Thanks for all the input everyone. I've decided to keep it and convert to IR if/when a replacement comes to market that I deem a substantial enough upgrade to retire it from everyday use.

I searched the forums and see that Oben Tripods have only been brought up once and it was about 2 years ago, hence my post.
I am looking at picking up a new tripod this Friday and B&H has this Oben carbon fiber tripod on sale (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/768034-REG/Oben_CT_2300_3_Section_Carbon_Fiber.html.) I was hoping someone on here may have had some/any experience with the Oben brand as there really are no reviews of these and even customer ratings are hit & miss depending on the model (some have no ratings while others have a bunch.)
My questions concern the Oben brand and tripod features in general.

• First, the weight rating for this tripod is 10.4lbs. Is that how much the head/legs combo can hold, or is that the weight the head can hold without fear of creeping?
• Second, are twist lock legs better than flip locks or is it just a personal preference thing?
• Third, the head included has a single adjustment lever and I'm wondering if that will be something I'll kick myself for later? I don't do a lot of video (some I guess) and mostly do handheld for shots of the kids, so not sure if I would really need separate knobs for pan and tilt? The tripod would be used more for landscapes/cityscapes/astrophotography.
• Fourth, what of the Oben brand? Does anyone on here use one? Are they any good? I know I can't expect rock solid results for the price, but if the legs are good I can always get a better head when I can afford it.

Sorry for the long post with all sorts of questions, but I don't like having buyer's remorse when I can't get in my car and drive it to the store for exchange/return.

neuroanatomist said:

sagittariansrock said:

neuroanatomist said:

since the RAW image has to be acquired and converted to jpg even when shooting RAW only.

Click to expand...

???

Click to expand...

When a RAW image is captured, a JPG conversion is done in-camera to create a small preview image, and that JPG preview is saved within the RAW file container. That JPG preview is what you see on the rear LCD of the camera after the shot, and importantly, it's what's used to generate the histogram data and the highlight alert if you use those features.

It's worth knowing, because many people think that the in-camera settings are totally irrelevant if recording RAW images - that's mostly true (long exposure NR is an exception), but if you make exposure decisions (e.g. ETTR) based on the histogram, the settings for Picture Style (contrast, etc.), ALO, HTP, white balance, etc., are all applied to the JPG preview image and the histogram data/blinkies, and that can affect your exposure decisions. Some people actually use a modified Picture Style that makes the JPG image more closely resemble the RAW file in terms of exposure.

Click to expand...

Makes a lot of sense now that you've explained it. Thanks, that was very helpful.

ideaworx said:

I am shooting with 70-200mm II 2.8 and 85mm 1.2, both pretty snappy lenses.

Click to expand...

Dump the 85L f/1.2; it is probably the worst lens for what you are describing.... though very high quality, it is notoriously slow in AF performance. 70-200 f/2.8 II you list is a good fit. If you absolutely must use a prime, then use the ones with faster AF's depending on what is available to you.... 85 f/1.8 or 135L or 200 f/2 etc all come to mind. 200 f/2 is rather pricey and not in everyone's bag; the other two, especially 135L autofocuses quickly and is a longer medium tele.

But putting autofocus aside, as RLphoto suggested, prefocusing in the zone may be a better bet.

And, take shots in burst mode. While 5D3's 6FPS may not be blazing fast... it is probably better than taking single shots. Best of luck!

hi
I have the same issue
has anyone discovered what makes this strange buzzzzzing?

If you're talking about a 2 shot (+12 / -12) or 3 shot (+12 / 0 / -12) horizontal panarama (2.5:1 aspect ratio), the resulting effective image sensor size would be 60mm x 24mm, or an effective crop factor of 0.6x (24mm would become a 14.4mm; 17mm would become a 10.2mm).

If you're a 4 shot (+12 at 45°, 135°, 225° and 315°) for an approximately 3:2 aspect ratio photograph the resulting effective sensor size would be 53mm x 41mm (53mm x 35.3mm when cropped to maintain the normal 3:2 AR) with a crop factor of 0.68x (24mm would become a 16.3mm; 17mm woud become an 11.6mm).

If you own the 70-200II already, just add the Mark III 2x tele converter.

If not, the 100-400L is canon's best offering at the moment for decent birding.

FWIW, I just calibrated my 17" macbook pro's screen (last model made)- and it said it only covers about 78% of the Adobe RGB space. So, I don't know how beneficial editing in Adobe RGB is if you can't even see it!

Side rant: I really hate the reflective screens on the new macs now. My last MBP had a nice matte screen.

If you can trade in the 60D and not lose $$ I would do it.

For sports, the extra FPS and AF will definitely make a difference. Most of the best action occurs in a sub second window. Getting 4 or 5 shots vs 2 or 3 will give you more keepers. My experience is that noise on higher ISO can often be fixed in post, but out of focus shots can't be salvaged - so AF matters.

If the 70D is announced in a couple of weeks (if you can believe the rumor here on this site), the 60D is likely to lose value quickly. The 7D will not drop in value much as it is already at the lower end of it's price curve, and I suspect it will still have advantages over the 70D in AF and FPS, & build, but not in IQ or high ISO noise. It is hard to determine the pricing of the 70D, but Canon's trend has been to price all their new products significantly higher.

neuroanatomist said:

charlesa said:

I have an opportunity to sell version 1 of the 400 mm f/2.8 L, at a profit! Not sure whether to go for 400 mm f/2.8 II or 200-400 (but second option entails a wait of n months and a cost of n euro!). Ideas?

Click to expand...

Given the choice between a vaporware lens and the 400 II, I'd pick the latter. Unless you require the flexibility of the zoom for framing, the prime will almost certainly offer better IQ and it will be a stop faster, plus you can use a 2x TC if necessary.

Click to expand...

Thank you neuro, could possibly wait a bit more and see if that 200-400 mm surfaces any time soon, but last I heard photogs at the Olympics had access and the lenses looked close to a final version... but Olympics are now 8 months old and no news of the lens. It would help with the framing as you say, but in the end, a prime is a prime.

I have all 3 of those bodies. I would go with the 7D or 5D3 and would not get 2 bodies. The 7D is still a great camera and great for sports/wildlife in so many ways. Of course the focus system on the 5D3 is amazing for that as well though you will not get the reach of the crop and it does cost more. I would go with either of those. The 6D for me lacks in many areas of the body and features although straight picture quality was on par with the 5D3.

I do have a comparison of the 6D and 5D3 if you want to take a look: http://learningcameras.com/reviews/4-dslrs/92-canon-6d-vs-5d-mark-iii

The 7D is amazing for the price for wildlife. You may purchase that while you save for the 5D3 or just get the 5D3 now. You will be happy with either of those. Skip the 6D and 5D2, both which will let you down for what you are shooting.
Canon 6D Vs. 5D Mark III Hands On Review

I can only reiterate what others have said. B/W is one way out to some degree. Obviously shoot all manual for more consistent results. And then if you work for a specific band try to point out what the issue is (in a way that drummers or even singers can understand) and see if they let you place a few strobes in a strategic places. If they let you you can even gel them. Or see if they can have at least a bit of white from FOH.

I've actually gone the gelled strobe route once for a band that really didn't have any colored stage lighting. I know that usually strobes and live music are considered a no-no but it's all in the communication. I've been playing as a musician for many years myself we were never concerned with flashes going off really. Certainly less annoying than the sea of cell phone screens at today's shows. Whatever happened to lighters?

Thanks Wicked I think I will do that. I think the 135/85 on the 5D should cover all tele and shallow dof needs. Keep the 7D handy for any wide stuff.

Harry Muff said:

I just went on a bit of an expedition around the internet looking to solve this problem.




Basically, you can't.




It's password protected so Acrobat won't re-save it as a Word document or allow you to simply remove the watermark.


All the pdf to Word converters I tried either didn't work or made an almighty mess of the layout.




Oh well...

Click to expand...

No need to go on any "expedition", just download any one of the latest free PDF convertors and open the manual with that and you will not have the watermark show up, either on your system or when you print it out.

Robert Welch said:

The other option is the 6D, nobody seems to have mentioned it. I know it's video features aren't quite a good as the 5D3, but the IQ should be about the same (aside for possibly worse moire issues). If the video features of the 6D are adequate for your needs, then it may be worth looking at over the 5D3. It seems to me, many of the advantages the 5D3 offers over the 6D are more for photography rather than video (increased AF points, for instance). So you may be paying extra for features that are of little value to you.

Click to expand...

6D has really been getting knocked for moire though

Since it has moire I wonder if it doesn't line skip too? Does it also give you a solid 1.5 stops better SNR than the 5D2 video like the 5D3 or not? I'd think not but then I saw a few vague hints that it does improve SNR over the 5D2 as well.

neuroanatomist said:

9VIII said:

...but the 200-400 f4 is in the same price range, and kind of gets you "everything telephoto" in one lens.
I would at least rent the lens and see if you like what it offers.

Click to expand...

What is the list price for the 200-400/4, and from whom could one rent it? :

Click to expand...

The OP did say "this summer", but yes, I am making a few big assumptions. I should have said "if it's available" then it might be worth looking into.

There's nothing wrong with a T3I if you know what your doing. Ive shot over 20+ high end video productions on a T3I w/ good settings.

Probably would suggest getting a small rodeo mic that just goes on top of the camera and would allow much better audio intake straight off the camera.

Ok, so I have the 100L macro and 25mm extension tubes and the 1.4x. This is a sample image set. One is a 100% crop and the other is the whole picture reduced to 1152 x 768. BTW, no editing has been done...

The image was auto focused using live view - my eyes are not as good as they used to be...

Hope this helps. Sorry my images here are not as pretty as as Mt. S's

The resized whole image...


The 100% crop...

200 f/2

40mm x 16.5mm

400 f/2.8 II

Same size

500 F/4 II

Same size

After a bit closer inspection of your photo, the 200 f/2 has a different scale then the 1.8. All the "new supers" have the same window but the older MK1 versions make have one similar to yours.

case 1 & case 6 work petty good for me on birds.
AF points It comes down to how much is filling your view finder small fast birds you need all 61 hawks & eagles 50/70yrds I use 9/12 things that fill the frame 1
hope this helps

24 mm TS-E for my line of work (landscape). Tilt and shift functions extremely useful, extremely sharp, only con it is not weather sealed and that becomes a problem in the weather we usually encounter.

Played around a little bit with the 5D MIII which I got as CPS loan. A huge step forward from my 40D, especially the AF and low light photos. Focus was amazingly fast indoors. this is the first time I am using a FF camera. The IQ difference is big. Some samples below. In have tried ISO up to 12800(first two images below) and still got decent pictures (better than my 40D at 1600). Have not tried 6D. I assume IQ would be more or less the same, but speed and AF would be something I would really like. Shutter life is another thing I consider as a differentiator, as I plan to keep the camera long term, as long as it works. The debate still continues, need to make a decision before the rebate ends. For now I am leaning towards 5D. I have to really stretch financially to accommodate it, hope I will be able to manage.
Thanks everyone for the valuable inputs.

mrsfotografie said:

Rocky said:

17-40 has the built-in gel filter holder at the back of the lens.

Click to expand...

Hey, I never realized that. It's quite an exciting idea, really. Does the 16-35 (II) have this as well?

Click to expand...

No, but the 16-35L MkI, 17-35L, 15 and 8-15L fisheye lenses, and 14L have a rear gel holder.

Sporgon said:

I think these are quite good, especially the first one: it's captured a moment, something only still photography can do.

( + I'm intrigued to know how you didn't bump into the camera on first shot. Did you both jump over it

Click to expand...

It was 17-40 at 17mm, we landed right in the front of the camera. Dancing practice during last years helped ;D

Very nice price. Definitely a must buy for APS-C users if the IQ is decent.