Posts

PCM-madison · Apr 10, 2015

I agree with the other recommendations. Here is a self portrait taken along Artist's drive. There are also interesting historic sites like Scotty's Castle, locations where important movies were filmed, etc.

Mika · Apr 10, 2015

Regarding 24-70s, I own the Mk I, and have not tried the Mk. II - yet. The reason? I'm happy with my Mark I. My decision to stay was also based on the better specs of Mark I.

How you ask? I can get closer with Mark I, which tends to suit the majority of situations I use the objective. The out-of-focus rendering seems to be better too, I tend to think Canon intentionally made the objective behave this way to smoothen the background. I do occasionally use flare as a compositional element, so it has not been bugging me.

Then there is the subjective read-my-mind type property of Mark I. I don't know how, but with Sigma's 50A, these objectives not only seem to fulfill the vision I had, but can even up it a bit (or occasionally a lot!)

I have never had problems with field curvature of Mark I, that is probably again because of how I use the objective: I don't typically use it for landscapes, but for situationals.

But then again, I'm a hobbyist, and not a professional.

danski0224 · Apr 10, 2015

kennephoto said:
I've been thinking about adding a tele lens to my arsenal but can't figure out which way to go. I rented the 100-400 II and compared it to my 70-200 2.8 II with the 2x and the 100-400 was better but not enough to justify buying it yet. I like that the 100-400 II is much smaller in my bag than the 70-200 with 2x. So I have also been looking in various classified and looking at old 300 2.8's and 400 DO which seem price wise seem to be hovering a tad higher than the 100-400 II. If I get either of those tele lenses I could have a 600 and 800, but when I go to thedigitalpicture.com and look at his test charts the 100-400 II is better or equal even with extenders! Is there any reason for me to consider higher prices of these old lenses? Also why are these old teles still really expensive even when they are beat up and not serviceable anymore? In case you're wondering I just want to use the lens for casual photography small prints to hang around the house and share with family.

The old lenses are the only way for the average enthusiast to get into the Canon "big white" club. Look at what a 300 2.8 VII costs compared to the non-IS USM version.

It is possible to find the "old" non-IS USM lenses in excellent condition, but yes, being unserviceable in the event of a breakdown is a concern. I certainly would not want to buy one that looked like it rolled around in the trunk between uses for years.

That said, they were designed to be used by professionals so they are robust. You could buy another one if the first one breaks and still spend less than what a VII lens costs.

The USM and IS version lenses (VI, I guess) may be close to being unsupported at Canon, if they are not there already.

I guess it comes down to how much you are willing to spend or risk.

The one difference that hasn't been mentioned yet is minimum focus distance (MFD). The 100-400 is a champ there. The VII big whites are also much improved with respect to MFD over the original USM non-IS lenses.

The new ones have very good IS and the non-IS ones don't... sounds stupid, but it is a difference between the two.

One place to compare physical dimensions, weight and MFD of Canon lenses: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1334232/0

Optically, there is little difference between the non-IS versions and the VII versions. They are supposedly the FD manual focus lenses updated to EOS, and some of those FD lenses are cheap in comparison and many can be converted with an Ed Mika kit.

There is much love and hate for the VI 400 DO. Make sure that you can check it out in person.

DARSON · Apr 10, 2015

Random Orbits said:
DARSON said:

neuroanatomist said:

dcm said:

I just saw that this head appeared on RRS website again
http://www.reallyrightstuff.com/Shop/Monopod-Heads/MH-02-LR-Head-with-indexing-lever-release-clamp.html

Click to expand...

That is the LR with the lever lock. The pro uses a knob. The LR was much more popular than the Pro.

Click to expand...

I should mention that it is not pro version but still this one reappeared after some time of being removed from RRS website.
Thanks for correction

Click to expand...

Zeidora · Apr 10, 2015

Have no experience with it, but I see a problem of strain on hot shoe when bending the flexible guides. The flash does not seem to offer TTL exposure control, so you are restricted to full manual control.

I do like those types of arms and mount my Canon MT-24 heads on 2 Wimberley Plamps, that I modified with flash shoes. The plamps then attach to the tripod legs. The Canon twin macro can be put in manual mode, which I use for z-stacking, but also offers TTL exposure control.

Additionally, the light guides on the Venus are fixed length, and on the MPE 65 fully extended, may be a bit short. I occasionally remove the MT24 body from camera body and connect via TTL flash cable. Canon only makes one short flash cable, so got some from Flash Zebra, and those work very well and seem to be quite durable.

ajfotofilmagem · Apr 10, 2015

Do you know what the sales period used in this list?
Considering it was a period of at least 30 days, we can conclude that:

Canon 50mm fantastic plastic remains the first choice of non-kit lens from the crowds. 8)

Canon STM 10-18mm and also 55-250mm are a great success.

The Canon users consider the Tamron 70-300 VC better than the Canon non-L. :

The Nikon users consider Tamron 70-300 (old model) good enough.

Nikon 35mm F1.8 DX is a great choice of fast prime.

Sigma 35mm Art is very seductive, and is stealing sales even models 50mm.

Steve Balcombe · Apr 10, 2015

ashley said:
Thanks for all your suggestions, opened the file in Photoshop and couldn't replicate the pink in the highlights so does appear to be Aperture (which Apple have abandoned). I thought it was camera related becouse I couldn't get the problem on my 40d... don't know why a newer camera should be such a problem for it.

Because the RAW files differ in some way - this is why RAW converter updates are needed for new models

ashley said:
PS - what is baloney?

Poor quality 'luncheon meat' type of sausage, the name being a corruption of Bologna. Has become a slang word for 'nonsense'.

StudentOfLight · Apr 9, 2015

Maiaibing said:
JimmysPhoto said:

TELL ME WHY!

Click to expand...

My guess is that light metering/WB has deteriorated slightly since the emergence of digital cameras - because its less critical than it used to be.

Having used light meters a lot in the film days - when we were dependent on getting the lighting 100% correct from the outset - it seems to me that metering was more reliable on the top bodies back then.

Of course my 5DII is not Canon's "top body" so maybe this is the obvious reason. Just like your 5DIII combo is not.

On balance I can understand if manufactures think that with digital they can go a little cheaper on the metering. And the truth is that I'm still doing better overall with my WB today due to the ability to adjust in post.

If I'm shooting RAW I don't care too much as the color can be ~~twerked~~ tweaked as required in post~. On the odd occasion I shoot JPG or mRAW then I spend some time taking a few test shots and adjusting both Kelvin and Tint with the RGB histogram. On most of my cameras K and color shift are easily accessible via the [Q] info screen so it's no big deal to quickly make an adjustment.

cosmopotter · Apr 9, 2015

Re: Canon developing high-magnification, long-focal-length broadcast field zoom lens supporting 4K p

Local Hero said:
Khnnielsen said:

So this is for 2/3 inch broadcast cameras, which shoot in 4k? Do they even exist yet? I know that Sony make a camera which produce 4k from a 1/2 inch sensor, but I have never heard of a big ENG styled camera with a 2/3 inch sensor and 4k.

Click to expand...

There are 4K 2/3" cameras from Sony, Ikegami and Grass Valley.
The Sony and GV haven't quite shipped yet, but are very close.

This lens is big news are there currently are no 4K 2/3" lenses.
Previously the best lens to use was the Canon 95x HD lens for this sot of thing.

You missed the most important one - Hitachi:

http://www.gearhousebroadcast.com/blog/2014/09/gearhouse-jumps-into-4k-with-huge-hitachi-uhd-camera-deal-at-ibc2014/

Hitachi has already shipped 50 UHD cameras that use 4 2/3" sensors. Pretty cool if you're in the broadcast industry.

lintoni · Apr 9, 2015

Marsu42 said:
MiamiC70 said:

Anyone think we will see v2.0 firmware for Canon 70d anytime soon?

Click to expand...

But rejoice: The first alpha of Magic Lantern for 70d is out, that's much better than any Canon fw update could be.

The 5D3 doesn't have a v2 firmware and that's been out for 3 years, but Magic Lantern has added much more functionality to my camera than any Canon firmware update will ever do.

TWI by Dustin Abbott · Apr 8, 2015

NancyP said:
I don't adapt K mount, but any bayonet mount has some inherent need for precision mounting. I bought a cheapo Bower Nikon F mount to EF mount converter, the lens wiggled a bit. Disconcerting, especially if one is doing long exposures. I bit the bullet and paid 80.00 for an F-to-EF adapter (Fotodiox PRO, not plain Fotodiox), because it was designed with a leaf spring, as are the name-brand mounts like Novoflex - problem solved, the mount is very solid now. So don't cheap out on bayonet adapters. The screw mounts, on the other hand - a perfectly good M42 to EF mount can be had for 5 bucks or less, due to the simplicity of design and milling.

That's some great information. I am considering doing this for my C/Y to EF mount for my Zeiss Planar T* 1.7/50mm. It's a great lens, but the mount is loose, and by adding a little double sided tape I have further reduced infinity focus...and it wasn't great to begin with.

JonAustin · Apr 8, 2015

I rarely shoot in hazardous conditions; probably the greatest hazards my lenses face are salt water spray and sand at the beach. In those conditions, I'll use a UV filter; otherwise, my front elements are only protected by their lens hoods.

The longer I've been doing photography this go-round (since 2003), the less I clean (or feel the compulsion to clean) my lenses. I will echo other posters here; a blast of clean air (bulb blower) and a brush of a lens pen is usually all that is needed. If that's not enough, my second step is to fog the front element with my breath (if you haven't recently eaten or been smoking, your breath is nearly 100% pure water vapor) and wipe off with a clean microfiber cloth.

Microfiber cloths have become very readily available, inexpensive and high quality over the past few years. I buy them by the bag (a dozen or so for $10 or less), and always keep a clean one with the camera I'm carrying. When it comes time to wash, I replace it with a new one. After being laundered, I repurpose it to other, progressively less sensitive tasks (starting with cleaning scanner glass and PC screens) ... eventually they are demoted to household cleaning rags.

I have some more sophisticated / expensive optics cleaning supplies (PecPads & Eclipse solution), originally purchased to clean sensors, but rarely use them. And with the sensor cleaning technology in my 2½-year old 5D3, I haven't needed to clean its sensor once. (The mirror and focusing screen are another story, however.)

jeffa4444 · Apr 8, 2015

Rumors have circled for months about a C700 to take on Red & Arri and made up or not many of these would need to be true to take them on. It would need:-

4K 14Bit
15 stops DR
Global Shutter
CFast 2.0 and either Codex for raw especially at high frame rates or similar data packs from Canon
Full frame / Open gate (cinema not FF stills)
Rec.2020 color space
lens metadata, roll, pitch & yaw for blue / green screen & set-mapping

The big question is the sensor size shown here as 32.4x18 - Open Gate film is 1.33:1 or 24.92mm x 18.67 and for anamorphic its 20.96x17.53 2.40:1 projection aperture so not quite Open Gate in height but could accomodate anamorphic origination. Thats huge because no Sony, Panasonic or BM camera can properly handle anamorphic nor either Red currently that has been a massive selling point for Arri with the Alexa XT.

Dylan777 · Apr 8, 2015

mackguyver said:
I wonder how much less it will be than the 30" DP-V3010 model:
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/professional/products/reference_displays/4k_displays/dp_v3010

It was $40,000 when launched early last year:
http://www.postmagazine.com/Publications/Post-Magazine/2014/January-1-2014/Special-Report-Canons-new-4K-reference-display.aspx

Only $40K

...I'll take two ;D

GuyF · Apr 8, 2015

Just collected my new 16-35 f4 two hours ago. Replaces a 17-40mm and so far I think the 11-24mm has to be something really incredible to be worth almost 4 times the price of the 16-35 here in the UK.

Tweaked for AFMA, the 16-35mm looks very good indeed. Will I look at the 11-24mm with envy? Nope. Way too much money for what it is (I've a couple of big whites so it isn't as if I couldn't afford one if I really wanted it).

Anyway, congrats on both our purchases! Nothing quite like the smell of new gear!

Apr 8, 2015

I have to agree. There are times where I just said "screw it" and went all out...and then there have been many other times where I compromised and took either a smaller camera or no camera at all...

Personally, I would be a bit hesitant in an environment like that, but then again, I am the type that typically doesn't LIKE to draw attention to myself...it just so happens that it's occasionally a side effect of the camera setup necessary to get the level of shots I want. Groan...

I find that the attention isn't necessarily bad or negative, at least in the vast majority of cases. It does get old though explaining again and again that I am not an official shooter, part of a media outfit, etc.

old-pr-pix · Apr 8, 2015

Thanks, neuro. My testing with the 70-300L showed it had about 2 stops better IS than the non-L version, so consistent with what you have seen. I made a budget decision back when the L version was first introduced and elected to go non-L and put the difference into a 100L macro. I then added a 100-400 L, again with older IS. (Haven't tried out the Mark II version yet, hard to come by locally.) I'm still really impressed with the Olympus IBIS though perhaps not comparing it with the best Canon has to offer.

mackguyver · Apr 8, 2015

jeffa4444 said:
At $ 2400 / £ 1600 this will sell to amateur filmmakers who would want 4K and reasonable ease of use. The biggest hindrance is the cost of CFast cards Amazon UK lists Lexar 64GB cards at £ 226 and the new 256GB card at £ 745!
Card readers are cheap enough but be prepared to add considerable storage & upgrade the PC/Mac Tower.

I think a lot of people will opt for an external recorder or combo recorder/screen like the Atomos Ninja.

Dylan777 · Apr 8, 2015

benperrin said:
Dylan777 said:

and don't forget 11-24 on the way out

Click to expand...

Can't justify the 11-24 at the moment. My 16-35 f4 has been good enough at this stage. I'm thinking my next lens will most likely be in the 200-400mm range. Most likely the new 100-400. Canon do have a great lens selection.

IQ on new 100-400 is very close to 70-200 f2.8 IS II. AF is fast with my 1dx. I shot from 100mm to 400mm, I don't see any issues with IQ from wide to tele end.

16-35 f4 IS is EXCELLENT for the money, however, I'm itching for that 11-24

Albi86 · Apr 8, 2015

Random Orbits said:
Which of the Sony FE native lenses are good? I see great reviews of the 55 f/1.8. Positive reviews of the 35 f/2.8 (although if Sony had a great 24-70 f/2.8 like Canon's then a lot fewer people would look at this lens) and less positive reviews for the rest.

It all depends on how relevant for you is a pixel-peeping analysis on the corner of a 36 MP sensor. In other words, how much clinical corner-to-corner sharpness is important to you in determining the value of a lens.

The Zeiss 24-70 f/4 doesn't perform well on lab tests but takes awesome photos. There are many awesome lenses that share this same philosophy (the Nokton 1.2/35 being one of them). I've had the Canon 24-70 f/4 L and the Zeiss is miles ahead in terms of IQ (notice that I didn't say sharpness).

I rarely print larger than A4-size and I only need a 7.5 MP file for that (300 dpi). So, for me, poor performance in the far corners of a 36 MP file is not field-relevant. My impression is that this lens has happy users and unhappy reviewers.

Having had both, I can say that the Canon sharpens up better upon stopping down, but the Zeiss is sharper wide-open (a lot sharper in the centre); the Canon has more vivid colors but the Zeiss has its signature look; the Zeiss is smaller, lighter and the build quality appears more elegant to me. I haven't found appreciable differences in IS or AF. Overall I have no doubts that the Zeiss is the better lens and produces better photos, although I don't find it sharper than the Canon.

Sharpenss is one variable in the IQ equation but IMHO not everything. I wouldn't want manufacturers to design lenses with the goal of performing well in the lab rather than in the field.

painya · Apr 8, 2015

dilbert said:
Policar said:

painya said:

Maybe I'm missing something, but why can they deliver a cinema camera with 14+ stops of dr, but can't manage that on dslrs's? Too much info to capture with a dslr? Something about 14 bit files? Please enlighten me.

Click to expand...

Dual gain path. As I mentioned weeks ago.

Click to expand...

It will be interesting to see if Canon use that tech on DSLRS or reserve it for EOS Cinema. Then again, maybe EOS Cinema is where Canon will look to recouping their R&D costs in sensors?

Crossing fingers that it's in the new 5d4

quiquae · Apr 8, 2015

XC10 has been officially announced in Japan.

http://av.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/20150408_695827.html

It is apparently not marketed as a part of the Cinema EOS lineup.

Features:

4K@30p
Uses a new video format called XF-AVC (MPEG-4 AVC/H.264, 4:2:2, 8bit, intra frame compression)
1" sensor with 8.29Mpx (video) and 12Mpx (still)
Fixed f/2.8-5.6 10x zoom lens, 27-273mm (video) and 24-240mm (still) equivalent, inner focus, image stabilized
Mechanical shutter unit
CFast 2.0 storage
12 stop dynamic range, supports up to ISO 20000 in still
125×122×102mm, 930g
No dedicated EVF, although it does come with a finder unit that attaches to the LCD screen
Rotating grip (apparently not detachable)
Expected retail price in Japan JPY220K (~US$1850)
Shoots Canon Log

Aglet · Apr 8, 2015

more shots from a tripod:

https://photographylife.com/what-does-a-24-2000mm-zoom-range-actually-look-like

Hjalmarg1 · Apr 8, 2015

I'd pick the Canon because:

has wider focal range
can take filters
it's weather sealed
works in both FF and APS-C

Unless you want to capture action fast moving objects where f1.8 has a greater value.

Tinky · Apr 7, 2015

Phenix205 said:
I don't see why one would want to have both 35 f2 and 50 f2 in their kit. These two focal lengths are too close. The new 50 ought to have different aperture with or without IS.

I don't imagine anybody would either.

But I would imagine that a 50mm standard is quite desirable for the 135 format shooters, and that the 35mm is quite desirable for the APS-C format shooters, as a near standard lens.

That said, I do carry a 35mm 1.4, a 50mm f1.4 and an 85mm f1.4 in my kit bag, but that is for multiple camera video interviews.

Just goes to show what a broad church it is, and how different folk with different cameras and different interests use the same gear, well, differently.

Posts

Posts

Attachments

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics