Drizzt321 said:

I'm a bit confused when you say "crop to APS-C size". Once you capture an image, a pixel is a pixel, there's no difference between APS-C and FF. If you're talking about cropping to get the same field of view, now you're starting to talk.

Click to expand...

Same difference.

But, why worry about that? Just take a few steps forward or back on FF and get the field of view that makes the image, NOT that matches your APS-C sensor.

Click to expand...

You can't always do that.

All else being equal (including the framing/composition/etc), the 5d2 will give you much better overall image quality in good lighting, and especially in low lighting.

Click to expand...

If you're FL limited and have to crop to match the FoV from the 450D then it will probably be a wash. I doubt the 5D2 will be "much better overall", though it might prove a little better.

In low lighting much of the 5D2's advantage will also be gone in a FL limited scenario, but not all of it because the sensor is newer.

Axilrod said:

I agree the charts look great, but do you really consider a $2k+ lens to be a "consumer" zoom?

Click to expand...

In the sense that it is mass produced on a large scale and not some Area 51 project zoom lens or some special project lab creation or something or even a Leica hah.

awinphoto said:

But if that's what it does, can it use the crop only lenses with a smaller image circle? Or is that a problem for nikon as it would be a problem with ef-s lenses?

Click to expand...

Yes, Nikon FF cameras can take their DX lenses and then default to "DX" mode. The 12MP camera then take a 5.5MP or so photo. Or when using FF lens, you can choose the DX mode for faster frames.

Canon has not done this and indeed EF-S lenses canon be used on FF cameras.

If you're a beginner, get the camera body that best meets your video needs. Then, get a 50mm lens. Seriously, starting out with a prime at that focal point will best help you get your photog skills up and running.

This observation applies generally, as well as to this particular thread.

People who frequent this site are naturally a lot more interested in the latest and greatest gear than the general population of photographers. My guess is that fewer than 0.001% of SLR photographers have ever been here, suggesting that the vast majority of photographers are sufficiently happy with their photographic output that they are not concerned about what new gear is in the pipeline.

So why are we, the CR forum members, so very interested in the newest and best gear? Here are a few reasons (you may have your own):

- Because you believe that currently available equipment limits the technical quality of your images in an important, meaningful way.

- Because you believe that currently available equipment limits your photographic capability, creativity or ambition.

- Because you have a psychological need to have the best gear, regardless of whether it discernibly improves your output.

- Because you have an unusually strong appreciation for the finest achievable precision engineering, whether in photographic gear or otherwise. (Like many high-functioning autistics, I fall into this category).

If you tick any of these boxes, then you can justify the new lens to yourself.

I find the OP's initial comments to be rather amusing since, marketing-wise, people who like the smaller senors are in the vast majority and get preferential treatment by Canon... faster iterations, more bodies, etc.

If you want to talk minority.. my preferred sensor would be MF monochrome.. not that I can afford one of course ^_^ (at least not one that is not 5-10 years old).

I don't have as much experience/knowledge as a lot of people here so I dunno if my advice would be useful or not. I think it would depend on what kind of music video shoot you'll be doing - like the time of the day, if it's at night time, you might want to invest in an L lens. I would recommend the 85L and the 24-70 or the 24-105. Then you'd have the standard/mid-range focal length covered. Maybe even invest in a wide angle? The 24 or 28 lenses?

Astro said:

with the D800 and alike cameras you don´t need supertelephoto lenses anymore.
you can just crop from a 70mm lens instead.

Click to expand...

super-high mp count doesn't equal super-low iso noise - and I don't know the D800 noise levels. And of course your lens has to be very sharp to make good use of the sensor resolution - and I guess only good primes or very good, current zooms are able to to that.

apeshot said:

I would agree that you should look to increase your range before upgrading your current lens. I shoot with the 17-55 2.8 efs and still often need a flash indoors. I noticed you have many pictures of your dog on flickr. The 70-200 will change your world in getting better candids of your dog. Here's an example from the 70-200 f/4 IS:

Click to expand...

Thanks. I do need to get a flash. Does anyone have recommendations of flash for me? I was just gonna grab a used 320 or 270 in the meantime.

jwong said:

I vote for option 3: 70-200mm f/4. Cover the range you NEED before upgrading.

If you got the 70-200 f/4, would you still go after the 100mm f/2? If the answer is no, then the 100mm f/2 is not worth the detour. Getting the 70-200 would also let you reevaluate whether or not you need the 100mm prime.

If you're happy with the 50mm f/1.4 to cover your midrange, why would you consider replacing the 17-40 with the 24-70? Losing 7mm at the wide end is significant unless you don't need that range. If the 17-40 is not fast enough for you (assuming indoor use), then you might want to consider a faster wide prime to supplement your kit at the wide end.

Click to expand...

That makes sense. I don't know if I'd pick the 135 over the 100 if I had the 70-200mm. I'd have to see what I needed, but you're right that it's a waste to bother with primes until I have that range covered.

Mt Spokane Photography said:

I gave up on the f/2.8 zooms for now, I've had most all of them, and in low light they do not allow fast enough shutter speeds for moving subjects, even with my 5D MK II. They are fine in well lit sporting fields, its theatres or dimly lit buildings that are just too dark.

So I use my 70-200mm f/4 IS outdoors and use fast primes indoors. Since you have 50mm, a 28mm f/1.8 , and a 85mm or 100mm prime might be the next step. You can buy the 85mm f/1.8 and a 28mm f/1.8 for about the price of the 70-200mm f/4L


As soon as you get dancers in almost darkness, it takes a fast prime, high ISO, and slower shutter speed than I'd like to capture a image. Lots of motion blur here.

5D MK II ISO 3200, 135mm L @f/2 and 1/125 sec

Click to expand...

Thanks for the suggestion. That's one of the ideas I had been throwing around in my head but was too worried it might sound dumb! I'll definitely try this then. I've ordered the 70-200 f/4L and I'm going to try a lot of things with it when I get here and see if there's an improvement. That picture is beautiful! Another reason I want the 5D MK II. Sadly, that camera is out of my price range for the time being.

I think it's pretty good for the price...

Check-out the flick group: http://www.flickr.com/groups/raynoxdcr250/

Is any of you a Canon iMage Gateway user?
They increase the available space for the user albums and asked to the customer to move previous albums in the new ones. I have two accounts. I have started the procedure two days ago but still now the site states for both of them 'copy in progress'. I understand that they are moving a huge number of customers account, but now the timing is becoming suspected.
Is any of you experiencing the same thing?

The first two cities you mentioned both have strong architecture and great museums. DC has a lot of monuments and Chicago has a lot of great buildings, Millennium Park and the lakefront. A wide angle zoom, a fast prime and a tripod would be a good starting point.

I live in Chicago and would recommend the following as possible things/places to shoot:
1. Millennium Park, especially a sculpture named Cloud Gate which we locals refer to as the Bean
2. If you want a nice shot of the skyline from the lakefront, right by the Adler Planetarium is a great view of the lakefront / city
3. Willis Tower (formerly the Sears Tower) has sky decks that jet out a few feet on the 103rd floor -- great views of the city
4. If it is closer to spring, consider the architectural tour on the Chicago River
5. If you have any interest in shooting photos of Jellyfish, the Shedd Aquarium has a nice (but small) exhibit through May of jellyfish in tanks against very colorful backdrops

What is the best place to buy/sell used photo equipment?

LanceF said:

I guess I scored a good deal for $1800 brand new no tax from some small time business in Toronto with FutureShop receipt 3 months ago.

Click to expand...

wow that is cheap

Drizzt321 said:

I though DNG had lossless compression for the RAW data. I've heard it's better compression than most manufacturers files (e.g. .cr2).

Click to expand...

Adobe has added a new flavor with lossy compression. You can try it in the Lightroom 4 Beta. It has a higher quality than jpeg, and smaller files. You have three dng options now.

1. DNG plus raw

2. DNG (not lossy)

3. Lossy DNG http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-57371809-264/adobe-offering-new-reasons-to-get-dng-religion/

Here is some info taken from the link

"
Lossy DNG
The lossy DNGs are another matter altogether, though. Some people like raw photos because they record the original image exactly how the camera captured it, with no artifacts resulting from JPEG compression throwing away some data. Lossy DNGs, though, throw away data to produce a file size something like a quarter the size of a regular lossless DNG.

To do that, Adobe demosaics the raw data so that strictly speaking it's not raw anymore. More alarming to some, the original 12-,14-, or 16-bit raw data has been boiled down with the JPEG algorithm to 8 bits, meaning that there aren't as many gradations of color values.

But Adobe didn't just make an ordinary JPEG. First of all, the eight bits of data are carefully distributed according to each image with a "stretched" tone curve, Chan said in a forum post. Second, Adobe "dithers," which means it carefully adds a little noise when moving to 8-bit values, which can actually improve the appearance.

And unlike JPEGs, the lossy DNGs preserve much of the flexibility of raw, such as the ability to change white balance, keep a wide color gamut, and recover overexposed highlights, Chan said.

But while Adobe likes the lossy DNG option and believes some will enjoy its more economical storage demand, it doesn't suffer the illusion that it's for everybody.

"It's not a default nor an option for everyone," Hogarty said. "However, I know that a number of photographers shooting time lapses in a raw format or looking to archive outtakes in a more compact format will appreciate the flexibility." And some could use it as an archival format for second-tier photos.

And Adobe does care about lossy DNG image quality, and it encourages people to test it to see what they think. Here's Adobe's process, he said:

The way we've been testing this is by taking original raw files, making lossy compressed DNG versions of them, and developing the two pictures in Lightroom and then opening the results into Photoshop. We toggle between the two, and try to determine visually which is which. We do this at multiple visual scales (Fit View, 1:1, 2x, 4x, and even higher). Then we do a diff between the two images to scrutinize the visual structure of the differences"

Canon has apparently had video in mind as well as stills for the lenses. They are definitely not high end video lenses, but Canon has been showing them mounted on the C300.

if you can find the older kenko DG Teleconverters apparently they will AF because there is no AF confirm like the new DGX ones apparently they are optically the same so these older ones will allow you to AF at greater than f8 even on non 1 series bodies you just have to factor it into your exposure metering thats all.

You've got to at least take into account
- the Christmas promotions and discounts - the 7D and 5D (in a kit or seperate) were some of the lowest prices they've been.
- there's going to likely/potentially be an announcement soon that'll affect 5D and 7D purchases.

The day to day prices do fluctuate if you watch them, as promotions rotate - eg I've seen the 7D drop before Christmas for some, some were offering the same price with a bag thrown in, then more dropped in the Christmas run up, then after January the price rose up the equivalent of $100-200 odd here and there -and now the 7D and 5D seem to be fairly stably equal if not a bit higher to pre-Christmas discount prices.
Maybe B&H has just left the price increase longer than in the UK?

Another angle might be - if they stealth increase the price now, they can then justify a "10% OFF DISCOUNT" promo /haggling room when the new camera gets announced...

Jamesy said:

I have posted these once before here - they are far from perfect 'lab' shots but they show the rough difference in bokeh between a 5Dc/85_1.8 and my 40D/50_1.8, both at 1/3200, ISO100, F2. Clearly the 5D has way more bokeh.

Click to expand...

You can't really have more bokeh. The OOF areas can be more OOF but that is not bokeh.

Bokeh refers to the quality of the OOF parts of an image... how smooth, creamy, uniform, etc. but there is no formal definition. Bokeh is generally (some may debate) thought to be a function of the lens, for example the shape and number of aperture blades contribute to the look of the OOF areas.

awinphoto said:

Dont jump all over me, but this built in neutral density filter you guys are talking about... is it an actual glass filter, or just a software algorithm that desensitizes the sensor by a few stops? I know there are filters for the computer that can faux simulate certain filters, such as in photoshop and tiffen... If it's just a software "filter" it doesn't have to add bulk, depth or anything... Heck I think some of the older cameras already offered "filters" that similated warming, cool, sepia, etc...

Click to expand...

True, some of the old cameras offered these features and the new cameras also have these features but through selecting the right white balance or setting up a customized white balance, but all this tweaking happens in the software after the image is captured.
Imagine having control to set ISO level independently for the various sections of a sensor.
lets say we break the sensor into 3X3 sections (to follow the 1/3rd composition rule) and have control to select different ISO on each one of the 9 sections independently or break the sensor into two sections top and bottom or left and right and being able to set different ISO levels for each section independently, there are lots of possibilities to adjust and take a best possible resolution for a picture.
Also I think this could help us get the best dynamic resolution for a particular picture.

Thank you all for taking time out to reply to my question.
I sort of understand, but so wish that the 24-70 II had IS in it... :-[
Regards

Yes, thanks

I have a couple of lenses that I hope to buy in not a long time. I have been drooling over the MP-E65 for quite a while now, and the new 24 with is looks very nice too (don't understand what to use the 28 for, as it is not either or..?), and finally I have to make a plan on how to save for the new 24-70 which is extremly good according to my friend who had and used it the whole weekend.

In image 1 you can see the model's contact lenses. Not a recognised measure of sharpness, but I like it nonetheless.

Maybe it's a dyslexic "Haaaaaa!!!!" ? 10 out of 1 CR posters share that affliction...

Ah Moose beat me to it!

I can only add that the XML file indicates a publication date of the 13th January 2012. The Chapters website indicates a publication date of the 28th February 2012. I can only guess that Canon pushed back the launch possibly so that they launched after Nikon launched the D800.