Posts

Apr 2, 2012

I don't buy the listed price. Haha. No pun intended. I bet it's a matter of setting cost expectations very high on purpose. When the very high expected price for a highly coveted item drops, it suddenly seems far more affordable, even though it is still very very expensive. That is my guess. Strategically thinking as a retailer. And maybe a little wishful thinking. Absolutely nothing to back it up.

But I bet it will come out priced somewhat lower than the $1100 we're hearing now (maybe $9900) and then it won't be long before it can be had around $8000-8500, hopefully by the end of the year. X-mas 2012, Santa, now you know what I want in my giant stocking! ;D

It's still going to be a lot more than you would have to shell out for the Nikon version of a 200-400 and a TC add-on. However, it will have not just the great convenience of the built-in TC but it will also perform better, be sharper and faster, as a result of it's integration. Sure, it's still a small fortune, but it's everything I have been waiting for to complete my kit, which is based on the highest quality I can get while having the most focal length flexibility.

Of course, first I have to pony up for the new 24-70 II this summer before I can begin to think about the 200-400 1.4X. In fact, I bet a lot of folks will do just that and as a result, the price will almost certainly drop faster than expected for the 200-400 1.4X.

jhpeterson · Apr 2, 2012

Spooky said:
you're right, thinking outside the box!

Seems like I occasionally put my engineering school education to good use!
Indeed, the square sensor would be a boon to any photographer who needed to quickly shift from horizontal to vertical, or vice versa. And, since I'm left-eyed, especially true for me. It always presented interesting challenges to my picture taking, going back to film days when I'd have to take the camera from my eyes to advance to the next frame. Built-in motors made the problem irrelevant, but to this day I've found the vertical button on grips and pro bodies to be rather useless, as it's in a most awkward location. (On the plus side, I'll bet the way I have to hold the camera for verticals makes me inherently steadier than my right-eyed colleagues.)
I mentioned some time back that I think some presets for different formats could be included, at least for JPEG files, much like that for image size and levels of compression. Of course, most all your better image editing software now does this rather easily.
As for the lens hood issue, it seems a relatively minor problem. And, while the cost for some of them is no longer small change, at least in the case of the supertelephotos with hoods that run as much as what one can pay for a decent lens, the last I looked they were all circular in shape.

westr70 · Apr 2, 2012

Thank you all for your knowledge, experience, and you're willingness to share it with me and others who took note. I will keep my 7d and continue to practice with it and the software tips you've provided. Thank you all for your help, I truly appreciate it.

wickidwombat · Apr 2, 2012

V8Beast said:
wickidwombat said:

I find that even 3200 is usable from the 1D3 with some NR from topaz denoise
generally i try and keep to 1600 but will bump it up if needed

Click to expand...

Another APS-H user! Maybe we really are related

I'm going to keep my eye on the used 1DIV market once the 1Dx is finally released

I love my APS-H especially with the 16-35 II on it even wide open its lovely and sharp and gives about 20-48mm effective which is a really nice range for walk around or for receptions events where you dont have alot of room.

and i'm also keeping close tabs on the used 1D4 market

dr croubie · Apr 1, 2012

So does that make it still cheaper than the 5D3?

dr croubie · Apr 1, 2012

One of my local shops has 7D in stock, 5D2 was an 'order in' most of last year, i'm pretty sure they've got the 5D3 in stock (at least for now).
1D and 1Ds were always 'special order only' (and being Australian, It was cheaper flying to the US to pick it up yourself).

But then they go and have a Pentax 645D sitting in the window...

Daniel Flather · Apr 1, 2012

With my 50/1.2 that I only shoot at f1.2 (why else buy it?(well, besides the many other reasons to buy it)) any adjustment I dial in is lost due to subject or camera movement. So why bother setting an AF adjustment? If I shot everything on a tripod with a static subject, then yes, it needs an adjustment dialed in, but in that case I would be manual focusing anyways, so the adjustment is moot.

This is what I've come to realize lately. ymmv

wickidwombat · Apr 1, 2012

KKCFamilyman said:
Yes.

Has anyone noticed that the standard picture style seems to have changed from past Canon DSLR's like my 60d. Today I shot my son getting easter eggs and when he was at larger DOF's the grass seemed fine but when I grabbed him and the grass was starting to get blown out it was like neon green. Never seen that before. Anyone change or alter their default picture style?

i just turned off jpeg all together after day 1 and turned off all the other lens correction waffle in camera too
don't kill yourself analysing jpg files as it doesnt matter how good in camera processors get they will never match the power and flexability available to doing it in post. out of camera JPG is good for initial proof screening and thats it IMO. I found in camer aJPG mushy at best. So if you are looking at camera performance stick to looking at unedited raws

KKCFamilyman · Apr 1, 2012

Thanks. I think I will leave it at defaults until I get comfortable with it the see. I did disable nr but I will turn it on since it will not affect my raw output.

itsnotmeyouknow · Apr 1, 2012

Ellen Schmidtee said:
I'd love an ultra-wide zoom with f/2 at the wide side, but I'd probably have to sell a kidney to buy it.

So I would settle for a reasonably priced 14-24mm f/4 with good IQ - theres a 14mm f/2.8 & 16-35mm f/2.8 for those who want fast.

I'd agree with this. I have the 14mm L II. I also have the 16-35 II and 24-70. Major distortion to the extent that shot sI took of a distant harbour when looking closely the cranes have 'fallen down'. I see no real need for IS at this level though

Apr 1, 2012

Drizzt321 said:
Yea, the IQ of the 5d2 is pretty outstanding, I went form a 450D to it, and it blew my mind. I'd recommend getting a better MF screen (Eg-s I think it is) so you can fine tune any focusing you want. I always kept meaning to get one, but never ended up doing so. The one thing to watch out for is if you're shooting with a shallow DOF, if you AF then recompose you might not get what you want in focus because you are changing the plane of focus.

Yeah i think I will do that. I have the 50 1.8 and 50 1.4 and it's pretty easy to miss a shot after recomposing at 1.4 or any aperture with a shallow DOF. My next purchase I think will be a Manual focus 35 1.4. A screen would be great.

Drizzt321 · Apr 1, 2012

I can't believe how quiet the 5d3 silent shot mode is. Unless I need the faster response or higher FPS I'm just going to leave it on. Much less conspicuous

Apr 1, 2012

I love this combo. I used the 85mm F1.2 L II extensively with the Mark II and I loved the photos but was often annoyed with the speed of the auto focus. Just spent the weekend with the Mark III with the same lens and every time I pressed the button I was surprised again by the quick auto focus.

Here are a bunch of concert photos using this combination:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/edwinland/sets/72157629351785352/

Because I was right up against the stage, the band members were only a few feet away, and I couldn't open wide because the short depth of field made a difference when i was trying to get the face and the guitar in focus. So much of the night I was shooting in M at F 2.8 - 3.4 and 250 - 400 shutter speed, and let the ISO vary with exposure. (Shot in RAW and processed with CS5).

Note the variously high to insanely high ISO's listed in the description under photos. And only one (Ian Hunter at the keyboard) looks too grainy, in my humble opinion.

By the way, color at that venue is a real challenge because of the weird LED lighting.

marekjoz · Apr 1, 2012

ehud.eshet said:
marekjoz said:

ehud.eshet said:

I would like to have an EF-S 45-135 F2.0 IS (Make it F2.8 if bigger than the 17-55 F2.8 IS).

Click to expand...

Such a 3x zoom @f2.0 would be bigger than 400f2.8...

Click to expand...

Sigma just announced an image stabilized 50-150 F2.8 zoom for cropped bodies.
Its size is a bit smaller than EF 70-200L IS II.
I do not see why EF-S 45-135 F2.0-2.8 IS (F2.0 up to 90mm) would be bigger.
Many 60D and 7D owners will pay more than 1500$ for such lens.

Canon, please do not force us to buy Sigma lenses.

yes, 70-200 f2.8 is also almost 3x zoom. The difference makes this f2.0...

Kernuak · Apr 1, 2012

Kernuak said:
Two points.
The article that appeared on the CPN Europe site actually stated that the filter has been reduced in strength. Unfortunately, I can't find the link at the moment.
When the 7D first came out, Adobe RAW produced very soft images which improved once it had been refined with a couple of updates. I wouldn't make too many critical comparisons at the moment with what using what is little more than beta versions of software. The difference when the 7D came out, there wasn't the same issue with DPP.

Jamesy · Apr 1, 2012

I have the 17-55 and perhaps I got a good copy because I have not been plagued by dust like some of the other copies floating around. I have had a UV on it since day one.

It is my understanding that dust enters through the part of the lens that expands and contracts for zoom rather than through the from element area.

altenae · Apr 1, 2012

Same post at dpreview.

Thanks poster really interesting. NOT

Mt Spokane Photography · Apr 1, 2012

Yes, some are fooled easily.

Just google RH-1 and April Fools Day

Fishnose · Apr 1, 2012

smithy said:
That's a very different New Zealand from the one I can see out of my apartment window!

That's because you live in Detroit now.......

Apr 1, 2012

Thanks for this ... its back to testing for the 1.2 ... again :'(

Mt Spokane Photography · Apr 1, 2012

CanineCandidsByL said:
Mt Spokane Photography said:

Here the images taken from the same spot, and focused on the same spot.

Click to expand...

Ha Ha...see your shadow...

but seriously thanks for the comparison shot. Looks like the Rokinon isn't as wide as it claims. I'd expect the look to be closer to what the Canon lens is doing. As wide as the Rokinon isn't, I'd probably stick with the 24mm of my 24-70 and wait to afford one of the canon wide angle zooms instead of getting the 14mm. I did find some images from the 8mm. The quality was OK, but I don't think I'd pay $300 for it. I guess I'll keep saving, but I still may get 800mm f8 mirror. Those photos didn't impress either, but the little kid in me calls out for it.

The lenses were set for Hyperfocal distance, however, the lens markings on the Samyang 14mm do not reflect reality, or even close.

A fisheye actually appears to be wider, this is not the fault of the Samyang, its the case with all fisheye versus rectilinear lenses.

Apr 1, 2012

I am contemplating upgrading from my 7D. My options are either a 5DMIII or a 1DMIV. 1DX is not an option!

I only shoot as a hobby and my principle subjects are my two daughters (aged 4 and 8), family, birding and wildlife. Not too much into landscapes but am considering taking it it up in the near future.

Having not used / tested either camera, I am unsure as to which camera will be better suited to my needs. How do these cameras compare in terms of autofocus and IQ?

Apr 1, 2012

Bosman said:
Possibly another old school guy who doesn't know how to use new tech. If he wanted images to be more accurate for static subjects including his zeiss lens he would have used spot focus. Who knows if he did but its interesting.

He's definitely in the Landscape camp more resolution is better and image quality is King.
He uses a lot of manual focus lenses I very much doubt he uses anything else but spot focus he is an expert not a newbie.
He might have been converting his Images with DPP which appears to have many problems delivering sharp images, the guy in charge at Canon must be unbelievably stupid releasing a camera without first making sure that DPP had no bugs with it.
Lightroom 4.1 RC recently released now has 5DMKIII support & is significantly better than the ACR 6.7 beta that most have been using to convert their images so its possible he might be updating his early findings at some point.

Harv · Apr 1, 2012

danski0224 said:
Harv said:

It was mentioned that she could consider a 1D MK IV and 400/5.6L with a 1.4x extender. The AF speed is horrible and locking on the subject is chancy at best. I don't advise using that combo. For action, it would never work. It barely works for static subjects.

Click to expand...

Is the focus speed "issue" related to the f5.6 apeture? I guess it is almost f8 with the 1.4x extender.

With the extender, it becomes f/8 and that is what impacts the AF speed.

psolberg · Apr 1, 2012

this comparison was good too

http://mansurovs.com/nikon-d800-review#camera_comparisons

D800 is such a beast.

Posts

Posts

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics