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.

Click to expand...

+ 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

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).

Click to expand...

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.

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

Click to expand...

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'

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

Click to expand...

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....

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.

Click to expand...

something to help

Eli said:

The big question is, the price!

Click to expand...

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.

duydaniel said:

http://youtu.be/-7IVjCQ26pE

Click to expand...

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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-

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 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?

Click to expand...

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-

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.

You have to look at the intended market. Super zooms are not about image quality, they are about convenience. This lens will probably cost slightly more than the 18 200... The image quality will probably be about the same. It will sell well.

Mt Spokane Photography said:

Tee said:

New here- pardon if this has been asked / answered before.

After some lengthy searches and comparisons, Im about to purchase a new Canon 6D; some of the packages being offered includes a 24-105mm f4 IS L lens and a 70-300mm f4-5.6 EF w/ IS. (one of the local retailers was trying to match this but was offering the tele w/out the IS)

~12 years ago, I purchased a 300D Rebel (1st gen), and with it, a 70-300mm f4-5.6 EF w/ IS lens (and another lens).

My question, then, is

1) is this the 'same' telefoto lens?
2) EF is EF? jumping to the large, full frame format, this telefoto will work?

3) if it is the same, I don't want a redundant model. Suggestions for another lens to fill out the range? My focus is wildlife and landscape along with some outdoor action (lake-based water sports).

Your replies and insight are most appreciated.
T

Click to expand...

Yes, its the same lens. The 70-300mm IS hasn't changed in many years. EF lenses are all full frame. The lens will actually resolve more on FF than it did on your crop camera.

Click to expand...

I agree. I picked up one of these for my son when I bought my 6D + 24-105L, since there was a special Canon package deal last winter that dropped the price to $200 which was too good to pass up (~$300 off). It doesn't quite compare to the 70-200L's, but it's actually not a bad lens at all on FF. See the Photozone review (http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/558-canon70300f456isff?start=1) for details. It isn't as good at 300mm as 200mm, though, so getting a 70-200 f4 and cropping may do you just as well, but if you get a great deal like I did it may suffice until you outgrow it.

First, thanks to everyone for helping me along my quest from old Leica/Film 283 flash to 5Dii/7D ETTL flash.

I ended up getting a pair of YN-568EXii flashes. Had problems with both battery doors, fixed those. There are threads on both of that.

Here's my question.

I know the differences between ETTL-II evaluative vs averaging metering, with evaluative comparing the preflash vs ambient on some of the central metering areas (not tied to focusing point) along with distance feedback, if available. Averaging... just considering the preflash over the central metering areas. That I've got down.

What I'm having a hard time with, is two things:

a. Why off camera flash, using the YN622's are seemingly the same as averaging even though the camera is set to evaluative. Its behaving like averaging for some reason. For instance - same scene, on camera, evaluative is 2/3 stops underexposed as compared to averaging, however off camera flash is the same, regardless of averaging vs evaluative.
b. Why zooming seems to show that evaluative, only when on camera, is underexposed at certain focal lengths (24-105 and 16-35ii) but is good to go at all focal lengths when used remotely with the YN622 - again, it seems that no matter what it says, you're getting averaging not evaluative when the YN622 is ues.

Any thoughts?

What I'd like to see is a lens profile for each of my lenses individually; Didn't Tom Clancy (So long, we hardly knew ye) make a passing mention of using a laser to profile a lens to improve the resultant images? I doubt it could be usefully done in-camera but I could make time on my computer for that - Folding@home can wait!

Jim

Check the AFMA again if you did before; If it changed much you might have an issue.

Jim

serendipidy said:

Owl believe that when I see it ;D

Click to expand...

lol ;D ;D ;D

Hi all. Finally bit the bullet and bought an x. It's just arrived and is sat in my lap as I watch tv, drink beer to celebrate and try to look through the custom functions. Different to my mk 4 I must say, chunky, handles great and very easy to look over. Top quality as expected. Anyway, I'm off to work tomorrow then it's holiday in Venice, seals, deer and Griffon Vultures. Taking the old 1ds3 to Venice but it's the bird stuff I need help with. My mk4 is set the way I like but the x? I just don't have time to practice before I'm off shooting. Any x owners got any advice on set ups for birds in flight, big birds pretty predictable but still fast and big slow deer. Any help will be very much appreciated, I honestly just don't have time to set it up. I'll compare the 1ds3, 1d4 and the x as soon as I'm back. Now, back to annoying the wife .

Hey Axilrod!!

Thank you VERY much for the compliment...I appreciate that as well as all the other comments and advice you've given me over the past year or so!!

Well, the move to premier I think....is mostly to force myself to LEARN premier. I'm also trying to teach myself:
Photoshop Extended
Illustrator
....etc
As well as AE and Premier. I figured out a sweetheart deal in that I applied for admission to a local community college that for the price of application and having my old college transcripts sent in...they'd give me a .edu email address as well as a photo student ID...all without ever having to even attempt to register for a class.

So, for about $50..I was able to use the Educational version of the Adobe CS6 Production Pro suite and save about $2K.

I don't want to go CC, so I got the CS6 suite and I'm trying to learn all the tools.
I've been watching lessons on all from CreativeLive...I have some good books and I might try the lynda stuff too.

I figure at some point I might earn some $$ from all of this (at least maybe enough to offset my "lens habit" I've developed)....that I'd be more valuable the more tools I was able to learn and try to master.

So, for quick jobs I'll use FCPX...but for now at least to learn more, I'm gonna try to force myself to do my next project on Premier.

One other thing...I just shot video for a charity Video Bridal crawl here in New Orleans.
I was in bars and other venues with low lights and since I was mobile, I wasn't carrying light. I rented a 50mm f/1.2L and took my other lenses 2.8 and faster...BUT, I still had to shoot at ISO's of 6400 and higher.

I have noise in my video...so, I'm going to buy the "Neat" video noise filter plug-in, and they make you pay for each applicaton you want it on. This stuff seems to really work, so I'm going to buy the module for Premier and give that a shot.

Anyway...I figure you can't learn too much, and this will be a chance to learn the "other" interface with multiple tracks rather than the magnetic timeline.

Lastly, I'm trying to also learn and work with Davinci Resolve...and the roundtripping with FCPX has been less than solid with my attempts...so, going to see how it works in conjunction with Resolve and Premier.

Thanks for looking and again, thanks for all the advice so far!!!

cayenne

Central Camera in downtown Chicago is very cool. Here is their site:

http://www.centralcamera.com/home.php

Kernuak said:

But how about if the exposure time is much longer? For example comparison between ISO 100 for 40 minutes and ISO 400 for 10 minutes. I haven't tried the ISO 400 option, but I do know that noise from a 30-40 minute exposure is really high and I've come across information that it's better to use a higher ISO and lower exposure time, because of the heating up of the electronics.

Click to expand...

As I said, with extremely long exposures, the sensor noise can be really bad. I would split it into several shots.

BTW, what exactly are you shooting at 40 minutes? For star trails, people usually stack 30 sec shots, but that is a lot of frames to stack. There is also the problem of pausing between the shots "long" enough to allow the sensor to cool down but not too long to avoid getting gaps in the trails.