neuroanatomist said:

mustafa said:

neuroanatomist said:

Don Haines said:

Random Orbits said:

mustafa said:

But on the other hand I can't be the only one with two EOS bodies and eight EF/EF-S lenses.

Click to expand...

You're not! Which is why people on this forum are not representative of the typical EOS users.

Click to expand...

DARN! I have 2 bodies and 9 lenses.... I have to sell one off to be "normal"....

Click to expand...

I have 2 bodies and 14 lenses... I'm ok being abnormal.

Click to expand...

The point I'm labouring to make is that if the average EOS owner owns only 1.4 Canon lenses, then the opportunity for Canon is surely to sell them more. This may require better promotion and/or more aggressive pricing.

Click to expand...

I think the vast majority of dSLR owners simply don't see the need/utility. Honestly, I think a Speedlite with bounce capability would do more to improve the 'typical' entry level dSLR user's shots than another lens, but, "I don't need to buy a flash, my camera already has one!"

Click to expand...

The root cause for the problem you address I suspect is no more than people trying to avoid having to learn additional techniques to get better results instead of just purchasing some piece of technology, that wondrously provides improved results once the user simply clicks a single button. Using a Speedlite with bounce flash is far beyond what many consumers may want to do with their cameras. I have too often seen people just point and shoot without any kind of preparation. This is exactly why internal flash is so much wanted in entry-level DSLRs.

dhachey77 said:

Rienzphotoz said:

I came across these LIFX light bulbs and wondered if any CR members have tried it for photogrpahy ... from what I saw in the youtube videos (posted below), I can think of many creative possibilities for photography ... did any of you use it? and if yes what is your opinion?
http://lifx.co/
Thanks in advance
LIFX The light bulb reinvented
LIFX Lightbulb - Unboxing Installation & Review

Click to expand...

I bought four of them a few weeks ago, but after playing with them for a weekend, I'm not sure how useful they will be. Color control and responsiveness is a bit weak. The colors seem a bit harsh for my taste. It might be better if they would also offer color adjustment based on color temperature. The software is a bit rough, and for home use it would be great to be able to set lighting schedules for security purposes, along with lighting themes. While the product works, it was released to market a bit early. On the positive side, the hardware is very well done and it's easy to set up. Just my 2 cents worth. Most of my complaints can be fixed with better software.

Click to expand...

Thanks ... you are the first person, I know, that has actually used this product. When you say harsh colors, do you mean that they are very gaudy or just very strong colors that cannot be adjusted to soften them?
Cheers

I just ordered the pixel king transceiver and 2 receivers (not the new Pro models) . I have three canon 430 ex II's.

I don't know if I'm missing something but I have both receivers set to channel one and both group A. Both flashes on the receivers are turned on and set to ettl.

The problem comes up with the transceiver part. I have the 430 ex II turned on and set to ettl. The transceiver is turned on to group A channel 1. So when I take a test picture both receiver flashes fire but the flash on the transceiver does not fire. Am i missing something on the set up or do I have a defective transceiver? (I switched the flashes around so its not a flash problem). I also am using a 6D.

Hope this is enough information for you to understand my problem. Thanks for the help.

tron said:

It will not be redundant. Unless you are willing to buy a used EOS 600, EOS 650, EOS 700, EOS 100, EOS 5, EOS 1, etc... ;D ;D ;D

Click to expand...

The problem with that is some of the numbers were already used for film cameras, EOS 1, for example.

What bugs the hell out of me is when people insist on putting a C/c moniker on any MkI version of anything, 5DC being a prime example, again the problem is the 1D and 1DC are both actual cameras, you can get one for $200 and the other for round $10,000, the $200 first 1D is a 1D, not a 1Dc or, though it makes a little more sense, a 1D MkI.

F/number is the ratio of focal length to the physical diameter of the aperture. A TC increases focal length, but doesn't change the lens' iris diaphragm diameter, thus a TC changes f/number.

Mt Spokane Photography said:

I suspect that any practical implementation of the idea for general usage would be difficult or impossible because of the need to matchup the glass that switched in to a individual lens. That would not preclude someone making a dedicated unit for a popular lens like the 70-200 f/2.8L. It might sell for $700, but some would find it very useful.

Click to expand...

You could switch between a TC2 and a daisychained TC1.4 + the Metabones Speedboosters optics. The latter would counteract the TC1.4, giving you something to avoid the extension tube effect. Some finetuning regarding overall lengths and compensation of aberrations would be required, but it would work regardless of the lens its attached to.

Amazing! What would Canon do without ML? ;D

Triggyman said:

Don't get rid of the S3 IS just yet, it still produces fine pictures (6mp is pretty clean) and the AA batteries are a big plus. SX50 has a considerably weak battery (unless you go out and buy a back-up).

I wish i didn't give my S3 IS away 4 years ago.

Click to expand...

Triggyman, thanks for the insight on the SX50 battery. My wife has now decided that she will wait for the SX60 and see what it brings, so we will see. :

WesternGuy

I forgot to say I am using a Canon 6D.

All three lenses – the new Compact Zoom CZ.2 15-30/T2.9, the CZ.2 28-80/T2.9 and the CZ.2 70-200/T2.9 – will also be available as a complete set (without transport case) for € 44,999 € or US$ 59,900 (excl. VAT)*.

No carrying case for the set? That's a flat out deal breaker for me, I am going to pass for now.

wockawocka said:

The only reason the Full Frame vs Crop sensor debate isn't a Medium Format vs Full Frame is because of accessibility.

If Canon were to release a Medium Format solution, complete with new lenses many would drop full frame like a stone. As someone who shoots a H4D50 I can tell you there's no comparison between the two.

It's not even about MP for me either, 18mp is fine. Just massive pixels, large sensor please.

Click to expand...

I disagree with your first two sentences. Firstly the choice between MF and FF isn't just about accessibility. The larger sensor and equipment create their own restrictions on the photographer, something where the size of the 35mm has proved itself to be highly versatile, and MF, even in the castrated guise of 645 and most digital sizes have never been able to match.

Digital has given a massive IQ boost to this highly versatile 35mm size, and the IQ/Versatility/Ease of use/Costings mean that there are now a lot less people who would be prepared drop FF and jump on MF, because there is not the need as there once was.

There are enough people out there to purchase really expensive kit for the sake of it being 'unique'. I'm amazed at how many S2 units Leica sells: having stated earlier that Sony needs MF expenditure like a hole in the head, I suppose I can see the route of losing a load of taxable profit in MF development in the aim of giving the rest of their imaging products more credibility - a little like the F1 in car manufacturers case, because although Moodies gave Sony's stock junk status they still have a load of cash floating about. There are enough well heeled amateurs to buy a few units.

Regarding night and day of the H4 to FF it depends on application IMO. Yes the larger sensor is better, but so much of it depends upon the final print size, and the demand for the size and dpi, intended viewing distance etc is limited.

Rienzphotoz said:

wjm said:

RomainF said:

"Vibration control" ?
A stabilised fisheye ? That's funny.

Click to expand...

Maybe for video?

Click to expand...

Even for video one would not pan/move around the scenery with a fish eye lens because it severely distorts the scenery ... panning/moving with a fish-eye lens would make the video footage look silly and unappealing ... I'm sure a few might use it on rare occasions to get some funky video footage, but generally fish-eye lens would be used for footage that is recorded on a tripod.

Click to expand...

there are quite a few movies out there with the 8mm Samyang (e.g. Le Parkour with Samyang 8mm fisheye lens made with Nikon D5000). seems that the camera is often stationary though, even when filming from within a car, the camera is stationary, just the car moving.

Mt Spokane Photography said:

No one knows.
We see sales when inventory is too high, you can see the inventory at CPW http://www.canonpricewatch.com/canon-refurb-stock-tracker/

Since the Canon fiscal year ends December 31, the big sales are from Sept thru December. This is based on inventory levels, Canon and most companies reduce inventory at the end of their accounting year to boost sales figures for the year, and to avoid any inventory taxes.

Click to expand...

Very interesting point.

Re: New EF-S 24mm & USM Motor Coming? [CR1]

slclick said:

tianxiaozhang said:

Is there a particular reason that makes EF-S cameras need (dedicated) 24mm lenses?

Click to expand...

Is there any reason FF body shooters need a dedicated 35mm lens?

Click to expand...

An EF 35mm lens will work fine on crop bodies, as will an EF 24mm lens, e.g. the new 24mm f/2.8 IS USM.

An EF-S 24mm f/2.8 IS STM will not work on FF bodies, hence it's being dedicated crop lens.

rs said:

If you shoot raw, the colour space in the files is limited purely by the sensor. Any pre-defined colour space standard is only applied as you convert the raw file to a format such as jpeg - so you can choose what you like at that point - sRGB, Adobe RGB, ProPhoto RGB etc... Cameras only offer an option of colour space for the jpegs it creates.

Click to expand...

True enough, but if the camera doesn't operate in the color space you want then you can't tell if you've blown a channel out or not.

Anyway, 14-bit RAW puts it into the "good enough for me" category as-is; it should be a more than adequate replacement for the GF's aging 350D that she never uses because it's "too big & heavy".

Goldingd said:

I use the Lee 100mm system. I am supremely happy with it. I have both standard and wide adaptor rings. The difference in-between standard and wide is that the wide adaptor places the "ring" behind the front edge of the lens, as a result, if your lens retracts into the barrel when focusing, the ring might prevent that (focus direction lens dependent).

If your lens supports use of the wide adaptor rings I would go with that ESPECIALLY for wide angle lenses.

I would advise visiting the LEE web page for clarity on that.

http://www.leefilters.com/index.php/camera/system

Click to expand...

Thank you, Goldingd!

I'm thinking about using the Ethernet port, a long cable (75-100 feet), and my laptop to do some remote shooting of some of the more dangerous and elusive wildlife from a closer distance with my 16-35 or 24-70 for a different (and safer) perspective of the alligators and other critters I like to shoot. Has anyone used the 1D X like this? If so, how well does it work?

Since this Hasselblad entered the country from a "non-standard" route, would it be considered Grey Market? LoL

I have the 400 5.6 and it's Canon's best kept secret. It is sharp and fast to focus. In the day of great ISO cameras like the 5k Mk III, IS is not needed if the shooter does their job. Kind of like the 24-70. No IS, but amazing images. Too many folks rely on IS which does help, don't get me wrong; but if you use the right ISO and shutter speed you'll have tack sharp photos.

It makes no sense comparing it with FF lenses - apples with apples.
The samy 16mm is equivalent to a 24mm FOV in FF; so DxO is being silly and bringing rigged results this way.
When one changes to other lenses in equivalent FF range, or to a FF camera with given lenses, the results are substantialy different.
Not to say the Samy is not good at all - just should not be compared the way they did

Canon has posted a nifty new lens field of view comparator on their DLC site:


http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/Comparators/fov-comparator.shtml

Not sure about some of those comments. If this article's right, Sony's sensor division is doing very well!
Diversifying and making some niche products for bragging rights is not likely to cost them a lot compared to the marketing benefits.

www.imaging-resource.com/news/2014/03/26/sony-image-sensor-division-expected-to-grow-but-faces-competition

I'm just using the one that came with my monopod.

I have asked Wimberley, though:
"We recommend the Wimberley P-30 lens plate for use with that lens."

FYI.

Drizzt321 said:

Random Orbits said:

Drizzt321 said:

I'd be tempted to buy either of those lenses...except for the fact that they're a good chunk of the way to one of the L lenses. Not always half-way, I'll grant you, but if they'd have been ~$300ish, much more attractive. At $600, I can probably double that and be about a refurb from Canon.

Click to expand...

The 28 f/2.8 IS is 352 + tax (in stock) at the Canon refurb store now, and the 24 f/2.8 IS is 384 + tax (currently out of stock).

Click to expand...

Refurb, not retail. Although, not that I'm opposed to refurb, often some good equipment you can pick up for a discount there.

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter as much as it used to with the refurbs now coming with a 1 year warranty. I picked up new 28 f/2.8 IS before last Christmas for 350 from a Canon authorized dealer, which was an even better price than what it is going for in the refurb store with 20% off now. The point is that at 300-500 (when you can find deals on them), the 24 f/2.8 IS, 28 f/2.8 IS and 35 f/2 IS offer a lot for the price.

Thanks for the reply..... I'll check the Heliopans out. Thanks again, Ray