Ugh...ly.

Hi CanonFanBoy.
Not sure about I 'must be right', but I might be right, but I could be wrong, ??? I'm only guessing here, (with a little bit of very crude experimentation). ;D

Cheers, Graham.

CanonFanBoy said:

Valvebounce said:

Hi CanonFanBoy.
I still think that the reason the ST-E3-RT won't fire is because it is expecting detailed communication from the camera, don't forget that newer cameras can control the flashes from the menu.
The flashes still fire because, well a flash is still a flash! To prove a point I just triggered my YN-600EX-RT with a key to short the centre pin to the foot (carefully) it said it didn't recognise the camera model but "ok I'll flash"!
I'm curious about this so I just got my 2 YN-600EX-RT's and YN-E3-RT out and tried triggering them with the key! A flash set as a master will fire, but not trigger a slave unit, the YN-E3-RT just played dumb, as in nothing happened!

Cheers, Graham.

Click to expand...

You must be right. I can live without triggering the 600s. I am thrilled I can use the Streaklight.

Click to expand...

Thank you! That was the issue! WOO HOO Canon Rumors group comes through again!
I turned off distortion and I'm good to go now

Re: Pricing & More Information About the EOS 6D Mark II [CR3]

bdunbar79 said:

Luds34 said:

neuroanatomist said:

roast_pigeon said:

The damage would be obvious and speedy, and may well be bigger than what Sony, Fuji and Panasonic are chipping off from Canon's market share.

Click to expand...

Except that Sony has been losing market share to Canon, and Fuji and Panasonic's ILC market shares are small enough to be irrelevant. Which pretty much invalidates your argument.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't sleep on Fuji or Panasonic. What you speak of sounds like complacency. Ask IBM how that worked out for them with the PC in the early 80s? Now, I neither feel Canon is being complacent nor do I see Fuji or Panasonic as any large or immediate threat. Just saying, "the other guy has a small market share" is not a very strong argument. Everyone has a small piece of the pie before they take off with a ground breaking product and conquer it. Canon wasn't always the market leader. They had a better product at the right price and took market share.

Click to expand...

It wasn't his duty to have a stronger argument. roast_pigeon said Fuji, Panasonic, and Sony were chipping away at Canon's market share. John was just pointing out how incredibly wrong that is and that the opposite is actually happening.

Click to expand...

Yes, fair enough. Probably wasn't the proper place to interject. Sometimes, to get through all the posts I don't always read what is being quoted, or skim over it quickly. Seeing raost_pigeon's statement, I should have stayed on the sidelines.

Despite the devastatingly large sensor in this super camera -- nearly the size of a tennis court -- it sadly still had lousy video AF.

- A

Pre-orders to commence on the 30th of June in Japan:

https://twitter.com/nokishita_c/status/879247732640071680

More astro sample image at bottom of the page. It's just 6mp not full size image but it's look pretty good for me.

https://www.sigma-global.com/jp/lenses/cas/product/art/a_14_18/impression/


Translate version
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sigma-global.com%2Fjp%2Flenses%2Fcas%2Fproduct%2Fart%2Fa_14_18%2Fimpression%2F&edit-text=&act=url

It's definitely a case of 'horses for course'.

I previously had the 18-270 (since moved on to my son) and then bought the 16-300 for my wife. As always, there's a compromise to be made...

We were living in Europe and travelling a lot on weekends. As my wife has shoulder issues, I tend to carry most of the weight on days out so as much as I would love to have the best lenses to choose from, weight was an issue. These lenses have been perfect. Oh yes, there have been many occasions when I've come home, looked at the photos on the big screen and hated them. But at the same time, if I only had a single shorter range zoom lens with me then these are photos that I would never have attempted.

Having owned them for a while, I know their limitations and can generally work around them (until I forget!!).

I suspect that for practical purposes, it won't be very noticeable one way or the other. My guess (which could be wrong, of course) is that the main distinguishing factors between 5D4 and 6D2 will be the non-IQ features that are very important to some, like better weathersealing versus articulating screen, memory card slots, controls, etc.

On the other hand, I imagine we'll probably see core imaging enhancements that are meaningful, at least to some, in 5D4's successor. More pixels would be good, of course, support for some future super expensive but faster SD cards, 4K video, et cetera.

I think (hope?) that I'll be very happy with 6D2 IQ, and that in conjunction with 80D, this will meet most of my shooting requirements for this technology cycle (a few years).

DJL329 said:

Last year, I was in the same boat, trying to decided between the 500mm f/4L II and the 400mm f/4 DO II, so I rented the 500mm from lensrentals.com. It was a few hundred $$ and well worth the cost in helping me decide.

Click to expand...

Dont wanna go off-topic, but I was wondering whether you ultimately picked 400 F4 DO II over the 500 f4 II? If so, could you share your thoughts on 400 DO II? I'm strongly considering picking one up, as well.

The Canon store has a bunch of lens Instant savings of up to $300. Retailers will probably also offer these "Instant Savings."

Adelino said:

I am super excited about the 6D II. What should I know about preordering? Best place, what to expect, any discounts. Thanks for the help!

Click to expand...

Refreshing to see your excitement. I lost mine a few years ago. I now buy only after a price drop. Maybe perhaps I already have all I need.

Thanks for all replies.
It seems that you need an original genuine prime lens without an adapter to get all plusses out of the A9.
But Sony is not offering such fast lenses >400mm . At this moment the A9 will work superior just on genuine lenses. Maybe at a glance for wedding or events without needed long primes.

So waiting for an Canon equivalent will be needed. The silence of the electronic shutter will be the feature I´d like to wait for. The bids in my surrounding area are to sensitive to noise, even if you are masked.

Interestingly, DPReview is defeating the Sony A9 to the evil video, (see posting from Mr. Neutral), that is one of the few videos that is not glorifying the A9.

heart+eyes said:

Canon probably doesn't have the luxury of having multiple teams of lens craftsmen (-women). In addition to EF lenses, they've been busy with 7 EF cinema (and 5 PL cinema), broadcast plus a few EF-S and EF-M lenses.
https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/list/lenses/cinema

Now that Canon has a nice collection of high profit cinema lenses, we should start to see more photo lenses.

Click to expand...

Canon cinema lenses are not hugely popular. Zeiss CP.2 and now CP.3 as well as Master Primes, Schneider, Cooke, Leica all have multiple choices at different price points, then throw in Panavision you have heavy-weights in the cinema industry that cover the bulk of needs. We only own a couple of sets of Canon cinema primes which have the lowest utilisation.

In stills it's madness that Canon has not replaced the EF 50mm f1.4 it's one of the easiest focal lengths to design and if the likes of Leica can do it with a very small team so can Canon.

Mt Spokane Photography said:

IglooEater said:

I know little about these things, but does the strong yen make this a good time for Canon to make such a move?

Click to expand...

The Yen is still down in value. Back in 2011-2012, the Yen was extremely high. $1 USD only bought 78 Yen. Today, it buys 110 yen. I do not think that the Yen versus Dollar plays into it very much, but I think Canon sees profits shooting up, which means that the stock value will rise, so a good investment.


Look at this chart, its dollar value versus Yen, so higher means stronger dollar versus Yen.

http://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=USD&to=JPY&view=10Y

Click to expand...

Thanks Spokane; apparently I know even less than the little I thought I knew.

bholliman said:

ahsanford said:

5D4 will have the following things that the 6D2 will not:

• Definitely: +4 more MP (if the rumor is true)
• Definitely: 4K video recording (if the rumor is true)
• Definitely: Much more solid build quality
• Definitely: Dual card slots (if the rumor is true)
• Definitely: More capable AF system in general (the 6D2 may get some small wrinkle that is nicer than the 5D4 on AF, but in general the 5D4 will be a step above)
• Likely: higher cycle count shutter durability
• Likely: higher fps (very low chance the 6D2 gets 7 fps)
• Likely: AF joystick (6D2 might not get this)
• Likely: Chunkier grip that better fits your hand
• Maybe: 1/8000 shutter
• Maybe: 1/200 flash sync speed
• Maybe: AF point selection via touchscreen
• Maybe: DPRAW
• Maybe: Great quality back thumb wheel (maybe the 6D2 gets the nice 5D-level one this go-round?)

I see the decision as being how badly you need certain professional niceties [professional build tool, 4K, dual slots, very high quality AF system] vs. saving some money and getting a tilty-flippy screen. The sensor quality / sensor resolution / fps differences will be really small. So one could argue the 6D2 is a more affordable 5D4 with a tilty-flippy screen.

- A

Click to expand...

Nice summary.

As a stills shooter, the key 5D4 advantages are:

• (1) dual card slots
• (2) better AF system
• (3) joystick (assuming the 6D2 doesn't get one)

The rest of the features are not that significant to me.

ahsanford said:

• Definitely: Much more solid build quality

Click to expand...

I've owned a 6D, 5D3 and now a 5DsR and I didn't find the 6D build quality to be "much less" solid. If the 5D series is a 8 on a scale of 1-10, I'd give the 6D a 7 at worst.

Click to expand...

+1 although I would add faster shutter (assuming it will be 1/8000 versus 1/4000) and flash sync speed (assuming the 6DII won't match the 5DIV there) to the 5DIV's advantages.

I'm still considering whether to go for a 6DII or a 5DIV, but the 6DII does seem to be shaping up very nicely. Realistically the 6DII will do everything I need (and more), so as much as a 5DIV would be nice (and personally I'd go for a joystick over a tilt/flip screen without a second thought, all else equal), the price difference will probably see me heading to a 6DII I think.

EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II gets my vote. Great lens.

I also have the EF 35mm f/1.4L II and it is a great lens, but unless you need wider than f/2.8 I see no reason to get the f/1.4L.

If you are using flash at your events, get the 24-70 for sure.

16-35? Later.

SkynetTX said:

Have to agree. The bigger the zoom range, the lower the image quality. If you can have only one lens with you it's better to have a 24-70 or similar general lens.

Click to expand...

Sounds like you've never actually needed 400mm, if you think 70mm can even remotely compete.

The kind of thing people will want 18-400 for absolutely can not be touched by a 24-70 in any way. If you have limited space and yet you need that long reach, and you're on an APS-C body where the 24-70's wide angle also won't be particularly significant, that 24-70 really isn't even an option.

FramerMCB said:

How about Canon's venerable 28-300mm 3.5-5.6L IS? Really a pretty good lens for an all-arounder. But not very lightweight or small. And not super zippy on the autofocusing like most all of the newer, big L zooms.

Click to expand...

That's basically what we're seeing here: an evolution of the super-zooms which already exist. This should be smaller, lighter, quicker, and expands the zoom range. Even if the very widest and longest ends of the range aren't optically great, you could treat it as a newer 28-300 with the rest of the range as a 'bonus'. (Which is how I treat all zooms, really, as no zoom on the planet is absolutely perfect through the entire range; there's always at least one point where it's weaker and I try to avoid using.)

Just as once-upon-a-time we had the 35-105 which became the 24-105 and the 80-200 became the 70-200, this lens is (at least on paper) taking that 28-300 and making the same step forward.

StudentOfLight said:

I don't agree with your assessment. To me the Milvus looks to smoothest. You should note that the focus is different in the images so the softness in certain parts of the image is going to be misleading.

(See these crops where I've marked the plane-of-focus with yellow.)

You'll see that the Distagon is more front focused than the other lenses so foliage will appear softer, but if the other lenses were focused identically then they would blur the mid-ground and background more so the result will be different.

Personally I like the Distagon and 35L-II from a 3D-rendering perspective. (The Distagon has LoCA while the Canon is neutral) As I seriously dislike longitudinal chromatic aberration my overall preference is for the 35L-II but I can see why people might opt for the Distagon for it's chroma halos, or the Milvus for the smoother out of focus areas.

Tangent: The Canon appears much sharper at f/1.4 but as noted previously the Milvus is focused further back...

Click to expand...

You're quite right, I hadn't noticed the different focus - normally Chambers is quite good about that sort of thing so I hadn't carefully checked. (It can actually be hard to focus the ZE lens at f1.4 as different colours aren't as well corrected - when it came out someone posted a good test on here with a row of crayons of different colours all identical distances from the camera - when one colour looked in perfect focus another wasn't.)

Having said that, the area I would draw attention to is the top of the frame, dead centre, there are trees in the distance and a small part where a gap in them forms a circle. In that spot the bokeh of the ZE looks smoother and less contrasty but really that could easily be down to the lack of consistent focus.

I'm not even really wishing to defend the ZE lens! I tried it and didn't like it that much and have just kept my Contax lens and now use a 35L II most of the time and agree with you it's wonderful and doing it all with AF means I think Zeiss has their work cut out. It's just that I must concede there is something nice about the bokeh in many ZE shots I have seen but these examples aren't consistent enough to draw any conclusions.

If you haven't already then check out this gallery of Milvus 35/1.4 shots:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/carlzeisslenses/albums/72157684900304146

They are mainly shot at f/2.0 but it looks very promising, seeming to be a genuine attempt to combine wide open sharpness and pop with an otherwise relatively "gentle" rendering - I think it gives a refined look to the photos.

Thanks Sanj anf Mt Spokane for your comments!

ashmadux said:

I'm not huge on backpacking or traveling the woods, but I'll be damned, those are some sweeeeet images..the lion and dead on portrait....just wowza. Bravo.

Click to expand...

Thanks! It was an amazing experience.

Backpacking certainly has its drawbacks but means you can travel a lot further on your budget instead of staying in hotels, generally the hotels out in the wilds arent much better than camping anyway. It also meant I could be a lot closer to the areas and sometimes trekking is the only way of getting into those situations! The mountain gorillas are really remote and love to be deep in the vegetation.

Hard work but certainly worth it!

The lions were amazing, the vehicle the pride was used to had broken down so we used another. They were so inquisitive that they followed us throughout the whole safari. Had about 2 hours with them within 5-25ft absolutely incredible.

I photographed the portrait of the lion with the 100-400 but the portrait of the gorilla i took with a 24-105... the group I was with wanted to continue a little further up and see the silver back and this black back was being a little aggressive so they went off and I stuck at the back. After the group moved up he came out of the grass and basically sat right in front of me, literally could have shaken its hand. Crazy experience.

Here is an image a friend took of me just after I took the first Gorilla portrait.



Another of me and the gf with the pride of lions



And then 4 of the 5 white rhinos left in Zambia which are escorted by armed guards at all time, they just took us to see them pretty much walked right up to them.





People really worry about how much reach you need and obviously with it being a trip of a lifetime dont want to come home disappointed. From my experience I had too much reach most of the time. Especially for mammals, some are more difficult like leopards and cheetahs as they are pretty stealthy and tend to keep their distance, or for small birds like bee eaters etc

The 7DMKII and 100-400 is such a good combo it covers all ranges and if you have a full frame body the 100-400 is even more impressive, 400 on full frame can be a little short. 400-640

Jopa said:

Maximilian, the only joke in my post was about 600/4 poketability. I'm actually eagerly waiting for this camera, and I'm very excited to hear the new generation will be even smaller. My only concern is how am I going to calibrate my glass if the camera won't have AFMA? And I also really hope it will have DPAF.

Click to expand...

Now I got your point!
Thank you for making it clear to me.

CanonFanBoy said:

preppyak said:

unfocused said:

Lots of third-party manufacturers make EF mount lenses. Yet, I've often wondered why there aren't some third-party camera manufacturers making EF mount bodies. For example, if Sigma made their bodies with Canon EF Mounts, it seems like they could compete a lot more effectively.

Click to expand...

Here's the short/business answer, I'd imagine. Lets say a photographer buys a $2k camera body and 3 lenses, each at $1k. Canon makes 20% profit on each. So $5k spent, $1k profit for Canon.

Now, Blackmagic does the same thing (BMCC), they sell the camera for $2k and make 20%. They've made $400. Canon selling the 3 lenses makes $600. Canon still comes out ahead and that 3rd-party company has to sell 2.5 times as many cameras to turn the same profit. Since R&D comes with fixed costs (not relative ones), its a lot harder to innovate using someone else's money making tech unless the profit margins are massive.

The longer answer is you do see the EF mount all over, but, its usually targeted in markets where they think pros and hobbyists have lots of EF glass already and want a new body (see the Panasonic AU-EVA1). In the cheaper models, they'll put a MFT mount on for its versatility.

Another piece; I think if you are future looking, the E-mount is far more interesting than EF. I can adapt any EF lens to E-mount, but cant go the other way. Its why the guys from Magic Lantern, when they are building their cine camera, are now using the E-mount

Click to expand...

Off topic, but I very much doubt Canon or any other maker is getting a 20% return on investment. I do, though, understand that your example is for illustrative purposes.

Click to expand...

canon gets around 14%

I've got the 28-300 full frame version which is honestly not bad. It's a noticeable step below the Canon 24-105L and 16-35/4L in sharpness and contrast, but better than it should be for the size and weight. Focusing speed and accuracy are both comparable to the 24-105. As a travel lens in particular It's a worthwhile compromise compared to carrying a 24-70 and 70-300, as much for the convenience of not having to change as frequently as it is for the considerable weight saving. My current travel kit consist of 16-35/4, 28-300 Tammy and 50/1.4 Sigma EX.