Just got the Yongnuo YNE3-RX from the UPS delivery driver about 30 minutes ago. Wow! It works great! Now I can use my Canon 600EX-RT flashes with my Flashpoint Streaklight. I only have manual control of the Streaklight, but that is how I use all my flash anyway. many, many thanks to all of you for your advice!

We did Holland America cruise a few years ago, pretty much the same itinerary.

In Juneau we did a whale watch tour, very small group , in Auke Bay, no more than 10 people total. I think we paid $180 pp so it wasnt cheap, but with a small group your not fighting for space on the deck to shoot.

We did a bus tour into Carcross Yukon when we were in Skagway, which was very nice, lots of rugged landscape shots in Yukon.

Glacier Bay was phenomenal! We had clear skies and bright sunshine, absolutly perfect and watching the glaciers calving was unbelievable. Off the boat we saw humphacks and were followed by a huge pod of dolphins one afternoon.

We saw Bears when we visit Mendenhall Glacier.

Remember to dress in layers, Alaskan weather is all over the map. Wide angle for landscapes, and landscapes are sweeping there, but zoom for wildlife, and your pretty much set. Looks like you have what you need.

Whatever you decide to do, it will be spectacular. Enjoy your photography, and dont forget to put down the camera from your eye, and just take in the moment and enjoy it.

JBSF said:

If Sony refreshes frequently, doesn't that suggest that ... release them prematurely?

Click to expand...

Maybe if you peg them to other cameras makes (and even if you do, there was a time when Canon was pushing out a refresh almost once per year: 9 EOSxxxD models between mid 2003 and early 2013), but as a technology company in general their releases aren't extraordinarily frequent.

andrei1989 said:

Sporgon said:

The orange sock's a good idea but how waterproof is the 40 ? In my house there's every chance it would get picked up and slung in the washing machine !

Click to expand...

that is one damn dirty sock at ~150g...

Click to expand...

You don't know me mate !

RickSpringfield said:

Nikon marketing must be terrible because this all seems a bit shocking to me. if you would have asked me Nikon would be absolutely blowing away Canon in the Mid to Pro DSLR market in the last couple years. Especially with Canon body releases taking so long.

I mean the D500 is a well liked camera and you can snag a D810 for like 2400$ now which matches or beats Canons offerings in that class. I think if they double down efforts in this mid-high segment itll hopefully force The Canon innovation engine into high gear.

Canon just has way too many skus with similar components and features.

Click to expand...

I can't speak for the overall health of Nikon financially, but I think strong Nikon sensors and a healthy Nikon SLR business are two very different things.

Just focusing on bodies, for fun -- not for fanboy banter but to make a point -- name me three pieces of technology Nikon has in their SLR bodies that you find innovative, drool-worthy, etc. that Canon does not offer in a similar price point. (They are out there, but each of our lists will be different -- choose the sensor, fps, AF setup, cool features, noise, buffer, controls, ergonomics, weird minutiae, etc. -- whatever speaks to you)

I'll start: I'd like spot metering at any AF point (I think they offer this throughout the range), I'd like the illuminated buttons from the D500, and... um... perhaps their semi-automated AFMA process. But none of those features are so sexy as to be worth ponying up $2-3k to get access to.

And that's the rub. Other than some (admittedly) killer sensors, I see in Nikon a company that offers a lot of well-made 'me, too' products that match up with Canon without the sizzle of something really killer I'd like to try. In absence of that, I'll choose the EF portfolio and Canon build quality, reliability, etc. every time.

But I am curious to see what on the other side of the fence (body-wise) you all wish you had with Canon. Everyone -- thoughts?

- A

Viggo said:

I use the Zeiss 100 f2.0 mp and if I start at infinity and pull down towards mfd and take the shot EXACTLY when it first beeps, it's always dead on. Same was also true for the distagon 21mm and 50 f2.0 mp. I trust that beep way more than my eyes and VF. I sooo wish that 100mm was exactly the same and with "canon"-AF, but it's just so epic I can live with it being mf only.

Click to expand...

The 100MP is a lovely lens. I completely get what you are saying.

privatebydesign said:

Zv said:

Just for the record I actually already have the 22/2 and 11-22 and yeah they both kick ass! I'm glad I got my 22/2 early on when they were practically just giving them away. Haha good times! Feel bad for folk who don't have it, such an amazing lens.

Click to expand...

Ditto, I got my M, 22 f2 and 90EX for the price of a 22mm f2, couldn't be happier with that 22 f2.

Click to expand...

the problem with that 22mm and the original was the 22mm was dog slow to AF. the 18-55 and subsequent 11-22 were so much faster to AF, but the bad press was already out.

I doubt canon will make another kit with a small micro-STM motor lens again like they did the M.

however, you can still get the 22mm for around 155 USD which is still a bargin considering it goes head to head and makes other lenses look wanting even if they cost 3-4 times as much.

neuroanatomist said:

ahsanford said:

...except for spot metering at any AF point.[/i][/b] That s--- is real, Nikon entry level SLRs have it, and Canon should feel ashamed for withholding it from the 5D line. :

Click to expand...

Yeah, but the D3x00 line doesn't have auto-exposure bracketing. Many of their Coolpix P&S cameras have it, but not their entry-level dSLRs.

You makes your choice and you pays your money.

Click to expand...

Neuro, I never said I was leaving. I'm just bellyaching with a high level of consistency.

- A

I've hold it inside me so long... but now I can't take it anymore. Where is that new, shiny 50mm that focuses well and is decently sharp?! I'm kinda fine with my 50mm/1.4's poor(ish) sharpness, but the inconsistent AF drives me mad... basically I must use DPAF if I want to shoot anything under f/2.8 and it's a lot slower (harder to balance, too).

For a few times I have thought about buying the sigma art 50mm but then again I've understood that the AF is particularly inconsistent with that lens too.

neuroanatomist said:

I believe that Canon no longer services the lens. FYI, it's focus-by-wire so if the AF motor fails, the lens is effectively a paperweight doorstop boat anchor because manual focus won't work, either.

Click to expand...

Thanks - exactly what I was looking for. And focus-by-wire means a certain disconnect when manually focusing, if I have read correctly.

Now I understand the fairly low prices at KEH.

John

bhf3737 said:

jayphotoworks said:

In the sub $20k price range I recently cross-shopped that included 4K, here were my options:

Canon
$5000 1DC
$12000 C300 mk.2

Sony
$5700 FS5
$10000 FS7 mk.2

Red
$12000 Red Raven 4.5K
$15000 Scarlet-W 5K

These are all pro-level solutions, but the Sony cameras just had a better feature set overall vs Canon. I would understand that for straight ENG work, DPAF+Native lenses would probably edge out the AF performance of adapters, etc. on the Sony. But even the lowest end Sony FS5 has a variable ND filter, RAW upgrade and 4K 60p.

Click to expand...

At the end of the day, what is important is the recording quality.
In terms of image quality, internal recording standard and bit rate even lowly Canon XC-15 stands taller than say FS5. Below is a comparison.

Sony FS5: 4K UHD (3840 x 2160) max bit rate 100Mbps
Internal recording format 4:2:0 up to 30p (does not meet broadcast standard)

Sony PXW-FS7 II: 4K UHD (3840×2160) and 4K DCI (4096×2160), max bit rate 600Mbps
Internal recording format 10-bit 4:2:2 up to 60p (meets broadcast standard)

Canon EOS XC 15: 4K UHD (3840 x 2160) max bit rate 305Mbps
Internal recording format 8-bit 4:2:2 up to 30p (meets broadcast standard)

Canon EOS C300 Mark II: 4K UHD (3840×2160) and 4K DCI (4096×2160) max bit rate 410Mbps
Internal recording format 10-bit 4:2:2 up to 60p (meets broadcast standard)

Click to expand...

The XC15 isn't a fair comparison because it is limited to a single (slowish) lens and a 1" sensor. For short form docs and run-n-gun ENG work, it would be a great compromise, but for everything else including creative flexibility and low light work, it would fare poorly. I would find it difficult to believe that an XC15 is cross shopped by people looking for any of the cameras I mentioned above that have interchangeable lens mounts.

Jack Douglas said:

It's a safe bet it'll get dumped on like the 6D for "having GPS and wifi" and generally being useless. I remember reading all the initial comments but here we are with many 6D fans including myself for the past 3 years. The IQ has been great and I wouldn't be surprised if the 6D2 does eat into 5D4 sales a wee bit.

Regarding weight, before purchasing as a newbie I handled the 6D and the 5D3 and there was a noticeable difference that swayed me to the 6D. The 6D and 24-70 F4 is a nice sized combo.

Jack

Click to expand...

And now you heave around a 1DXII + 2xTC + 400mm DO II!

andrei1989 said:

that 14mm is HUUUGE

but the 100-400 will look good on my 70D

Click to expand...

yeah! in my opinion, its a good travel telephoto zoom.
the 14mm looks huge in the small hands.

:

Re: Comparison: Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VC G2 & Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II

e_honda said:

Tony Northrup says the new Tamron has even more severe focus breathing problems at 200mm than the previous version. Says he won't even bother with a full review on it because of this. Says the MK 1 seemed like it was at about 160mm while the MK II seemed to be at about 135mm.

Around 4:08

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XP5-e4Q01Ac&app=desktop

Click to expand...

I got the memo, it said Tony is the new Ken.

Hi Crosswind, Most of the creak in my camera disappeared with only the large tab inserted, but I still had the same side creak you describe. My new, improved DIY fix seemed to stop that but, I only have a statistical sample of one . Using the clear plastic makes it virtually an invisible fix, so you are not reminded of it every time you change cards or the battery.

I agree that it is a very nice little camera and I will use it a lot on 6-8 mile hikes that are not specifically hikes taken for photography opportunities.

I have been thinking about getting a new lens for night photos. I thought when these lens came out that they were the same glass but different builds like declicking ect.
But I have been looking into it lately and it looks like they are a different in the glass. On the Rokinon website they have picture of how the elements arranged.
Does anyone know how these lens compare?

The top picture is 14mm f2.8 and the bottom is 14mm t3.1

infared said:

The IQ makes the output from my Micro Four Thirds camera look EXTREMELY professional!!!!!! ;D

Click to expand...

For Lomography users, the idea of IQ is very different from yours...

drolo61 said:

Short shout for advice.
Currently looking for a used copy of the 50 1.2 (buying in Germany).
On Ebay a re various good looking copies available.
Prices are slightly below 1000 e.
Copy age varies between 1987 to 2012.
Optically they look all equally good with genuine pictures.
Rather buy older or newer?
Thanks for feedback and have great days where ever you are.

Click to expand...

I think you're getting the 50mm f/1.4 and 1.2L confused. The f/1.4 came out in 87 but the L came out in January 2007, so the oldest one you can get is 10 years.

Something that is often overlooked, but is a real issue is shipping damage that throws AF out on lenses. Cameras are usually closer to being in spec, but can also suffer AF inaccuracies.

I found quite a variation from camera / lens combination from lens to lens and camera to camera. Generally, most lenses were well within specification but I had a occasional combination that was far enough out to benefit from AFMA. The adjustment amount is normally different from camera to camera, but some lenses were perfect on various bodies.

I attached a old chart which compares the AFMA settings originally obtained from using one of the commercial calibration tools to using Focal on my 5D MK II and 7D. I will not buy a camera which does not have AFMA unless its DPAF, which uses contrast detect as a final tweak to the autofocus, or it did originally.

9VIII said:

It would be really cool if Sigma would revise their 400f5.6 "Telemacro" lens from the 90's, which is said to have actually out resolved Canon's 400f5.6 Prime, and did it for less money.
Back then people wouldn't touch Sigma with a ten foot pole so the lens didn't seem very popular, but trying the same thing again with their modern lens designs would probably result in something both spectacularly sharp and usable (and that theoretically can't be totally botched with a Canon firmware update).
If they could make it 500mm all the better.

Click to expand...

Its one of the five EOS compatible lenses I owned when DSLR's arrived, and it not only turned out not to work, but Sigma could not fix it, so I sold it for peanuts to a film user, since I had totally switched to digital. In any event, it was junk compared to modern lenses, flimsy build, and mine never managed to get sharp images, I might have been the reason, but I managed sharp images with other lenses.

This paragraph in the article needs highlighting, many still think that a super high speed SD card is actually delivering the advertised high speed continuously, as opposed to CF cards which can write continuously near their advertised speeds.

This is why Canon puts CF cards or Cfast in pro level cameras, Pros find out the truth about card speeds pretty fast.

"we've not yet seen any cards that can promise to sustain writing of data at faster than the 30MB/s promised by U3 ratings. This means all the x-hundred megabyte per second write speeds promised on current cards are useful only for bursts of stills: any camera trying to record video at data rates of above 30MB/s (240 mbps) run the risk of stuttering during recording."

I think I agree with most of what's said, especially about theologial testing

I do have a query about Rogers methodology as his results reflect pretty badly on the 100f2.0 which I own and in my experience is very sharp wide open, and the TDP and other results suggest it's sharp too.

The difference?.. I believe his tests are at infinity and my usage is at portrait distance, TDP and others use test charts which are rarely if ever at infinity.

For me the jury's still out, I should take my copy and find a good test at infinity and compare to portrait focus distance, probably a shot of a full moon vs a white test disk held closer to the camera.

I'm a big fan of the 35mm F/2 IS. I put mine on my 5D3 just now and compared the autofocus speed to my 24-105 F/4 Mark I which was set at 35mm.

From MFD to infinity takes the 24-105 a bit over 1 second. The 35 F/2 takes a bit less than one second. Those are rough estimates of course. Both are more than fast enough for my needs, but I'm not a sports photographer.

If you can afford the 35 L II, go for it, but the F/2 IS is a very nice lens too.

I bet that the 135L is many peoples fastest AF lens. That alone, besides it's magical unicorn rainbow farting IQ would make many stay with it instead of going with a 1/3 stop faster and IS/OS.

privatebydesign said:

IglooEater said:

You wouldn't still happen to have your LR2? I'd love to see a high ISO shot processed in 2 and 6 side by side!

Click to expand...

You don't need to have an old version, all newer versions of LR contain the older one.
...

Click to expand...

Wow, very interesting. Thanks!