Using the ST-E3-RT is wonderful. Before going Canon RT I had a transmitter mounted to my Sekonic L-358 and fired my flashes via a receiver on the camera. That all changed with the Canon transmitter.

I now use Auto Reset Cordless Flash mode on my L-358. Carrying around the Transmitter was a pain when I needed two hands. I cut a spare mini stand (the one that comes with a flash) down to size and attached a spare Black Rapid connector. It now hangs from my belt or belt loop and I make all the adjustments at location. When done I just pop the transmitter on the camera.

This is my second mod. It was hard to lock the foot on the generic mini stand and I did not want to wreck the rubber seal. I cut up the foot that came with the flash and ordered a new one from Canon.

A bit late here, but I'm another owner of the 120-300 OS current version, not the S/A/C generation one, if that's even out yet?

Anyway, is it fast at AF? No. It's mediocre. Wouldn't count on BIF shots if they're heading quickly towards or away from you, but side pans wouldn't be a problem.
Is it sharp wide open? No. I couldn't quantify it, but it is not bad, but not critically sharp. It noticeably improves when you stop it down a bit. This also applies with the sigma teleconverters attached. Stop down a little from wide open and it sharpens up. More than usable wide open, but it isn't the best.

I have previously owned the EF 300/2.8 non-IS. I would rate the AF speed and sharpness as about equal. The Canon had much worse vignetting though.

Note I primarily got the Sigma to work with teleconverters as I needed to go beyond the reach of the 100-400L. In that sense it makes a great complement.

I got my Sigma about a year ago, and prices have dropped about 20% over that time especially since they announced the new version. Right now I think it is a bargain, a great lens for the money as anything else like it is significantly more expensive. The successor model is rumoured to be the same optical formula, with improvements to build quality. Take that for what its worth.

If you need superior AF, 5D3 will do it. 6D if you don't need the extra superior AF performance. For studio, street and landscape, definitely, 6D. Macro, it depends on what you are shooting. If sports 5D3 or 1DX. For bird shots, you might want to wait for 7D2.

Dylan777 said:

You will not get 1yr Canon warranty. Canon will ask for original receipt from authorized dealer(s) ONLY

Click to expand...

hahaha sounds like someone is butthurt after paying $3500 for a 5d3. As the poster above me has said, it makes no difference where you buy from, purchase away! If there had been a 5D3 for $2500 9 months ago then I probably wouldn't have gone Nikon.

msmith0807 said:

AudioGlenn said:

I'm in a similar predicament. coming from the 10-22 on a crop, I really liked 10mm. My main concern isn't the extra stop of light as I will probably be shooting at f/5.6 to f/8 anyway. I've read that in UWA lenses, 1 mm makes a big difference. Is the difference between 16mm and 17mm significant?

Click to expand...

Canon has a decent lens comparison tool so you can see the difference in focal lengths. Give it a try, hope it helps. http://canonlenses.ca/Get-a-wider-perspective

I just recently went through the same decision process as well. Bought a 5d3 about a week ago and was trying to decide on what UWA to get to replace my 10-22. Decided on the 16-35 f2.8 II. So far I couldn't be happier with my choice.

Click to expand...

OMG, this is awesome. I am facing the same dilemma as AudioGlenn, this comparison tool is what I have had been looking for to confirm the 1mm difference between 17-40 and the 16-35!!! Thank you so much for sharing!!!

I had to use ISO 4000-5000 at a recent Sci-Fi convention. Flash was discouraged and I had to use the 70-200 f/4 for the reach. Took a bit of post, but I got a couple good shots. AF didn't really give my any trouble, just lack of shutter speed. Next year, I'll be better prepared and try to get a better spot so I can use my tripod/monopod.

1/50, f/4, ISO 4000, 154mm

Rienzphotoz said:

tron said:

A chinese wireless adaptor costs a few dollars. I cannot imagine that the solo photographer will be able to change 6D's settings and shoot with his camera at the same time anyway. So a remote shutter release is usually enough. Plus, I do not think that composition can be changed remotely by the camera itself! ;D

Click to expand...

Just like a 800mm lens is sued for certain purposes and not for wide angle compositions, the WiFi feature too has certain uses and changing composition is not one of them. ;D
You can get a Chinese motorcycle for $400, so why do people spend a lot more for branded motorcycles? ... every product has a customer base, those who can afford will buy the branded stuff and those who are on a budget will buy the cheaper options ... different strokes for different folks.

Click to expand...

A 5DMkII or a 5DMkIII either with a remote release are not exactly cheaper options :

I personally always shoot with manual focus; I mostly use Samyang 35mm f/1.4, Samyang 14mm f/2.8, SMC Pentax-M 50mm f/1.7 and SMC Pentax-M f/4 Macro. These are all great lens at a great price. For all of them except the 14mm, I use the live view and zoom inside the picture to fine focus; it is easy and pretty quick and mostly, it is the best way to nail perfect focus every time, especially at a wide aperture. However, it can cause problem when shooting fast action, but it is perfect for landscape, portrait, etc. With the 14mm, for anything farther than 2m, I use hyperfocal, and I use live view for near subjects. The live view is by far the best way to do your manual focus in my opinion, but if you are using UWA, hyperfocal are really fine.
If you want to calculate the hyperfocal of your lens, I recommend this site:
http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

while newer canons may accept up to 250v keep in mind that some flash have 350v or even more. up to 600v i have seen.

All Canon TV lens had a teleconverters!!!!!!!!

I think the 40D is one of the best crop cameras Canon has made. I've sold and repurchased several of them as friends and family wanted a good DSLR without spending a lot of $$. I finally replaced my last 40D with a 60D (same sensor as the 7D). Meh. 60D is fine, faster fps, etc but I'd take another 40D in a heartbeat. I also agree, stay away from the 50D. Increased pixel density was a mistake.

My suggestion - UPGRADE GLASS with good EF or L lenses. KEEP 40D unless you need better focusing.

KyleSTL said:

...the EOS M has no advantages over other Canon cameras.

Click to expand...

Except size and weight. Because a slight reduction in those is so important for a body attached to an 800/5.6 lens.

interesting video on youtube.. enjoy!

Canon EOS 6D vs 5D III vs 5D II comparison

I've certainly had no cause to suspect the lens, so it is possible I have a bad or mis-matched TC. To be honest I just used it a few times, wasn't terribly happy with it, and haven't gone back to it. All I can go by is my experience with this one model.

The AF is definitely slower with the TC, but it's not impossible to use. I felt like this was a case where a focus limiter would be handy, as the slowness was compounded by missing focus a little more often, and having to rack through the range. Even so, I was able to hand-hold 300mm in fairly low light and get ok results.

A bit more perspective, my 70-300L was an upgrade from the older version of the 70-300 IS (non-L). This was the first L lens I had. Perhaps if you already have a stable full of L lenses your perspective might be different, but I think this lens is the bees knees.

bobthebrick said:

I'm probably leaning slightly towards the 17-40 because:

• It's wider and gives me more room for landscapes
• With an extension tube it gives some crazy macro photos
• I've used the 24-105 and hadn't found anything 'special' about, the photos didn't seem to have much spark

Click to expand...

I'm currently looking for a cheaper used 17-40 (not easy in Germany since there's no well-stocked Craiglist or such) and did a lot of research and asking around before that - and the only reason to get the 17-40 is either dual-using it on crop or for the ultra-wide angle if you need it like group shots in a constrained space.

For landscape you should look at your current shots and determine if you really need something wider than 24 on ff, landscape is not necessarily equivalent to "taking it all in".

AdamJ said:

gmrza said:

Don't you know:

• Nikonrumors: Website where people whine about Nikon and threaten to switch to Canon
• Canonrumors: Website where people whine about Canon and threaten to switch to Nikon

Click to expand...

Minor correction:

• Nikonrumors: Website where people whine about Nikon and threaten to switch to Canon
• Canonrumors: Website where people whine about Canon and threaten to switch to Nikon, or already use Nikon and endlessly promote Nikon

Click to expand...

And then there's that one Sony user

neuroanatomist said:

But...in the case where the lens magnificaiton is held constant (e.g. shooting at 1:1 on APS-C vs. FF, where the framing is not the same), the APS-C will actually have a slightly shallower DoF at the same aperture.

Click to expand...

Why?

@MtSpokane: why did you prefer the 7D for macro?

I agree with Pitbullo but it would help if you mentioned what lens you are most comfortable shooting with and what your goals are with the pictures. Are you trying to achieve portraits that isolate your girlfriend, landscapes with her in the foreground, mostly indoor, outdoor, day, night, etc. Since it sounds like you will want to do it all, I would get wide lens like the 17-40 or 16-35 and a longer lens like the 24-105. Or you could even get a Tamron 28-300 VC ultrazoom for walkaround. If you want nice portraits, get a 28/1.8 or 50/1.4. Both would double as nice low light primes. It all really depends on your style of shooting. And don't forget a flash for fill. Good luck and hope you have a good time!

dhofmann said:

samkatz said:

Am one who's still hoping for a replacement for the 100-400 L that's a bit sharper, better IS(a given) and lighter weight(I doubt it).

Click to expand...

To avoid cannibalizing sales of the 200-400 lens, maybe they will announce a new 100-400 after sales of the 200-400 start to dwindle.

Click to expand...

I am not sure if I agree. Different market segments entirely..!! Not to say that the 100-400 may come later, but for certain the lenses cater to different people.

I used the Ec-S screen - so far, did not noticed any AE issues (at least for me)

however - I did not do any testing - I rarely do those things - I used it - no issues so far.

although - I could not tell any real difference with Ec-S and the Ec-CV and decided to put the CV back on and the Ec-S back to my 1D Mark IIN.

neuroanatomist said:

Mt Spokane Photography said:

my old Lens align is gathering dust.

Click to expand...

I just sold mine, actually.

Click to expand...

I have mine listed on Craigs locally, but have not had any interest so far. I may just put it up on ebay.

crasher8 said:

Thanks DHaas, now I'm seeing colors!

Lensbaby Composer @ Red Butte Garden, SLC Utah

Click to expand...

You're a riot! BTW, do you work in a QA department?

Unless you have a specific workflow-related reason to *NOT* shoot full RAW, there's no reason to shoot anything else.

If you're on assignment for somebody and said somebody has a specific setting, you obviously use that, no matter how silly it might seem to you. I've heard that Sports Illustrated only wants JPEGs, but I wouldn't even bet a cup of coffee that that's the case.

If your shots are going straight to the Web and nowhere else without any editing other than culling, you should shoot sRGB JPEG at your camera's lowest resolution (which will still be overkill). You should also use whatever picture style, sharpening, white balance, etc., settings that produce the results you want, and you should do whatever you need to to the exposure so that it looks good on the back of the camera.

Both cameras have ridiculously deep buffers even with full-resolution RAW...but, if you do happen to be in a situation where you need even more, shooting M-RAW or JPEG will practically let you fill up the card before the buffer fills up.

But for 95% of photographic situations where it makes sense to use one of these cameras in the first place, you should be shooting full RAW. Storage and processing power are cheap. Having to throw away that rare extra-special shot because you didn't nail the exposure or you can't enlarge it enough or whatever will cost far more than you might ever save by not spending another $200 on CF cards or hard disks.

Cheers,

b&

cayenne said:

You know...

Just occured to me...this is all just DATA...wonder why there isn't some way to just stream off the image data via the USB port straight to computer or via a usb wireless dongle to a computer, and just bypass HDMI altogether?

Just a thought...

C

Click to expand...

USB2 has a theoretical maximum sustained transfer rate of 480mb/sec. In practice, it's closer to half that.

HDMI video (8 bit NTSC) is 30fps*1080 vertical pixels*1920 horizontal pixels*8 bit color*3 channels=about 1500mb/sec.

Way too much data.

What a troll. 7D mark 2 my ass