http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/photo-news/539910/nikon-plans-more-dslrs-as-csc-growth-slows

"Outlining its future strategy, Nikon says it wants to ‘accelerate shifting newer products in the entry class of DSLR'."

Hey, Canon! React on this....

Anything shot with the TS-E 90mm? Would be cool to know the settings used if you can recall them...

I'm going to be ordering a 500mm mk2 in the next week or so and in all likelihood will be getting a grey market one as I'll save £1000 on the UK price. If Canon want to play the global market game then so should we. As Canon no longer do international warranties (I wonder why?!?) I spoke to Canon customer services today about what happens if the lens dies in the first year. They told me if the lens went faulty I'd have to return it to a service centre in the territory it was intended for or get it repaired locally and reclaim the costs from Canon in the intended market i.e. Japan in this instance. So even if I bought European-market gear and it went faulty on a trip to, say, Brazil, I couldn't get it repaired in Brazil without forking out for the repair there and then. Customer care? Not once Canon HQ have your money it seems.

Anyway, I'm not here to question Canon's approach to their customers (although I did) but wondered if any of you have access to a table of failure rates for their lenses (or bodies for that matter). I wouldn't expect a lens to fail in the first year but clearly it's possible. Is the percentage failure rate evenly spread throughout their product range or are there specific items that are notorious among service centres?

Essentially I'm trying to convince myself the grey import option is worth doing especially when looking at the savings.

Just tell me to quit whining and buy the damn thing.

maybe there is some new canon body and lens in testing? ;D

I took over 100 photos yesterday. This is what I get straight out from my camera(JPEG) – over 60% of photos are like this or worst. I haven’t review raw yet.

You guys have any idea?

I’m 15mins away from Canon Service Center in Irvine, CA. My 5D III still under 1yr warranty.

Made with a Eos M & EF 50mm f1.8. More images from this portrait session here at...http://thelazytravelphotographer.blogspot.com/2013/08/canon-eos-m-ef-50mm-f18-short-review.html

I have a couple options I can take into calibrating some of my lenses, so I'd like some opinions from you all. Two of my lenses, 50mm f/1.4 & 40mm f/2.8, are FAR from being sharp. I recently noticed both of these have a horrible case of forward/back focusing. I'm not sure if they have been like this or it just came to my attention, but it's pretty bad. I would hope to correct this with micro adjustments. Now for my options:

1. Traditional trial & error "at home" method by taking photos of magazine text placed on the wall and/or using rulers. Not sure if I even trust this. (Or any other home method)
2. Buy a calibration device. This is where I need some product recommendations.
3. My least favorite option, sending them to canon. Both lenses are ~6 months old, so I'd assume they're under some kind of warranty? If not, I really do not want to pay for Canon's mistake.

I know the first option is a bit of an unprofessional route, but some people claim that it works. Thanks for the insight, this can really help me out a bunch.

Hi all! I am selling my backup camera, a canon rebel t3i, for school finances and thought to put it here because i hate all the ebay and paypal fees. I do also have the kit lens, though i never used it because i have a few l lenses. Info on the camera, I bought it back during september of last year (2012) as a backup to my older rebel that i have now parted ways with so it is still relatively new. I can include a generic battery because I lost the original, battery charger, original canon strap, body cap, both lens caps and the 18-55 stabilizer kit lens. If anyone is interested, shoot me a pm. I am looking for about $440 but am willing to negotiate. Can meet up in person in Illinois somewhere or ship using paypal assuming you have history trading or purchasing through this forum. I believe it has 4,100 shutter clicks but am uncertain if it is the true number. Here is a shot i've taken with the body (different lenses)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/erikerodri/8566343379/#
there are a few more pictures i've taken with this body on my flickr if you want to see the camera in action. Feel free to message me

I'm looking at using a Kenko 2x Teleplus Pro 300 DGX with two specific lenses on my 5D Mk III:

70-200 f/2.8 II
100L f/2.8 Macro

Two variables: possibly using extension tubes with the teleconverter and the 100L, either on my 5Dm3, or on my 60D (more for composition purposes on the 60D, with the understanding if I do that I'll lose IQ over just cropping into a 5Dm3 shot - can't crop with my eyes when taking the shot though).

I've read a lot about issues with the 5D3 and kenko converters though. Blue dots, green dots, specific lenses, etc.

If anyone has recently purchased kenko teleconverters (the DGX 300) and is able to use them with all the above equipment (the 5d3 on latest firmware), please let me know.

I'm upgrading from a 30D to the 5D3. I've been shooting with the 70-200 2.8 IS for many years and LOVE IT. However when paired with the 2x TC on the 30D it's somewhat useless for football and figure skating due to slow AF.

As i step up to FF on the 5D3 I am considering moving to the 300 f4 IS to at least replicate the 'reach' I had on my old crop sensor + 70-200.

Does anyone have a recommendation on lenses they prefer for football? Keep in mind this is typically night games with spotty lighting conditions. What I've been considering is:

1) 300 f4 IS
2) 100-400 f4-5.6
3) Dump the 2x TC II and buy the 1.4x TC III

If there are any preferences for any of these choices or have another suggestion I'd really appreciate your insight. My first choice would be to go to the 300 f2.8 ii but i want to keep my spend under $2K for whichever solution I go with.

Additionally, does anyone have experience with the 300 f4 and either the 2x TC II or the 1.4x TC III?

I own the 1.4 and have been coveting the 1.2 for a while. I've just seen a mint condition 1.2 second hand for a decent price.


I mainly shoot street and family photos. pretty much exclusively @ widest aperture so I would be buying the 1.2 to shoot @ 1.2


does anyone have an opinion on whether the 1.2 is worth it if I already have the 1.4?

Is there much real world difference between the two? (ignoring the obvious like build quality, size, weight and weather sealing)

I am currently looking at buying a new camera body and lens.

Long Background: I started my photography interest in the 60's while in Japan with the military. Good place to start anyway! started with a Canon 35mm rangefinder, doing mostly black and white stuff in the base photography labs. Got out of most photography through college and career, except for family snapshots and vacations with 35mm SLRs from Canon, and one Yashica SLR.

Moved to digital Rebel not too long after they came out, and have graduated slowly to a 40D w/ Tamron 18-270 PZD for vacations, etc. Occasionally I attempt some "artistic" things and take photos at some sports car races. I also have the opportunity to take wildlife shots of deer, hawks, hummingbirds, coyotes, etc. the 1.6 factor helps here! I do enjoy some macro also.

I hope to make photography my main retirement hobby (along with autos). I know the basics pretty well but understand I need lots of practice and some more studying in the digital world.

I am leaning towards a 7D (or 7Dii) with the 18-135 kit lens, and keeping the 40D / Tamron also. I know the Tamron is not in the same class as most lenses discussed here, but I use it mostly just for playing around wildlife and sports cars. I would hope to add better glass later, but don't know what yet.

The problem is that the 6D (and 5Diii) looks awfully nice to me also, but would require some expensive glass. Full Frame sounds wonderful, but may not be the best for me.

I have very little interest in video, hence the 70D, while nice, loses some appeal me.

Am I off base? I am very interested in opinions of those of you with experience in more serious photography. TIA

Hey there,

I have an EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS II lens that all of a sudden started rattling. Even just moving it around gently, you can hear the rattling, and if I look through the rear of the lens, I can see a ring that's shifting around. My best guess is that it's the IS module that's somehow come loose or something. Just wondering if anyone has had any experience with this, and how serious it is. I generally prefer to send all my repairs into Canon, but if it's as simple as opening the lens and tightening a few screws, then I might consider taking it to a local repair shop.

Thanks in advance,
Sean

Went out last night to shoot Milky Way. I had my friend's 24/1.4 with me. It was late and I was tired so I forgot to try also with my Sigma 14/2.8. But the pics with 24/1.4 came out quite nice. Even I drove to North-WA trying to get away from light pollution, still there's quite strong light on the bottom.

Comments?

I've been watching some classes on Creative Live lately...I've seen some instructors, recently a couple of wedding photogs saying they have set up and use the backbutton focus.

I need to go back into the manual and look how to set it up, so I can experiment with it, but just wondering how many of you out there use this?

Are you a pro or a hobbyist?

What are the Pros/Cons of setting up and using this system?

How hard have you found it, to get used to this set up, and be able to use it fluidly?

I'd almost think if you were moving your focus points around, while shooting manual...using backbutton focus would pretty much require you to grow an extra finger and 3rd hemisphere of the brain just to coordinate all of this?


Anyway, I'm thinking of giving it a try, but wanted to get some comments from those that use it currently.

Thanks in advance,

cayenne

Hi all,
in a few weeks I'll be travelling to US, we are planning to have a road trip starting in NY. And I'm thinking about upgrading my gear (since EU lens prices are insane).
So what's the point? I can't decide between 5D mkIII and 70-200mkII and right now I don't have money for both. I already had opportunity to take few shots with 5D mkIII + 24-70mkII and 60D + 70-200mkII and both have their advantages and both combinations made me go WOW
I'm also open to other options (maybe sigma 35 + canon 135?)
Right now I'm more into new lens than body, but not yet 100% sure...I'll be traveling, and probably can't order online and wait for delivery, so it will be nice to have some info from guys living in NY where some good brick and mortar shops are, I want to buy in NY or maybe D.C. so I can use gear for whole trip.
Thanks for advices, opinions and maybe other info.

I went to the Galápagos Islands last month using the above combo with no problem for 4 days and on the last day I let my wife use it while I used my Sony FS700 to do super slo mo videos. It was a cloudy day with light rain, the Sony got a bit wet but functioned with no problem and so did the 5D Mk III. I dried them both off afterwards and they were both working fine too the day after that. Then 2 days later when I got to Cuzco, Peru (it was cold but sunny), I started getting the Err 01 messages occasionally, then a few days later, I just got the Err 01 message constantly and the lens stopped functioning. Luckily I have a Zeiss APO Sonnar and Planar which were working totally fine, so I thought the problem was with the lens. But now that I'm home, I tried out the 24-105mm with my 5D Mk II and to my surprise, it's working totally fine, while I still got the Err 01 with the Mk III. Has anyone here had a similar problem with the 5D Mk III and 24-105mm? Not sure if I should get a new one or try to get it repaired. Any suggestions? Many thanks in advance.

I have an opportunity to play with a 5D III for a few days. I normally use a 7D.

I will be shooting animals running at 45-50 mph (sometimes toward me, sometimes away, and also running from side to side), among other things.

I have never used a 5D III before and have read numerous things online discussing that there is a learning curve to understanding how the 5D III auto focuses. I have no problems with the very basic focusing controls and modes (similar to the 7D and previous cameras) and I know what I am doing with exposure settings but I am wondering if there is anything in particular regarding the auto focus capabilities I should take a look at.

I have started going through the manual, but I may not have as much time to do so before I have the camera in my hands and start playing.

Does anyone have any suggestions on the settings that I should be looking at? I'm not really looking for "set A to B" but rather "take a look at what A does," although I am interested in "A to B" as well.

If this has any bearing, in these cases I will probably be using a 70-200/2.8 II (or maybe a 300/4 IS).

I'm at a mental impass. Everything I have read and learned about photography is glass glass glass. Do not go for the latest and greatest bodies because with natural progression to move to another body down the road your glass can travel with your growth. Which leads me to my dilemma...

I am trying to decide which would be the better item for purchase between a 1DX and a 300 f/2.8 II. I'm mostly interested in shooting sports and wildlife. While I do not do this professionally, I would like to start doing small things locally and see how far I could take it. I currently shoot with a 5DIII and 7D. For glass I have the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, the 300 f/4, and the 100-400, along with both series III teleconverters. I would really like to get the 300 2.8, but most of the venues I go to (Angel Stadium, Candlestick Park) will not let me bring in that big of a lens without a press pass. Not to mention I would feel kinda weird sitting in the stands with a lens that is larger than most people's head. LoL This then sways the argument back to the 1DX. But the voice in my head, we'll call him Fred, keeps repeating glass glass glass.

Then I think about it all and part of me says it is ridiculous for someone like myself, who is not making money from this, is even considering spending that kinda cabbage on a damn camera or lens. I remember a year ago, when I first started getting interested in photography telling a coworker that I want to upgrade my Digital Rebel camera for something newer. I told him my budget was around $750. Well 6 months and $35,000 later... LoL

Any thoughts for me and Fred?

I currently have a 6D and 24-105mm lens. I want a portrait lens to take photos of my grand children. I'm thinking of these 2 lenses. Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS vs Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS. The reviews I've read point that both are great lenses, but the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS is slightly better, but the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS is more versatile. I don't have the cash for the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS.
I have a Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS coming this week that I rented, so I'll have a chance to try it out. I just wanted your opinion on the better portrait lens.

I've attached a couple of pictures shoot with the 24-105.

Hi folks, looks like the 70D is going to be my upgrade from my 400D. I need better AF than the 6D, and lower prices than the 5DIII. Something I've never used though is custom modes (C1, C2, etc.) on the mode dial. I get how setting different drive/metering/etc. modes may be useful if you're using one body to quickly switch between multiple types of shots, but of what use is the single C mode of the 70D? I guess you set up your M/Av/Tv/P mode to be a pseudo-custom mode, then use the C mode for something else and switch between those? If so, don't the five clicks from C to P (worst case example) reduce the usefulness of a custom mode as a shortcut or time saver?

How many of you with newer bodies use your C modes? How are they set up, and what shooting situations do you use them in? Do you use them in conjunction with the "normal" M/Av/Tv/P modes?

In a nutshell, I'm trying to understand how this feature could help, especially when there's only one. Thanks!

I have about $870 in cash (and that figure will grow with time) and I'd sell whatever lens I would upgrade...

First things first - gear:
Bodies:
I have a 5D mkiii that I'm VERY happy with and as I have stated before, I don't think I would upgrade to the mkiv regardless of how much of an upgrade it is over the mkiii. I also picked up an Xti for my daughter for around $15 so I have a back up (Ferrari to a Pinto) if the mkiii temporarily dies on me. I doubt I'll ever use the xti, but it is good to have.

Lenses in order of focal length:
Rokinon 8mm fisheye lens. I don't really do much fisheye photography... but it is fun to bend light from time to time. I'd actually like to get a extension tube so I can get MFD down to zero and also turn the fisheye from semi-circular to where the image covers the entire frame. I have zero interest in upgrading this lens to a better fisheye (Sigma or Canon).

24-105mm f/4L IS USM. I think this is the likely candidate for upgrade. 24mm is more than wide enough for my purposes and while I might be interested in doing some free-lance real-estate images (and 24mm isn't wide enough), I would do it if I could use their lenses but I don't want to invest in a 16-35 or a 17-40 because I WOULDN'T USE IT personally. I have zero interest in the 24-70 f/4L IS Macro. I think the logical upgrade is to the 24-70mm f/2.8L mkii. But I'm also interested in the new Sigma 24-70mm f/2... but maybe that isn't sharp wide open and you wind up having to stop it down to f/2.8 anyway.

Here's the rub though... I don't use the 24-105 that often. Maybe it is because it isn't that sharp, maybe I just don't like the focal length, maybe it is because I don't want to have to bounce flash. It's a mystery and investing $2000 in a lens that I don't use that often seems like a poor use of resources.

If I can sell the 24-105 for $700, then I'll have around $1600 which is spitting distance as far as I'm concerned.

Canon 85mm f/1.8 USM. This is the other option. I was thinking about getting the 135mm f/2L before I found the 85mm for $275. I like portraiture a lot, but I also have a baby on the way and I think 135mm on the full frame will be too long. I'm not that fond of the near 3 ft I have to deal with in terms of minimum focusing distance, but I can work around that for the time being. I also have an itch for the 85mm f/1.2L mkii. But if I sell the 85mm f/1.8 for $400 (which is a touch unlikely), then I'll be at $1200 and I wouldn't call that spitting distance.

Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS mkii. I love the lens... it is my favorite... it isn't going anywhere. Occasionally I think I might like a little bit more reach, maybe a 300mm f/4L or a 400mm f/5.6L, but more likely than not, I'll just invest in a Canon 1.4 teleconvertor, mkii. So let's call that $250... so I'll be at $600ish cash and further away from either the 85mm f/1.2L or the 24-70mm f/2.8L mkii.

2nd things second - What do I shoot:
I shoot a bit of everything. Mostly I shoot my daughter in candids and portraits, which is why the 24-70 would be nice as well as the 135mm and the 85 f/1.2. I also shoot sports and action photography, some of which is indoors. So I know the 135 is so much faster for auto focus than the 85, but I question whether I would go to the 135 over the 70-200... and yes it is an extra stop of light, but the iso performance of the mkiii is really quite good, and I can clean it up the grain in lightroom.

I also shoot different events like music recitals, birthday parties, and the like... most of which are indoors.

I don't do real estate as I said before, but $50 for a house doesn't sound like a bad deal (I'm guessing at the pay). I don't do landscape as a focus... but if something looks nice, sure I'll throw the lens to 24mm and I'll take a few shots... maybe use bracketing to do some HDR and then use light room to fix the distortion.

So there it is. Money is burning a hole in my pocket and I don't think I have a REAL need. So, where would the best bang for my buck upgrade be?