for profit. Good thing Canon And Nikon don't make cars. A hugo would cost $150,000.00+.

To me the technology looks interesting. Maybe not at once but certainly when being combined with other (future) technology. Do not forget how short ago Kodak 64 was al that really mattered. New technology could easily create virtual 3D representations instead of flat old fashioned pictures. 20 years ago I made 3D shots that could be printed on that special plastic lens paper still being used for 3D and moving cards. After some time it disappeared again. But now 3D is back. Not that long ago real aircraft were used to act in movies. Now a lot is pure virtual and you can't see the difference. Just give it some time and see what will happen. I do not believe photography will end with only more MP noiseless flat images. If that would be true one of my next cameras could be the last I buy when the max MP and low noise level is reached.

terrellcwoods said:

How coincidental that I just posted a pretty similar question...well sort of. I do know that that 14 is used by a people who shoot a lot of architectural because of the reticulated properties ( i read that!) Some have told me to look at the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 if i wanted to go ultra-wide at a serious lesser price. I'd be interested in what your final purchase will be

Click to expand...

Some have told me to look at the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 if i wanted to go ultra-wide at a serious lesser price on APS-C. The more expensive 16-35mm isn't ultrawide on APS-C, and while the 14mm is, it's barely into the ultrawide range.

If you shoot architecture, you should really be looking at the TS-E 17mm f/4L on FF.

+1 for the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 non VC. I will be getting one shortly, and they're under £300 in the UK so should be well within budget.

bp said:

I don't care how sharp this is, its not worth 2300. the idea is almost laughable

Click to expand...

well it´s all relativ.
my aunt just bought a handbag for 2500 euro. :

kdsand said:

I ended up sending a 50 1.4 back 3 months ago similar issue with my 60D. No matter the aperture i had bad auto focus. It was so all over the place I couldn't even narrow it down to front or back. Mounted on a tripod aimed at a stationary target of course. Canon said I got a bad copy.

The 60D doesn't micro adjust nor do any rebels. Micro adjustment is one thing I would have desired but i wrongly assumed the 60D had it. Then again I don't think micro adjust would have solved this issue.

Click to expand...

If you had a bad copy no micro adjust would have saved you... but then canon would have replaced it if it was under warranty.

This topic has been moved to EOS Bodies.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=3414.0

This topic has been moved to EOS Bodies - For Video.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=3557.0

This topic has been moved to EOS Bodies - For Video.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=3580.0

This topic has been moved to Lenses.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=3552.0

kev8d said:

For some reason they didn't require a deposit

Click to expand...

No reputable store would... :

I think it really depends on your approach to macro photography.

The EF-S 2.8/60 is a very versatile lens due to its 100mm equivalent - for me! It gives more depth of field and allows for a larger field of view if you direct your camera downwards. I like to take photos of structures like autumn leaves. This EF-S macro would be the lens if I had to choose just one lens. Another advantage: This lens is really compact compared to the 100mm macros - a good walk around lens!
It just isn't compatible to FF bodies. So I bought the EF 100 (non-L) before it vanishes. It's great to have that alternative - it is the right choice if I have a "tele-day".

Sorry for bringing another option into the discussion,
best - Michael

smirkypants said:

CrimsonBlue said:

It's just rare to see folks with tons of expensive gear jump from one camp to the other based on one lens.

Click to expand...

While this is true, this is a very specific kind of lens: a fast, long, super-telephoto zoom. Polo is a sport with huge fields (300 yards by 160 yards) and the ponies can be extremely far or as close as a dozen yards away when I'm shooting mid-field. I like to hand-hold as much as possible and run up and down the sidelines as much as I can. I have a couple of choices: I can shoot two cameras (one with the 400/2.8 and the other with the 70-200/2.8 ) and be trapped in one place from the weight, or I can shoot with the 100-400 if it is cloudless and I'm willing to give a little on the IQ.

Both options are bad and the 200-400 is a solutions. I can run up and down the field, plop myself down and shoot with my elbow on my knee. It's a 7 pound lens. It's not pleasant, but it can be done and the IQ boost is worth the extra pain in the ass. With the improvements in ISO performance, I don't see 2.8 as necessary as it once was. Sure I get some nicer bokeh, but I also lose tons of shots from being out of position. I prefer to get the shot especially since I'm often hired by specific clients to shoot THEM on the field.

So I guess my needs are specific and thus far poorly addressed by Canon. I'd have switched to Nikon three years ago but I didn't like 12MP images that when cropped couldn't be made into the 20-30 prints my clients pay the big bucks for. It's not like I am switching because of just any lens, this is THE lens. This is the money-maker. Period.

Does the switching "based on one lens" make sense now?

Click to expand...

Makes perfect sense to me if that is *the lens*. I'm in a simlar boat. I can keep shooting with my 300 F2.8 otfen with 1.4X TC and continue getting good sharp shots even if at times I am focal length challenged. The 200-400 F4 for me represents an ideal focal length assuming the PQ is as sharp as the Nikon.

I'm not saying yet what I'll do.. just enjoying the possibilities. On one hand buying a D4 + 200-400F4 for me is cheaper than buying 5dX + Canon 200-400F4. Assuming rumored prices hold true. Other factors come into play such as perhaps i buy 5DX and simply don't buy a 200-400 F4 and live with my 300F2.8 + TC assuming i have enough pixel density to make things work well. Good news is I have many options that were notthere a few weeks ago.

But I do fully understand why some people will switch for this lens.. if it is the lens you really need but Nikon pricing works better, then the switch makes sense. I would love having a 200-400 f4 lens though similar to the Nikon. Adding TC takes it to 280-560 which is just perfect zoom range for the birds I tend to photograph.

Course guess I could consider a Sigmonster.. certainly a cheaper option! But what a beast!