Thanks for that thread - it would seem that is is indeed too good to be true. You have to be carefull these days!

Don Haines said:

kubelik said:

I agree with jrista about EVF's been a long way away from being truly good, but I also agree with your point that technology grows quickly, and it certainly will get there, probably sooner than the decade that jrista predicts.

Click to expand...

One of my co-workers brought in an Olympus E-M5...we played comparison between it and a 7D. The EVF on it is comparable to the 7D, it takes better quality pictures in poor light, about the same in good light, and I really can't tell the difference in AF speed or accuracy. I was amazed that this camera was so good. It's hard to deny the existance of something you are holding in your hands... this wasn't just an EOS-M killer, it was a Rebel killer too, and if it wasn't for the way better user interface on the 7D and Canon Lglass, it would have topped the entire APS-C lineup.

Click to expand...

And apparently Olympus has announced that the replacement for the E-5 will support both 4/3 and micro-4/3 lenses, which kind of implies that it will be micro-4/3 with an adapter. Nikon users are also complaining about there being no D400. My guess is that everybody is working on professional mirrorless cameras and that the 7D replacement will actually have the name "M1". When it comes is anybody's guess.

Something like the Metabones Speed Booster makes this possible.. That device has a magnification of 0.707 and gives a 1-stop improvement in maximum aperture. However, the Canon version of APS-C is 1.6X not 1.5X. Therefore, a Canon-specific booster could have a magnification of 0.629 and give a 1-1/3 improvement in maximum aperture.

Mt Spokane Photography said:

You do need some time to AFMA your lenses, and find out if that particular body over or underexposes, and if you are using flash, you need to check exposures as well.

Click to expand...

Doh! I would've forgotten AFMA--thanks!

I have a firm policy against flash photography in athletes faces, so generally just go without so I'm not thinking about it.

Axilrod said:

bluegreenturtle said:

Why would you think this was shot with a DSLR at all, much less a 7D?

Click to expand...

You're awful quiet all of a sudden....

Click to expand...

I barely read this forum much. Why would I post a follow up?

Your problem cayenne amounts to a different kettle of fish. Using the HDMI connection requires a whole other class of dedicated monitors, slow heavy and very expensive to buy or rent -- I've used some.

Canon comes to the rescue if you want to go wireless however, with their "wireless file transmitter" made specially for your camera model. It costs only $850 (eight hundred and fifty dollars, less one penny to be perfectly exact).
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/consumer_cameras_wft/wireless_file_transmitter_wft_e7a

The issue of what you would broadcast To still remains -- which is the question I raise in this thread.

You need one Mini TT1 on the body you're using. If you use two bodies during a shoot, it may make sense to have a second Mini TT1. A single Mini TT1 transmitter can control a whole bunch of receivers/tranceivers. I use an on-camera Mini TT1 to control a pair of Flex TT5s and a PowerMC2 for an Einstein monolight (and it's the ability to trigger that monolight that's holding me back from Canon's RT system).

The Flex TT5 can be either a receiver or a transmitter, so you could have a Mini on one camera and a Flex on the other camera with one flash, or a Mini on one camera and a Flex on each of two flashes.

The Mini/Flex system allows E-TTL automatic flash metering, the Plus III system does not.

Both lenses come to life in the hands of the right photographer...

Being wide angle lenses, neither of them are for the pixel peeping crowd... I have seen some striking photographs made with both these lenses...here is a recent one I came across on flicker. The obvious distortion IMHO actually vastly helps the mood of this picture:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/91499534@N00/8403207353/#sizes/c/

Edit: Just noticed in the EXIF this was with the older version of 16-35...apparently version II corrects some of this... so perhaps it is just as well he used the older version. ISO 2500 noise and pretty slow speed of 1/15th on a non stablized lens...not bad I think.

I just started this thread in the "EOS Bodies -- for Photographs" department. Since this topic is of at least as much interest for videographers, I hope any of you with info will join the conversation over there.

acoll123 said:

Glad to hear your 64 gb cards are working.

Click to expand...

Not working well.

Maybe the IQ would be unusable

cayenne said:

Did you use any type of 'flat profile' setting on your camera for shooting this?

Click to expand...

Yes I reduced saturation in camera a little bit and reduced sharpness in cam to zero and added that in post.

From your other thread:

Sorry, but you're worrying over nothing. Put the filter on the lens, the hood will fit just fine.

FWIW, for both the XS-Pro and F-Pro mounts, in all the sizes I have (58mm, 67mm, 72mm, 77mm, and 82mm), the outer diameter of the filter is the same as the outer diameter of the same-sized lens cap. If the hood fits over the lens cap (it always does), it fits over the filter.

Canon-F1 said:

sick_666 said:

kobeson said:

Any purchases or reviews yet??

Click to expand...

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-70mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Click to expand...

that is no review... not yet.

it´s a preview.

Click to expand...

True but you do seem to be able to compare target shots, looking forward to the full review though

I use fast glass, shoot in raw, over expose slightly, then pull back in post.

Below is the best single summary to date

TheSuede said:

In the end, from a factual PoV:

• HTP does not in any case UNLESS the one-off case where the starting point is ISO100 lower absolute photometric exposure. At set ISOs 200-800 it does however increase the electronic noise pollution in the finished image somewhat in Canon cameras.
• Exposure is exposure is exposure, and exposure sets the photon noise level in the image. It's set by the scene light emittance modulated by shutter speed and lens T-stop (aperture + losses), and actually also for all practical considerations: QE of the sensor. Not by ISO - though the ISO setting can change aperture and/or shutter speed when the camera is in auto- mode (anything but "M" mode), it's a secondary effect. ISO changes setting, setting changes exposure.
• ISO in digital cameras is a translating factor between exposure (exposure x QE = cell charge) and raw file ADU value.
• The amount of headroom available in a camera can NEVER be higher than when the camera is used on base ISO (ISO100 in the case discussed here) - Since the highest DR is always at base ISO, unless the construction is seriously flawed (actually totally botched!). This means that ISO200 + HTP has the same 'potential' headroom, since the actual physical amplification is set at ISO100, not 200
• ISO50 (or more generally "lower than actual base ISO") settings are useless for raw shooters, but may be of some use for jpg shooters.

Feel free to add constructive criticism, or point out any error(s). But be very ashamed if this post is considered OT and erased.

Click to expand...

Ditto on black gaffers tape. I use it for several unorthodox things. I have thin ~3/8" strips of black gaffers tape around all my L lenses to protect/hide the red ring area from thieves and scuffs. I use it over some of the lens slide switches when they rub my leg as I carry them hanging to the side and they get switched without my knowledge. I use it to protect other parts of the camera. I use it to hide the Mark III logo on my 5D3. I use it to hide the Tamron logo on all my lens caps. I use it to provide rubbery grip areas on my S95.

jdramirez said:

michi said:

How would you feel about finding a good deal on a used 5DII and still get the 24-70 II ? It's still over your budget, but not too much. That would be a great compromise, and you could later upgrade the camera if you cared to. Pictures should be tack sharp, image quality should be close to a 6D...

Click to expand...

You can find the d5 mkii for around $1400 or so... maybe 1300... So it would be around $700 from getting both. I like the idea... I was looking at the mkii for a while and I think it is very comparable to the 6D. It's not a good option for me because of the focusing issues, but it seems like a good suggestion.

Click to expand...

I have a 5DII. I really don't know what focusing issues people talk about. Sure, it's not as good as some brand new cameras, but it has never let me down.

Croubie, you created a masterpiece of industrial design. The new 40mm funnel lens. Make sure you add it to your gear pics

J.R. said:

Rienzphotoz said:

You are welcome ... don't know which part of the middle east you plan to move to but make sure to bring your camera and lenses ... coz life here is pretty dry in terms of entertainment, socializing etc if you are an expat and you really do need a hobby to keep you occupied during your free time, especially between April - October (it is hot as hell goes up to 55 degrees celsius) ... but it is a good place to save money ... no income tax and deductions etc

Click to expand...

Thanks for the info. It would be Doha or Dubai (not sure at the moment). I'll surely be bringing my gear along ... Can't live without it (As my friend says my blood group is "P+")

Click to expand...

Good ... if you move to Doha, let me know ... I've been here for 6 years, I can tell you all the good locations for photo opportunities ... it's a tiny country, you can criss cross the whole country in half a day. Good luck.

It's too hard to pick a favorite, normally i'd say the 85L II, but I've gotten alot of great pics with my Zeiss 50mm f/2 Makro recently. I gave up my 50L (which was my favorite for a long time) for it, no regrets.

Hi, I home based business in Canada and recently my home insurance pulled the plug on my home business add-on. I have clients in the states and apparently is too much liability and now because of that denial other insurance companies wont insure my business as an add-on to my home policy. This is pretty ridiculous, in the 14 years I have been operating, never had a claim.

Anyway, need to get insurance. I do travel outside north america for photography and video work so whatever plan i get needs to cover that travel. I did find one company that would do it but is $5000 a year which just seems crazy.

Does anyone have a recommendation?

Exactly. Focal length is an intrinsic property of the lens, independent of whatever sensor is behind that lens. If a manufacturer were to label a lens with a 'crop factor adjusted' focal length of some sort, that would be a lie.

http://www.tamron.eu/en/lenses/focal-length-comparison.html

This one is small but different than the canon one you can use like "any" focal length.

:-X What the?

My eyes just exploded.

Peace! 8)

needless to say, this is straight out of the camera, and no pp (except for cropping).