ncarnick

<p>This doesn't really speak to much on sensors approaching capabilities of lenses as lens rentals didn't have time with the bodies to compare multiple lenses on the d700 and d800. As much as I would have liked to have seen an intro 50mm on each body (just to see if the Zeiss 100mm improvements moving from a d700 to d800 are likely to be applicable across the Nikon mount lens lineup), I still thought the comparisons of the 4 lenses on the d800 were very interesting.<br>

<a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/03/d-resolution-tests">http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/03/d-resolution-tests</a></p>

 

<p>At Dan, sorry I didn't clarify this well. I get that the 1Dx is the next generation of the 1D family (had a 1D mk ii in the past). If Canon does not replace the 1DS this new body is step down in MP even if it is 18.1MP. The 1Dx is specwise in a weird spot as it is slightly more in MP than the 1D mk iv (16.1) but is full frame and therefore slightly lower resolution than the 1.3X crop current 1D. The 1DS mk iii is something like 21.1 MP in pure MP the 1Dx is a drop.<br>

I'm not claiming this is a bad thing. This might be the greatest camera ever. However it isn't certain if this is a replacement for both 1 models (studio and sports) or not. I don't care so much that all of the .rumors web sites have been wrong so far on releases of giant MP cameras. I'm just wondering how close we are to what the lens can give us in terms of resolution.</p>

<p>At Sarah, thanks a ton as well. I know the original question makes me look like a MP snob but the intent is actually more the opposite. It seems at some point the density of the sensor will be recording more than what the lens can deliver. Take my favorite lens from Canon as an example (85 1.2). It's pretty sharp in the center if not shot wide open (but I mostly got it for the bokeh so this was a dumb choice of an example :) ). In any event, it would be interesting to see how close the sensors actually are from a technical standpoint of pulling in more data than what is actually delivered by my favorite lens or possibly vs the standard 35 or 50. </p>

<p>I currently own a Canon 5D mk ii. With the upcoming release of the 1Dx I've wondered why Canon moved to larger but fewer pixels in the sensor. It seems they will be getting some great low light performance through this decision and beautiful image quality but the question I don't know is are the denser MP sensors coming into severe limitations of older lens designs.<br>

I tend to believe there is plenty of room left in sensor development but other friends seem to believe we are much closer to diminishing returns than I believe.<br>

For my argument: the sensor size on this full frame digital is about 864mm². The new G1x has a slightly under 262mm² sensor shooting 14.3MP (<a href="http://www.petapixel.com/2012/01/09/canon-unveils-the-g1x-a-large-sensor-compact-answer-to-the-mirrorless-craze/">http://www.petapixel.com/2012/01/09/canon-unveils-the-g1x-a-large-sensor-compact-answer-to-the-mirrorless-craze/</a>). Possibly this math is stupid (feel free to tell me how) but it seems the same sensor technology in a ff 35 version would be 3.3X larger or 47MP. Now obviously the math would lead to an even bigger jump if using a lousy camera phone sensor for the basis of multiplication but it seems the G1x has fairly high optical standards. It also seems like a slightly safe guess that the IQ would be aided by using the technology in combination with a fixed 35mm lens (but I really have no idea how good the attached lens is on the G1x).<br>

In any event, I guess the high level question is do we know at what point sensors will be resolving more than the detail provided by the more common 35mm lenses? And, once past that, is there still room for the sensor/digital filters to add substantial value or will the returns diminish?<br>

The reason I ask this group is I'm clearly not that technically gifted and did not see much on the subject matter. Currently there are rumors out for every manufacturer releasing a 30+ MP beast camera but these rumors have been around for awhile and with Canon and Nikon coming out with 16 to 20MP cameras (though possibly targeted for sports and video work in each case) I'm starting to wonder if there is a bottleneck or where the optical bottleneck will likely end up being.</p>

<p>I haven't been to Adorama. (<a href="http://www.adorama.com/catalog.tpl?op=adorama_inside">http://www.adorama.com/catalog.tpl?op=adorama_inside</a>)<br>

I have been to BH (<a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/find/jsp/area_map.jsp">http://www.bhphotovideo.com/find/jsp/area_map.jsp</a>) and the Photo Village (<a href="http://www.photovillage.com/home.php">http://www.photovillage.com/home.php</a>).<br>

Quick summary: Adorama is likely great. <br>

BH is great. Staff is knowledgeable. Store is massive and my favorite place to shop in NY. However, again, I don't know Adorama and have heard only good things about them as well.<br>

PhotoVillage is a small shop which at times can get you a hot new camera that might be sold out at the others. PhotoVillage is a great Leica and Vogitlander shop but isn't a complete camera store. However they are extremely pleasant to deal with and honestly offer the same pricing as the others (but you should be prepared to quote the others as well). Again, besides Leica, they do sell Canon, Nikon, etc.. They just won't have nearly as many lenses, tripods, gear, etc on site. <br>

The reason I post however isn't to give recommendations on which store but to give a slight warning. BH is closed quite often for holidays and Sabbath. It isn't a problem if prepared for this but you should plan your visit around what days they are open. Unless you are going to a convention, there is nothing interesting around BH Photo and it wouls stink to make your way there just to see a closed sign. <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/find/HelpCenter/HoursOfOperation.jsp">http://www.bhphotovideo.com/find/HelpCenter/HoursOfOperation.jsp</a>) </p>

<p>Not that any care about mindless speculation but my mindless waste of space comment is that Canon has little need to drop the price of the 5Dmkii IF 5Dmk iii is a substantial improvement (won't waste time commenting on CanonRumors and other guesses) AND it remains competitive with similar offerings from Nikon and Sony. <br>

The camera seems to be selling as well as can be met by current factory delivery capabilities. I don't see Canon messing with this revenue stream unless Sony and/or Nikon step up their offerings. <br>

I think the wild speculation on what will be in possible new 1D and 5D offerings isn't worth following closely. For example, in a world without Nikon and Sony, why couldn't Canon relaunch the 3 series with what folks are calling the 5Diii at the same time as releasing a new 1 series and charge more for it? I guess I've made my point that my whole comment is worthless (woo hoo). However, if you take away anything from my posting it should be "Norm believes the most expensive photo is the one he misses." I see 7D vs 5D mkii as a much better argument. If you can afford the 5Dii, don't have a good camera, and are waiting out the next Canon release to buy...I think you are making a mistake. I don't think the 5Dii drops like a rock (history backs this to some degree) and I worry that chunks of the supply chain are still off a bit in Japan so I suspect the wait isn't justified.<br>

Caveats: I own no Canon stock (have owned in the past) and have no association with Canon other than owning a 5D ii. And while it would be nice to believe such a comment submission by me would magically increase the used value of my camera...I'm not quite that dumb. I am however hoping Bob A will let me borrow his trial 1Ds mk X when he gets it next week.</p>

<p>Hi Diane,<br>

I have the 85 f1.2 (version i). Best lens I have in my kit by far. However, it is full of negatives as well. (Heavy, slow focus (sort of...certainly horrible for sports or things where your focusing distance may vary...eg wedding candids), very expensive, doesn't focus with the camera off, and the rear element being flush with the mount makes it a little scary to change). <br>

The plus side of the equation is if taking head shots this is probably Canon's best lens. The bokeh at 1.2 is amazing on this thing. <br>

IMO you are comparing Canon's best non-sports specialty lens with Canon's best value for the $ lens (in the case of the 85 1.8). The 1.8 is very sharp, light, well priced, small, and really makes for a perfect travel prime. It also might work well for a sideline sports lens in sports where reach isn't a huge issue.<br>

In short, I don't think you can go wrong with either as long as you know what you will be shooting. The 1.8 will work extremely well for portraits but if that is your bread and butter you probably need to buy the 1.2. The 1.2 will not work if you need quick focusing of a target that moves and it won't get put in the pack as often for work outside of the studio.<br>

So for 19 out of 20 photographers I would recommend against them getting my favorite Canon lens and push them towards the 85 f 1.8. (Don't know the Sigma 1.4 or Zeiss 1.4 offerings to comment other than <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Zeiss-85mm-f-1.4-ZE-Planar-Lens-Review.aspx">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Zeiss-85mm-f-1.4-ZE-Planar-Lens-Review.aspx</a> makes me think the Zeiss is not the way to go with respect to their 85mm.)</p>

<p>I have the 85 1.2 (not ii) and it is the best lens I've ever worked with. It is also unbelievably pricey and has many other negatives I can throw out. But as much as I love it despite its limitations, it isn't for many and I have no reservations eagerly suggesting Cannon users really must get the 85 1.8. For the money the 1.8 is just amazing. I like the 50 1.4 a ton and would not get the 1.2 even if I had money to throw away. While the bokeh is great, even the entry 50 prime (a very good lens despite its feel and unbelievably low cost) is a worthy competitor to the 1.2. Also, 50 isn't the angle I tend to shoot the most so going all out for a lens there makes little sense to me (for my usage). I have the 100 macro and like it but don't use it enough. <br>

As far it being a lens issue, I could't take a good shot with my 28-135. Don't miss it. It could have been just my copy but I have a feeling the lens was just obviously bad once got a finer digital camera.</p>

<p>I had an early copy so you can discount my experience if you wish. (I do caution though that you need to buy from a retailer who will let you return it if you don't like your copy). Here is my opinion of the one I sold:<br>

1) The push-pull is only an issue in that it may have led to dust getting in my copy. I had mine cleaned by Canon twice over the time I had it. (Then got rid of it after the 2nd cleaning).<br>

2) I thought the lens was really great from 100-320 or so. Then I thought it was pretty lame in terms of sharpness at 400. I don't think this is a big deal though because it really was great at the length range I normally shot in.<br>

3) I need to get something long but am waiting for a new design in the 100-400. I probably shouldn't hold my breath here though as I don't know that Canon has any significant competition in this area. As much as I complain about sharpness from 320?-400 it seems other long zooms have far worse problems. <br>

While I'm missing having the reach, I also want to point out that the 70-200 F4 IS is an amazing lens. I have no complaints with it and find it to be a great travel lens. (light, sharp). <br>

There is a Sigma 120-400 which seems to have issues with sharpness fully open and lens creep but also seems to do well in its sweet spot. I haven't tried it though.</p>

<p>The shots are great. Congrats on finding them. I had some similar issues with slides found from 1958 (from and of my dad who died in 2007). However mine were not nearly as bad on the warping issue. I after flattening the slides out a little bit with some glass and a few books, I put the slides I liked in Gepe glass mounts and the scans came out okay (with some color restoration courtesy of the Epson scanning utility). <br>

I can't claim my process was professional or something you should duplicate. The only thing I am certain of is I was happy to find a few slides I found little use for to experiment on first. (I tried water with complete failure...I now wish I scanned the ruined slide as an example for others...sorry.)</p>

<p>Two comments:<br>

1) To those who provided sample shots (which I did not :( ) Thanks for making photo.net useful. Hopefully this helped the poster as well.<br>

2) There is some discussion on what body the poster will be using this with. While I agree this matters substantially, I do want to caution that if you someday wish to move to FF you may wish to keep that in mind with your purchase. For example, while I still like my 17-40, it does not find its way to my camera (5Dii) nearly as much as it did when I had a 1dii. The reason is I don't shoot that wide that often and the 24-40 range is covered fine in my 24-105 but with IS.<br>

And also of note, while I like FF, the 5Dii has certainly pointed out limitation of some of my old lenses at their edges. (This will probably be a far worse problem with the 5Diii if rumors of the resolution are correct). In any event, I don't want to push you to FF but do want to warn you that if you are planning to make the move there at some point I advise against buying lenses which you won't use. </p>

<p>I have the old 85 1.2 and it is easily my favorite canon lens. At the same time it wouldn't be my recommendation for most as it is expensive, heavy, and not that versatile compared to the 85 1.8. For the money that might be the best lens they have and I often ponder getting it as well for everyday use (shots of my kids playing sports where I have an ability to get near the action). What kept me from getting it was how surprised I was at the quality of the 24-105. Sure it doesn't have the narrow DOF but as a travel lens it is hard to beat and spends a lot of time on my 5D ii. <br>

I've read your camera and lens comments. Based on them it is really hard to make a suggestion other than you see if the 70-200 covers what you do well enough. I think the 85 1.8 would be great as a headshot lens or something you can bring to a dark event without being as noticeable but given your reach on the 70-200 2.8, there is some logic to wait out the new 24-70 ii (rumor is April release based on some leaked marketing and a patent filing). I'm guessing this will be a pricey lens. However the 100 IS 2.8 macro might be $1,000 of unused lens if you don't do much macro and don't find it a lot better than your current 70-200. The new 24-70 might be $500 more but could get a lot of use. Furthermore, the older 24-70 might be a lot cheaper once the new one comes out.<br>

In any event, all the stuff you are looking at are lenses others would love to have. Just pick something you'll use and you will have chosen well.</p>

<p>Not that it hasn't been mentioned previously but I want the Adorama and B&H folks to know I am impressed that you contributed to this conversation. There are a lot of horrible online shops out there. I have a lot of respect for both of these organizations and have yet to have any problems with either. I know this might look like I work for one of them or am kissing butt for a tiny discount on my next camera purchase but please believe me when I say this is not the case. My only reason for thanking them is to encourage they continue to submit occasional clarifications. Their knowledge is demonstratively better than most and I only wish they were free to post stuff like: "___________ is one of the few lenses from _________ I would not recommend due to the history we have here with returns."</p>

<p>(Now I'll tell you which of these two I like best once one of them gives me the now out-of-date Canon 300 f2.8L IS I.)</p>

<p>@Tim, though it is horrifically expensive, the 17mm TS is interesting to look at. Give up on a protective filter (I don't know for that matter if you can put any form of polarizing filter on it either but on the ultra wide world that would make for odd skies uneven in any event).<br>

A friend told me you can put the 1.4TC on it and have nearly a 24mm but I have not used it yet to confirm. <br>

In any event, the 17 and other Canon TS lenses offer you something that might not be available to Leica M users (sorry if wrong on that assumption, don't know the system well but did not see any M offerings of TS lenses from either Leica or Schneider, Voitlander, Zeiss.</p>

<p>@Dan,<br>

The distortion on the 70-200 f4L IS does not seem to be much of an issue to me.<br>

<a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/70-200mm-f4-is.htm">http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/70-200mm-f4-is.htm</a> covers it in depth and his samples are in-line with what others report. <br>

<a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-4.0-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-4.0-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx</a> says more of the same. <br>

<a href="http://www.photocrati.com/canon-70-200mm-f4l-is-usm-ef-review-round-up/">http://www.photocrati.com/canon-70-200mm-f4l-is-usm-ef-review-round-up/</a> has a summary of other reviews. None of which found more than slight distortion on the wide side of things.</p>

<p>I have the old 85 f1.2L. It is easily my favorite lens. Bokeh is amazing. (for reference I have the 17-40, 24-105f4IS, 50f1.4, 85 f1.2, 100 macro, 70-200f4IS, 1.4x and 2x)<br>

I don't know why I haven't sold the 100macro. It is fine but never makes its way into my pack (will carry tubes at times).<br>

The only lenses I have disliked from Canon are the 28-135 (but honestly it was fine for its price and early entry into IS...not throwing stones at it but the sharpness was not up to what I was willing to spend for) and the 100-400 (my copy was great from 100-200, okay from 200-320, and sucked from 320 to 400. It also sucked in dust (dust trombone design) and needed to be cleaned twice at pricey Canon rates.).<br>

The 24-105 is a great video lens and travel snap shot lens.<br>

The 70 - 200 f4 IS is a great lens. It may not have the bokeh you are looking for but the IS helps in low light and it is pretty compact/low weight for travel.<br>

I like my 17-40 more than most do but still think I would be best served using a Nikon 14-24 (amazing lens) with an adapter and getting the Canon 35 1.4. This is why I buy lottery tickets.<br>

I see a lot of comments on the Canon 50 1.2 vs 1.4 vs 2.0. I like my 1.4 but it is soft fully open (no shock). After that it is pretty good. I've noticed there are no mentions of this but Sigma makes a much newer 50 f 1.4 that a few friends have and like. I'm not a Sigma fan in general (and have heard some really bad stuff from rental companies regarding the ability of the telephotos to survive routine shipping) but the Sigma 50 is apparently pretty good. There is a silly review here if bored:<br>

<a href="

Circling back to the 85 1.2L (older version). Amazing bokeh. Focusing is not bad if you were already close to where you wanted to be but it is worthless as an action sports lens and honestly can be best described as a perfect head shot lens or for odd uses that you dream up. It is a really weird lens as I can easily argue for owning both the 85 1.8 (possibly best lens canon makes for the money) and the 1.2.<br>

The 85 1.2 is very heavy and has a rear element that begs to be ruined (though I know of no person who has damaged theirs...probably because it is too obvious a problem and the lens doesn't make for packing into areas where safe lens changes are unlikely).<br>

In any event, nothing but praise for my 85, 70-200f4 IS, and 24-105. However, I think the 85 and 35 (I don't own) are the obvious suggestions for a Leica guy. The 50 question might is worth opening up to Zeiss and Sigma. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>I'm quite fond of the 70-200 f4L IS. I wish they had compared the f2.8L ii IS to the 4 to see if the move up is worthwhile. I tend to shoot with primes so the 70-200 functions for me as part of a travel lens kit. In that usage the f4IS is a great lens. Much lighter, smaller, and possibly sharper than the old 2.8. The downside to the f4IS is the cost was extremely high for a slow lens (especially if adding a Cannon-made tripod collar). </p>

<p>My first suggestion is likely too late (or you bought used) but when I bought the 5D mk ii I bought it as a kit with the 24-105 f4L IS. That saved me $200 (then, no idea now) on that lens. The 24-105 is a very good everyday travel lens. I like it a ton as a video lens as well.<br>

With respect to the primes, I have the 50 1.4, 85 1.2 (old version), and 100 2.8 (non IS). If you are taking portraits the 85 1.2 is amazing. It is easily my favorite lens. However it is expensive, heavy, awkward, and really slow focusing. In short, despite being my favorite lens it is also my least everyday lens. My suggestion to you is to not get any of the lenses I have above unless you must have the 85 1.2.<br>

I think the 50 1.8 is an amazing lens for the money but still feels like crap and given the money you spent on your body it seems you don't need to make this type of compromise. Unless Canon has a new 50 1.4 coming out I think you should consider the Sigma 1.4 your best normal range lens (I have not tried the Canon 2.5 and don't know that the Canon 50 1.2 or 35 1.4 are lenses you would consider). The Sigma 50 1.4 is going for about $500 on bhphoto.<br>

I think the best lens Canon makes for the money is the 85 1.8. It costs about $370 (bhphoto). It is a great portrait lens. It should work fine for sports (where you can be close enough that 85mm is fine) and may work well for macro if used with generic extension tubes. <br>

My favorite zoom is the 70-200 f4 IS.</p>

<p>I don't know if this helps much (and Canon won't like the comment) but the 17 TS is such a unique purpose lens that it begs to be rented vs owned. I think between the two it makes a lot of sense to own the 24 and rent the 17. However, you know your work best. If you think the 17 will get a ton of use then buy it but I think for most photographers the 24 will come out of the Pelican case a lot more often.</p>

<p>This sounds great. I highly recommend folks click on Quang-Tuan Luong's profile to see how talented he is.<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/member-photos?user_id=23152">http://www.photo.net/photodb/member-photos?user_id=23152</a></p>

<p>Should anyone be interested in the 85 1.8 shots, the ones William linked to above are excellent. While I'm amazed at the bokeh on my 85 1.2, it is not an everyday lens (size, weight, slow focus (though granted, not really as bad of an issue as many complain about)). </p>

<p>Good luck in your choices and thanks for posting those photos William.</p>

<p>I have the 85 f 1.2 but the older one. Despite it being by far the slowest focusing lens I have from Canon, it is easily my favorite lens. I can see why someone would want it for portrait work but I don't think it is the best choice for things that move much. Possibly the ii version of the 85 1.2 is a lot better in focusing speed so my comments on that aspect might be of little use to you. However, I question the logic of blowing that much of your budget on that lens when as a wedding photographer you will need a lot of flexibility during the event. <br>

I think the quality on my 70-200 f4L IS is amazingly good for a zoom lens. My 24-105F4L IS works as a pretty good video lens with the 5D mk ii. While I like that lens as a travel and video lens, the best reason you would have to buy it is the kit price with the 5D mk ii might be good. (The 24-105 replaced my 28-135IS which was pretty lame by Canon standards).<br>

In any event, the 85 1.2ii goes for $1,970 (USA version) on BH Photo. The Zeiss 85 1.4 (but manual focus) goes for $1,283 and the Canon 85 1.8 goes for $379. I bet all 3 are excellent. Zeiss was not an option when I bought mine (many years ago) and I think you should do some research between those 2 if you are done just portrait work with the lens. I assume the 1.8 is out of the running because you want the much smaller DOF. However, I have been told the 1.8 is a great lens and amazing for the money. <br>

Putting it into perspective the 85 f1.2L ii cost $200 or more than buying the 85 f 1.8 AND the 300 f4L combined. It is a $200 less than buying the 85 1.8 and 70-200 f2.8L IS combined. In any event, I would think you would want some reach to do the kiss shot with. I don't know that you can build a wedding kit without it although I imagine you could go rental for that lens depending on situation.</p>

 

<p>The Burzynski recommendation deserves a lot of warnings:<br>

1) I don't think it is sold in either Canada or the US. You will be paying a decent amount for shipping/customs and will need to ponder support issues.<br>

2) Since you are not likely shooting with a 6X6, you need to get L brackets for your bodies (unless mounting to a lens with a rotating colar).<br>

3) You will likely want to buy a panning 3rd party arca-swiss styled quick release plate to put on the head. <br>

4) I don't get why Bjorn didn't reference his own review of it (which seems very well done... <a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/burzynski.html">http://www.naturfotograf.com/burzynski.html</a> )<br>

I am not disputing that this could be the best solution out there. It's just unsupported and extremely pricey when comparing apples to apples:<br>

Ball head 360EUR (<a href="https://www.isarfoto.com/cms.php/_pid:22383,l:500,pp:1,ps:az,st:Burzynski/de/0/Produkt.html">https://www.isarfoto.com/cms.php/_pid:22383,l:500,pp:1,ps:az,st:Burzynski/de/0/Produkt.html</a> )<br>

Shipping to Canada/US 119EUR (possibly 99EUR...I don't speak German and don't want to rely on freetranslations.com to figure out the differences in the 2 shipping prices)<br>

Difference between L plate and standard plate for my camera $85USD (140USD vs 55USD using Really Right Stuff quotes for 5D mk ii)<br>

Panning Clamp $235 (quoting RRS PL-1)<br>

360EUR+119EUR+$85USD+$235USD = about $974.18USD or $1,202.59CAD (using <a href="http://www.xe.com">www.xe.com</a> for exchange rates)<br>

RRS - 55 with panning base = 455USD + 57.83 shipping (RRS was closed so I used fastest insured rate to Canada as basis...RRS did not quote online but gave link to USPS.gov). Total is $512.83USD or $632.75CAD<br>

RRS - 55 with dual pan = 575USD +57.83 (though I don't understand the need for a panning base and panning clamp and this would not be an apples to apples comparison then as the Burzynski would not have the matching base.)<br>

In any event, the Burzynski will end up costing a bit less than 2X the cost of the RRS - 55 should you wish to match functionality capabilities. I can't tell you that the Burzynski is better or worse but it certainly is not in the same ball park pricing wise if you are buying here and wishing to match panning and vertical shooting capabilities.</p>

<p>I have both the Arca Swiss (B1) and RRS (55) heads. I have not tried the Z1.<br>

My Arca Swiss locked on me in transit on trip. I was positive that I did not leave it in a tightened position during transit but who really cares? It was a pretty expensive item to fail over routine transit (simple drive to Yosemite). The solution to unlocking the older B-1 series is crazy but worked. You just keep tightening and it pops unlocked. Unfortunately then it was not as smooth again and needed servicing. Servicing took forever but it came back with some internal upgrades and has remained working perfectly for me for the past 2 years.<br>

However, while waiting for service I needed a replacement and bought the RRS 55. While pricey, I like it more and have nothing negative to say other than the neoprene case it came with then could have been designed better (case should easily make a full seal vs dust...not that anythign has gotten in to my RRS head but still on principle the case needed some minor design tweaks). I have not used Markins or Kirk. <br>

Kirk makes good stuff in general and I have not heard many negative comments on them on anything they do. However, I just have never had any problems from the folks in SLO (RRS) and keep giving them business based on that.<br>

Unfortunately it is hard to get your hands on RRS, Kirk and etc to compare. Possibly attending something like PMA works well for this but honestly ferreting out suggestions on photo.net may work well. Certainly if RRS had problems you would hear a lot of complaining on this board.<br>

As for Arca Swiss, even though both my heads are working perfectly now, I like the RRS one better. Level helps a little, quick release clap is better than screw, and it helps a little that it is slightly lower. <br>

Of note, I like this ball head end user summary: <a href="http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.wonderandlight.com/essays/tripod_heads/Markins-M20-Ballhead.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.wonderandlight.com/essays/tripod_heads/&usg=__XEcAOdhcq8Ckv0OpG7TbHjI3GLw=&h=368&w=327&sz=25&hl=en&start=2&tbnid=vhhrXT2AfjKX9M:&tbnh=122&tbnw=108&prev=/images%3Fq%3DMarkins%2BM20%26hl%3Den">http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.wonderandlight.com/essays/tripod_heads/Markins-M20-Ballhead.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.wonderandlight.com/essays/tripod_heads/&usg=__XEcAOdhcq8Ckv0OpG7TbHjI3GLw=&h=368&w=327&sz=25&hl=en&start=2&tbnid=vhhrXT2AfjKX9M:&tbnh=122&tbnw=108&prev=/images%3Fq%3DMarkins%2BM20%26hl%3Den</a></p>

<p>When I had the 1D mk ii you could use the EC-B focusing screen. It was great (split circle in the middle with matte field focusing circle around that). <br>

However that will not work with the 5D mk ii. They have 3 screens for the 5D mk ii. EG-A (Standard with Camera), EG-D (Grid) and EG-S (Matte). The last one is the best option Canon currently has for you but I think it is truly substandard compared to the EC-B screen above. I attached a link below to the item on BB Photo. The disclaimer to use only with fast lenses is interesting as one of the reasons I moved to the 5D mkii was I liked the 24-105f4L. With the 1.3X crop I had the lens was not all that useful. Going full frame and being able to shoot at a higher ISO made this lens extremely useful. It also is the reason why I won't buy the EG-S below as I am unlikely to have my fast lenses on the camera nearly as much as my multi=purpose lenses. If they come out with something close to the EC-B I'll get it but the one below has no split on it and is too dark for my purposes.<br>

<a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/590458-REG/Canon_3357B001_Eg_S_Super_Precision_Matte.html">http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/590458-REG/Canon_3357B001_Eg_S_Super_Precision_Matte.html</a></p>

 

I was told first week of Dec when I checked on my order last week. I don't know how accurate that guess by the dealer will end up being as this camera is on the pricey side of Xmas gifts so Canon may not have that pressure to release it. Although, certainly their stock holders would like to see some news on success of the release before the end of the year so who knows?