OH awesome!!! thank you!!

Mt Spokane Photography said:

I've never had a binocular that did not have a adjustable diopter for one eye. Its been a universal feature forever. Don't worry, its there.

Click to expand...

True. Even had it on my 50$ (or less) binoculars.

mackguyver said:

photonius said:

mackguyver said:

photonius said:

mackguyver said:

Skirball said:

mackguyver said:

I found that my 50 1.4 did this same thing a lot, so I put a high quality multi-coated filter (like Hoya or B+W) and it took care of it. It won't fix flare from the sun or really bright lights, but should work in the example you posted.

Click to expand...

You find you get less flare with a filter on?

Click to expand...

Yes, with that and some other older lens designs that were pre-digital. I know it seems backwards, but if you think though it, the reflections are coming off the sensor (not an issue with film) and reflecting back on the front element. If the filter cuts down on the (internal) reflection with a modern multi-coating, that explains it. Again, it's no good in bright light, but helps with this specific type of reflection on lower intensity lights.

Click to expand...

Actually, physically this makes no sense. A filter in front of the lens will not prevent light bouncing off the sensor from reflecting from the front element or any other internal element. Once the light is through the filter, nothing can prevent any internal reflections.

Click to expand...

I'm not an optical engineer by any means, but I believe it works because it lessens the amount of the light from bouncing off the sensor from bouncing back into the sensor, which is what's causing the ghosting. The reflection off the sensor is going to hit the foremost piece of glass and reflect back into the sensor. By putting a better coated piece of glass in the front, I think it reduces the ghosting.

That may or may not be sound logic, all I can say is that when I got my 50 1.4, I couldn't believe how badly it ghosted with night shots very similar to the OP's. I screwed a multi-coated filter on the front and the problem practically disappeared. Going back in my mind, it was a 450D, 50 f/1.4, and a Hoya HMC Super filter.

Click to expand...

Ok, so how is a filter (let's say it lets 95% of the light through) supposed to lessen the amount of light bouncing off the sensor? The only filter that can reduce the incoming light is a neutral density filter, but it just makes all darker if you didn't adjust exposure (which would actually reduce reflections because light intensity is less)

Regarding your 50mm f1.4 experience, the most likely explanation is that you did not do it under controlled circumstances, i.e. the shots with and without filter were not identical. You can only compare if you put it on a tripod and do with and without filter.

Click to expand...

It worked for me, on a tripod, shooting skyline shots of Miami the first time. I had the filter off, it ghosted. I put it on, it didn't, or didn't nearly as much. I pointed it at other light sources over the 3-4 years I had the lens with and without the filter, and every time, the filter helped suppress the ghosts.

I won't debate this any further. It worked. Period.

Click to expand...

If it really worked, I would be very interested to see a sample.

troutmouth said:

70d will focus better, but the 6D is full frame - about the only advantage, but its a big one.

Click to expand...

Is there a CR policy that the actual text has to be longer than the advertisement in the footer ?

Zv said:

I wouldn't have the confidence to rock up to a job with what outwardly looks like a P&S camera!

Click to expand...

Not all mirrorless cameras look like P&S cameras. Here are some comparisons from Camera Size dot com

Olympus OM-D E-M1 vs Canon 7D http://camerasize.com/compare/#482,154

Fujifilm X-Pro1 vs Canon 7D http://camerasize.com/compare/#258,154

Panasonic GH3 vs Canon 7D http://camerasize.com/compare/#381,154

Sony can build a small mirrorless camera like the 24Mp NEX-7 that is not much bigger than an EOS M, Why can't Cannon give us a Pro M about the same size as the NEX-7?
Sony NEX-7 vs Canon EOS M http://camerasize.com/compare/#33,351
A Cano Pro M (with a M-mount f/1.8 85mm) plus a Canon MFD would satisfy all my needs

I think no announcement last year but it was the time when they did begin their rebate program.

If its a good deal it will be sold in a few minutes. First see if its a scam. About 99% of the really good sounding deals are scams.

I evaluate the seller as much as I do the camera. A seller who can't tell you about the camera or avoids direct answers is hiding something. Its a fact that some cameras have intermittent issues and you can't find them in a few minutes, all you can do is to see if it had good care, no bad dings, and that the seller takes care of his things.
You cannot check the shutter count without a computer and software, so its not something easy to do when looking at a used camera. Ask about it, of course.
Good luck, after all I've said, I've never had a issue with a used camera that I bought, and I've bought dozens.

I'd pay more attention to the selection of a proper camera. DSLR video is not well suited to fast action sports where you must move the camera quickly and refocus. The only camera canon makes that will focus quickly for the type of video you are showing is the 70D, and the consensus is not fully formed for that.
Another issue is the jello effect you get when you pan the camera rapidly like you did in the sample video. Camcorder sensors are not susceptible to the jello, they use a different technology.

You might not know it, but most DSLR's are manual focus, and trying to stay in focus on a quickly moving subject is neigh impossible.

Aside from the 70D, a good camcorder is the best tool for sports.

Assuming you are getting a 70D, you might just start with the kit 18-55 STM lens. Its quite, has IS, and the 70D works well with STM lenses. Otherwise, I'd get a 17-55mm EF-S. The 24-70L is great on FF, but not wide enough for a crop body.
Also get some lighting, bright lights and a very large reflector that can light up the entire area involved in the video. You will likely need multiple units. Good lighting is expensive but your videos will look better with good lighting and a cheap lens than the other way around.

JoaoPedro said:

My main concern with the 6D is ending up being frustrated by the outer points AF performance.

Click to expand...

If this is your main concern, you *will* get frustrated, the outer points aren't fully capable points but rather tracking helpers and a convenience for very good light conditions. With the 6D, you will have to focus & recompose, if that's not what you want then the 6D isn't for you.

I'd also rather have a 5d3, but it's nearly double the price ... fortunately I was well informed before I made the decision that the 6D is essentially a one focus point camera - and now you also know.

JoaoPedro said:

Can you configure the camera to select the AF point directly through the multi controller (the inner part of the rear dial), without having to press first the dedicated AF area or point button?

Click to expand...

You can either set the af points with the multicontroller, or press the top right button and then use both wheels. Both options aren't very quick to navigate, btw.

JoaoPedro said:

And how do you set the camera for an instant return to the center AF point? By pressing the SET button?

Click to expand...

No, this is not possible with the Canon firmware - and when they removed this very obvious option from SET they were probably rolling on the floor, laughing and sniggering "Just get a 5d3, you jerks!".

But this will be fixed by Magic Lantern, so SET will have a as "set af to center point" even if Canon doesn't want us to have it.

duydaniel said:

a) ISO 6400 and the metering shows -1
b) ISO 12500 and the metering shows 0
c) ISO 25600 and the metering show +1

You can only choose one.

Which one should give you the least noise or best quality given you can do PP?

Click to expand...

I'd need more information as to what your talking about. Is the camera in manual? Normally, I'd use 6400 and open the lens one stop or slow the shutter one stop.

There is insufficient information to know what the situation actually is.

Zv said:

Sorry by "you" I meant the whole thread and people in general. I figured you were shooting in RAW and prob knew all this stuff. Sometimes I type what I'm thinking!

Click to expand...

Not a problem. I figured what you meant but wanted to clarify...

I don't understand garage... as in you do your shooting in a garage as a makeshift studio?

neuroanatomist said:

Lately, Canon makes retailers put in place a minimum advertised price once the rebates go into effect. If you time it carefully, and buy right at the beginning of the rebate, often the retailer may not have raised their price to the MAP, and you will get the discount of the rebate off of the street price.

Click to expand...

Thanks, everyone- great insight. I'll look out for the above once it happens.

Mt Spokane Photography said:

AlanK said:

OK - 11-22 it is! And I appreciate the suggestions on places to visit....
Alan

Click to expand...

Is the 11-22mm available in the USA? You would have to order it from Canada. I don't think you can rent it either.

Fortunately, there are good Canadian stores to order it from, but there will be no service in the USA until / unless Canon decides to sell it here. The service centers won't have parts or tools to fix itr, so its back to Canada for any repairs.

If you get the EF-s 10-22, its readily available. Then with a adapter it can be used on either camera, and its a excellent lens. They are available refurbished as well.

http://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/lenses-flashes/refurbished-lenses-speedlites/ef-s-10-22mm-f-35-45-usm-refurbished

Click to expand...

Good suggestion. I had not considered the EF-s 10-22 but perhaps I should. My 7D was refurbished and arrived with only 7 clicks on it and the 70-200 was refurbished too, with only a brown box to say it was anything but new. So I have no complaints with refurb'ed equipment and I didn't realize the EF-s 10-22 was such a value at $519.

My struggle is that I really like the form factor and the image quality of the EOS M. And I suspect that the EF-M WA would be a better fit on the M than the EF-s counterpart. If I continue to use my equipment as I am, I could see myself only using the 7D and 70-200 for my son's club soccer games and using the EOS M for (nearly) everything else.

DigitalRev has the EF-M 11-22 for about $50 more than what I could order it from Canada for; plus they offer a 'local' warranty where I can have the lens repaired at a service center of their choosing and they pay the repair costs. It is implied that they have service centers in the US. I want to look more into this warranty service but that might be worth an extra $50 for the peace of mind.

Thanks also to everyone else that responded - I do appreciate everyone's suggestions.

pwp said:

JonB8305 said:

Situation is I have a tight studio, reach on the 135 might be tight, but the optics are probably superior.
Want an 85 1.2 but can't really afford it. The 1.8 might be a good compromise based on price, smaller reach for tighter spaces, I kind of think 440 might be much when the 50 1.8 is $100.

Click to expand...

If you've got a tight studio, I'd strongly suggest don't get either the 135 or an 85. Both good lenses, but you need some flexibility. If money is tight, seriously consider a pre-owned 70-200 f/4 non-IS. Make no mistake. This is class-glass. The flexibility a zoom brings to the table cannot be underestimated. Especially one as optically strong as any of Canon's 70-200 offerings.

-pw

Click to expand...

I agree with the above. Zooms for studio work. My studio space is tight and i use 24-105 most of the time. With lights you stop down anyway. I would go nuts with just a prime when working several hours in studio (and I love primes). Too limiting... For outdoors - thats a different story. I have 85/1.8 and 135L and i use both. 85 more of a casual lens (or clients with kids) and 135 is when I work for a client (beauty, fashion, portraiture, etc) and location allows this focal length. Both lenses on FF produce great results, but 135 always feels a bit special.

KyleSTL said:

OK, now it's starting to make sense. Thanks for sharing the link, Pi. This does seem like an interesting technology. I just wonder what that section of the image would look like if you put a Pentax Q + shift adapter (for the higher pixel density ~ 250MP FF equivalent) on the Canon 8-15mm.

Also, here's a presentation:
http://psilab.ucsd.edu/publications/(presentation_2013)_stamenov_(OSA_IS).pdf

Click to expand...

Thanks for that link.

Their lens is interesting but the comparison with conventional lenses is misleading and shows no photographic experience. I am not sure how they get that awful pixelated image with the EF lens - you can see somewhere the lens mounted on their device, and in the presentation - mounted on the 5D. Also, their lens is small on the front but huge on the back, and in a huge enclosure, as far as I can tell. Light gathering is good only in relative terms - compared to its size but I do not see why is that of any interest. It still gather much less light than an EF lens. And finally - they say no geometric distortions, which is very misleading as well. You project (say, a plane) to a sphere. If you final goal is to have a planar projection, you got a huge distortion already. The way the fix it is not clear - either mechanically (with the fibers) or with software but that would create the known problems near the borders.

photonius said:

surapon said:

Dear Friends
I am Canon Fan/ user since 1954, My First Canon Camera = FT-QL, and until 1999, I have 6 more Canon Camera Bodies, And 7 Canon FD Lenses.
The Question that = The FD Lenses are worth to use with my EOS system with the Cheap Adapter( $ 35 US Dollars ) ?.
Yes, I have 24 Canon/ Sigma/ Tamron Lenses ( include 8 Canon " L " Lenses).
Thanks you, Sir.
Surapon

http://www.amazon.com/Albinar-Mount-Adapter-Canon-Infinity/dp/B001D8X72G

Click to expand...

Even though you got some answers, the no was not made quite obvious:

The FD lenses have a mount flange distance of 42mm, which is shorter than the mount distance of EOS with 44mm. That means, in order to put an FD lens on an EOS body, you need an adapter with a glass element in it so that infinity focus can be maintained. This adapter works a little like a teleconverter. These are the cheap adapters you can find on ebay. They are not high quality, if you use your FD lenses with them, an 50mm F1.4 wide open will have very poor quality. A link to a test by bob atkins is found here:
http://photonius.wikispaces.com/Canon+FD+and+EF-S+adaptations
Some solutions:
1) As pointed out, you can use an adapter without glass, which works fine for macro etc, so it's like using your macro lens in the good old all manual focus days.
2) Ed Mika: He makes adapters for some long FD lenses, which can focus past infinity, so it works. Ed Mika also makes conversion kits, i.e. you take your lens, remove the the FD mount, and put on an EOS mount. It works only with a select set of lenses. Links to Ed mika are found in the above link, but he posted also here.
3) EOS-M. The mirror less cameras have much shorter flange distance. The EOS-M for example is only 18mm. That means it's easy to make a glass-less tube adapter for FD lenses. So you can use them with no problem.

Consumer FD glass is hardly worth using, since inexpensive modern kit lenses, e.g. 18-55 IS etc., are probably better. But anything you can use with a simple glass-less adapter should work like in the old days. The more expensive lenses (L), macros, even the 50mm f1.4 should be fine.

Click to expand...

Thank you, Sir Dear photonius.
Wow, I learn some thing new to day, Thanksss.
Now, I already make my mind, Just use the old FD lens with my 5 Old cameras, And Just use My EF lens with modern EOS Cameras.
Thanks again.
Surapon

Botts said:

Dylan777 said:

Went out for lunch with some co-workers today, I stopped by the camera shop to try build in ND + grad filters --- well the last 2 x100s were sold :-\

Click to expand...

You just made me sad I forgot about the built-in ND filters when I had the X100s rented.

Click to expand...

Opppsss ???

I didn't know about the build in filters until ishdakuteb mentioned.

brad-man said:

@ Marsu42: I was wondering where you picked up your 66D. It's not yet available in the states

Click to expand...

60D and 6D are just about the same camera, that's why I came up with the combined model

neuroanatomist said:

c.d.embrey said:

AFAIK no Canaon DSLR lenses would work.

Click to expand...

I believe the current TS-E lenses would work - they have very large image circles to accommodate the movements (although on MF, you'd be limited in TS capability).

Click to expand...

90mm TS-E Image circle dia. 58.6mm
45mm TS-E Image circle dia. 58.6mm
24mm TS-E Image circle diameter 67.2mm
17mm TS-E Image circle diameter 67.2mm

The Phase One IQ2 series (60 & 80 Mp) are approx 40mmx53mm The Diagonal is approx 66mm. Hasselblad sensors range from approx 40mmx53mm to a smaller approx 33mmx44mm (Diagonal 55mm). So it all depends on what size MF sensor Canon decides to use.

They could also do as Leica did with their S2 (45 x 30 mm sensor). Medium format has been anything from 4.5x6cm film to 6x9cm film to today's approx 4.5x6 digital., there is no written in stone definition of Medium Format.

I liked that comment too. How many times do you read someone saying something like 'for 1k or 2k I expect a perfect lens'. LOL. I could say for 10k I expect a perfect car, but reality and my expectations may not be in alignment.

It fits. It just takes a bit of persuasion. (I just double checked).

Be sure you get the SGM 700 which was for the EX580II.

Mika said:

But online sites are far more convenient for referencing and save me from quite a bit of hassle.

Click to expand...

I did not say anything about online sites in general. I prefer the visual test on TDP to the charts on PZ.

neuroanatomist said:

Just now. Turns out there's nothing wrong with your 600EX-RT (or at least if there is, the same thing is 'wrong' with the three of them that I have).

I tried again with the 24-70/2.8L II, and the center point gives the thin vertical AF assist. The 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS gives the full AF assist array even with the center point selected.

So...I tried it with a variety of lenses, and this is what I found with the center point selected (selecting a point away from the center column always gives the full AF assist array):

• EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II - thin vertical AF assist line
• EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II - thin vertical AF assist line
• EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS - full AF array
• EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II - thin vertical AF assist line
• EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II + 1.4xIII - full AF array
• EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II + 2xIII - full AF array
• EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS - full AF array
• EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS - full AF array
• EF 85mm f/1.2L II - thin vertical AF assist line
• EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS - full AF array
• EF 135mm f/2L - thin vertical AF assist line
• EF 600mm f/4L IS II - full AF array (part of which is blocked by the lens )

You found that your 50/1.4 gives the thin vertical line, whereas your 15mm f/2.8 fisheye and 24-105L give the full array, and likewise, my 100mm f/2.8L Macro also gives the full array, while other f/2.8 and faster lenses give the thin vertical line.

Taken together, that suggests that with the 5DIII or 1D X and the 600EX-RT flash, the determining factor is which AF 'group' the lens is in. Only Group A lenses give the thin vertical AF assist line with the center point selected, whereas Group B and slower lenses give the full array (the 15/2.8 Fisheye is in Group B, the 100/2.8L IS and f/4 lenses are in Group C, etc.).

Click to expand...

Neuro,
Thank you for your time testing all those lenses!

Good to know that there's nothing wrong with my flash

And very interesting that only group A lens have the AF vertical beam, don't know why it is not on the manual.

I've been waiting to reply to this post.

Last week I walked to the bottom of the Grand Canyon. Before the trip I bought an X-20 because the last thing I wanted to do was carry a massive DSLR and lens combination on the trail. I left my 7D and lenses locked up at the hotel on the rim and used the X-20 for the hike.

While I bought it primarily for this trip, I also wanted a small, convenient camera to keep with me for unexpected opportunities.

In essence, it was exactly what I wanted for my purposes and I have not been disappointed. Would it replace my 7D? No. But, the quality of the images are certainly competitive under most circumstances and for most purposes.

My primary consideration was to have a viewfinder and I have not been disappointed by the X-20. The bonus is that I have found the live view to be very useful and in fact, I am probably shooting in live view as often or even more often as I am using the viewfinder.

I love that the camera automatically switches from live view to the viewfinder when you place your eye up to the viewfinder. I wish Canon would offer this option.

I love the panorama feature of the camera. It's just great fun and the quality is really impressive. I'm confident that some of my panoramic shots with this little camera will be able to be enlarged to quite impressive sizes.

I found myself leaving the camera on the "Professional" setting (P) most of the time so I didn't have to spend a lot of time adjusting exposures for fleeting shots. It performed very well.

Even under extreme lighting conditions (bright sun, deep shadows) the exposures were pretty much spot on (I shot in raw and I do tweak the exposures some, but they were always within tolerances)

Things not to love:

I did not and I would not recommend using this camera a ISOs much above 400. It's a small sensor and you have to be realistic.

The panorama mode only saves in JPEG. Not a huge issue but it would be nice to shoot RAW.

The on-screen previews are not the best (There were several shots that looked soft when I tried to zoom in on the review mode. To my surprise – pleasant – once I downloaded the images and imported them in to Photoshop they were much sharper than they appeared on the camera's preview screen.)

I've read several reviews of the X-20 and many say this is just a really fun camera. I would agree. It is much improved from the X-10 and, though costly for a "point and shoot" it was well worth the investment for me.