Hey everyone! Another first time poster here but I really value everyone's thoughts and opinions so I thought i'd ask you helpful people for some advice!

At the end of March I will be going to Nepal for 8 days as part of a college trip. For the first couple of days we will be doing volunteer work at local schools and organizing our own accommodation and such in the local markets and towns. We will then endure a 4 days trek in the Himalayan mountains and finally the last day or two will be visiting tourist attractions and doing a bit of R&R after our trek.

My main problem is deciding what camera body to take with me. I currently shoot with my 5D mark II + 35L however i'm super paranoid about it getting damaged somehow on the trek or under light rain in Nepal. Alternatively, I used to shoot with a 450D and i'm considering taking that instead as i'd be less phased if anything were to happen to it, but for me it definitely doesn't provide the quality of photo that I really want, but I don't want my 5D getting wrecked.

As well as these cameras, I am also working in collaboration with a local camera company here in Dubai who are sponsoring me and are willing to provide a Fuji XE-1 along with a 18-55 f/2.8-4 to shoot with during the duration of my trip. Whilst this is a super set up cause it's light and compact, I still haven't been able to try it out and have no knowledge as to whether it is at the same standard as my 5D. Also, another issue i have with it is i usually shoot between f/1.4 and f/2 on FF for small DOF and i've gotten so used to that that when I receive the Fuji i'm not sure i'll be able to manage! Along with this, i've heard the battery life on the X-E1 is rather poor, squeezing out 350 shots at most per charge which is unfortunate considering i don't want to be spending MORE money on spare batteries whereas i have some spare for my 5D already.

Now by all accounts, I am not going on this trip to solely take photos and I am definitely not a professional, I just think it would be nice to get some unusual photos while i'm out there. I've never really shot many landscapes so that will be completely alien to me but I do want to get some snaps of the mountains and scenery whilst I want something to document my charity work and to use as a general walk around camera, capable of taking some shots in low light when needed.

So baaasically, my question is, do I take my 5D, the Fuji XE-1, or both to Nepal?

Hi, i am a former canon DSLR Shooter that has had experience with the canon 580ex when I was shooting weddings in 2000's. A little over two + years ago i sold all my canon gear and switched over to M4/3. to make a long story short almost a month ago i switched back to using a DSLR. I purchased the 6d with a few lenses funded by selling of all my M4/3 gear.

I purchased the canon 270exii just as a simple flash that could be bounced while taking photos indoors of my kids and other things. For what it cost and what it's worth, it's fine for that. I now want to invest in a better speedlite. that's where your help comes in. Let me give you an idea of what I would like to achieve. I really want to be able to use the flash off of the camera on a stand of some sort, i just think it creates a visually better looking photo. again this will mostly be used of taking photos indoors. I also want to be able to use the flash with a soft box. I would like TTL functionality. I also want to take better portraits of my kids. Maybe get a backdrop and add another flash down the road etc...

So, i was looking at the canon 600ex-rt and the Canon ST-E3-RT Speedlite Transmitter, yes i know a 900.00 investment is a lot but is it worth it for what i want to do. Or for now should i just look at the 430exii or the 580exii and get a pocket wizard or some other radio transmitter.

or am i better off getting some sort of studio strobe and can add on to it as needed.

Please feel free to comment, make suggestions and help me in any way


thanks for your help,
anthony

I want to start upgrading my lens kit, so that one day when I can afford a 5D Mark III (a few years from now) all I will need to do is get the body. In the meantime I want to drop my EF-S kit lens for a quality replacement.

Would the Canon 17-40mm f/4 L EF be a good option for replacing a 18-55 EF-S kit lens for a crop body? When I eventually go full frame I will want a wide lens, so I thought this one may serve that purpose while also being a good replacement for the kit lens on a crop body.

I was going to upgrade my Rebel XT to a 7D about a week ago, but then the rumors of the 70D announcement started coming. So for now I'm holding off and waiting to see what this new camera will entail by the end of the month before deciding which camera body to get.

Hello Everyone,

I am planning to buy a Canon 7D. I currently own a 3 year old 500D and want to upgrade now. My main area of interest is Bird Photography. I had nearly finalized on going ahead with 7D until I came across a discussion where everyone is not really happy with 7D. Now I am confused. Is it good to wait till 21st March for Canon announcements? are there any better suggestion other than 7D? Can 60D be good option or a 6D?

I am not full time Photographer. It started as a hobby in college days and now its just weekends.

Hi

Just wondered can i fit my 8070-200 canon MK2 lens with the 2x mkIII converter onto my old canon 450d?
Would be nice to have a 640mm reach sometimes.

Well it came yesterday and as a whole "wow" what a step up from a rebel. The feel, the size is just about perfect.

I only had the cash for the body but plan on getting glass in the next few months here. With that being said I was using the Nifty Fifty.

Even with all lights on my 450D couldn't take a picture worth keeping without the hotshoe flash. THIS CAN!!! I was stunned with auto ISO, as it was only Day 1 I left it in jpg and then AV and TV mostly.

Focus, was slow at times and seemed to search, I'm not sure if this was a lens or body issue or maybe even user. I know this isn't a sports or action cam but its forced into that roll as I have a 1.5 year old running around.

so the jury is till out on the focus... not sure if I was expecting more based on the -3EV rating.

WIFI was very cool, didn't really take any pics with it, but did transfer images straight to my iPhone 5 and post on Facebook or text them out to family. Really easy.

Overall coming from the 450D and only fooling around for a few hours still learning this camera, I am impressed!! I will try to get user pictures up in the near future.

(i think I might also see how I can do AFMA at home)

After some time and consideration, I decided to buy a Sigma 120-400 f/4.5-5.6 OS zoom lens, to use with my crop camera (for now). I apologize if this mini-review is too long...it might help if I tell you I compare this lens with other Canon L lenses I have tried, and own. I did consider buying the 150-500 Sigma instead, but ultimately I wanted to try this one more.

I had originally considered renting a Sigma zoom. But the only one for rent, is the 50-500 (besides the big 120-300 f/2.8 OS...I'm waiting on the new "art" version with the dual fluorite elements, before renting that one)...and I decided I could do without 500mm...especially considering the reviews that said above 400mm, that lens wasn't very sharp. Funny how that kind of thing can show up in their other zooms...

This is the third Sigma lens I have bought. (I also owned a Sigma camera, and loved it, despite its quirks.) The first Sigma lens was in early 2009, a 17-70 (non-OS, first introduced possibly somewhere around 2004-06?). It was incredibly sharp with brilliant color and contrast. However, it refused to ever AF correctly no matter what. I finally sold it last year (for nearly what I paid for it new), but did hate to see it go anyway. One of my images done with it, got published in Outdoor Photographer last year.

My second Sigma lens purchase, was in Dec 2012; a 17-50 f/2.8 OS. This one has more barrel distortion than the 17-70 at the wide end, but overall, the color and contrast are similar, the bokeh is better, smoother, and obviously more pronounced/artistic...the sharpness is similar...the CA is low, and thus similar...and the AF accuracy is basically dead on throughout the zoom range with no micro adjustment necessary! The OS is a true 4 stops, and works perfectly. I think a semi-pro or even full-pro event shooter or portrait photog, could churn out spectacular work with it. If I decide to sell this lens in the future, I will hate to see it go. They do hold their value very well on the used market (another deciding factor at purchase). The reviews all seem to be correct...it's better than the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. It also seems to make the much loved but over-hyped Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS, seem to also be over-priced. If it is any better than this Sigma, it's not worth paying the $300 premium for a lens that still can't be used on full frame bodies. Ok, getting off my soapbox on that one, haha!

But back to the new lens...the third Sigma I have ever bought. I have to say, the build quality is very nearly Canon "L" quality. The fit and feel of the lens hood, the feel of the lens body, the feel of the focus and zoom rings...the feel of the tightness of the barrel as it telescopes outward...the printed letters...it all looks and feels like it might cost more than it does. And the lens ring/tripod mount/grip...well holy ****, that thing is very close to the equal of the very best Canon L supertelephoto's !!! I absolutely love it! Fits perfectly in the hand for carrying upside down or any angle, with the perfect distance from the lens body, and the perfect molded finger indentions. This lens was introduced in either 2007 or 2008, I believe. Sigma really are turning into a terrific lens and camera company, in my opinion (optical imperfections of the lens aside).

It arrived March 4. After spending only about 2 hours shooting with it so far (and even longer perusing and tweaking the files on computer)...It has less contrast than I thought it would. (I already knew it had less than the Canon zoom, thanks to the reviews and folks on this forum), but it's definitely still usable with post editing...and has a nice color balance. It has quite a bit more contrast below 200mm, than above, so that's at least a plus. It's softer than the Canon 100-400...yes...but not by a lot (however, it possibly is noticably softer than the Canon all the way at 400mm...but up to about 340mm it's still usable for very mild cropping). Sharpening in ACR seems to be mostly from 1.4 to 2.3 pixel radius. Far from ideal, but still usable for a medium amount of cropping (definitely not for a large amount of cropping...where sharpening from about 1.3 down to .5 pixel radius is necessary. The Canon 400 f/5.6L prime...was good for that. But it doesn't have stabilization, isn't a zoom, and costs more). And keep in mind, this is via a crop camera. I attribute some of the softness to a lack of focus accuracy/consistency (which again, I was warned about on this forum...I'm very glad to have you all!). Overall, it's not remotely as sharp as my excellent copy of the Canon 70-200 f/4L (non IS...I didn't think it would be)...but for a zoom of that Canon's size and price range ($600)...nothing in the world can come close to that one anyway, in my opinion. Certainly the 24-105L does, but that's a wide zoom.

One aspect I like a lot, is the close focus ability. The impression I got was that only the Canon zoom could focus closely...but this one does too.

The biggest problem, and biggest enemy of sharpness with this Sigma lens, is the "OS". It blurs the image a bit when in use. It's a shame, because the stabilization actually works quite well, and is closer to 4 stops (rather than the negative reviews that say it's just 2; although I'm not convinced how well it works in panning mode...I need to experiment more with that). I got something recognizable at 1/10 second at 400mm on my monopod...no motion blur, just the OS fuzziness. However, even with a really fast shutter speed, that same OS fuzziness sets in, especially compared to the superb IS of the Canon 300 f/4 IS. Even though the Canon 300 f/4's stabilization is claimed as 2 stops...those 2 stops do not interfere with ultimate sharpness much at all (it was so sharp I never even switched it off...and I used it on the monopod about half the time...the other half hand-held).

So again, besides the difficulty getting very good sharpness above 340mm on my crop camera...The autofocus is indeed hit or miss (the main concern that might make me send the lens back and not try another one), at least on more distant objects (say more than 50 feet away). It's nothing like as accurate as the Canon 400 f/5.6 prime. Although even that Canon didn't AF very accurately in low light on very distant objects via my camera...say over 400 feet away...where again, the Sigma's problem seems to start about 50 to 80 feet away. Not a huge deal for small bird photography...more an issue for large distant birding...however, keep in mind I've not really used this lens in "good light" yet...so that is a big factor with focus accuracy as well. But as of now, I do attribute the problem either to the lens's lack of fine control over its focusing lens array by its AF motors...or to a lack of control of my camera's AF system over the lens's electronics and motors...or both. Or...for all I know, the way those elements are suspended on their rails, may be a factor. At distances near infinity, where literally you would move the focus ring a fraction of a millimeter to affect subtle changes to the plane of focus...focus accuracy can usually get very tricky (in my experience and opinion). I admit my camera's less-than-ideal AF sensor and system, are certainly in play here.

My AFMA seems to have no effect on this Sigma, even at plus or minus 20...which is extremely odd and disturbing, but I'll keep experimenting with it. I'm not even sure adjusting it would help anyway. It achieves what it thinks is focus more than fast enough for me...it doesn't seem to move slowly (like, for instance, the Canon 85mm f/1.2L's autofocus!). I admit I haven't tried it in servo mode yet, so that could suddenly slow things down. Anyway, as for the single shot mode, I'm guessing (from my memory) the Sigma is not a lot slower than the Canon 400 f/5.6 prime...but it's quite a bit slower than the 300 f/4's autofocus. (Again, my camera's ability was in play here, besides the faster aperture and more light from the f/4).

I also plan to try the Sigma on my cousin's 5D3. If his AF nails it a lot more often than mine (very hard to believe it would not)...I may just keep the Sigma 120-400...Because I feel it will work much better on a full frame camera with larger pixels and better AF, than on my crop camera. And I do want to buy a full frame sometime in the next 6 months to a year. The extra $500 to $800 I saved by buying this lens over the Canon zooms (or the Canon 300 f/4) (the Canon 100-400 is long overdue for a version 2 update anyway)...will help fund my purchase of a full frame camera. I think I'll wind up keeping my good old 50D, though. Used prices have fallen to around $450...but 4 years and many many shots later, I still don't really want to part with it. The only reason I might, is if the 7D falls to $750 or so, after its replacement comes out. That may not happen...so even at $950 or so, I think I will pass.

I will probably post more comments here as I discover for myself, more about this much maligned, often over-looked Sigma telephoto zoom.

Just posted on Photo Rumors...

http://photorumors.com/2013/03/06/canon-announcement-on-march-22-eos-70d/

No source, but they have had a decent track record on announcement dates.

- A

As much as I would love to have the new 7D II, if it does exist, more than likely it would be out of my price range, by a lot. I own a 40D and looking for an upgrade and think the 70D might fit the bill. I have yet to hear much on the expected upgrade to the 60D. Have I missed something? Is Canon planning to come out with anything replacing the 60D?

I am currently using my 5D mkIII for all my video work, and I love it. But, I want better images. I love DSLRs for my weddings and they treat me well, but for things where I need only a single camera and have more time to figure out and setup my shots, I need something sharper, some more DR, and something more gradable. Wondering how much the RAW will benefit me from the BMCC vs the ease of use of the C100.

The issue is more with my Real Estate Listing video when I have many shots where I will be needing to shoot interiors but still want to see out the window to the ocean.

BMCC Pros:
RAW - More DR
2.5K - Downgrade to HD for a nicer HD image

C100 Pros
Fewer Components needed - Don't need extra battery pack etc..
Smaller file sizes and Cheaper Media
Much Better Ergonomics

I like everything about the C100 better than the BMCC, but, the BMCC can shoot raw. Will I notice the extra stop of DR when I am pulling down the highlights and bringing up the shadows for the high DR shots? (shooting interiors looking out a window)

I imagine the price of the two cameras would pretty much even out when you consider the cost of SSD drives, extra batteries for BMCC, and more hard drive space on the computer.

What do you think? worth the extra stop of DR and RAW Codec?

Wondering what your thoughts may be on this.

I am currently on 1 body (5d3), with 16-35mm v2, 24-70mm v1, 70-200mm 2.8 non IS, 50mm 1.4, and 50mm 1.8 - and I mainly shoot weddings, portraits and some fine art here and there).

First step is obviously to address the backup body situation (considering a 6d, or used 5d3's are popping up, right price may snag one).

once that's done, lenses...

Since I added the 16-35, I have found myself using the 24-70 less and less, favoring either the 16-35 or the 50mm. So the 24-70 may very well end up on ebay. That gives me some options.

Option 1: Sell the 24-70 and the 70-200 for the v2 with IS? I love my 70-200, but, at the long end I do find my keeper rate to be not so good in the 1/60-1/100th SS range. So the Logic there is trade the 2 for the 70-200 IS is basically to increase the keeper rate and give me more flexibility in SS. Is the IQ on the v2 really that much better than the v1? Should IQ even be a factor in the logic? Would you go for that?

Option 2: sell the 24-70 and snag a 50L 1.2? I have heard such mixed reviews about the 1.2, so not to sure if thats the right path.

Option 3: sell the 24-70 and upgrade it to the 24-70V2? It's a pricey switch. Is the IQ really that much better than the v1 or equivalent primes?

Option 4: sell the 24-70 and snag a 135mm f2? That would pretty much abandon the 24-70 range to my 50mm 1.4. For wedding work, do I really need the flexibility of a zoom in that focal range? Uncertain...lol...this is really only an option becasue I really really really want a 135L ....


I could go on, but then it gets into nutty combinations. As you can see I have given this lots of thought. But, hearing some thoughts from others can't hurt. What are your thoughts on the options above?

I'm putting together a Canon 5D III video rig. The rig will be built on a Redrock Micro Shoulder Mount. I have everything picked out except the viewfinder.

Is it possible to find an optical viewfinder that doesn't require an adhesive attachment? Or are there alternative ways to attach these normally adhesive-attached viewfinders?

Ideally, I would like to use a Kinotehnik LCDVF or a Zacuto Z-Finder. I'm wary of using an adhesive frame, both because of the removal hassle and because I will shoot a lot of stills w/o the extra viewfinder.

I have a 580ex ii and it will fire only if level (most times but not all) or facing up, but will not fire if it is facing down on an angle lower then level. Not sure why but it just will not fire. With that said it will fire as a slave level, up, down, on its side. Any one else has this issue or thoughts on why my flash is not flashing. I changed the batteries but still no luck. Also I am using it on a 60D.

Thanks

Review of the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM lens review

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/03/06/just-posted-canon-ef-24-70mm-f2-8l-ii-usm-lens-review

Using a Rebel T2i and later, a 5D Mark III, I have found that red light is the most challenging environment for getting good results. I shoot at a venue that has several different colors of staqe lights and some bands seem to prefer only having the red ones on. While this looks cool in person, I've found that it is difficult to get good pictures preserving the red and have the images be bright enough since red is not a very highly illuminating color to our eyes. I like not using the flash (to preserve the rich color from the environment) and if any of the other color lights are on, I get great results and can work with the photos in post to get brighter results that are still colorful.

I did the math and found that red light only has the opportunity to oscillate roughly 9 times across the width of a pixel in the 5D3's sensor, while blue light can oscillate roughly 14 times across that same width. I find that subjects in red light do not look as sharp in the resulting image, and it's more apparent when one person is under a red stage light and another is under blue light (especially if a grayscale version is made), but I wouldn't think we're close enough to the limitation of being able to capture all the sharpness available in red light yet.

Have any of you experienced this with red light and what is your strategy for dealing with it?

Most common combos when shooting:
Canon 5D Mark III: 70-200mm f/2.8L (non-IS version), Sigma 85mm f/1.4, Canon 135mm f/2 L .

I'm going to a full frame camera and starting over with glass after a theft. I do photos and video, so the 17-55 2.8 IS has been my most widely used lens (with my former 7D body). Photography wise, I have used it extensively for event photography. For instance, in clubs and low light events like wedding dances, I use second curtain sync flash at 2.8 and shutter speeds as low as 1.5-0.5 second range.

The 2.8 and the IS mode are equally important in this case, and have allowed me to do some great shots I couldn't really duplicate easily with any other full frame combo I know of. Since I sometimes zoom or twist the camera while the shutter is open, the zoom is also important, so one of the new medium primes with IS is also out.

I want to go full frame, but I feel like without a 2.8 zoom in this range with IS, that matches the image quality of the 17-55, I will miss a ton of great shots I'm kind of known for. Any advice here?

Here are some sample images with the combo I had before:











I'm trying to wrap my head around if increasing ISO (compared to what was useable on the 7d) with the 5D iii or 6D will offset the loss of speed from the lens if I go with say, the 24-105L. My gut says, yes...and no.

Hi all,

Man,I'm still learning a lot...
I'd not been all 'that' careful with ISO. I usually pump it up to where the light meter shows good to go, on both stills and video.
I have tried usually, with video to keep it in multiples of 160 as that I heard that was more optimum for some reason I can't remember right now.

But recently, in looking at some talks by some pro still photogs, they were emphasizing that they tried to almost never go beyond ISO 100, and maybe 200, for clarity and lack of noise.

Does this go too for video? I'm guessing so...and wonder what the optimum ISO is for video?

I'm guessing quite low..meaning I may need to buy some more lights.


Anyway...what is the optimum ISO for video with the 5D3? Would that be right at 160?


Thanks in advance,

cayenne

Hello CR crew,

I'm in the market for a nice 35mm prime, pref some thing old with a little character. I purchasea Carl Zeiss 2.4 Prakticar PB mount and unfortunately it striked the mirror on my Canon 5D Mark III. Anyone know of any nice 35mm lenses that work well on this body? Full manual is fine as I'm mostly shooting video over stills.

Cheers,

Ed

Hey guys

I just received my first canon cam, G15
Does it has a time lapse function? Or I have to get a remote?
If a timer remote required, any reasonable priced suggestion??

Thanks

Hi everyone, I have been shooting sports with my 70-200mm f/2.8 (non-IS) for about 2 years and I'm very happy with the result I get. I shoot mostly triathlon, running, swimming and cycling. I usually have access to most part of the course so my 70-200 is perfect.

However, I sometime wish I have more reach when it comes down to open water swimming. I started looking at used 400mm f/2.8 but I found that there is 4 or 5 version of this lens. Can someone recommend me a good one to get, and what to look at when buying used lens like that. I have a budget around 3000$ and I want image quality to be at least as good as my 70-200mm at 2.8.

I don't know,the threads about the high iso looked as if they beat the mark 3 by a mile and the autofocus I thought that the rate of accuracy would be at least 80% .I don't care about video and I will only be using the cam for night photography.I just want to get this straight is a mark 2 really as good as he says ???
5D Mark II vs 5D Mark III comparison: Portraits, studio, landscapes, wildlife, night, and HDR review

Hi all.

I have the canon 50mm 1.4 an the canon 85mm 1.8 using on my 5d3.

I'm constantly on a quest for shallower dof. I do a lot of street photography.


My hesitations on upgrading to the L lenses are (other than cost):

Will I actually see a noticeable difference in dof?
The 50mmL has a pronounced focus shift narrower than f2.
The 85mm 1.2. is slower af than the 1.8

My question is will I see much difference between 1.4 and 1.2 @ 50mm and 1.8 and 1.2 at 85mm?
Also, does anyone know if the sigma 85 is any good? And similarly is it worth going from 85mm 1.8 to 85mm 1.4?