Rienzphotoz said:

Don Haines said:

privatebydesign said:

Don Haines said:

traveller said:

Is it just the angle of the photo, or have you managed to remove/find a replacement for the centre column from the tripod? I've often wanted to do that with mine, but the replacement Manfrotto short column doesn't seem worth it and I don't feel like getting out the hacksaw! :-\

Click to expand...

You can also detach the bottom of the column and mount it on the shoulders to have a tripod with no central column.....

Click to expand...

No you can't. Not with the 055/190 XPRO models you can't.

Click to expand...

I did not know that....

As you can see in the above picture, you can do it with the 190CX3 model...

Click to expand...

I have a 190CX4 (which is almost identical to 055CXPRO4, except for the size and weight) ... if the the 190CX3 is anything like 190CX4, I don't see why it won't be possible.

Click to expand...

I think the cx4 and Cx3 are the same except for the number of sections of legs.... Check it out and see if yours detaches.... It's a little button on the base of the column.....

I used a 10-22 on a 7D, after getting the 16-35L II for my 5DII, I sold the 10-22...

Whatever...!!

Eli said:

... plus it's also weather sealed.

Click to expand...

I did not know that. The 100L is high on my next lens list. This is another plus. Thanks.

Thanks for all the advice, it helps a lot.... At the moment sound is not a priority as I am mainly shooting B-roll, but I would like to get ahead, so all your advice has been great, thanks!

I'll let you know how it all goes!

Methodical said:

When in stock, Canon has the refurbished 1Dx for only about $5200 or so.

Click to expand...

The Canon refurb price is $5439.20 plus sales tax or about $5850-5900 depending on what your tax rate is.

Rienzphotoz said:

Arctic Photo said:

I wonder where this guy would send the un-assembled bomb though. Canon? CR-Guy? Neuro? Maybe Nikon for failing to support him publicly?

Click to expand...

100% to Neuro ;D
The said accused has a special affinity towards Neuro ;D

Click to expand...

I know, I was here all the way under another name. Can't say I miss it.

"Who says that all cameras you review have to me modern?") ... thought this might be interesting to some:
Canon Top Twin Quartz Date Hands-on Review

Hi Dave.
I had these set on my 40D and found that I was going to have to resort to sticky labels to know what I had set each C mode for as could not remember what was where when I picked the camera up.
As the first thing I do is remove all sticky labels from technology, like Intel inside Radeon graphics etc there was no way I was going to add them!
As yet I haven't set C modes on my 7D, though I intend to at some point.
Some of the things you can set are ISO range limit, focus modes, drive speed, focus point selection settings, raw, jpeg or raw+jpeg, shooting mode just for a start.

Cheers Graham.

takesome1 said:

The difference is 39mm. Since 254 can be delivered for about $1400 and the cost of the 300mm f/2.8 is about $6700 the additional cost for 39mm would be $135.90 per mm.

Click to expand...

You should move the decimal point, to get something like less than $20 per mm for the $6k lens, etc.

Which makes my 15 fisheye a really luxury item and low value: $40 per mm!

I own the 500II since about half a year and I can only say that this lens cured my GAS. There is simply no room left to improve gearwise, after a V2 supertele lens. I use it exclusively handheld and I have to disagree with Jim Saunders -> I can handhold it all day long. Of course you can't hold it to the eye the whole time but you can usually find a place to support your elbow (your knee for example).

I wrote a post about my experiences a couple of months ago. You can find it here:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=14283.msg258392#msg258392

Have fun!

I avoid reality TV shows like any normal human avoids vermin-infested crap on TV but this might be different:

http://backtofront.tv/blog/

http://backtofront.tv/apply/faq/

They're looking for UK/EU photographers to apply and potentially become the next big thing. It looks like it'll be spread over 9 episodes and has the support of the Royal Photographic Society and Phase One so it'll easily beat any other reality show for signs of intelligence.

If you win, remember who gave you the heads-up!

Richard8971 said:

neuroanatomist said:

I guess you didn't try my suggested test. I shoot indoors a lot, there are usually strong light sources (ceiling light fixtures, floor lamps, etc.) in the frame. In that situation, a cheap filter is a bad idea (I did try a cheap Tiffen once, since it came on a used lens I bought - if you'll pardon the New Englandism, wicked bad flare; no issues with my B+W MRC filters).

Click to expand...

No offence but this wasn't about a controlled test using blah, blah and doing blah, blah. I picked up my camera with the filter on, took a shot. Took the filter off and took the same shot. Did the same thing with the other two. Just random shots that anyone of us could take. I DID take these indoors, with normal indoor lighting conditions, using my onboard flash. Nothing special...

Again, if you don't like filters, then don't use them. My test was to show that even though under very close examination you can spot a difference, but just viewing a photo normally, its a lot harder.

Life is too short. Go out and take some photos!

Click to expand...

It's as if someone handed you a $20 digicam and said it rendered purple/magenta hues as blue...and you compared it to your dSLR and concluded the cheap camera was fine...and showed pictures of a green lawn as 'proof'.

Your point was that a cheap filter is basically just as good as an expensive one, so there's no need to pay more, and you supported that point by showing a pair of images that were taken under conditions that would not reveal the major problem caused by cheap filters - flare.

Maybe you don't find the flare you get with cheap filters objectionable...but it is evident, and easily spotted even in normal viewing of a web-sized image.

Life is too short. Go out and take some photos...but be sure not to have any strong light sources in the frame!

arbitrage said:

Over the past couple months, the Canon Direct US store has had the 300 2.8II iS and the 400 4.0DO in its refurbished store at some great prices. They come with a 1 year warranty so that is at least an option on the shorter focal lengths. But I agree with others that the market for these lenses isn't swayed by $500 discounts.

Click to expand...

I just hope those are there for the Black Friday 20% off or whatever they do this year....

As along time user of the 5Dc, I would have no qualms with going back if need be to it. I would like to mention these things about using it though.

1. No live view. No biggie if your used to shooting with old film cameras.
2. The LCD is horrid but I used the histograms only.
3. Use the center AF point only and for fast primes buy an egs screen for it. It will raise your keepers a lot.

You'll appreciate the 5Dcs color rendition and the massive viewfinder when you get one. It's a no frills, plano workhorse camera and very similar to shooting old film cameras relying on your skill to get results. I can't knock it's iso 100-800 files as tthey are still excellent to this day.

tianxiaozhang said:

The Nikon Df is controversial (I like personally).. and this is even less exciting..

Click to expand...

Nikon's volume is much lower than Canon's, so being controversial is kind of an essential way for them to get more visibility and maybe scoop up some more market share.

Sadly, Canon's massive volume and market share are kind of their problem...even with competition from the SoNikon alliance and a variety of other camera and sensor manufacturers...they apparently don't feel enough pressure to push the IQ envelope much.

Personally, I hope the Nikon Df takes off. Might spur Canon into a more innovatively competitive mode.

justawriter said:

Given that the 24-105L would give me half the flexibility at three or four times the cost, (not to mention having to carry around a 55-250 or 70-300 as well, which is what I am trying to avoid in the first place) that's pretty much a non-starter. Plus, a small town journalist, I avoid a lot of income tax by avoiding a lot of income, so cost is pretty high on my priority list for this purchase.

Click to expand...

Well, that's really a problem because you won't find weather sealing in any of the non-L lenses as far as I know. Maybe a 2nd hand lens can serve you well. In any case, rain sleeves like these seem to be a good alternative and maybe a better alternative. It can be more useful in a lot of ways.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/Rain-Capes-Covers-Slickers/ci/3313/N/4075788778

For photojournalists, I think the Sigma version 18-250 will serve you well. IQ isn't so important in photo journalism as most of your print won't be big enough to notice a lot of difference in terms of IQ. It's better if you don't change lenses during your coverage.

10-22 is the paradox lens to me. It shows you that you would benefit from FF by being "too great" for most ASPC (spent an infuriating night in Halong bay to minimize the damn noise) but once you got FF you really miss it...

The softer non-IS shots were equivalent to the softer IS shots. I used good technique, stable handholding, allowing time for the IS to reach full stabilization (many people think it's instantaneous, and just mash down the shutter), etc. Also, the camera was in single shot mode.

I think the 1/FL (and 1/2xFL) predate modern pixel densities. D800/a7R users need even faster shutter speeds.

I notice in practice that when shooting with lower speeds (I often use a min shutter of 1/125 s with the 24-70), a burst helps. I almost always 'double tap' my shots - the speed of the 1D X makes that hard not to do - and if they're not identical, the second shot of the pair is the sharper one.

Agree on the small/light tripod - that's why I had one with me, the RRS TQC-14 is quite portable.

rpt said:

I should print and frame it. This is my first (so far as I know) missing person's report.

Click to expand...

Not a bad idea ;D

Hello! I am recently started shooting indie movies / fashion vids in LA.
I use the Tokina 16-28, it's great! Sharp, but heavy (and no filter element), however it has a built-in hood.
There are some impressive real use videos and reviews out there if you search.
Get it, you'll enjoy it!!

I would buy a stand, Bracket and an bounce/shoot through umbrella. Then head to amazon and buy a set of el cheapo cowboy manual triggers. This should cost around 70$ for every thing and you can start with the 430II off-camera to get the handle on balancing ambient/flash exposure.

Once you've done that, Buy whatever suits your fancy because by then you'll know what you'd like to do.

Unless you're going to be sitting in a blind or somewhere still for a long time, the 300 f/2.8 IS II works really well hand-held or with a monopod.

Thanks Robert, for your comments and critique. It was actually part of a longer film, so thats why it has all of that. Having said that.....was the shark footage good? or too bouncy?

Dustin

Re: Firmware: Canon EOS C100 & EOS C300 Updates Available

has any c100 user installed the new firmware yet?