Posts

bycostello · Jun 18, 2013

bigger sensors coming across the range it would seem

mrsfotografie · Jun 18, 2013

LetTheRightLensIn said:
Artifex said:

LetTheRightLensIn said:

Sebring5 said:

Would it make any difference?

Click to expand...

Well 5D2 takes replacement screens easily and has exposure adjustments built-in. Not sure about the 6D, can't be worse than the 5D3 for MF.

Liveview is the best way to MF, if you can.

Click to expand...

I personally remplace the stock focussing screen of my 6D with a custom Ec-B screen, which has a split-screen. It really works well, especially for macro, and it was easy to install.

Click to expand...

Cool they went back to that for the 6D. I hate the 5D3 screen. That is the one bad thing about the 5D3 compared to all of the other Canon FF bodies.

The 7D also has a translucent-LCD screen and for my purposes (almost strictly use with long AF lenses) it's fine. I still argue that a combination of 7D and 5DII beats owning a single 5DIII. What little may be lost on image quality is gained through versatility and battery + memory card compatibility

HeavenHell · Jun 17, 2013

Look at the bright green head on this guy. A bit odd becuase the rest of him was brown.

Jun 17, 2013

fegari said:
I've had the 100L, and currently have the Zeiss 100MP and 50MP.

The 100L got sold when I got the 100MP becasue of the small % of "macro" that I did would not justify keeping the Canon but mostly due to the gorgeous IQ of the Zeiss I prefered the 100MP even if only 1:2 vs 1:1 of the Canon.

However, you are choosing between the 100L and the 50MP which are totally different lenses. If you were already into macro stuff maybe the 100L is more useful in that regard but from what I read you are just going to give it a try.

Under those circumstances I'll keep the 24-105 you already have and get the 50MP: you get the best fast 50mm for Canon (IMO). Not only you can take your first steps into the macro experience to see how it goes (maybe you do not need more after all) but more importantly you'll have also have a REALLY great versatile lens for astrophoto, nightshoots, indoors, walkaround, portraits, "1:2 macros" etc. Know as well you can put a cheap extension tube to bring it into 1:1 territory loosing maybe 1 stop (becomes a 50mm 2.8, roughly)

You will then realize if you are REALLY into macro in which case I think neither of the 100L nor 50MP nor 100MP will cut it. From my limited macro experience I think the working distance of those lenses is too close to the subject to shoot bugs outdoors, they will get away before you get close enough. For serious macro you need the Canon 180. Unless you shoot only flowers :=)

Mt Spokane Photography said:
Rocguy said:

I guess I forgot to mention I will be using these on my 6D. Thanks for all the info so far.

Click to expand...

A longer focal length for a macro means you do not have to get so close, this allows the subject to be naturally illuminated without shadows from a lens 2 inches away. Since the 50mm is not a true macro, it likely does not focus as closely.
Personally, 100mm is the minimum I'd want to use for macro on FF, and longer is better. If you are taking casual images, the IS of the Canon L really helps, it works far better than I ever expected, I can get close and still not use a tripod and macro head. Don't overlook some of the other third party macro lenses, there are lots of very good ones.

On a crop camera, 50mm might be a good choice, but there again, on a crop body, the Canon 60mm Macro has a lot going for it.

+1. You both stated it better than I. I have considered longer macro lenses, including Sigma, but dont take enough macros to justify the cost.

Axilrod · Jun 17, 2013

Like they said, use an ND filter. Since you have to keep the shutter speed fixed at 50 if you stop the lens down all the way and have the ISO is the lowest possible then ND's are your only option.

bholliman · Jun 17, 2013

Dylan777 said:
I own all 4 lenses you mentioned: 24-70 II, 50L , 85L II and 135L. My vote is 85L II first.

I feel like 24-70 II is great for general shooting. Let the prime lenses(85L or 135L) take care close up shots. Be prepare to buy 2nd body which I think is wonderful and usefull. I have missed many close-up shots in my daughter events by just having 24-70 II on one body.

The 24-70 II has a listed "closest focusing distance of 0.38m/1.25 ft". That's pretty close...

Jun 17, 2013

bardamu said:
Personally I'd go for the Canon EF-S 16mm f/2 because it's better quality. Oh ... hang on ...

Mind you Canon aren't alone in this. Thom Hogan has repeatedly bashed Nikon on this point, suggesting that the quality and range of their DX cameras should be matched by better quality and range in their DX lenses.

Will be interesting to see how the Samyang 16mm compares with the Canon 10-22 at 16mm and the 17-55mm at 17mm. On a related note check this out:
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/831-canon_1855_3556stmis?start=2
The recent 18-55mm STM kit lens gets a solid review from Photozone (who are generally hard markers). Peak resolution is actually higher than for the 17-55mm, which is very surprising. Since I am considering the purchase of the latter lens it does cause me to wonder if it is really worth it at 4x the price...

I actually sold my 17-40 f4L when I got my 550D with 18-55 IS, the IS version on have all been very good in their own right if you can live with the plastic construction, rotating ring etc, all capable of very good images and an absolute bargain at the small premium over body only.

I eventually moved to an 18-50 f2.8 (Sigma) because I really need the fast aperture for video.

digital paradise · Jun 17, 2013

Correct - NiMH's is the way to go. I use Ansmann batteries and when they die one day I'll probably switch to Eneloops.

Marsu42 · Jun 16, 2013

mwh1964 said:
For me the 70-300L has proven itself worthwhile. It's perfectly sharp

No way, it doesn't outresolve either the ff or crop sensors - I'd say it's absolutely "sharp enough", but no comparison to for example the 100L or afaik other very sharp zooms like the 24-70ii or the 70-200is2.

crazyrunner33 · Jun 16, 2013

I tried GingerHDR, it's nice being able to work with RAW immediately in Premiere, but I prefer using ACR.

RMC33 · Jun 16, 2013

Rocky said:
RMC33 said:

No, because it will stay at home as I don't plan on dragging around a ~$800 dollar lens on holiday that weighs 200-400g more because of a system that I don't need. I have not needed IS to shoot with my current 50 1.4 ever, 24-70 Mk1/2 or any lens that "needs" IS. Like I said, A 50 STM f/2 with IS for the video and "I want IS" crowd would be great and I may even buy that next to a 50 f/1.4 II but IS on everything is just expensive and heavy~

Click to expand...

EF 28mm f2.8 weights 185 gm, EF 28mm f2.8 USM IS weights 260 gm. This difference is only 75 gm. I do not know where did you get the 200-400 gm information. If you do not want to bring a $800 lens on a trip then would you bring a $1800 camera body on a trip???

What $1800 dollar camera body? I would bring an SL1 or some such on holiday. There is more glass in the 50 vs the 28. I would hazard a guess at 100-125g increase at tops for a 50 with IS not 200-400 like I stated, which is still too much. A ring type USM would also be welcome, rather then a micro motor.

vitalboy · Jun 16, 2013

privatebydesign said:
vitalboy said:

......... why do i need to pay for an estimate? Why do I pay $100 to Canon every year?" Canon in Newport is CR@p!

Click to expand...

"Don't see anything about free estimates in there, which is probably why you were charged, I'd hardly call that crap service, but then some people have very strange ideas about contracts with corporations."

The thing is, that a huge company like Canon shouldn't have the need to hide fees from a loyal member that pays to be a member. It's like insurance. You only know what you get when you really need it! From the link you provided you cannot find the cost for them to open your camera and tell you what your camera problem is. $150 just to open your camera. Really? Canon CPS is CR@ap! A company from Seattle gave me a $1400 cost for this same service and they give warranty for their service just like Canon and I didn't have to pay anything upfront nor am I a member of their store. I am pretty sure this store would have no problems to give me a 30% if I send them a $100 check every year.

luciolepri · Jun 16, 2013

Well, something in between a flycam and a tripod (as far as mobility, price and ease of use are concerned) could be this:

http://www.ebay.it/itm/Manfrotto-561BHDV-1-Video-Monopod-with-Fluid-Head-/181154157809?pt=US_Tripods&hash=item2a2da114f1

Otherwise, you could buy a camera rig. Since you don't need a matte box this would be a quite cheap and very good solution.

A lens with a good IS would also be very useful...

As far as sharpness and noise are concerned, they look not bad to me, considering you were shooting in low light conditions inside a pub. My general advice is that is always much better to use a higher ISO setting to reach the right exposure, than to underexpose to use a lower ISO setting.

Jack Douglas · Jun 16, 2013

Hi guys,

Besides the price issue, to me it always comes down to "where is the zoom sitting most of the time". If I'm out after birds, it's a rare occassion when my 300 isn't attached to 1.4X or better 2X (in spite of some negatives) so that I have the reach, especially since I'm now FF with the 6D. Comparing results between 300 X2 and (200-)400 X1.4 both at F5.6 I don't see too much difference. So, I conclude that even if I was inclined to fork out all that hard earned cash, I wouldn't be further ahead and I'd be packing a bigger load even though my wallet was lighter.

Now, the 400 F2.8 still tugs at my heart strings in spite of the price, I think for obvious reasons, and in spite of it's bulk.

After some months of shooting I see little that challenges my intial rationalization in buying the 300 2.8 II and the extenders III. I find it very accommodating of hand held shooting and that's really attractive.

Jack

rodrigo_luiz78 · Jun 16, 2013

Thank you very much Mt Spokane Photography, It solved the problem.

RGF · Jun 16, 2013

bycostello said:
looks great though...

who knows what else will follow from this work

barton springs · Jun 16, 2013

CustomizedMacs said:
Hi,

I need a flash that will take over 2000 continuous non-stop shots. I take pictures of books for research. I am a grad student in history.

Can someone please tell me the best and cheapest flash I need?

I've read your previous posts and inquiries so for this job just use your smart phone for photos

KKCFamilyman · Jun 16, 2013

Yes i did and after calibration it was spot on.

tron · Jun 16, 2013

candyman said:
tron said:

candyman said:

M.ST said:

In my opinion we need a fast replacement for the 17-40L and 16-35 II L with an image quality like the 24-70 II L.

Click to expand...

And that would be 12(14)-24 f/2.8?

Click to expand...

Replacement of 16-35 II L = 16-35 III L
12(14)-24 f/2.8 = new lens (welcome of course but still new lens, not a replacement)

Click to expand...

Some people replace their 16-35 2.8 II with a 12(14)-24 f/2.8. For them, that's a replacement ???

For them anything can be a replacement like a fixed wide angle lens :

For Canon it's certainly not

brad goda · Jun 16, 2013

get the ST-E3.
just having the flash away from your camera will give you greater flexibility.
after saving up for the 600 by then you will have mastered the connection with the system and be able to now use two flashes effectively... or gang both as one and have a more powerful single...
I use 4 and its been a game changer... lighter and more fines on smaller items... easier than using my profotos on jobs... but had to make some custom grid snoots chimera box adaptors and stuff...

pj1974 · Jun 16, 2013

Welcome to CR forums.

I agree that f/2.8 is very handy for night time photography.... and so the Canon 16-35mm L would be a good consideration. Not tack sharp wide open, but still reasonably sharp - but you might need the f/2.8. Do you need wider than the 24mm? And do you have the 24-70mm v1 or v2?

Other options - yes the Canon 14mm L or one of the TSE lens. Or Canon 17-40mm which is very good stopped down. I don't do much astrophotography, so my criteria are different (I do more daylight landscape photography UWA).

Your Sigma 8-16mm won't work on a FF. For what it's worth, I've seen a lot (!) of very good images with a crop sensor (APS-C) using many UWAs - eg Sigma 8-16mm, Sigma 10-20mm, Tokina 11-16 (f/2.8!), Tokina 12-24mm and Canon's 10-22mm. We're really spoiled for choice!

Then, on the other hand, perhaps you want to consider a telezoom- eg 70-200mm f/2.8 II or the 70-300mm L (which I have). I also take quite a lot of landscape shots with these (eg zooming into mountains, along coastlines, even forests, etc).

AvTvM · Jun 16, 2013

Tabor Warren Photography said:
Wow, thank you all for your comments. After reading all of your comments and insight, I think it would probably be the most simple to sell the 430 and buy another 600.

You might want ot considerb alson buying a ST-E3 radio flash trigger. 1x ST-E3 and 2x 600EX will give you a system with 2 off-camera flashes, without any need for 3rd party stuff.

Tabor Warren Photography said:
I wish Canon would come out with a 450ex-rt or something of that manner and it actually would not surprise me if they did.

Yes, it is a shame Canon is still not offering a less expensive radio-capable flash [450EX-RT] and no cheap little radio receivers for our existing 580 II and 430 II flashes. As long as Canon does not offfer a true radio-flash system [600EX-RT, 450EX-RT, ST-E3-RT and RT-receiver] that allows seamless integration of my fairly new and not inexpensive Speedlites, I will hold off buying.

brad goda · Jun 16, 2013

lithiums are great. light and have high capacity... but when close to 60% they do not just fade when power is low they just die. Ive used lithiums flash and feel ive got almost 4X the use compared to alkalines...
you did check the batteries before the shoot and thats good rule of thumb... but sometimes there are just duds...
100 shots for daylight HS fill is quite alot of shots for a flash that only holds 2 AAs.
just carry back ups

AdamF · Jun 16, 2013

When I travel, I wrap my lenses in chamois cloth and put them zip-loc bags if they will fit. If not, I will put them in double or triple plastic bags.

It is lighter in weight than taking hard cases (which I use to store them in at home).

SwissBear · Jun 16, 2013

well, the 50mm on fullframe is that a good starter as it has approximately the same field of view than the human eye.
An image begins in the head, by just looking at things with your plain eyes (not throuh the viewfinder). When you see something, imagine what the photography of it should look like, and if it might work, take out the camera and try to get exactly what you imagined.
Ken Rockwell uses the term "FART" for any creative process: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/fart.htm

He has also some stuff about composition, there he talks all about "SEX", simplification and exclusion: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/composition.htm

Posts

Posts

Attachments

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics