tapanit said:

Rienzphotoz said:

tapanit said:

But in general, especially for a hobbyist, insurance does not pay. Compare the insurance premiums with what the bank would charge for a loan. If insurance company wants 2.5% of the value of the item and interest rate in the bank is 5%, you'd have to figure you break half of your gear for insurance to make sense.

Click to expand...

What are you talking about? ... You don't have to break half your gear for insurance to make sense, my 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II alone costs around $ 2000 ... paying 2.5% (i.e. $50 a year) is peanuts compared to not having an insurance and having the lens stolen/lost ... would you rather pay $ 50 or $ 2000.

Click to expand...

OK, I oversimplified the numbers, but really... would you rather pay $2000 now or $50/year forever? How about $500/month? If you preferred $50/month, congratulations, you've understood the time value of money.

Where exactly it breaks even depends on the interest rate etc, but nonetheless there is a monthly sum that's effectively the price of an "eternal loan" for $2000. For argument's sake let's say it's $200/month. Then your choice would be certain loss of $50/month with insurance, or possible loss of $200/month without. How likely would you have to be to destroy the camera for insurance to make sense?

And finally, do you think you can estimate that probability better than insurance companies?

Click to expand...

You have gone from over simplifying to over complicated, we are talking about 2.5% insurance per year ... so I'm not sure what you are goin on about "eternal loan" and $200/month ???
I am really interested to know which insurance company is charging you $200/month (i.e. $1200 per year for a $2000 lens) :

And after you get over the feeling of violation from the theft, you then realize you can take that insurance money and buy something newer and hopefully better. I'm just sayin'....

noisejammer said:

I drag a 1d4, 5d2, 5 Zeiss lenses, a TS-E, 70-200/2.8 ii and a 400/4 DO pretty much everywhere I go including annual expeditions to Southern Africa. I take reasonable care but it's all insured for replacement. Apart from the deductible, theft would be a nuisance but I really don't stress at all.

Click to expand...

What a magnificent portfolio!

Richard

will a Metz 45 CL-1 be compatible with an Eos 1D mk3 and EOS 20D?
is it worthwhile to invest in sych a Flash for my mentioned cameras?

thanx
markus
namibia

neuroanatomist said:

LifeAfter said:

Or what are the expectations to get anything improved to the 5DIII
in the future firmwares?

Click to expand...

It's getting the ability to AF at f/8 in the near future. That's a pretty big enhancement (for some people) and something that was formerly only found on 1-series digital bodies (lesser film bodies had it). It's also getting uncompressed HDMI output.

Click to expand...

Well these are good improvements for Tele-photo (birds and other) and video guys
unfortunately, personally i need none of them.

I really see there is room for another FF body in the Canon lineup
as said by Canon representative... the future is more FF

The review asks why we would buy this over the faster 50 1.8. For me it was because I don't love the hexagonal bokeh balls on the 50. The 40 2.8 has more aperture blades, and better looking blur to my eyes. Price was close enough to be a non-factor in my decision.

yah I had Battery 1 way back... it was good... I must have changed those powersonic batteries out like 3 times during the life of the pack and then I switched to the canon 8X AA packs...
they are good and light but finally gave in and got the Turbo3 and SC... yes pricy but it does the job.

VIVITAR! yah I still have my 285HV with the 3rd party metal foot! and its still working!

I think she should go with the SX40. Brighter lens than the SX50 (allowing faster shutter speed), still a 24-840mm lens (do you REALLY need more?), same Digic 5, and if she really wants RAW, there is the "jailbrake" software that can fix that.

Reason to go SX50 over SX40 is (if you do not need 1200mm) AF performance. Could be an impact if photographing moving kids...

Just got my shorty forty last week and do not intend to use a filter on it. I do use HQ B+W filters on most of my lenses, but I got this one for its very low price and size; adding a filter will compromise both features.

Rocguy said:

wellfedCanuck said:

Not that the 60D is one- but if you just need a decent car- a Hyundai will do- don't let someone upsell you to a Cadillac. If you plan on building a hotrod, entering car shows or going on rallys- buy a Chevy, Corvette or Range Rover.

Click to expand...

This analogy I understand. I guess my question is is it better to get a brand new Hyundai vs a 2year old Cadillac with slightly older technology.

Click to expand...

No offense, but anything is better than a used American car.

Any time is a good time to get the 135mm f/2 L. My favorite lens by far.

If you are really looking for a tilt/shift lens for wedding photography, you should probably at least look at the TS-E 24mm f/3.5 L, in addition to the TS-E 45mm. I've seen a number of photographs from very good wedding photographers, and the majority seem to use the 24mm if they do creative focus. That said, the TS-E 45mm is the second most used lens for wedding photography that I know of. One of my favorite wedding photographers who uses T/S is Sean Flanigan, a wedding photog in Seattle, WA. His work is quite amazing (although for more than just using T/S, and is a great example of how to apply creative focus (most of which I believe is done with the 24mm given the wider field of view, although the 45mm may be in the mix at times as well):

http://seanflanigan.net/blog/page/6/

Another great T/S wedding photographer is Bobby Earle. He is quite skilled, and uses both the TS-E 24mm and TS-E 45mm lenses. I will point out that there are quite a number of similarities between Earle's and Flanigan's work...tilted, desaturated, grainy, often black and white with high contrast. Not sure if that is simply a strange coincidence, or if it is the consequence of using creative focus...maybe it has a concurrent narrowing of style while at the same time offering greater freedom. Anyway, these two photographers should be more than enough inspiration, regardless of whether you pick up the 24mm or 45mm. And, according to Earl, he really loves the 45mm for vertical wedding portraiture.

http://bobbyearle.com/blog/tilt-shift-lens-use-in-weddings/
http://bobbyearle.com/blog/tilt-shift-lens-tips-for-wedding-photography-part-2/

The real edge the 24mm has over the 45mm is a far newer optical design, and sharper optics than the much-vaunted EF 24mm prime. The 45mm is an older design, and still has some flaws. I can't say I've ever noticed that actually mean anything in the creative focus wedding photography I've seen (although again most seems to be with the 24mm), but it might be something to think about.

Zv said:

Just did a metadata search on LR, most of my shots are either at the wide end (17mm - 28mm) or the tele end (mostly around 85mm). I also tend to crop a lot. So I guess my style is a mix of wide and close-up.

Next experiment - stick my 17-40 on 35mm and shoot at that focal length all day, see how it goes.

Click to expand...

While you're at it, since you have the 50mm 1.8, compare it with 35mm to see whether you think 35 would be much more useful than 50. For my taste, on FF 35mm is too wide most of the time, partly because I prefer not to get very close to the subject, especially if the subject is a person. My inclination is to go longer, and would take the 135L for the reasons given by others. (That said, the Sigma 35mm is so good I've found myself going out of my way to find way to use it, which has been a rewarding experience in itself....)

My experience with 70-200 L II IS and 2x III on a crop body is that you have stop down to f/8 or else the image will be too soft. Also hand-holding 400mm is hell. You need fast shutter speeds and with f/8 or f/11 you will need a lot of light. Direct sunlit subjects are best in this case.

The 70-200mm f/4 IS is sharper than the other two, the 70-200mm f/2.8 non IS is very good, and bringing up the rear is the f/2.8 Ver 1 IS model.
All of them are reasonably good, so its just a matter of what you need. I've owned multiple copies of all the f/2.8 versions and kept the f/4L IS. If I were to buy the f/2.8 version it would be the non-IS or the MK II.

The 60 D and the D7000 are the competitors, and sales wise, its far ahead, simply because it costs less.
Nikon has yet to produce a competitor to the 7D, which is one of the reasons we do not see a MK II. The D300s is almost dead, and does not match the 7D.

Well, if you find yourself shooting at 8mm often with the 8-16, consider the full-frame equivalent of this lens: the Sigma 12-24. Since you have the 24-70, the 12-24 would fit nicely into your lineup.

There are two versions of the 12-24; version one is very good stopped down and remarkably has almost no distortion. Version two is sharper in the corners but has some barrel distortion.

zim said:

I think you need to have wifi and gps disabled even with camera switched off to stop battery drain.

Sorry to hear your predicament it must be incredibly frustrating to put it mildly. I really hope your find someone willing to help you out.

Click to expand...

i have those off. something is really wrong with this camera. need to find canon shop in london so i can sort this out.

spinworkxroy said:

I own both the 24-105 and 24-70II
I bought the 24-70II even though i own the 24-105 for 1 reason, sharpness at f2.8. That's also a big reason why many other buy this lens isn't it?
Depending on what you shoot, for me, it's 90% portraits, 10% events and for both, i don't need IS.
What i need is a sharp lens.
If possible, most times i'll use my primes but there are situations where a good zoom is essential and this is where the 24-70II really shines..it's almost as sharp as my primes for portraitures..

Click to expand...

+1 I ended up selling my 24-105. Not nearly as sharp. The extra stop of light comes in handy too.

I shoot wedding, portrait, babies anything with people. And I also shoot mostly in daytime and if I do shoot at night time, I use strobes using ISO 1000 at the most.

Thanks for the recommendation and advice! Really appreciate it.

I do not worry about the user interface, as I can always find the setting I need on both system. Of course the 550D is beginner level DSLR, so it doesn't have much short cut button like D7000, and because D7000 is mid-range DSLR, and it offer more details setting than the 550D, the most important thing is, both camera take picture!

I feel like go back to Nikon mostly because of the direction of Nikon for their DSLR and the quality issues for their products.

I will move to full frame after I build up the lens and flash that I need. I mostly shoot family photo, and of course will carry it whenever I go travel. I mostly shoot people and some landscape.

Nikon seems preferring to make camera they want rather than what user needs, put D4 aside, I don't think my Computer "afford" to manage 36mega pixels files, the D600 is just another full frame DSLR will all AF points "gather" at the center. Quality issues are also another matter that worth to consider.

Canon DSLR and lens are mostly made in Japan, compare to made in China and Thailand products, I prefer Japan. That's one of the reason I choose 550D initially, but it let me down...

Canon full frame seems a better choice that suit my needs, except the expensive 1DX.

Of course, no one can tell what will both company offer in future, but let's say in this 3-5 years time.

I understand that no perfect camera in the world, and I'm not looking for perfect camera either. But just need some opinion from You all.

Thank you!

jdramirez said:

wickidwombat said:

http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/SALE-BRAND-NEW-SAMYANG-8mm-f-3-5-FISHEYE-DSLR-LENS-for-CANON-DETACHABLE-HOOD-/330815197919?pt=AU_Lenses&hash=item4d061f52df

pretty decent price
if its gonna be used on a crop that is

Click to expand...

I think I paid 245 from Buydig. There was a coupon so I was able to pay less. Brand new... full warranty... all very happy with the price. I get to play with it in two weeks when my birthday comes.

Click to expand...

cool let us know how it goes i'm just playing with the EOS-M and the 18-55 at the moment. I bit the bullet and installed the ML alpha on it to see how the intervalometer goes, it looks pretty good so far. I think ML is really gonna unlock some serious potential in the M

RLPhoto said:

Buy LEE or schnider optic.

Click to expand...

Lee had some of the most variability in quality control and colour casts of all the filters I've tried their ND grads often have a purple cast in the darker densities. The B+W cast is very strong and like a copper tone. Very odd and quite harsh.
Heliopan are my preferred choice and offer more options in their range. I personally find their 5 stop to be the most useful. The Hoya 9 stop has a nice pink hue, which I really like too.

Considering buying the Samyang 14mm f2.8 for landscape photography. I was wondering if anyone out there knows if I can attach a filter holder/adapter with this lens. I found this site offering the holder and the adapter for the Samyang but I am not sure about the quality of this product. Anyone used this product from Lucroit (Hitech Filter Systems) or know any other brands that make filter holders/adapters for this lens? Also, was wondering if system will take Lee's square ND/GND filters?

dolina said:

For $4,000 center to edge sharpness and optical quality should be = 1 and no < 0.9

For that money I' rather buy a Leica lens.

Click to expand...

+1 on that.

If this was f/1.2 (or even f/1.0) it would be closer to being worth that amount of money.

But just seeing the comparisons in the video, the 55 f/1.4 is incredibly amazing.