stillbound

<p>Card reader always -<br>

1. Faster<br>

2. Safer for camera - not just due to falls but also electrical surges etc....<br>

3. well no real 3 but it is faster and safer....lol<br>

JC</p>

<p>Agreed that the "untouched" photo looks better...<br>

more natural<br>

I'm a canon shooter that shot with a d700 and this lens for 3 months and I will say that the 24-70 is the best zoom I've ever shot...amazing lens<br>

JC</p>

<p>depends on the camera is part of the answer...<br>

you can get a bit of darkness in the corners with a 5D but on any crop camera including the 1d there will be no problems<br>

JC</p>

I like the color out of the sigma 30 1.4 from the shots I've seen...I don't own it but have had the chance to play with it often enough. I also like Sigma's other primes in that range the 24 and 28 1.8's which also offer very good macro...

Bringing the 16-35 into the mix when he says he can't afford the 35 1.4 doesn't make sense and I think that the 17-40 is one of the more over rated lenses - really not L quality in my opinion...

I hate the canon 35/2 and am not all that crazy about the 28 either...

JC

first thing - Nikon does NOT have that. The have infrared with the su800 (same as ste2) and they have commander mode which is flash based and while it does have ttl it still is line of site based....

There are two options that come to my mind - quantum flash with freewire which is amazing and something I've been reading about (have not used) called radiopopper that seems to use a similar tech to the quantum stuff...

with most cameras short of the 1D/5DII series and the D3/D700 the difference will really never be seen while shooting...

If you are shooting lots AND have a firewire card reader then you will see a significant difference on the download times...

other than that extreme 3 is more than fast enough for just about anyone and the prices are significantly cheaper..

the more relevant comment here would be how come canon has not adopted something similar to quantum's freewire which is not only wireless radio but also controls ttl unlike pocket wizards and such...

That could easily be built into the bigger cams and flashes (xxd and up and 580 class flashes) and would give canon a big edge over cls (nikons line of sight based wireless)

JC

shun - many of us don't ever shoot with more than the central portion of the af. I know i consistently turned off the 51 due to it tracking around to the wrong subject. The 8 fps is only if you spend an extra 600 dollars to get the grip, the d3 battery and the d3 battery charger and the new door for the grip (if you can find it) . On top of that if you shoot 14 bit raw it slows down...alot.

I also think that for most folks that choose to use a "smaller" camera for sports they would choose a d300 over the d700 - the extra 50 percent will save many backs...

like i said - i like the d700 but it's sold the day the new 5 comes out - mostly because I like my canon primes far better than anything nikon offers as well as the fact that i'm just more comfortable with Canon. I've sold plenty of images out of the nikon in just a few short months and there are things like cls that i will miss but in the end if you read the original post the guy is going to spend 20 grand to switch lenses if he follows many of those suggestionss and not come out significantly ahead in any way - plus he never mentioned sports or anyting else...

no one has even questions the comment of the d700 seems a better camera...

having sold my 1D2 to grab a D700 while i waited for the new 5D I can say this - it's a nice camera but nothing I've seen would lead me to believe it's any better than the new 5 will be...

On top of the fact that the only lenses on the list that are better than canon are the 24-70 2.8 (at 5oo more than canons) and the 200-400 which is 3500 dollars more I just can't see why this makes any kind of sense...

they are killing me - not one of the shorter primes in on the list. I was waiting hoping the 35 1.4 would be on the list.

damn...

JC

i screwed up - i meant the 120 - 400

thanks

JC

the sigma 80-400 OS has been getting get reviews...lots of folks like it and it's 500 cheaper than the canon...

the guy that said the 70-200 f4 with 1.4 was close because of the 1.6 on his camera fails to think that the 100-400 gets the same 1.6 and is then a 640 at 5.6....

I'd say that it is more than theory - just like your TV attracts dust due to the static charge I think the sensor does as well...

point is it doesn't take more than a half second to turn it off...

JC

you can use the tokina 10-17 on full frames and get a circular look at 10mm while getting a rectilinear look as you zoom out...

with the 1.3 it would be a little different but it would still give the greatest flexibility without damaging your camera

JC

There should be a new run of rebates soon...also if you can make it to any of the big trade shows across the country you can usually get those types of deals.

As for the "so overpriced" comment - compared to what? 500 cheaper than nikon - 500 cheaper than Sony - olympus doesn't make something that is the same....but their lenses are all expensive for the good stuff...All things considered Canon is not that expensive compared to other "first party" producers

it actually focuses just as fast as USM - the main difference is no full time manual over ride...

I've had the lens in my hands and shot with it a tiny bit and compared to the other offerings I'd say it was superior. A half stop faster than the sigma and that price won't last long I suspect...

I got a great deal on a d700 and 24-70 2.8 and bought them. I am also a lifelong canon guy that was disappointed in the 1D3 (having had the two previous versions) and was waiting in vain for a new 5 series (as I had begun to shoot much more in the way of portraits)

While I do love the 700 and it suits my needs very well it will be for sale in mid november when the new 5 comes...

As the other guys said there is really not anything you'll get from the nikon that would couldn't get in canon (the af in the 300/700 is great but i for one shoot center point most of the time so it's not a big help)

Either way - good luck

JC

According to canon the reason that the 24 1.4 was redone has a lot to do with the fact that some of the older designs could no longer resolve with the new cameras such as the 1Ds3 and 5D2. So while I hear you guys saying the pixel density is the same there must be more to it than just that...

JC

having shot a 1d mark 1 and 2 for the past seven years (since the one came out) I'd say yes

JC

had it in my hands today...

amazing

just amazing

JC

"you want big fat pixels to collect the most light, which also lowers noise and native ISO. large pixels dont mean less detail, thats in MP count i believe."

I know this arguement works at a certain level but I also know that none of the MF backs works worth a damn over 400 or so (maybe the newest but I'd played with both mamiya and the hasselblads last gen cameras and at low iso they were amazing) and for the average dslr person I don't think we want to be stuck that low again...

For studio work - serious studio work - or for landscapes MF maybe the best answer but for the price of a H3 and a lens I can buy a 5dII, a 14 2.8, 24 1.4, 35 1.4, 50 1.2, 85 1.2, 135 2, and probably enough for a few cards as well. And I don't think half the people could tell the difference between the images below 20 by 30

you just need a plug adapter....

that's all

and a warranty

having been a canon shooter that bought a d700 to play with while i waited to see what a mark IV 1D looks like or this new 5D I would like just one person to show me one of the supposed "clean 6400 iso" shots i keep hearing about...cause I don't see it.

Even at 1600 there is plenty of noise in the blacks.

shooting with 24-70 2.8 for those that want to know...