Good news from the Photokina.

B+W announce two new GND (grey) filters that can be used with the Cokin Z-Pro and Lee filter holder.

number 701 (- 1 stop soft)
number 702 (- 2 stop soft)

Glas with MRC sealing, 10x15 cm, delivered in a tin box

Press text:

B + W graduated neutral density filters are often used in landscape photography in order to avoid an overexposure of the sky with a correct exposure of the ground. As in overexposured areas of the picture image information is normally lost the effect of this filter can hardly be simulated by electronic image processing.

The filters are coloured neutral gray with a smooth transition into the neutral filter half. With screwed filter the rotatable mount allows an exact horizontal alignment.

The glass substrate of the B+W ND filters 701 and 702 are absolutely plane and parallel and finely polished. This guarantees a long lasting high optical quality. By means of thin layer technology the ND gradient is evaporated. The below values refer to the darkest filter glass parts:

701 +1 stop (50% transmission)
702 +2 stop (25% transmission)

The graduated ND filters are provided with a high quality MRC coating. MRC (Multi Resistant Coating) coated filters have an MC layer ensuring a high transmission and maximum anti-reflective surface. Furthermore, MRC is dirt and water repellent and makes cleaning much more easier.

Maybe if Canon read the forums or a retailer could answer this one:

Prices in Europe for the Canon EOS 6d are pre-ordering at €1,999 why in Ireland are we 'EXPECTED' to pay €2,200?

I would appreciate a reasonable answer as this sort of pricing I hate to say deters me from buying in Ireland. and instead importing from e.g. Germany.

It cant be the VAT difference as Germany are on 19% i believe so the difference doesnt come to €200 more.

Lenses are also more.

Forgive my tone but it is annoying to say the least and not good for Retailers if this RRP pricing is governed by Canon.... anyone?

however if I was to walk into a Canon retailer in Germany and buy a 6D with say a 16-35mm L II
example from www.pixass.de as a random German Site also you can check www.idealo.de for same products:

These would cost €1,359 for the 16-35 L II and €1,999 for 6D Total €3,358 + shipping was <€20
Compared to a retailer in Ireland it would be €3,708 why is there a €340 odd euro difference this equates to a little over 9% price difference - so would a shop say ok so we'll take a bit of that if someone was to haggle a bit?

Thanks
n

Saving for the 3d (if that's the name)? Then predict here what the price of the high-mp body will be!

I just measured the time accuracy of my newly purchased GP-E1. The advertised accuracy as shown on the Canon USA website is +/- .01 sec. I installed an NTP time app on my iPhone (Emerald Time), which claims a corrected time to the nearest tenth of a second. (I verified Emerald Time's accuracy by calling the NIST time recording at 303-499-7111.) Below is a photo of Emerald Time and the associated exif time data. The GP-E1 was more than a second off. I force-updated the camera's clock off the GPS multiple times and the results were consistent and repeatable.

I am going to add better triggers and strobes to my kit. This would support real estate, events, weddings, other interior and outdoor work. I have a Mk2 and a Mk3 so want to do HSS. I like the look of the Phottix Odin as ratio control from the camera sounds good. I still believe I will need to use on-camera-strobe often so may need a mix of Stratto and Odin.

I was thinking about the 550EX as a cost effective way to add three units BUT many of you like your Yongnuo flashes. These are more modern than the Canon 550EX, can use a battery pack (good idea) and save as much money over the Canon 600. (I do have one Canon 580EX not II) But I realize I have never seen anyone write in that they trigger their Yongnuo units with Phottix Stratto or Odin.

I would use these in softboxes at times. Nice to do ratio control without reaching into a box.

jonathan7007

Just wondering and out of curiosity,if a person mostly shoots in jpeg,would it be worth getting the Canon 1DX?If not,why?
Thanks.

D800. Its the name of the camera on everyones mouths these days. In all the blogs. In all the reviews. Its the thing raving Nikon fans rave about. Canon's taken a solid back seat to Nikon these days, particularly to the D800. I've said many times that Canon cameras have some pretty amazing highlight recovery, as Canon tends to tune their cameras to favor highlights (either intentfully or simply as a byproduct of their manufacturing process, I can't say...although I'm inclined to think its intentional given Canon popularity among wedding photographers.)

I regularly repeat that anecdote in many of my posts...but I just came across a couple accidental overexposures of some of my own photos that I think clearly demonstrate the point. While out photographing birds with a rental Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II IS and Canon EF 2x TC III, I kept coming across dragonflys. A telephoto lens with a TC is a great way to photograph some frame-filling insect "macros" (more like pseudomacro) without scaring the subject off. I accidentally set my exposure wrong and totally blew the first few shots:


1/100s @ f/5.6 ISO 100

The exposure should have been around 1/1000s @ f/8 ISO 100 (which I proved with some subsequent shots, which ended up being 1/1000s @ f/7.1 ISO 160)...so my exposure above was almost four stops overexposed. Thanks to the power of Lightroom 4.1 and its amazing highlight recovery, the above image, with -4 EV exposure correction and 60% highlight recovery, turned into this:



I'd experienced Canon's amazing highlight headroom when photographing the moon. I REALLY push my moon exposures...to the point where once exposed the moon looks like a nearly uniform almost-white disc in the in-camera preview. Once imported, its clear that there are actually few parts of the moon that are actually white. I'd never actually overexposed something so much that on import it really DID look almost entirely white. The histogram of the dragonfly was all bunched up in two peaks near the very far right...with a small gap between the second peak and the actual right edge...a gap maybe 1 or 2 pixels wide. With 100% highlight recovery in LR 4.1, even the specular highlights on the wings still retain a lot of detail:



Since this image started out way overexposed, there is zero color or pattern noise in the shadows. There is also minimal random (photon shot) noise in the shadows as well...they look as clean as a D800 at ISO 100! ;-)

So, the next time someone tells you Canon cameras suck...send 'em here. While Canon cameras may not be able to achieve 13.2 stops of DR or allow noiseless shadow recovery like the D800 can, they really do know how to pack in the highlights, and maintain full color fidelity while recovering. The next time you need low noise shadows...expose to the right....then, try exposing farther to the right. 8)

Obviously there are similarities in focal length and aperture. Neither have image stabilization. I have heard the 70-200 is tack sharp between 70-135... which raises the question, is the additional range I will get worth the additional 400 dollars. I've already bought the 70-200, so I've answered my question, but I got it as such a good price, that I could sell it within a matter of days and then just get the 200 prime.

At the moment, I am shooting a ton of football games (pee-wee level). And I imagine I will be shooting indoor girls basketball games here in the next few weeks.

I already have a 24-105mm f/4L, 50mm f/1.4, and 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro.

Any advice is appreciated. If the 200mm prime is incredibly sharp wide open... or isn't head and shoulders better than the 70-200mm... I'll stick with the zoom. But I also don't want to use the 135-200mm range and be so disappointed that I never bother to use the lens.

So, here I am with a 60D (great camera), and several lenses I've invested in over the period I've gotten into photography. While I've gotten great shots and achieved results with what I currently have, I do have some money saved up and I'm currently evaluating options, including perhaps stepping up to a better body. Ever since I've started, the ratio of money I've spent on bodies (T2i -> 60D) vs. lenses (24-105, 17-50 Tamron -> 17-55 2.8, 35 1.4, 70-200 f4 -> 70-200 2.8 II, 70-300 L, 85 1.8, 100 L Macro, 40 2.8 ) is obviously heavily biased in favor of the glass. (Also have a 580ex II flash unit) I've been starting to think about perhaps paying more attention to the other end to get the best IQ that I can.

Couple of notes:

1) Hobbyist (not a pro, don't make $$ off this stuff so don't need top-performing equipment, nor do I have that kind of money to spend)
2) General photographer here (i.e. don't specialize in anything particular, although I'll tell you what I do NOT do: studio work/portraits, weddings, tripod work. Have done parties though, probably the closest thing to a wedding-type setting)

I've been debating whether to step up to FF - I have to say I've really become accustomed to and utilized the reach of APS-C on the 60D (and the T2i before it) with lenses like the 70-300L and I love how far back I can stand at events and still get nice close-up shots. I've shot some ice-skating performances - reach has come in handy there as well. On the flip side, when shooting an event (book) signing with the 60D and 70-200 2.8 I often find 70mm to be too long when I have an opportunity to get to the table, and I have to back up. However, the 200mm end is nice during the actual reading when I can be in the back of the room and still get closeups. And, at events where I have the 70-300 people on occasion will ask for group shots and 70 is too long on the 1.6x camera. There are times where I've been wanting more in terms of IQ, especially indoors where I dislike using flash and have to crank up ISO. Also, outdoor landscape shots (even with a quality lens like the 24-105), while not bad, don't seem as sharp as they could be. I looked at some sample landscape shots from a 5D in a review the other day and was blown away at how much more detail was in the images.

I've heard about this new 6D, and it got me thinking whether it is worth it. In many ways, though, it's not a TRUE upgrade to a 60D because it does step back in a few respects and step forward in others. The 5D3, OTOH, is a definite upgrade but after handling one yesterday at the store, although I was amazed and couldn't put the thing down, I'm wondering whether it is really a tad too much camera for what I do (coming from the 60D, it seems so complicated!). But, I feel like the 6D is the opposite- might leave me wanting just that little bit more, although I'm tempted to wait for a review first. As an aside, I've also been eyeing the new EOS M as an eventual replacement for my SD950IS P&S...want a capable compact camera to complement the DSLR and be able to get good shots in venues, etc.

So- what to do? This is something I might do over the next few weeks or months. There's this 6D...the prospect of a possible 7D Mark II next year, the 5D3 now (although a bit cost prohibitive, I CAN squeeze it out if I can get a good deal for under $3K). Only issue would be the 17-55 (only EF-S lens I have) which I'd have to give up for a 24-70 that is 2x the price...and no IS...although I would like to keep the 60D if I can as a 2nd body.

You guys have helped me out before...I'd appreciate any thoughts, etc.

I just took advantage of the 20% off and free shipping on the canon website and when I checked my email confirmation it told me the lens was backordered.

How is this possible? don't they fix then sell or is it sell then wait till one comes in to fix?

Probably most of you here swear by Canon's 70-200L IS II, and for excellent reasons. From numerous forum posts here I can understand this is one of the best zooms produced, period. But I am not looking for any more info about Canon's offering. What I am looking for is personal experience of those of you who might be using the Sigma 70-200 OS. It would be great if any of you actually used both the Canon and the Sigma. Would you please care to share your opinions and experiences? I am not a professional photographer, so justifying buying the Canon is almost impossible for me. The similar offering from Tamron does not yet have OS/VC/IS. So it would be a great help to learn from your opinions and experiences about the Sigma lens. Thank you all in advance.

i just purchased a ZPro with a 82 mm adapter ring for my 16-35 mm and so far been happy with the way it fits except the vignetting at 16-20 mm.. I am thinking of returning it and get a XPro filter kit. seems crazy expensive to get the adapter and filters but question is will the XPro universal adapter ring fit any lens ?

also will the 100 * 100 filters fit the adapter ring for ZPro ?

how do you like this filter kit against the Lee filter kits ? issue is availability of Lee and hence the reason why i m looking at Cokin..

Please share any information if you have used these kits before..

TIA

with all the complains about canons 6D autofocus why is no website, that cares about canon in one way or the other, writing an open letter to canon... demanding a statement?

i mean.... dpreview wrote it´s a rather dissapointing camera and i have yet to read a preview that is not puzzled by the low-tech AF.

if we complain here in a forum .. canon cares a sh*t.

but if a popular and frequented website writes something and is not afraid to tell the truth... maybe canon will take notice and feel obligated to react?

or maybe it´s to late here and im just bored and tired.....

let's assume you have non of these or any equivalent lenses. He will give you one, but only if you give him the reason why, which one would you choose?

(Sorry got a little bored trying to make this question interesting , basically which one would you choose if you would not look at the price and not asking me what I shoot the most, just tell which one would be more handy in what situation)

Canon's been pretty quiet on this one ever since CR reported that a fix that "might not be ideal for everyone" was in the works.

This has been annoying me more and more shooting with a 1D3 as a backup - with those wonderful autodimming bright red AF points...

Trevor

Hi I'm new here so sorry if this has already been discussed.. But I was wondering if the new Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 is actually available yet, and how to tell if you're ordering a new or old one? I read the thread here about the announcement and people were talking about specs for the new one, but everything I can find online seems to be selling the 2011 version and can only find specs for that. Sigma doesn't list it as a new lens like they do with the 50-150 f/2.8, so I'm just wondering about it.

Anybody has used this lens? On paper it is 1 stop faster than canon's equivalent, and on APS-C has a nice 90-95mm equivalent field of view for portraits. Any experience?

Hi! I just bought a new 24-70 last night. At 1st I was very impressed and it seemed very sharp on all apertures. However, this morning i wanted to take a closer look and Pixel peep a little. I was shocked to find that the right edge of the frame was completely blurry from top to bottom. I took a lot of test shot at various apertures and it happened all the way from 2.8 to 22 !!!!! I dont know if im overreacting or if I should return/exchange the lens. I will post the JPEG's that i converted from raw no NO ADJUSTMENTS. Can some please help me out with this. I dont think is normal or maybe im just spoiled from using primes. Look up close on the building on the right

This one is @ 2.8

EDIT: ALL GONE

They have one - you are going to pay a premium but if you are desperate

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0076BNK30/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B0076BNK30&linkCode=as2&tag=mapsdpr-20

Mine arrives today - ordered last week from PC Nation, The lovely Pearl who works in their Camera/Optics department was wonderful to work with!

I'm looking for suggestions for lens filters that don't affect the picture -- want them to protect my lens. What are your favorites?

It seems the further I delve into photography the more there is to learn, gone are the days of just Pointing and Shooting and accepting what the camera chooses...
These were the days I would look at photos taken by pros and hope that one day I could achieve similar.

Everyday I try to learn something and then attempt to put it into practice...

My latest reading is in relation to the "Zone System"...at least the simplified for digital version of it...

As much as I enjoy using this system for obtaining the correct (subjective exposure) it doesn't seem to be "everyday practical" (again subjective, as it depends on your everyday needs).
Spot Meter, choose your tone, Spot meter, choose your tone...the system seems to work best if you have the time to take numerous meter readings, to determine where your shadows and highlights will fall.
Obviously this system is dependant on choosing and knowing where your tonal values fall, and for colour, knowing which colours are Zone 5 (18%)

Then there is the ETTR school of thought, push the exposure to the right but avoid clipping the highlights (or at least the highlights that matter), this seems to be the quickest method, quick look at the preview and histogram and adjust...

Even though it seems quickest is it the best, my luminance histogram will show clipping based on the JPEG, not the raw file, so I need to know how far I can push ETTR, but this luminance histogram doesn't show the possible RGB clipping.

Questions:
1. Am I over thinking this
2. Is there a preferred method.

What got me thinking about this?....I live in a tourist town, I watch people all day everyday taking photos, from camera phones through to 1Dx, rarely do I see anyone consider composition or exposure, everything is left to AUTO mode (yes, even on some of the very high end cameras I see people use)

So I started thinking, was I better off knowing less about photography and never understanding 18% grey....or am I better off knowing more but always chasing the "Perfect exposure"...

Photography and Golf, both pursuits that drive you crazy seeking the perfect game ( I gave up golf early on, realising it would drive me mad)

Anyone know which Ultra Wide Lens is best out of this group:

Tamron 10-24mm
Sigma 10-20mm
Tokina 12-24mm

I'm thinking of getting an Ultra Wide lens. I like shooting wide for some reason, but I also would feel bad if I got an ultra wide, because I'd like to replace my kit lens too. Should I replace my kit lens with something like the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 or go wider like the Tamron 10-24mm.