Posts

Roo · Oct 4, 2013

Thanks Neuro and Gmw! You're right, I do want to get closer than close up so the 24-105 won't be enough. I have a perfect place for some bee shots and I'm itching to take some!

I checked out the Canon 100 non L at your suggestion but looking at the reviews, blogs etc I don't think I can justify the extra $220 or so over the top of the Tamron. Unfortunately used versions here seem to be going for the same price or more here.

Jim Saunders · Oct 4, 2013

Keep in mind what opinions are like; I like this one for the composition but not so much the light. The sky is pretty colours but all the shadows are a bit of a distraction. I'd sure like to see the area in person though.

Jim

Drizzt321 · Oct 4, 2013

Re: New York....New York.......

petach said:
Drizzt321 said:

Love that first shot. Nice bright colors & sun, water reflection. Very nice day to day, regular stuff going on shot.

Isn't the 17-40 a good value lens? Love mine, I should shoot with it more often

Click to expand...

Thanks, yep the 17-40 is almost a permanent attachment. Won't bother with the 24-105.

Well now, the 24-105 is a good, general purpose walk around lens. That said, it doesn't necessarily promote being 'artistic' in the same way being able to go superwide like on the 17-40 does. Also it's bigger and heavier by some, and fortunately doesn't extend to zoom

James Munney · Oct 4, 2013

Thanks for the answer and the info. It's appreciated.
Regards,
James

Mt Spokane Photography · Oct 4, 2013

No Mayo said:
I believe that you are right about this. It must be making more money for someone or they would just keep it simple and do it at the point of purchase. Every procrastinator that misses the submit by date keeps that money in Canon's pocket. Lots of other stats are probably providing an incentive for them to do it this way. I will climb back on the rebate horse (probably for that 24-70 2. 8) if and when B+H puts it on sale. I sure hope that my experience will be better this time around. Thanks to all for your responses.

Absolutely, many do not bother to jump thru the hoops and fill out the paperwork to get a rebate, particularly if they work for a company and won't get anything back personally. I'd be surprised if half the buyers filed for a rebate. That's why Canon can afford to pay a rebate company to process them, they still save a ton of money.

As with most of the newer rebate schemes, you can logon to the rebate web site and see that your rebate was received and that nothing happens for weeks, then it says approved, but nothing more happens for weeks, until you finally receive it one day, and then it changes to mailed status a few days after that.

Some people then post complaints about the seller, who has no part in the rebate process except to post the form on their site and advertise it. its no wonder so few ever get their rebates, so many don't bother to read.

duydaniel · Oct 4, 2013

Sporgon said:
duydaniel said:

maybe not necessarily MF
but something like crop factor of 0.8 or something would be nice

Click to expand...

Why ?

I think MF would discourage users due to its size.
FF size camera is perfect and I think you can squeeze in a larger sensor without compromising the size.

brett b · Oct 4, 2013

I'm sorry for those that have had problems with this lens. It has been a go to lens for me.

wsheldon · Oct 4, 2013

2n10 said:
I save my conversions at 72dpi, 1024 long edge and 10 quality. For printing you will want to save at full size, 10 quality and whatever dpi your printer needs.

Keep in mind dpi is really just "metadata" to imaging software. It's pixels and target dpi that determine downsampling or scaling needed by the software and/or printer, so don't worry too much about the dpi when exporting from Lightroom.

At most, dpi in the JPEG will be used to tell you the default viewing size based on pixels and dpi, which is meaningless for everything except some desktop publishing apps. Even then you can change the dpi any time without re-sampling the pixels in any imaging software.

mary · Oct 4, 2013

I have a G10 my ex has a later model both have the same problem. His later model, not sure which one, the scratches are worse than mine.
I agree Shame on Canon

Don Haines · Oct 4, 2013

The second set of pictures are much better than the first set...

BTW... for focusing, when most people look at a picture with a face in it, they seem to be drawn to the eyes to check for focus... makes things a lot harder when you want to also get the water being splashed up in focus too

surapon · Oct 4, 2013

mackguyver said:
bleephotography said:

mackguyver said:

As someone who just did the exact opposite (sort of), I would really ask yourself if this is the best course. I sold my 35 1.4, 50 1.2, and 135 2 to get a 300 2.8 II. I kept my 24 1.4 II, and 85 1.2 II, but found myself using the other lenses less and less after upgrading to the 24-70 II and 70-200 II.

If I were you, I'd consider trading the 70-200 II (a huge lens) for the 85 1.2 II and 135 2 to get the portability you desire. That's how I'd start. The 85 1.2 II is amazing and the 70-200 can't touch the look you get from f1.2-2.

If you're still having prime lust, I'd keep the 24-70 II as it's not that huge, and then pick your most used prime focal length (i.e, 24, 35, or 50) and buy that lens. For me, my love is the 24mm perspective, so that's what I kept, but others prefer the 35 or 50.

If you don't shoot the vast majority of your shots at f/2.8 or need portability, I'd just start with one prime before selling your zooms to make sure. The convenience you give up is much bigger than you think unless you mostly shoot portraits, street photos or the like.

Your last option is to rent one more primes for a week or two and try to shoot everyday with them so see if it's worth it for you. Everyone is different and I never imagined I'd part with my primes, but not that I only have 2 of them, I don't miss the rest.

Click to expand...

Well, after a few days of pondering, I just couldn't bring myself to get rid of my 70-200 (especially now that I've added the 1.4x extender for sports). Having a couple fast primes at either ends of the spectrum in addition to the versatility and quality of the 24-70 II seems like the most logical choice for how I shoot. I'll be getting the 135 instead of the 85 II, but who knows...maybe I'll add the latter later. Thanks for the advice!

Click to expand...

I'm happy to have helped and you'll love the 135 f/2 - it's an amazing lens and WAY more discreet and portable than the 70-200 2.8. You can always add more primes, as you say, but the 135 makes the most sense of any lens to replace the 70-200 when you need something smaller. It works well with the 1.4x as well, provided you stop down to f/5.6 or smaller.

+ 1 for me.
Yes, Sir, Dear Mr. mackguyver.
Past 8 months, I use 135/ 2.0 more than Big 70-200/ 2.8 IS .-0-------Yes, Better more beautiful Picture, Better Shallow DOF, Better Bokeh, Just in my Idea.
Thanks.
Surapon

KyleSTL · Oct 4, 2013

aroo said:
77mm reverse macro adapter is liable to not fit very well on your camera body. I tried one out of curiosity, but there isn't enough clearance from the flash/hotshoe protrusion to really work.

+1 for nifty fifty with 52mm reverse adapter. Or if you're thinking of doing a lot of reverse macro, find a lens that lets you set the aperture manually on the barrel (Nikon's nifty fifty on a Canon body, for example, is even better than Canon's).

I was thinking the same thing, but you could always do something like a EF to 58mm thread and add a step-down ring for 77 to 58 or something like that to give you a bit more clearance, but that would also affect your macro maginfication by moving the lens further out.

wsheldon · Oct 4, 2013

mackguyver said:
Yes the post was meant to be half serious, half sarcasm. I think we need to try to recruit the FakeChuckWestfall to participate in the forum, though, so we can find out what's really going on at Canon USA

Then you'd better add "NSFW" to the title!

I do occasionally find his rants/sniping amusing with the odd bit of real wisdom thrown in, but that's one of the most profanity-laced sites I've encountered on the "clean" side of the web. Just sayin'

wickidwombat · Oct 4, 2013

neuroanatomist said:
ForumMuppet said:

Hmmm, that sounds pretty cool and a useful way to retire all the <1GB CF cards that would not even hold more than a handful of images anymore.

Click to expand...

Yep - it's really cost effective to reuse those old cards. All you need is a 1D X... :-X

dammit everytime you post cool things about the 1Dx it makes me sad they don't make a 1series without the stupid grip

oh the yearning for a high end 1 series like the good ol 1V....

scott · Oct 3, 2013

PKinDenmark said:
One very bad - and in the end also positive - experience.

I can now testify, that the 6D body has proven to be absolutely robust and solid.
This is based on a nightmare type of experience (could also be reported in the post about 'dont ever do this'):
I was setting up in my basement for a special shoot in the garden using a Canon 24 mm TS/E and tripod.
The camera with the TS/E was mounted on the tripod at about 4 feet above the concrete floor.
Then I moved the column of the tripod to a horizontal position (my Manfrotto tripod allows that) and turned around to fix something else. Then a heard a grueling crash. The tripod had tipped over, and the camera hit the floor.
Stupid me overlooking that the center of gravity had shifted slightly outside the support of the tripod.
Examining the camera and optics, I noted that the whole setup had landed on the upper right corner of the body, and there were marks from the impact on the floor as well as on the 6D body.
No dents - only paint-scrapes. The lens did not show any marks, so the camera took the full blow.
With shaking hands I examined the camera further, the lens, the mount etc. Nothing visibly affected.
Then testing the function of both - all seem to work perfectly well and normal. And they still do. Even focus as well as image sharpness over the whole image seems to be unaffected.

Conclusions:
1. Now I have tried it - so you don't have to do it yourselves.
2. The 6D body - including the upper part which is said to be made from some sturdy plastic material - is rock solid
3. The 24 TS/E did well, too.
4. Considering the weight of this lens, the mount between lens and body stood the test as well.
5. The laws of Newton even applies for FF bodies - and for TS/E lenses. (although I am sure he did not consider that specifically). So I will not challenge those laws any further.

If you have any suggestions for what to test further - and how - to verify that the equipment is actually not affected in any way, please suggest these to me.

PS: As to the other virtues of the 6D I have posted my (less grueling) experiences in other posts - I guess all of these are linked above.

something to help

privatebydesign · Oct 3, 2013

Eli said:
The big question is, the price!

Not for me. I value 100% reliability and guaranteed compatability more than any price difference. Loved my RF-602's but reverse engineering is a completely different challenge and a trap waiting to be filled.

surapon · Oct 3, 2013

duydaniel said:
http://youtu.be/-7IVjCQ26pE

Thank you, Sir, Dear Duydanial.
Wow, Wow, Wow----The DOD. do not need High Tech Drone any more, Just pay the Small fee ( 1 pound of Fresh steak for the Birds per trip), and let them go to work.
Surapon

Firebird · Oct 3, 2013

Why does it remind me of a Bob Ross painting

http://www.artraders.org/files/1592527/uploaded/Artraders%2520home%2520page%2520pic%2520bob%2520s%2520painting.jpg

Sorry, couldn't resist

Vivid Color · Oct 3, 2013

Thank you all for your advice and suggestions. You've given me some ideas and perspectives that I hadn't thought about and that's exactly what I wanted.

Neuro, thank you for the link to Aperture Inspector. You or someone else had mentioned it before, but I couldn't find it in the App Store. Now I know why! I watched the demo and I'm going to get it.

I plan to keep the T1i, at least until I get a replacement for it, although that won't be right away. I really like the smaller size and weight for times when I don't want to take the heavier 6D and L lenses with me. It's not much bigger than the new SL1, although clearly the T1i has older technology.

Aroo, you asked why I still have the 28-105. It was the lens I bought with my Canon Elan 7 in 2001 and I kept it when I sold the Elan 7. I thought it might be a better lens than the EF-S 18-55, but after using the comparison tool in The Digital Picture, it looks like the 18-55 is sharper, although the 28-105 is a faster lens. Am I reading the chart info in TDP correctly?

Wsmith96 suggested I keep the 18-55, which I could bundle with the T1i body when I want to sell it. Assuming I've correctly understood the information from TDP, perhaps I should sell the 28-105 and keep the 18-55?

Any additional thoughts will be appreciated.

Carol
aka Vivid

luciolepri · Oct 3, 2013

In may experience, most of the time, during the "crucial" moments of a wedding, photo/videographers take the best spot to shoot from and it's very rare that a guest could interfere (the most brave do, but it's rare). In the other situations, it's usually quite easy, even for a videographer, to change frame or ask the kind guest to kindly move his back from the front of his lens, without loosing the shot. I think it's part of a photo/videographer's job to be able to do his work, leaving the most freedom to the wedding couple and their guests. Of course, if someone's behaviour is out of control, even for the most experienced photo/videographer there's nothing to do...
Much more often, I saw photographers appearing in the videographers frame and vice versa, both fighting for the best frame, both loosing the fight. That's the worst thing, in my opinion.

Mt Spokane Photography · Oct 3, 2013

You can often find new 24-105L lenses in the $700 range that came with a kit body and is being sold new. Since the 24-70 f/4L is really not much better if at all, sell the broken one (someone can fix it themselves for $100), and buy a new white box model.

Nazareth · Oct 3, 2013

AmbientLight said:
CarlTN said:

I agree that if you can wait, you should. If you can't wait and can afford it, you should absolutely buy a 1DX now. Or else a 5D3, or 6D...or any combination.

Click to expand...

In this case I must admit that I don't get the reason for waiting. What would you be waiting for?

There is no 1D-X Mark II or anything like it coming out anytime soon. There's no one pushing Canon to release anything like that in a hurry, not with the Nikon D4 being as it is. If Nikon would bring out a D5 or D4s or whatever its name, which would be topping Canon's 1D-X in many characteristics, things would look different, but this not happening.

As for the high MP Canon camera, where is it? There is not even a product announcement out. There are only rumors. If you want to wait, you will probably still be waiting in about 2 years.

I think there's enough 'growing pain issues' with the 1DX that Canon might produce a secodn version that addresses the issues- Just speculation of course- but if I wasn't wanting a new 1DX right away, and I had other cameras which I liked using and gave good results, (perhaps 5D2, or 1D3 or whatever), I'd wait a year or two to see if the issues are addressed (ones that can't be fixed via firmware upgrade).

The 1DX as it is is no sluch- it's a great rugged camera- and woudl be a worthy investment for the reasons I mentioned in previous post- but if I was in no rush, I'd just hold off a bit and see if canon might be planning somethign with improvements- and who knows, they might even be able to throw in a coupel more megapixels? maybe not, but who knows-

AcutancePhotography · Oct 3, 2013

I usually shoot about 2 stops closed down. I buy a 1.4 lens not to shoot at 1.4 but to shoot at 2.8 for sharpness.

The only time I shoot wide open is when I have no other choice to get the picture or when I specifically want limited DoF.

Nazareth · Oct 3, 2013

Nazareth said:
old post I know, just wanted to give my experience with the 1DX and battery drain, and to ask if this is normal or not-

I generally shoot for abotu 2 hours a day, moving from scene to scene, turnign off the LCD live view between shots, although sometimes I forget, but it quickly turns itself off after a minute or so-, and liek I said, I'm not taking tons of photos- and it just seems like I should be gettign quite a bit more shots between charges? Or is this about on par with other folk's experiences with htese batteries?

Sounds like your battery is draining faster than it should, or at least faster than mine seem to - with usage as you describe, I'd expect several days on a fully charged battery. Just to confirm, you're using the LP-E4N battery charged in an LC-E4N charger? The -N batteries are outwardly the same as the older ones, and can be charged in the old 1-series battery charger...but doing so, they will not be fully charged even when they appear to be based on the LED lights on the charger.
[/quote]

Yes, the battery and charger are the LP-E4N and the charger is the LC-E4N. Just took my camera out shooting 2 days, using hte Live view for about 1/3 of my shots (I use thel iveview when taking low shots that only a circus acrobat could see through the viewfinder- since I'm far from an acrobat, I'm forced to use the live view on low shots). shot around 200 shots (takes me a lot of tries to get scenes right in camera- so keep shooting to eliminate distractiosn etc- but I'm not using lvieview to review the shots- I peek quick when the camera takes the shots and disp-lays it briefly- so the liveview review can't be blamed as I'm not usign that to review my shots constantly). The battery was a bit more than 1/2 drained- I could probably get another 2 hours of shooting the next day- but hten I'd be running into low battery for sure-

ddl · Oct 3, 2013

Mine was slow to focus and then the AF totally died. I've also read on LensRentals that some of these lenses have glued in elements that fall out of place so build quality may be part of the reason it's half the price of the Canon but with VC included.

I got the 24-70 f/2.8 II as I didn't want to try another Tamron (maybe not fair to them). With the Canon I know all the points focus quickly and accurately on my 5D3.

Posts

Posts

Attachments

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics