No more electronic level while LiveView is active after firmware upgrade (5DM3)

Hi everybody,

I noticed something weird after upgrading my 5D Mark III to the latest firmware recently (version 1.2.3 if I'm not mistaken). I used to be able to see the electronic level while using LiveView to shoot still pictures by pressing the Info button until it appeared. Right after upgrading the firmware I noticed I couldn't get the electronic level when using LiveView anymore.

It still appears on the LCD screen when I press the Info button if I'm NOT using LiveView. I suspect it might have something to do with the firmware upgrade, but it could also be a coincidence.

Has anybody else noticed the same thing? Is it just an option that I could change to enable it again? I sure hope it wasn't completely removed in the latest firmware version...

Thanks in advance for your help!

FD lens with an adapter for my 10 year old? Any image quality comparisons?

So I was done building my own kit of lenses and body... so I went nuts and bought my 10 year old an Xti and a 18-55. But I wasn't done... I upgraded her xti to a Sl1 (and it is also my backup if my 5D mkiii fails) and I picked up a 28-135 (because I didn't like her casual attitude with my 24-105).

But I'm not a big fan of the 28-135... I don't like zooms with variable apertures and also the depth of field achieved with the lens. I'd lean towards a prime, but the 50mm f/1.8 is too toy like, the 50 f/1.4 is a touch costly for a 10 year old and the AF is a touch fragile... so I don't want to do that...

She tends to only manually focus... which I think is awesome... so I could maybe consider a used Sigma 50mm f/1.4... but I would want to use it every now and I'm an AF user... and I have heard that some Sigmas are beyond the 20 +/- AFMA units... and I would HATE eventually selling the lens to anyone and NOT tell them that the AF margin is so off. Yes I could send it to Sigma... but I'm not excited about that either.

So here's my question and point of the post... I've heard that old FD lenses can still provide remarkable results and can be had for a song and used with an adapter.

So I throw down $10 for an adapter and $20 for a 50mm F1.8 FD... but I can't find a website that compare the image quality of the lens to the current generation of lenses.

Normally I'd use a comparison tool like this:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=105&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=115&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

but they don't have the FD lenses to compare.

So is the FD 50mm lens with an adapter worth the $30? Is the image quality going to be on par with at least the 50mm f/1.8 mkii?

Is there another cheap FD lens option with comparable performance of today's lenses?

Nikon D4 for $3500 w/o Box & Warranty

So I've just found an AMAZING deal for a Nikon D4 on Craigslist and I need some advice. This guy is selling his for only $3500 like new with strap, nothing else...no box, no warranty card, manuals, etc. He said that he purchased it from a friend of a friend who had had his camera bag stolen while he was using the D4, thus why the accessories are MIA. He said he got it for a great deal and he's just looking to get back what he paid for it so he can buy studio equipment, which I have and he's willing to barter for.

What do you think? How truthful does that sound...could it possibly be stolen and, if so, are there any detriments to buying a stolen camera? Can it still be registered for warranty if the serial is on the bottom like many of Nikon's cameras? I spoke with him on the phone and he sounded completely legit, but I'm still hesitant for the obvious reasons.

Developments in technology

Dear colleagues,

I would like to hear your thoughts about developments in photographic technology and reasons why such developments are so slowly implemented. When I look at digital photography and prices it is obvious that the first digital cameras were extremely expensive and not affordable to general public. However, during the last decade there were quite significant developments in digital cameras (increased MP, better DR, ability to shoot with higher ISO). I understand that 5-7 years ago FF cameras were very expensive due to the fact that FF sensors were very expensive. Accordingly, cheaper (crop) sensors were invented in order to make digital cameras more affordable to general public.

I still do not understand why after so many years FF cameras are so expensive as sensor production should be much much cheaper (R&D costs already amortised, mass production is already in place). Also, I can not understand MF camera costs, which rocket to the sky :).

Also, there are not so many improvements in Canon's digital cameras technology. As far as I understand in digital camera the most important things are sensor and processor. If you take a look at computer area you can notice very significant improvements in processors speed, their architecture and etc. Canon, for example, still produces 5 year old 7D, which is based practically on outdated technology (I admit that 7D is superb camera, however, it could be even better). So, why is it so hard to photographic companies to try harder and develop better sensors and image processors on a yearly basis. They ear sufficient profits, which could be invested in R&D. Of course, I understand that improvement in optics are very costly and even slight improvement is very hard to achieve. That's why we are still using lenses , which were developed 10y (or even more) ago.

The same applies to MF cameras. I can not justify their costs. In my opinion (maybe I am wrong) the difference between MF and FF is the sensor, processor capabilities and larger lenses. If MF sensors are produced as mass production their costs should be much lower and MF cameras would be more affordable. I have impression that Canon and Nikon are basically milking the same cows for many years and do not try very hard to due to lack of real competition.

Any thoughts on that matters?

Rubber Hoods

I wass thinking of trying to find a soft rubber hood instead of the hard plastic one I already have. Although I'm pretty careful I still occasionally bang the hood against something and I thought a rubber one would absorb impact better. Has anyone used one for any length of time? My biggest concerns would be how they hold up in very cold/hot weather and whether or not they would warp on the ends.

Are Metal Mounts Better Than Plastic?

HTML:
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/01/are-metal-mounts-better-than-plastic/"></g:plusone></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/2014/01/are-metal-mounts-better-than-plastic/">Tweet</a></div>
The following article is by Roger Cicala and Aaron Closz from <a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/" target="_blank">LensRentals.com</a></p>
<p><strong>Assumptions, Expectations, and Plastic Mounts</strong>

Photography companies love catchword marketing. They like catchwords because photographers make assumptions about what those words mean, even though the words really don’t mean anything. So basically, they say nothing, but it makes you believe something.</p>
<p>Two of my favorite examples are “professional quality construction” and “weather resistance”.  When I read those terms, my brain translates them to “Blah, blah, blah. Blah, blah.” They are subjective terms, just like ‘elegant design’ and ‘innovative styling’.</p>
<p>Most photographers, though, make all kinds of assumptions about what those catchwords mean, and have all kinds of expectations about the equipment that is described by these largely meaningless bits of marketing. We all know what Oscar Wilde said the word <a href="http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_first_said_if_you_assume_you_will_make_an_ass_out_of_you_and_me?#slide=2">assume </a>really means. Expectations, of course, are simply a down payment on future disappointment.</p>
<p>I have watched several world-class internet meltdowns with great amusement recently. All were started when photographers found out that their assumptions and expectations about what catchwords meant were wrong. They became a firestorm when people added a lot of ‘facts’ that weren’t really facts.</p>
<p><!--more--></p>
<h2>Plastic Mounts and Professional Construction</h2>
<p>Much of the recent internet rioting was triggered by some Olympus 12-40 lenses that broke off at the plastic mount (the mount is the internal part of the lens where the bayonet — the metal part that twists into the camera — attaches by several screws). Several people reported their lenses broke at the mount with minimal force applied (a short fall or even pressure from other items in a camera bag). We ship those lenses all over the country and they seem no more likely to break than any other lens we stock. But apparently at least some of them had a weak mount.</p>
<p>What amused me was the absolute fury expressed by numerous photographers that a “professional quality” lens might have a plastic mount. I’ve looked up the term ‘professional quality’ everywhere and nowhere have I found it defined as ‘having an all-metal mount’. But some people are livid that it isn’t so. If you’ve read one of these posts on the internet lately, you’ve learned all kinds of things. . . none of which are true.</p>
<ul>
<li>Most micro 4/3 lenses have metal mounts (they don’t – only one does that I recall).</li>
<li>All ‘professional quality’ lenses have metal mounts (they don’t, not even close to all do).</li>
<li>Micro 4/3 lenses and NEX lenses all have plastic mounts, but ‘real’ SLR lenses have metal mounts (not true on either side of the comma).</li>
<li>Plastic mounts are only used on cheap kit lenses and have only appeared in the last few years (They’ve been around for a long time on many lenses).</li>
<li>Lenses with plastic mounts break more frequently than lenses with metal mounts (Nothing suggests this).</li>
</ul>
<p>I take apart lenses all day every day, so I was rather amazed to find all these facts spoken so dogmatically by people who claimed them to be absolutely true. I make it a rule never to argue with people who claim absolute knowledge, no matter how wrong they are. But I will occasionally show them pictures. So here are some pictures of the mounts of lenses that Aaron and I took apart for various reasons this morning.</p>
<p><strong>Canon 35mm f/1.4 L lens.</strong> Released in 1998 (15 years ago), considered a Professional Quality lens, and certainly carrying a professional quality price. It has a plastic mount. In fact, we keep that mount as a stock part because we have to replace it every once in a while. It doesn’t break often, but we have hundreds of them and they do break once in a while.</p>
<div id="attachment_15427" style="width: 582px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/35sml.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-15427" alt="Canon 35mm f/1.4 L with rear barrel removed, showing 4 plastic posts that the lens mount attaches to." src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/35sml-572x575.jpg" width="572" height="575" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Canon 35mm f/1.4 L with rear barrel removed, showing 4 plastic posts that the lens mount attaches to.</p></div>
<p><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;">Panasonic-Leica 45mm Macro Elmarit f/2.8 m4/3 lens.</strong><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> I won’t argue about whether it’s a Professional lens, but it’s really good, really reliable, and quite expensive. It has a plastic mount despite online claims otherwise.</span></p>
<div id="attachment_15428" style="width: 585px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Leica45mm2.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-15428" alt="Panasonic-Leica 45mm. The 4 empty plastic holes are where the lens mount attaches. The 3 screws still in place attach this plastic piece to the next plastic piece in the lens barrel." src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Leica45mm2-575x564.jpg" width="575" height="564" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Panasonic-Leica 45mm. The 4 empty plastic holes are where the lens mount attaches. The 3 screws still in place attach this plastic piece to the next plastic piece in the lens barrel.</p></div>
<p><strong>Sony 50mm f/1.8 NEX lens</strong>. Again, I’m not arguing Professional here, but this one is widely mentioned in the forums as ‘all-metal construction’. It has a metal shell, just like the Olympus 12-40mm, but the support pieces are plastic and the mount screws into plastic, just like the Olympus 12-40mm.</p>
<div id="attachment_15429" style="width: 585px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/sony50mm-f1.8.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-15429" alt="Sony 50mm f/1.8. The 4 hollow plastic posts are where the screws from the lens mount attach." src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/sony50mm-f1.8-575x554.jpg" width="575" height="554" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Sony 50mm f/1.8. The 4 hollow plastic posts are where the screws from the lens mount attach.</p></div>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Canon 14mm f/2.8 Mk II L.</strong> I don’t think anyone argues this is a Professional Quality lens at a very professional cost. An ultra-reliable lens, but it certainly has a plastic mount. Not that we ever have to replace them. They never break here despite being far larger than the Olympus 12-40mm.</p>
<div id="attachment_15430" style="width: 585px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/IMG_9248.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-15430" alt="Canon 14mm f/2.8 II rear barrel showing hollow screw hole in polycarbonate inner barrel where the lens mount attaches." src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/IMG_9248-575x429.jpg" width="575" height="429" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Canon 14mm f/2.8 II rear barrel showing hollow screw hole in polycarbonate inner barrel where the lens mount attaches.</p></div>
<p><strong>Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L Mk I.</strong> A professional lens released in 2002. It weighs about 2 pounds; far larger than any two micro 4/3 lens combined. It is generally referred to as a tank because it never breaks (it has optical problems, but those occur at the front end, which is, oddly enough, entirely made of metal). The plastic mount never breaks despite holding up 2 pounds of lens. Trust me on that, we’ve carried hundreds and hundreds of these for years and never had a mount break. (As an aside, the Mk II version has a metal mount, despite being lighter. I’m not sure why.)</p>
<div id="attachment_15431" style="width: 585px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/IMG_9262.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-15431" alt="Canon 24-70 f/2.8 Mk I. That big beast is easily and reliably supported on it’s 4 polycarbonate screw mounts." src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/IMG_9262-575x528.jpg" width="575" height="528" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Canon 24-70 f/2.8 Mk I. That big beast is easily and reliably supported on it’s 4 polycarbonate screw mounts.</p></div>
<p><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;">The Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC lens</strong><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">. I include this one just for completeness, because it’s another large lens and at least one online authority has stated it has a metal mount. Sorry, there’s no metal back there at all.</span></p>
<div id="attachment_15432" style="width: 585px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Tamron24-70VC-1024x980.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-15432" alt="Common mount with empty plastic holes that attach the lens mount, and screws remaining in holes attaching this to the next barrel piece." src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Tamron24-70VC-1024x980-575x550.jpg" width="575" height="550" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Common mount with empty plastic holes that attach the lens mount, and screws remaining in holes attaching this to the next barrel piece.</p></div>
<p><strong>Attention Fanboys:</strong> Just because your favorite lens isn’t shown here doesn’t mean it doesn’t have plastic mounts. Lenses of 70-200 f/2.8 size and up all have metal internal mounts (as best I can recall), but lenses smaller than that may be either metal or plastic. All Zeiss ZE and ZF SLR lenses have metal internal mounts (but not Zeiss-designed lenses for other brands). Nikons are more likely to have metal mounts than other brands, but they have a fair amount of plastic-mount lenses, too. Otherwise, the majority of lenses have internal plastic mounts.</p>
<p>Does it make any difference? I looked at the Lensrentals’ reliability data for the last several years (several thousand repairs), and there’s no higher failure rate with plastic mount lenses. They have, if anything, a bit lower failure rate, but it’s not a significant difference.</p>
<p>When a plastic mount does break, people tend to freak out a bit because the lens is so obviously broken. From a repair standpoint, though, we love them. It takes 15 minutes to replace a broken plastic mount and the lens is as good as new. Metal mount lenses don’t break like that. Instead internal components and lens elements get shifted and bent. It can take several hours to return one of those to optical alignment.</p>
<h2>So What Does It Mean?</h2>
<p>Absolutely nothing except that internet hysteria is alive and well. By my latest count, during the last two weeks 7,216 internet experts have claimed it is an absolute fact that plastic internal mounts are a new, cheap, poor quality substitute for internal metal mounts. The pictures above suggest otherwise.</p>
<p>The pictures show that for many years lots of very large, very high-quality, professional-grade lenses have had plastic internal mounts. Guess what? They didn’t all self destruct. In fact several of them are widely considered particularly rugged. Looking at 7 years worth of data involving around 20,000 lenses I can’t find any suggestion that plastic mount lenses, in general, fail more than metal mount lenses. Sure, there are certain lenses that fail more than others, but not because they have a plastic mount.</p>
<p>In theory, plastic mounts might be better, worse, or no different than metal as far as reliability goes. There are logical arguments for each.</p>
<p>Obviously a few Olympus 12-40mm lenses have broken at the mount. It may be there was a batch of badly molded mounts. It may be a design flaw. It may just be random chance – a few of everything break. But it’s not just because the mount is plastic.</p>
<p>I do like taking this opportunity to remind everyone that marketing catchwords like ‘Professional Grade’ mean very little. If they say it has 16 megapixels they’ve told you a fact. If they say  ’Professional Grade’ that’s a word with no clear definition. It probably means ‘built better than some of our cheap stuff’.</p>
<h3>Speaking of Catchwords</h3>
<p>As long as we’re on the subject of catchwords, it’s probably worth tackling ‘Weather Sealed’ or ‘Weather Resistant’ next. Many people seem to believe that means ‘waterproof’. When you take lenses apart all day you find out it usually means ‘we put a strip of foam rubber behind the front and rear elements and scotch tape over the access holes under the rubber rings’.</p>
<div id="attachment_15433" style="width: 585px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/IMG_9253-1024x896.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-15433" alt="Strip of foamed rubber that sits behind the front element of a ‘weather sealed’ lens." src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/IMG_9253-1024x896-575x503.jpg" width="575" height="503" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Strip of foamed rubber that sits behind the front element of a ‘weather sealed’ lens.<span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> </span></p></div>
<div id="attachment_15434" style="width: 542px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/IMG_9255.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-15434" alt="Tape over access holes in a weather sealed lens." src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/IMG_9255-532x575.jpg" width="532" height="575" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Tape over access holes in a weather sealed lens.</p></div>
<p>It’s better than no weather sealing, certainly. And some (but not all) ‘weather sealed’ lenses also have internal gaskets around barrel joints and other added bits seals. But I haven’t seen one manufacturer yet tell us exactly what weather their lens is sealed against. Snow? Rain? Sunshine? Wind? Well, it can’t be wind because the lenses we spend the most time taking dust out of are mostly ‘weather sealed’.</p>
<p>It’s very different with different manufacturers. You can assume whatever you like, but when you send your lens in for repair, ‘weather sealed’ still means ‘the warranty doesn’t cover water damage’.</p>
<p>The truth is, terms like Professional Grade and Weather Resistant are nearly as vague as ‘innovative technology’ and ‘stylish design’. I’m certain it’s only a matter of time before I see an online post that says, “I bought this camera because the manufacturer said it had stylish design, but it’s butt-ugly. I think we should start a class-action lawsuit for false advertising”.</p>
<p>Roger Cicala and Aaron Closz</p>
<p><a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/12/assumptions-expectations-and-plastic-mounts" target="_blank">Lensrentals.com</a></p>

Is the 7d still a good body?

I am starting from a nikon d3100 and am looking to upgrade. I want to upgrade to a canon body and have been looking around. I really enjoy shooting landscapes, sunsets and really want to get into shorebreak/surf photography in the water. I have a friend that makes custom housings so that will not be an issue. I was wondering if the 7d was still a good body even though it is old? Also the 70d came out recently so I was wondering which camera body is better ? Is the 7d still a very capable body that I can shoot with for 3/4 years before having to upgrade or should I go with the 70d which is quite a bit newer.
Thanks,
Jesse Reid

Which one should I get?!

Hello!
Long time reader first time poster!
anyway... So i'm in the market for a new wide angle/ ultrawide lens.
I shoot a lot of landscapes and astrophotography etc. with my 5d3
I currently have a 15mm fisheye (canon version) and it's great but kind of useless sometimes? also have a Tokina 20-35 which works surprisingly well despite being a lower end third party lens... but nevertheless i'm in the market for a new lens. I was thinking a 24mm 1.4 II or 16 35mm 2.8? and maybe possibly selling the fisheye if it would render useless with either of these new lens. let me know what you guys think. budget is a bit of an issue but not much..
thanks!
-ericson

85L mkii soft at longer distances?

I recently bought a new 85L. I'm using a 5Dmkiii and I did microadjustments at 50x via Focal and FocusTune (both resulted in a -1 adjustment). Headshots and chest up shots are razor sharp. Problem is, if I pull back to do a full body shot the image is soft.

I dropped the lens off at Canon to have it checked (service center is only 30 mins from me). They said "the adjustment of the circuit board was incorrect causing the focus to operate improperly. Electrical adjustments were carried out on the circuit board."

Problem is, I'm still having the same issue...razor sharp up close, soft at longer distances (full body shots)

Any ideas?

New lenses ($6800 budget)

Hello fellow Canon-owners,

After holding all Canon bodies in my hands at the store, I have settled for a Canon 70D. The fullframe ones were just too large for my small hands.
Now I’m looking to invest in some quality glass, and I could really use some help.


My budget is around €5000,- ($6800) for 5 lenses in total. Even though with this amount of money I could go FF, I still don’t like the body size! Lens discussion only please :)

Lens 1:
A prime between 45-100mm with a maximum aperture of 2.8 (so 1.8, 1.4 and so on are fine too!)
I can work with the 50mm, but also the 85 and so on, so I just need 1 that is the best.

Lens 2:
A mid-range zoom with a maximum aperture of 2.8 (so 1.8, 1.4 and so on are fine too!)
Everything below 20mm to above 40mm is fine.

Lens 3:
A decent lens for macro between 85 and 100mm. I don’t have a preference for the aperture here.

Lens 4:
I have the 18-135, but I don’t find that sharp enough. I do like the zoom range though. Is there anything that comes close to the range, but sharper?

Lens 5:
A zoom that goes beyond 250/300mm. If that is achieved by a teleconverter that is fine by me, if that gives me better results.


Just a few notes:
- I don’t mind used lenses. If a great piece of glass is discontinued I’m more than happy to search the internet.
- Stabilized lenses don’t matter to me, I have steady hands.
- Autofocus is nice, but manual focus lenses are also welcome.
- I’m not a brand-whore. So I don’t care if the lenses are from Canon or a third party like Carl Zeiss. As long as the quality is good.

Some extra info:

With my current lenses I do this:

50mm 1.8: portraits, but also some macro. However I find that for macro it's too short in focal length.

18-135: I use this pretty much all of the time. But with the 70D the quality is bad to be honest.

70-300: I use this at festivals and at the zoo. I'm often at 250/300mm.

Before this I had a Canon 550D, so I already know how to work with them. With the new ones I just like to improve the sharpness of my shots and make use off all the 20 megapixels in the camera. So it is not like I just want to burn some cash, I think I really need those 5 lenses.

Canon 2014 Announcements (CR5+ at least)

It's Friday, so that means it's time to stop joking around and to start a serious thread. No offense and I don't mean to be rude, but sometimes CR Guy's sources suck. They're so CR0, CR1, and CR2. He even has the nerve to act like he came up with the CR rating scale or something. My sources are all CR5 or better.

Here's what they're telling me to expect of Canon at CES and Photokina:

Bodies

First, on the mirrorless front:

EOS M Mark II - 48MP, 16fps, professional dual-pixel AF (faster than 1DX), hybrid viewfinder, built-in EF adapter. Only available in Japan.

Canon was also very displeased with the Nikon Df, so they are launching these two bodies in response.

AE-2D - part of the new "Purer Photography" line, it will have have the same sensor as the 1DX, but will have no AF at all, requires a knob turn between shots, and comes with a brand new (Otus-killer) 35mm lens (only). Only prime lenses can be mounted on it. A special DPP (Adobe Edition) will be included.

5DC - part of the new "Purer EOS Cinema" line, it will shoot video only (stills can be extracted in post if absolutely necessary). 4K, clean HDMI out, Cinema RAW (CR3) will be the only format recorded to flash media.

Canon is also unhappy with the success of the 5D & 6D lines. They don't know what to do with all of their APS-C cameras, so they are launching this body and the set of lenses:

7D Mark II - (same specs as EOS M Mark II) 48MP, 16fps, professional dual-pixel AF (faster than 1DX), dual CF + 1 microSD, WiFi, GPS, wireless flash, support for f/11 AF

Lenses

EF-S 100-400mm f/4 2x - smaller than the EF 100-400 (because it's APS-C), it has a built-in 2x extender and weather sealing

EF-S 6-22mm f/2.8 - Canon discovered it was just too damned hard to build a proper UWA lens on FF, so they're doing it for APS-C

EF-S 30mm f/0.95 IS Macro - once again, if it can't be done in FF, better do it in EF-S. The dream 50mm equivalent is now available.

My sources tell me that Canon is feeling pretty smug about all this, saying, "for years, we have pushed people into FF bodies and lenses; now it's time to make them buy APS-C and count the Yen!"

Headed to Hawaii -- let's talk gear / locations

Looks like I'm off to Hawaii before too long. It's looking like I'll only be on Oahu for the trip.

I was planning on taking a couple days to shoot the area. Besides the obvious landscape opportunity, I will be doing some hiking as well. Landscape work will be the kitchen-sink approach with tripod, filters, etc., but the hiking will just be the body and a standard zoom.

I'm generally not a landscape shooter (and when I do I'm certainly not a serious landscaper), though I have slowly started acquiring the tools to do that job.

I am planning on bringing the following:

  • 5D3
  • 24-70 F/4 IS + hood
  • 70-200 F/2.8 IS II + hood + tripod collar
  • Tripod / Ball head / mounting plate / shutter release
  • Lens filters -- UV and CPL
  • Lee filter kit + ND grads + Big Stopper (I almost never use these filters, but this got to be the perfect place for them, right?)
  • 'Photo trip stuff' -- air blower, cleaning kit, filter wrenches, etc.
  • Batteries / charger / backup cards / yadda yadda

I was not planning on bringing the following:

  • My standard primes (28 2.8 IS, 40 2.8, 50 1.4, 100L macro) -- I'm not shooting street and this is tourism central, so I see little need for discreet walkaround gear. It's Hawaii, right?
  • Flash -- I usually take natural light with landscapes and don't try to fill the foreground (...but I could, I guess. I'm trying to not take up too much bag space with the unnecessaries.)

All that said, my questions are as follows:

1) Did I make the right calls on what to bring / not bring? What would you do differently?

2) Do I need an ultrawide lens, specifically a filter-able ultrawide lens, say the 16-35 II or a Zeiss 18? I could certainly rent one of those.

3) What great Oahu locations do you recommend for the tripod setup? What about for hiking?


As always, I appreciate this forum's great advice.

- A

Announcement Talk Begins

HTML:
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=15418"></g:plusone></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=15418">Tweet</a></div>
There are various reports of Canon making announcements on January 7, 2014 and new one talking about a press conference in Hong Kong on January 9, 2014.</p>
<p>CES 2014 begins on January 7, 2014 and we expect new PowerShot cameras, such as the replacement to the SX50 IS. The speculation about January 9, 2014 is a bit odd, as the invites are only for Hong Kong. The last 2 Asia based announcements turned out to be a white SL1 and the EOS M2, so I’m not expecting too much at this time. Canon not announcing something for CES itself, but announcing it on the second last day of CES on the other side of the planet, now that would be a first.</p>
<p>Until we see press invites for other countries outside of Hong Kong, I wouldn’t get too excited about the January 9, 2014 speculation.</p>
<p>Source: [<a href="https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=186944218171379&set=a.153933578139110.1073741828.130301810502287&type=1&theater" target="_blank">DCF</a>] via [<a href="http://www.canonwatch.com/canon-announcement-1914-coming/" target="_blank">CW</a>]</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>

6D should i wait for newer model or buy soon?

Hey currently shooting on a 500D, have had it since xmas 2010. Still enjoy it, but I'm currently on a 3rd level course doing photography & was thinking full frame would be best for my 3 years i have left since first year is just over & its all black & white, which I'm loving. Do you think I should wait for the newer model or get while the price is dropping. I'm living in Ireland & the prices of it here with the 24-105mm f4 IS USM is €2599 (I've added a link). It has dropped down about €200 since about November. Great deal both Elements 11 & Lightroom 5. I was thinking of getting it around March-May when my current loan is paid back about €1200 left. Would the price drop by more come that time or is it worth to pay more for a newer one which I think will be more like the current 5D. I'm not one for having the latest & greatest, but coming from where I'm coming from would it be best to have the best at the time of purchase of the current one be a worth while upgrade?. Cheers

http://www.connscameras.ie/p/canon-eos-6d/p-8714574593609

Advice for future path please!

Hello Everyone!
I've been a fairly long time watcher of the forum and an even longer term devotee of indecisiveness...so I'd like to ask your advice as to future plans please.

I'm currently using a 7d and a 20d as a back up/second camera, along with 17-40mmF4 L, 100-400mm L, 100mm F2 usm, 28-135mm IS, 50mm 1.8, 22mm M mount plus various vintage lenses inc 300f4 zeiss for pentacon 6, 580ex/420ex/550ex/2x540ez. Powershot Pro1, Mamiya RB67, eos film 5+300+28-90/75-300.

I shoot anything I can, wildlife by preference, landscape portraits of trees and magical places, portraits of people in period/fantasy costume and other things which happen inc some charity work in low light in nightclubs (for example!). I tend to find i shoot mainly with the 17-40 for everyday use but find that it is a)often too short and b)image quality can be poor (not always - i've had some superb shots from it...and the average is ok but not spectacular). The 100-400 works the rest of the time for longer stuff. I rarely use the 100mm as i've not been too impressed with the results.
The 7d is a massive improvement over the 50d I had before, but the exposure has to be exactly right or the noise becomes noticable, higher isos also seem a bit noisy...obviously I've got used to the improvement over the 50d...! focussing has been good but still a little bit off - have manually afma'd but not done anything software based.
I also have a Powershot Pro1 which is excellent for macro but only at low isos and the slow focussing and zoom are annoying!

So, basically, i'd like any thoughts you might have for future kit - my budget is very limited so I need to save up/sell bits to acquire new things but am aiming for quality - I'd rather have a slow build to good quality than keep buying and selling increasingly good kit. Could also do with a compact camera with good quality...thinking of an M but unsure (seeing as I accidentally won an auction for the 22mm!)...

Lens suggestions i've come up with are the 100f2.8l macro, 300mm f4 l and to sell the 100f2.

Sorry for the long post and thank you for any thoughts!

Attachments

  • IMG_7040 a4 approx small.jpg
    IMG_7040 a4 approx small.jpg
    797.7 KB · Views: 1,866
  • 2810 IMG_6370 tasa ghost a4 edited small.jpg
    2810 IMG_6370 tasa ghost a4 edited small.jpg
    732.2 KB · Views: 1,870

Get a 300mm or 600mm? Oh the agony...

OKee.. Here's the scoop. I have the 70-200 2.8L IS USM. But it just doesn't have the reach I want. I put a 2X on it and it gets me closer but still is short at 400mm.

Now if I get a 300mm 2.8 It will get me to 600 with the 2X but will it make me happy or not?

Since I can get to 400mm with the Zoom-2X combo, would I just be better off with the 600mm that can get me to 1200mm if I ever want to?

I am certain others have gone down this which to get path before so I can only ask for thier guidence. Fortunatly I have time before I buy. We have a Camera-imaging Expo coming to Phoenix next week and I plan on going to play with some big lenses to see how I like them.

Tamron SP 150-600 f/5-6.3 VC Review

HTML:
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/01/tamron-sp-150-600-f5-6-3-vc-review/"></g:plusone></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/2014/01/tamron-sp-150-600-f5-6-3-vc-review/">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>*UPDATE*

</strong>The link to the review doesn’t seem to be working, it could be a traffic issue. I’ll leave the links up and we’ll see if it corrects itself.</p>
<p>Frank Wong has completed his review of the soon-to-be-released Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3 VC zoom lens. This is currently the longest zoom lens currently in production and looks to be a steal at only $1069. If you’re a birder or wildlife photographer on a budget, this lens may be the perfect addition to your kit.</p>
<p>The review has been translated to english and shows a lot of sample images.</p>
<p><strong>Says Frank</strong>

<em>“A good value lens appear in the market ! 600mm reach , F6.3 does not a matter for DSLR nowdays which have good ISO , fast focus , light weight (1.9KG with tripod mount), also a very long warranty period  (3-6 years as i remember in Hong Kong  )  . I am very impressive with this lens .”</em></p>
<p><strong><a href="http://it.wyswig.com/2014/01/02/review-tamron-sp-150-600mm-f5-6-3-di-vc-usd-english-review/" target="_blank">Read the full review</a> | <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1013956-REG/tamron_a011_c_sp_150_600mm_f_5_6_3_di.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3 VC $1069 at B&H Photo</a></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>

Aftermarket upgrading of cameras?

Hi all,

bit of a random question, but is anyone aware of any companies that can upgrade cameras? I drive a TDI Golf, and recently bought a "boost box" that gives it more power / better fuel economy (depending how heavy my right foot is), and it got me thinking, could I do the same (or similar) for my old 40D?

I am aware of Magic Lantern and the great stuff they do, but for example, a memory upgrade could give me a bigger buffer for a longer burst or maybe a Digic 4 could give me higher FPS than the Digic 3.

I appreciate that costs might be a tad on the prohibitive side of things, but I was wondering how easy it might be (or if at all possible)?

Happy new year by the way! :)

cheers,

Grant

Strange Lens Flare (Sigma 35mm + MRC filter)

FWIW I noticed the Sigma (with a B+W MRC filter on it) is sometimes prone to flare from off-scene light sources, as shown in these pictures. The fact that the flares are all on the right hand side is a coincidence, but all the flares are confirmed to be from bright street lights just outside the frame. I haven't seen any occurrence of the lens flare in horizontal position.

These shots were all taken hand held, with (near) open aperture (<f/2.5) and the lens hood is on. The camera is gripped but obviously the lens extends beyond the grip. I'm not sure that I like this effect, and it is something I may want to avoid in the future but on the positive side it does have something reminiscent of the anamorphic lens(flare) effect as seen in some movies.
Does anyone recognize this flare, is it something to do with the MRC filter? All of my UV/clear filters are B+W but this is probably the ony one I have with a multi reflective coating (MRC). Cheers.

Attachments

  • 2013_12_26_1688.JPG
    2013_12_26_1688.JPG
    153.2 KB · Views: 801
  • 2013_12_26_1736.JPG
    2013_12_26_1736.JPG
    149.4 KB · Views: 742
  • 2013_12_26_1737.JPG
    2013_12_26_1737.JPG
    215.8 KB · Views: 738
  • 2013_12_26_1776.JPG
    2013_12_26_1776.JPG
    153.6 KB · Views: 768

Dual CF or Combo memory slots?

I was quite pissed when Canon delivered their 5D MK III with the combo memory card slot setup. But the more and more I think about it. The more it makes sense to me.

  • Backup. I went with the professional party line that dual CF was necessary in a pro body because you want a backup of your original card. Well, you can do that with a combo setup as well.
  • Speed. CF cards are faster but that really only comes into play when you fill up your camera's internal buffer first. Even with my ancient but awesome 50D, that's a good 10 - 15 shots before that happens. Even the high-level pro sports shooters have told me they've never filled up their camera's internal buffer.
  • Redundancy. I'm referring to needing different memory card formats. Yes, that's a bit of a bummer. It's certainly much simpler and easier to carry 4 CF cards that 2 CF an 2 SD. Totally. Or having to need 4 CF and 4 SD cards? Yes. It's a potential cost increase.

So I'm thinking the benefits of expansion and future-proofing with the SD slots to outweigh the negatives. Ideally, two CF slots AND an SD slot in a camera would be perfect in my opinion. But I don't see Canon doing that. With solid performance specs, you could keep that camera for a good deal longer. Hurting sales.

Your take?

Filter

Forum statistics

Threads
37,436
Messages
973,518
Members
24,799
Latest member
MinhThe

Gallery statistics

Categories
1
Albums
29
Uploaded media
372
Embedded media
1
Comments
25
Disk usage
1 GB