So glad I bought my 7D this very day last year, it hasn't been replaced yet. Makes me feel good that it still has some life!! Last thing I need is to feel jealous when people start saying how awesome the 7D mkII is and why you need to sell your camera ... etc etc.

Not that I would sell it, it's just too flippin good!

I agree with sanfran. Some of my best shots were with my cheapest gear. You only NEED to upgrade if there is a specific reason to do so. I have still got my little nifty fifty and use it because it still works and rarely lets me down! If you can get the job done with the tools you got why change em?

sarangiman said:

Haven't looked back since I started using this combo (Novoflex adapter... cheap Chinese adapters off eBay couldn't achieve infinity focus & rattled):

I got tired of trying to find a 16-35 or 17-40 that had good edge-to-edge performance even at f/11 or did not have decentering issues.

Click to expand...

+1 too

Canon Rumors said:

<div name=\"googleone_share_1\" style=\"position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;\"><glusone size=\"tall\" count=\"1\" href=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=12770\"></glusone></div><div style=\"float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;\"><a href=\"https://twitter.com/share\" class=\"twitter-share-button\" data-count=\"vertical\" data-url=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=12770\">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>Canon EOS-1D X Firmware 1.2.1


</strong>Firmware Version 1.2.1 incorporates the following improvements and fixes:</p>
<ul>
<li>The function to disable the Image size selection button has been added.</li>
<li>Fixes a phenomenon in which Err 70 and Err 80 may occur during certain shooting conditions.</li>
</ul>
<p><strong><a href=\"https://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/professional/products/professional_cameras/digital_slr_cameras/eos_1d_x?selectedName=DriversAndSoftware\" target=\"_blank\">Download firmware 1.2.1 here</a> | <a href=\"http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/827036-REG/Canon_5253B002_EOS_1D_X_EOS_Digital.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296\" target=\"_blank\">Buy the EOS-1D X</a></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">c</span>r</strong></p>

Click to expand...

+1

TrumpetPower! said:

I know a shade-tree mechanic who could fabricate something like that and wouldn't charge more than a Benjamin for it, maybe even half that.

Count the number of ticks on the lens indicating mm of shift, and move the clamp an equal number of ticks the opposite direction. Done and done. Only potentially problematic if you want to do a vertical panorama, but you can use the dropout in your ballhead -- and who does vertical shift panoramas, anyway?

Click to expand...

Well yeah, it's expensive. Hell, I've even just bought Medium Format lenses (like Zeiss Flektogon 50mm f/4.0 for Pentacon Six), hacked up a $10 chinese-ebay tripod clamp for some other lens, and stuck it on a $100 P6-EF shift-adapter.

And measuring and sliding also works, especially for landscape, i've done that too (Sunwayfoto make a nice sliding rail with measurements). But I wouldn't do it for macro or even A3-sized repro-work, you'll never get it *exactly* right, and errors are magnified ridiculously at short distances.

This thread is approved by Ron Swanson.

While this is certainly a very good chart, comparisons with the Canon's 800mm will be inevitable.

FWIW, Canon prepares its MTF charts differently - the way to read a Canon chart is explained below.

Now take a look at the 600mm II's MTF chart ... looks very good. The Nikon's 600mm's MTF chart is also attached for comparison.

Canon's 800mm needs an update but I'm sure they'll catch up.

crasher8 said:

wickidwombat said:

I recommend the Nikon D5200 over any of canons crops for entry level stuff
with the 18-200 VRII lens this is an awesome entry level combo.
Currently Canon has nothing that can touch this for features, quality and price
the Nikkor 18-200 lenses are really good for super zooms

Click to expand...

That doesn't work with an 800 budget.

Click to expand...

I'd go for the Nikon D3200 + 35 1.8 DX.
I have never owned a Nikon but I always recommend them to people who want to buy dSLRs but do not plan to spend big eventually. Nikon has quality gear at the basic entry level (talking lenses, cameras are about the same although the entry-level Nikons might be better for low light based on my very limited experience) and the 35 1.8 is more versatile than the 40mm pancake (IMO). Just had another friend buy it and bring back excellent night pictures from Vegas.

Just received the Canon 1.4x TC3 and been trying it with the 70-200 IS2 and have to agree, the combo is very good thru out the zoom range. Pretty amazing just how little the IQ degrades...as in probably not detectable in most blind A/B's of pictures of actual subject matter.

It's the same thing with the 200L f/2.8. Having this kind of IQ @280 f/4 in such a compact, light weight, black package warrants keeping the 200L even though I have the 70-200. Especially if I add a crop body and something this small shoots at 448 equivalent.

Glad I sprung for the Canon piece, nice build, guaranteed compatibility, registers the combo for AFMA. Had some B&H bucks from buying the 70-200 so between that and the current rebate, scored this for $335.

Thanks again for fielding my questions and what to expect from it.

EvilTed said:

My advice - save up and get the 24-70 F/2.8 II - it really is made for the 5D MK3, IDX and 6D

Click to expand...

-1 ... the af on the 6d cannot use the enhanced precision on the latest Canon lenses like 70-300L, 24-70L2 - see the lensrentals review on the 6d af: 6d is better than 5d2, but 5d3 is like contrast af.

That doesn't mean the 24-70L2 isn't a good lens for the 6d, but part of the money is wasted in this combination: the 5d3/1dx shines here with all doublecross sensors while the 6d only has a non-cross horizontal line @f2.8, i.e. *no* real cross sensor at all. Thanks, Canon.

DB said:

YouTube compression has destroyed this video. I downloaded it @ full HD 1080p and it was just 82MB for a 5 min file, which normally would be about 1GB in-camera before editing.

The softness (even @ f5.6) was quite noticeable, plus the aliasing is horrendous - look at the black rubber zoom + AF rings on the lenses; they are positively dancing! I think it has a lot to do with YouTube compression and downsizing of the bitrate (to reduce file size).

Finally, I did apply a few effects in Adobe Premiere Pro CS6, like Anti-aliasing (had no effect??), some color correction (boosting the backs a couple of percent looks a lot better), plus Sharpening (50%) really improved it. However, the high compression (just look at the pix-elation and block patterns in both the whites and the blacks, as well as along the edge of your hand) makes it look like 240p and not 1080p! Btw I watched this a couple of times on YouTube at 1080P HD on both my HD monitors (one 40" and the other 25") and it just doesn't appear to be proper HD. It is a shame as you obviously went to some effort to capture and edit it. Even your titles and banners look soft that has to be YouTube's fault -> I bet the lettering of your text/titles looked great on your original edit.

How much of these issues are due to the high-ISO used is not possible to determine due to the nature of the destructive YouTube file processing.

Click to expand...

Hi thanks for your very useful feedback ... you seem to be a professional at video ... I am not a professional, just a bloke messing around, some of what you said went over my head. I basically use iMovie to do simple edits. A few months ago, I purchased Final Cut Pro but am yet to take advantage of it as I seem to be quite happy with my measly iMovie edits.
Yes the original footage was a little over 3 GB ... I have a smugmug account that lets me upload up to 3GB video files each, if you like I can upload the original file and give you the password for you to download and do your thing.
I totally agree with you about the softness due to f/5.6 ... I realized the moment I saw it on the big screen that I should have gone at least f/8 (especially due to the short distance between the camera and the subject). I am kind of new to full frame (just a few months old) ... on my 7D, f/5.6 use to be pretty sharp for this kind of stuff ... I am realizing the difference of full frame vs crop frame when it comes to depth of field.

eninja said:

Which one is better? increase ISO from 6400 to 10k or push aperture to F1.8.

Click to expand...

It depends on what look you want. If you don't mind a more shallow field of focus, then opening the aperture wider would be better because it would allow a faster shutter speed and lower ISO which equals less noise/ cleaner picture. If you need more of your shot in focus, then you'll have to push the ISO up along with the F-stop. If the 6D's noise performance is anything like the 5D3, then 10K ISO should still produce very useable pictures. Use what you need to get the shot you want.

.

I guess it's easy to toss out a question like this and see what kind of fish flop into your boat. But your question raises more questions than can possibly be answered.

You say you want a lens for "street photography" AND portraits. Then you throw in "larger compositions." Larger than what?

The term "street photography" is now so nebulous that it means virtually nothing. If you're planning to do "old masters" style street photography (candid people in public places interacting with one another and the physical world) then you'll have no choice. The 35mm is what you'll get. If by "street photography" you mean typical tourist pictures -- buildings, crowds of people, monuments, etc. then the 24-70 is the clear choice.

The classic portrait lens on a 35mm camera has been typically 85mm to 135mm. If you plan to do classic portraiture, then none of those lens choices are appropriate. If you mean something else by "portrait," then you'll have to better define what you mean.

You mention "image quality," but again you don't say what that means to you. Pinpoint focusing? Bokeh characteristics you want? Color renditions? Distortions? Vignetting? Only you know what that means to you.

Finally, there is such a wide price differential in those lenses, I'm puzzled by the cavalier nature of it. The Canon 50 is in the $350 to $400 range. The Sigma is at $900 and then you jump to $2200 for the 24-70. You can get five of the 50mm lenses for the price of one 24-70.

Seems to me you need to answer some questions before you start asking questions.

No you can't. That is about the only restriction.

I use that combo everyday, never noticed such an issue.

Cannot come too soon!

drjlo said:

DK said:

Thank you guys for your advices.

Regarding the focus screens - I plan to get a 5d3 in the future (hopefully), so changing the focus screens is not a reliable option when investing in an expensive Zeiss lens, and I still feel like i need to stress my eye, especially in a dark enviroment when focusing via viewfinder. The Zakuto EVF is too bulky (we're talking about this: http://www.zacuto.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/dslrevf.jpg , right?). The external focus screens are not an option either (at least for me).

I'm not a videographer, so I would use it only for shooting stills and I'm totally attached to looking into a "hole" in the camera (the viewfinder), or tripod + live-view.

So, it looks like there's nothing on the market that would fit my need?

Click to expand...

Which Zeiss were you planning to get? I have gone down the Zeiss route with my Canon bodies before; in the end, I did not feel Zeiss did anything better than the top Canon lenses. In fact, I felt top Canon lenses had more neutral color rendition than Zeiss. Throw in Canon AF ability and how expensive Zeiss lenses are anyway, and there really is no reason to go with Zeiss IMO.

With Zeiss manual focus lens and adapted Canon manual focus lens, live view focusing with zoom-in is the way to go for critical work, and one does not necessarily need tripod for this..

Click to expand...

I Distagon T* 21mm f/2.8 ZE. There's no match to this on Canon. Only 24 & 17, but both are not quite 21. So it's either 24 and 17 or 21. 21 makes much more sense to me.

Welcome to the club of those who had an old, lower-end camera and jumped up to the higher-end models.

I had the 1000D and within the last six months bought the 5D3 with 24-105 L f/4 and the grip. It was a big hit to my pocketbook, but I don't regret it at all.

actually the silcone skins are WORSE because dust etc gets trapped between the body and the skin and so it becomes more like encasing your camera in sandpaper.
A much better ligthweight protection i have found are the lenscoat body bags
http://www.lenscoat.com/bodybag-black-p-478.html

they are well made tough, light weight, reasonably priced and provide very good protection
My wife has one on her 5Dmk3 and 24-70 and I have one on the EOS-M (The PS large fits this really well)

LuigiHodges said:

If cash and size is no concern, I seriously do not see any reason not to get the 300 f/2.8.

__________________
Turning your eyes to the dvdsaledirect.com and enjoy the charming series you love!

Click to expand...

Well, cost is a concern. I intend to get the 600mm no matter what. I'm just wondering if there is a decent alternative to the 300mm f/2.8, since the 600mm alone is beyond my budget, but I kind of need it to do what I want to do. I don't absolutely need a 300mm lens, however it is a more useful focal length for things like BIF and wildlife (and more hand-holdable). The question is not "Should I get the 300mm f/2.8 instead of the 600mm f/4"...it is "Is there anything other than the 300mm f/2.8 to get in conjunction with the 600mm f/4". I can't really afford $13000, however I'll find a way to make it fit...but $21000? Don't think I could pull that off. I bought a whole entire car for that much money.

Plainsman said:

lordsn said:

Why someone would talk about Nikon products on a Canon forum?

Click to expand...

As soon as anyone mentions the opposition Canon fan boys jump in - sad really.

Read what the poster has to say and you might learn something.

Click to expand...

well... that is just nature though. i guess you should know about that right? if not, try to get to nikon forum and ask them to buy canon and see how it goes.

note: i will now let you know why i am not buying nikon. because i had experienced crappy nikon pns prior to make purchase my dslr since i lost my trust in nikon.

"As soon as anyone mentions the opposition Canon fan boys jump in -" NIKON IS SO PATHETIC REALLY

The other bit that helps, is when scaling down from full size you tend to eliminate more and more of the noise that exists. So full res might not be as kind at such high ISOs, but for web or small print (5x7, maybe 8x10) you often get quite usable shots even at what seems like really high ISO.

I'm actually considering if maybe I want to rally crank my ISO up on my 5d3 past 6400 (I try and not go higher) to get faster shutter speed when I know I'm shooting mostly just for web. Just a bit of de-noising in LR4, and then scale to 1200px long edge eliminates a lot more noise that I realize at the time of shooting.

Great Nephew




Great Niece




Great Niece as a Bridesmaid for her mother


Eldest Niece


Bridegroom and Best Man


Youngest Niece as Bridesmaid with Boyfriend


Great Niece and her Aunty


Let the Confetti Fly

Where and when?

This is a lens which has impressed me more and more I use one. On paper, it's a sharp but over priced lens. But in real world use, it's a fantastic performer. My only gripe is the lack of a tripod collar and it's low magnification at closer focus distances. Other than that, it's superb.
It's also a lens which came in for some really harsh objections when it was first launched. Sure it was expensive, considering most 70-300 lenses were consumer grade zooms. This lens was cut from different cloth, it's a profressional lens and a pretty goon one too. Now it's a few years after it's launch, it's new price has come way down to a far more realistic level. It's still not a cheap lens per-say, but it's good value considering it's strong performance. It's relatively small, light and it's a great range to have.
Personally, I'm holding out for a new 100-400 instead....which is going to be over priced and heavily maligned in the various forums on it's launch....but after a year....it'll come down in price somewhat.