Hi everyone...!

I went to a local camera store here in Adelaide, South Australia – and a had a long time of playing with the new Canon 80D. They’ve had a few 80Ds on the shelves this week, with a number already being sold to folk who pre-ordered. They had a 80D with the new 18-135mm nano-USM lens kit for me to try / play with.

As a 7D user (and a 350D before that… but let’s not go there) here are some observations from using the camera in store (but not actually taking any images to view on a large monitor):
a) It felt comfortable in my hand (I have average size hands for an adult male). Notably smaller and lighter than my 7D, but also somewhat (slightly) less rigid (the metal frame in the 7D is notable). Not that I was trying to ‘flex’ the body- it felt ‘solid’ – but not as ‘immovably rigid’ as my 7D.
b) Optical AF was incredibly fast on this new “kit lens” – notably faster than any STM lens, and significantly faster than other non-STM kit lenses I have used. Racks from macro to 5 metres in less than half a second. And back the same way.
c) Optical AF speed of the central AF point seemed to AF a smidgeon faster than other points.
- If pushed, I would say if anything the central point faster is slightly than my 7D with 15-85mm USM, whereas the other points about the same as my 7D points. That’s probably the -3 EV capability helping in a fairly low-light shop (no natural light streaming into this store, and I was in a somewhat darker lit part of the store... just low level lighting).
d) The overall AF points layout is very, very nice. I really like those 45 points, particularly for off central composition and focusing. Gonna be hard going home to ‘only’ 19 on my 7D
e) The 80D’s wheel/D pad is not as intuitive / tactile as the “joystick and larger wheel combination” of my 7D… though I already started to get used to using the 80D’s multi-controller wheel /D-pad at the end of my time in store.
f) Most of the controls felt fairly intuitive and familiar after a few minutes (though I probably do ‘learn’ camera layouts fairly quickly). The AF back-button felt very comfortable to me. I read someone writing it was not comfortable for them… but this was not the case for me. Shutter button and front wheel feel comfortable / natural.
g) The 18-135mm nano-USM’s focus ring does not appear to have FTM like the USM on my 15-85mm or 70-300mm L, etc. It seemed to not be engaged to the focus mechanism all the time (perhaps it is fly by wire / STM style?) I didn’t spend long checking this out, as it is not of much concern for me on that type of lens. I noted the lens does not have a focus window (which for some reason I expected it had!)
h) The 18-135mm feels very well balanced on the 80D DSLR body. The 18-135mm does extend notably during zooming.
i) The 80D viewfinder probably felt quite similar, if anything perhaps a little smaller than my 7D’s. However it could be perception. I didn’t adjust the eye dioptre… so that could have something to do with it (I typically need to adjust it a fair bit, as I’m quite nearsighted and wear glasses)
j) Live View AF was incredible! Both in photo mode and in video, the speed and surety of obtaining initial focus, and tracking a moving subject/object e.g. a staff member walking by, was very good. It felt only slightly slower than say the optical AF speed of a STM lens. With the new lens, it’s definitely not as quick as optical AF view, but not much off it. It feels 5 to 10 times quicker (in the relatively dim light) than my 7D’s Live View AF.
k) I managed to get Live View AF to ‘mis-hunt’ and eventually not lock focus when I zoomed right in on a black bag with little contrast / no bright features (in dim light). However for all other “scenes” – Live View acquired focus confidently (just once or twice it hunted / hesitated for a split second with little contrast, e.g. the bench surface, which was almost pure white). But most other “scenes” (e.g. lenses on the shelf, the bank/ credit-card-reader) it got accurate AF almost instantly. My 7D would have struggled and not been able to obtain AF in many of these cases (it was in my hand, and hand shake, even with IS on, does not assist the older/ slower non-DPAF).
l) The ‘beep’ sounded softer than on my 7D (but I have it turned off on my 7D). Or am I going deafer? Lol
m) Shutter sound is softer than the 7D. I appreciate this… particularly if photographing in quiet environments (e.g. church), or not wanting to scare animals away.
n) Articulated screen was bright and easy to use (though I didn’t take it outside). I did not move the articulated screen out… but may do that on a subsequent visit…
o) I explored a bit of the menu system… I found I didn’t use the touchscreen (as I am not used to touchscreen on cameras… yet). But if I get an 80D that could change!
p) Some Q functions are laid out a bit differently after the Q button press. But easy to work out after a second looking at the screen.
q) I could easily have played with it for longer… but I needed to get back to work. 

If anyone has specific questions about the handling of the camera (or other ‘first impressions’ that I may be able to share)… please ask me.
I cannot answer about the camera’s image quality, etc – as I do not have any photos from that in-store camera to look at.

Cheers… looking forward to your replies, and others use and impressions of this quite impressive new Canon DSLR.

Paul 8)

So I will be traveling to South Africa with National Geographic expedition.

I'm a beginner photographer.

My gear is a Canon 600D with 18-55 mm standard lens

My budget is open and I prefer buying lens that will satisfy me for a long time. Budget is open but then again I'm a beginner.

I wouldn't mind renting expensive lens for a once in a lifetime trip.

Every time I think Canon has too many camera bodies, I find out about nutty once-every-so-often left field releases like the astro rigs or, now, this:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=17982

I played the video briefly and see what they're doing here. But why on earth does this need dedicated hardware? Couldn't firmware have been released to tinker with the EXIF files instead?

- A

here is 2 first pictures i took in Dubai,

Fascinating:
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/973-sigma20f14art?start=1

PZ switched over to a 5DSR for its FF testing last year, but they haven't exactly set the world alight with a massive lens retest effort like DXO has. But in a new wrinkle, they slapped the same lens on their prior reference rig, the 5D2.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this.... or are you all still angry at the coma performance that crushed your astro hopes and dreams?

- A

Are there members here who have experience with both lenses (the Canon/Nikon versions)? I read that the 28 has quite some field curvature whereas the 25 gives a "flat" image. Is there a (big) difference in look of these two lenses wide open? FOV is obviously nearly identical, but are there other noticable differences?

Another thread got me thinking.

We know that the C100 came out without AF, but then Canon issued a firmware update which you could pay for to get AF (or DPAF, not entirely sure of the correct term, nor what they did exactly). This was not an OTA update, you had to give it the camera to Canon to upgrade for you.

My question, and it is extremely unlikely Canon would ever do this, but would you pay to have such a firmware upgrade/update on your current 1DX? And if so, how much would you be willing to pay?

I know I would pay, but of course not too much because then you are better off getting the 1DX Mark II when it comes out.

Thoughts?

Another gear question:
I need an usable flash extender for my Canon 580, and Nissin Di866 flashes. I bought one from amazon, but it was just an piece of card with an cheap fresenel lens - and it broke after the second usage.


Thank you a lot

I sold my Canon 35mm II, the one with the Blue Goo, and bought in the new Tamron 35mm with VC.

The quick impressions, with both fresh in my mind (although I didn't have them side-by-side)....

- The VC on the Tammy gives me what I feel is about 2 stops of stabilization. That's the key benefit (aside from $1100 of additional cash) from the Canon.
- In exchange for the two stops, you get some significant color aberration, with fringing in the corners. This is only in some shots with extreme contrast. To give you some perspective, shooting a page of black and white text won't show it, but shoot a scene with metallic highlights blown in the corners, and it'll be readily apparent. It's not in many images, and cleaned up nicely in post.
- Other Tammy benefits include huge weight and size reductions over the Canon.
- The image quality is really remarkably good. It is better than my Sigma 18-35 Art at 35mm, and that is really saying something.
- The lens did not require any calibration (dumb luck), and I don't believe the 35 is compatible with the new Tamron dock, although perhaps a future firmware release will change that.

All-in-all, I'm very, very pleased so far. I prefer the Tammy over the Canon for the weight and length; the quality is on par (probably slightly softer in some peeping fashion); and the VC is heaven-sent when you're taking pictures outdoors at 8 p.m.

Looking forward to the 85mm version.

A lot of Canon users are being tempted to shoot with a Sony FF mirrorless due to the ability to adapt Canon lenses, and lured by the thought that the grass might be greener on the Sony mirrorless side of the fence. It isn't. Before you accuse me of being a Sony hater, I should also say I have cross posted much of this on the Sony Alpha Forum and the A mount crowd are applauding.

There is a big fad for Sony FF mirrorless at the moment, and it is like watching lemmings following each other over the cliff. I am allowed to say this because I am a Sony FF mirrorless owner because I too was suckered into following the mindless herd over the cliff. It was a big mistake. How could I have been so foolish?

This is a controversial claim, so let's go through the reasons for this bold statement. The simple question hanging over the full frame Sony FE mount system is this: what is the point of professional grade full frame mirrorless?

The first answer you will hear to this question is that full frame mirrorless is more compact. For example Maki Kimio of Sony stated in an interview:

AP: Can you summarise the benefit of choosing an Alpha 7-series camera over a DSLR in a single sentence?

KM: Size. It’s all about size – it’s smaller and lighter. That’s the main reason of choosing our products.

Click to expand...

Let's examine this allegation. I direct readers to camerasize.com where this comparison comes from:

http://camerasize.com/compact/#624.515,596.286,377.56,ha,t



It shows the Sony a7RII, Canon 5Ds, and Sony a99 with a native 24-70mm f/2.8 lens mounted. As you can see, the total lengths are the same. Sony has failed to overcome the laws of physics. If you take something from the camera body, you have to give it back to the lens, and by the same amount. So you have a choice: either buy one big body and lots of small lenses, or one small body and lots of big lenses. The former is economical and the latter is more expensive. The more lenses you carry on you, the worse the size disadvantage for mirrorless becomes.

In many cases, Sony FF mirrorless works out bigger:

http://camerasize.com/compact/#624.516,377.63,ha,t



This shows the a7RII with the new 85mm f/1.4 GM lens vs the a99 with the Sony-Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 lens. This time, FF mirrorless works out BIGGER than the rival DSLT model. The same thing happens when you compare it with a Canon DSLR:



Here the a7RII with the 85mm f/1.4 lens is bigger than the Canon 5DsR with the 85mm f/1.2 lens, despite the latter being half a stop faster.

The only time mirrorless works out more compact is when shooting with pancake lenses:



Here, the a7RII and a99 are shown with a 20mm f/2.0 lens. This was probably the original design intention of full frame mirrorless, but it became so irrationally popular that Sony started to develop more professional lenses for the system.

Sony and Zeiss seem to be peddling the revelation of the obvious that slow lenses make for more compactness as though this were some spectacular technological innovation. It seems that f/1.8 is the default maximum diameter for nearly all FE mount FF primes, with only a couple of exceptions. The absurdity is that the 85mm f/1.8 Zeiss Batis gives you the same shallow depth of field as the APS-C Fuji XF 56mm f/1.2. What is the point of shooting full frame if you can't get more subject isolation than you can from APS-C? The only reason to limit aperture to f/1.8 is to make the lens more compact. But look at this:



Shown are the Sony a7RII with the Zeiss 85mm f/1.8 Batis, the Nikon D810 with the 85mm f/1.8, and the Fuji X-Pro2 with the 56mm f/1.2 lens. In terms of compactness, the APS-C Fuji is streets ahead. At maximum aperture all of these set-ups give you the same shallow depth of field.

If compactness really was your priority, you would be better off choosing the Fuji with the 56mm f/1.2, which also allows you to shoot faster in low light. The Sony makes up for the slowness of the lens with IBIS, but this won't help you stop action in low light. It makes no sense to limit the aperture speed on FF lenses merely for the sake of making a system more compact.

Even with a 50mm f/1.8 lens, there is questionable size benefit from shooting with a mirrorless:



Here the a7RII is shown with the new 50mm f/1.8 and the 5DsR with the 50mm f/1.8 lens. If you carry multiple focal lengths around with you at once, then professional full frame mirrorless has a marked size disadvantage. Want a more compact professional camera system?—buy a DSLR!

Now that the realisation has slowly begun to sink in that once the lens size in taken into account size advantage is largely lost, there is talk from increasingly desperate people now begging for a "24-70mm f/2.0 FE mount lens that is more compact (sic) than the f/4.0 version". But the public have deluded themselves into thinking that Sony and Zeiss can collaborate to rewrite the laws of physics.

The next answer you will hear is that a FF mirrorless is still lighter and the width of the body might be a bit smaller. However, that is only because Sony put such a miniscule battery in their FF mirrorless bodies that you end up having to carry multiple batteries that negate any size advantage. You could make DLSR batteries smaller too, and they would still have better battery life than a mirrorless. The larger bodies found of DSLRs is more to improve ergonomics and could be made smaller if there were demand for this.

So once again we find ourselves back to the original question. Other than as an enthusiast's compact walkabout system for shooting with a single pancake lens: what is the point of professional full frame mirrorless? It certainly isn't certainly isn't because it is more compact used with professional grade lenses.

The next answer you will hear is that full frame mirrorless is better because of IBIS. That's like saying that Sony mirrorless is better because of the steak knives that they throw in. IBIS is hardly any more a unique technical feature inherent to the design of mirrorless cameras than either wifi or steak knives. Pentax have just incorporated IBIS into their K-1 DSLR, and Sony could have put IBIS into their A mount DSLT system. So IBIS gives full frame mirrorless no inherent technical advantage over other systems, but people are suckered in by the offer of steak knives.

But Houston, we have a problem. There is also a major flaw with Sony E mount IBIS. The Sigma CEO has been quoted as expressing serious concern for the narrowness of the E mount diameter: "...the diameter is very small and makes it difficult to design high quality FF lenses ... it almost looks like E-mount was designed for APS-C more than FF".

We know that a narrow mount diameter is a big no-no with IBIS:

TAKASHI UENO: First of all, our XF mount is not compatible with IBIS. You may be thinking that our mount size is similar to competitors’ and why Fujifilm cannot do it. The answer is simple: for the sake of image quality. IBIS has both advantages and disadvantages. IBIS moves the sensor in the mount to stabilize the image. To secure the amount of light at any position, the diameter of mount must cover the wider image circle considering the margin of sensor movement. The diameter of our mount was designed for the image circle without IBIS. It means the amount of light at the corners is reduced when the sensor is shifted. We could correct it digitally, but we don’t want to do it: we don’t want to compromise our image quality.

TOMASH: Why didn’t you design a mount in a size, which would allow implementing the IBIS?

TAKASHI UENO: To cover the larger image circle, not only mount size (and body size), but also lens size must be bigger.

http://fujilove.com/our-highest-priority-is-always-image-quality-interview-with-takashi-ueno-and-shusuke-kozaki-from-fujifilm-japan/

Click to expand...

If you want IBIS, you have to design the mount in advance with a wider diameter, so that it doesn't compromise corner IQ as the sensor moves around. What you don't do is take an APS-C mount (NEX mount), turn it into a full frame mount, then forcibly retrofit IBIS onto a mount never designed to take it in the first place.

Furthermore, Zeiss has admitted that the short flange distance of FE mount makes it technically challenging to design wide angle lenses: “The short flange distance between the sensor and the rear element is an engineering challenge for ultra wide-angle lenses.” At short focal lengths, the light hits the corners at a steep angle, which is exacerbated by IBIS. It isn't without reason that Sony has yet to come up with any wide angle zoom lenses for the FE mount. They don't even have a 16-35mm f/2.8 zoom, one of the so-called zoom trinity of bread-and-butter professional lenses. We may never see anything like the Canon 11-24mm f/4 rectilinear lens for E mount, and it would hardly be predicted to perform well if it did appear. It is a euphemism to call the FE mount "technically challenged". The more honest expression may well be "technically flawed", or just plain retarded.

It is interesting to compare the relative diameters of various mounts:

Minolta/Sony A mount: 49.7mm
Sony E mount: 46.1mm
Fuji X mount: 44mm
Canon EOS EF mount: 54mm
Pentax K mount: 44mm

From this you can that see Sony were better off putting IBIS into their A mount, which has a wider diameter, because it is more of a dedicated full frame mount, not an APS-C mount. Canon is in a better position to add IBIS to the EOS mount because it is so wide, and if sensor resolution goes up to 120MP we will probably need it to reduce the impact of handshake. You can also see that both Sony and Pentax are adding IBIS to excessively narrow mounts purely as a marketing ploy, with flagrant disregard towards optical fundamentals. It represents the victory of advertising over engineering. For the credulous it represents Sony's triumph over the laws of physics.

In any case, neither throwing in IBIS nor steak knives fails to convince us that mirrorless is an inherently better camera design. With that we return to the question: what is the point of professional FF mirrorless?

The next answer you get is that the main advantage of Sony mirrorless is that you can use non-native lenses with adapters. Asked about adapting Canon lenses Kimio Maki of Sony said this:

Do you anticipate that someone who has a collection of long telephoto Canon lenses could potentially use them to shoot sports with the a7R II?

KM: I hope that our native lenses are better! But it will happen. I see people using Sony a7-series bodies and third-party lenses all the time ... because they already own the lenses. It works, but our native lenses are much better...

Click to expand...

Adapters are grossly impractical to use. I have a lot of adapters for my a7II, and have accidentally taken the wrong one with me or have forgotten to pack one altogether. It's also an extra pair of lens caps to lose. Saying you chose FF mirrorless because of the size advantage so you can shoot with an adapted Canon lens is like saying that you're going on a holiday to Hawaii so you can enjoy skiing on powder snow. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Adapters are also fiddly, bulky, and they decisively kill whatever marginal advantage in compactness the body might allegedly once have had. Unfortunately, the body-adapter-lens combination ends up looking like some ungainly Dr. Seuss contraption:


Worse still, my Sony A to E mount adapter reduces light transmission by about a 1/2 stop, and you lose far too much of the native autofocus functionality, which gets immeasurably worse with Canon lenses. It is always far better to use native lenses—hence why Sony actually make native E mount lenses!!! As Maki rightly says "native lenses are much better". It's a grand statement of the obvious that no fanboys wants to hear. Nobody raves on and on about the fact that you can adapt some vintage MF lenses to Canon bodies then add focus peaking to the body with Magic Latern. Micro-misalignment between lens-adapter-body causes degradation of IQ in the corners particularly at shorter focal lengths (where due to the short flange distances and narrow mount diameter the E mount is "technically challenged" already because it was originally an APS-C mount). Being able to adapt vintage MF lenses might be cute and will have its niche, but for the vast majority of photographers, the last reason to choose mirrorless is as a vintage retro lens revivalist contraption. At the end of the day, when I pick my set of lenses for a shoot, I just find myself systematically avoiding the use of adapted lenses. I would gladly toss all of my adapters in the bin just to shoot with native lenses.

The next answer we get is that mirrorless is inherently superior because of live exposure preview. That means you get to preview the exposure in real time through the EVF before taking the picture. This is something that is not the default modus operandi on a DSLR, but a new hybrid viewfinder patent from Canon suggests exposure preview is soon coming to DSLRs. However, the Sony A mount cameras are DSLTs (Digital Single Lens Translucent), which already have an excellent EVF for live exposure preview. So once again it just isn’t true to say that live exposure preview through an EVF is the one extraordinary feature that elevates mirrorless to the status of being an inherently superior design over other alternatives.

So we find ourselves returning to the original question: what is the point of full frame mirrorless? When it comes to full frame professional grade mirrorless, the answer is that there is no point. People are buying into it because it is an irrational fad. You end up having to buy lots of big and expensive lenses for the one tiny body, when it is preferable to have lots of smaller lenses for the one big body, since the total lens-body combination is the same anyway due to physics. In actual fact the lens-body combination makes professional full frame mirrorless multi-lens packages larger overall. The only time you get more compactness is when you shoot with just one short focal length pancake or quasi-pancake lens for use as a walkabout camera.

The fad for a7 series full frame mirrorless cameras is driven by irrational exuberance, and Sony are merely responding to market demand-supply forces, even though they know themselves that they were better off developing their A mount system, based as it is on superior optical design fundamentals. Their autofocus system, IBIS, and the 42MP BSI sensor would have reached their full potential on the dedicated professional full frame A mount system, and are being wasted on the FE mount mirrorless system.

Mirrorless FF cameras are going through the usual cycle that goes with all novel technology. First some enthusiasts delirious with euphoria proclaim it to be the road to Elysian Fields and declare the DSLR dead. Next people find the Revolution to End All Revolutions brings its own set of problems, and it isn't the magical path to El Dorado it promised. Finally, people arrive at the more sober realisation that like rangefinders, it has its niche, along with its own peculiar set of pros and cons.

Main review here:
http://www.lenstip.com/index.php?test=obiektywu&test_ob=470

Resolution results here:
http://www.lenstip.com/470.4-Lens_review-Tokina_AT-X_PRO_SD_14-20_mm_f_2_%28IF%29_DX_Image_resolution.html

I know LT's reference crop rig is still a 50D, but yowza, that's impressive.

Low coma for the astro camp as well...

- A

This is a full detail account of the Media day inside Nellis AFB for Red Flag 16-2

Full report and more pictures here
http://airwingspotter.com/red-flag-experience/

Being able to photograph between 2 runway with jets roaring beside you is quite an experience.


Enjoy!

DaveC

Hello,

I have a 5D3 and it leaves me wanting nothing when it comes to getting the shot.

However, when I am not getting the shot, it leaves me wanting a table to set it on. I love capturing my life, but sometimes with that much camera it hinders the lifing part. Particulary at music festivals in the deserts and mountains.

I want something with nicer quality images than I am getting from not taking my camera out...easy right?

Amazon still shows the G7X mkII as to be released on 3/26 and it still doesn't show it's in stock. I can't find any reviews, and everything is just basic press release stuff. All the comparisons of the original against the Sony favor the Sony. For me, there is nothing like the Canon UI. To have a camera like the 5D3 and be able to adjust it one handed and with barley a glance, sometimes it's important not to have to think at these events

When ever I use a friends A7r it feels like the equivalant of needing to use 3 extra clicks that feel randomly placed to do the same things.

I have never touched either the G7X or RX100. I am pretty sure I am fine without the EVF, it really comes down to:
I want a good UI
Good image quality (I feel both are gonna be negligible)
Accurate first and decent speed second auto focus

I was still eyeing the G5x thinking maybe I might actually miss the EVF, and while the Digic 7 is claiming better low light processing, I also assume this means for jpgs not RAW. However, if the Digic 7 is also improving AF speed then I want it.

What are anyone's thoughts on this? Has anyone's G7 X mkII shown up yet?

http://www.losttracksoftime.com/p58527735

The above link is to a series of photos I captured at the WW&F Railway Museum in Maine on the morning of March 25th. It was cold with freezing rain, but very serene and peaceful; the only noise some wild turkey in the distance gobbling and an occasional rooster crowing.
I planned beforehand to make these images appear as timeless as possible, but after looking at the finished gallery it’s hard not to think they were taken in 1910 and not 2016. Us railfans, me included, too often focus on the train in a scene and not the surrounds itself.
It amazes me that before 1989 (when the WW&F Railway Museum was established) no trackwork and structures existed; yet all looks to have been intact since the original railroad operated between 1895 and 1933.
The spirit and drive of the Maine 2-Footers has never been more alive – thanks to the incredibly magical efforts by the men and women based in Sheepscot.

All photos taken with a Canon 1DS Mk1, 50mm/F1.2 prime. The conversion to B/W and final exposure/contrast adjustments done in Camera Raw, less than 2 minutes per image spent in Photoshop afterwards.

Enjoy,
Matthew

HI. Anyone have recent experience on international flights as to how many spare batteries may be carried in cabin baggage?

Searches online are vague, but Brithish Airways has a pdf file that states 4 spares plus one on the camera body, yet Lufhansas' manual states TWO spares! That would be a real challenge!

Regards,
Robert

Dear friends,

According to DPReview lab tests, it seems that Nikon decided to bring out a $6,500 "pro monster" with a low ISO dynamic range that's much worse than that of $1,996 D750 and even worse; $747 (!!!) D5500 sensor, kills the one of the new "king" of Nikon FF!!!

I think that 1Dx Mk2, not only is going to blow the Nikon crap out of the water, it's going to eat it alive!

Here is the link to the "Nikon vs Nikon" comparison:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/9402203921/nikon-d5-shows-drop-in-dynamic-range

Be strong, enjoy your lives and those you love.
Best wishes

Yiannis.

There were many-many long time CR members used to participate on CR daily. They now seem to spend less or not at all these days. I'm curious why?

Exp: Dylan777, surapon etc...

Just discovered that 2 of my Canon batteries have become very weak over the last two month. While gathering breath to curse Canon I discovered/remembered that I bought these batteries nearly a decade ago and that they serve me now in the 3rd camera (60D, 5DIII and 80).

On comparison...How often does Sony change the lensmount in a decade?

Recently, I got myself the Lee 100x150 2-stops soft filter. I think it's a wise idea to get a few more filters to cover most (not all!) situations and needs in landscape photograpry.

I am considering:

-Big stopper (10 stops)
-Little stopper (6 stops)
-Soft grad 3 stops

Maybe:
-Medium grad 2 or 3 stops
-Blender

Thee LEE site says on Medium: "This filter is soft enough to use over many smaller obstacles in the horizon"
and on Hard: "This filter is soft enough to use over many obstacles in the horizon"
It doesn't make me more wise

How useful is a blender?
How useful is a medium grad? Which one would be more suitable, 2 or 3 stops? Or would you go for soft & hard intead of soft & medium?

Thanks,
Niels

It seems the 5D3 is no longer listed on the current camera list on Canon Canada's web page.

I guess that means that it is discontinued and that a replacement is imminent.

Quite interesting promo from Canon Germany, if you're looking for high quality equipment:
http://www.canon.de/for_home/promotions/eos_plus_x/
From March 23rd, 2016 until January 31st 2017 (almost 1 year!!!)

Combine a camera and a lens and get cashback.

Involved cameras:
EOS 6D
EOS 5D Mark III
EOS 5DS
EOS 5DS R
EOS 7D Mark II
+ all Cinema EOS

Lenses from EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM (20€ cashback) or EF 40mm f/2.8 STM (35€ cashback) up to all (!!!) big whites (e.g. 400/2.8 II and 800 € cashback).

Enjoy your GAS

edit: TS-E lenses and the MP-E macro are also included. Wow!