March 04, 2015, 02:21:34 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - xvnm

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
Here is what those who have actually seen the new iMac in person have to say:

Canon General / Re: Does "Banding" exist
« on: October 17, 2014, 02:39:43 PM »
Here is what those who have actually seen the new iMac in person have to say:

Here is what those who have actually seen the new iMac in person have to say:

Rumours had it that it was a DELL manufactured monitor inside.

Neither Apple nor Dell manufacture display panels. They both use panels made by LG. Get your facts straight.

I'm happy to stay with my monitor for quite a while, only had it for 2 years. It was a lot cheaper than any Apple branded gear, and in no aspect worse.

Funny, the Dell UltraSharp 27" Ultra HD 5K Monitor which has the same screen size, resolution, and almost certainly uses the same display panel as the new iMac, costs $2499.99, or $0.99 (99 cents) more than the iMac. The iMac "display" comes with an entire top-of-the-line, fully spec'ed computer behind it. The Dell doesn't. Get your facts straight.

Canon General / Re: Does "Banding" exist
« on: October 17, 2014, 02:25:32 PM »
the new crappy iMac 5K display got me thinking.

Have you ever seen one in person to say it is crappy? What kind of deep, objective, technical analysis did you perform on them? I would love to hear your evidence-based conclusions. Until then, get your facts straight.

The last iMac was a much better value proposition.  I believe there's a huge price bump for the new retina 5k version.

Not really when you consider the system as a whole. The top of the line 27" 1440p iMac costs $1999 as is. But the new 5k iMac offers better processor and comes standard with a Fusion Drive. When you upgrade the 1440p iMac to match only those two specs, its price bumps to $2.399.

So, for only $100 more when compared to the closest equivalent "old" iMac, the 5k iMac offers not only a Retina Display with four times the resolution (pixels), improved contrast, viewing angles, and color accuracy but also a much better graphics processor and two Thunderbolt 2 ports. I'd say that is a pretty awesome deal. And don't forget the new iMac can be upgraded with even better graphics and processor.

Even the base iMac with a Fusion Drive is $1999, and it comes with an even worse video card. Apples to apples.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Which Canon L Lens for 7D Mark II?
« on: September 26, 2014, 01:05:30 PM »
Unless you are planning on shooting only weddings you were not invited to, don't pick the 70-200L :-p

Third Party Manufacturers / The Most Boring Ad Ever Made?
« on: April 30, 2014, 11:21:50 PM »
The Most Boring Ad Ever Made?

The Most Boring Ad Ever Made? on Vimeo

Lenses / San Francisco camera store recommendation
« on: April 15, 2014, 02:08:43 PM »

I'm visiting SF this week and I'd like to know if anyone can recommend me a good camera store, like B&H or Adorama in NYC. In particular, I'm interested in buying the Rokinon 14mm 2.8 at a good price.

Thank you!

In theory about half, since the sensor would be mounted on an axis through the middle of the sensor. Unlike the mirror that needs to move forward as much as the sensor is high. Pivoting would need half the distance.

Man, I'm sorry. No offenses, but your idea is just plain dumb.

A short flange allows you to make the lenses about 2 centimeters shorter.... This is a huge difference in tiny kit lenses, but as you move up to bigger and better lenses it makes far less of a difference.

The short flange also means that light is now entering at greater angles and that becomes problematic for the sensor.... basically, light has to shine into little pockets or indentations on the sensor, and if it is at too much of an angle shadowing will occur. Also, bending the light more sharply in the lens increases problems with chromatic aberrations and increases reflection problems. This is why the "big whites" are so long.... avoid sharp bends... You could easily make them shorter, but image quality will suffer badly...

A lens designer can always increase the flange distance at will by extending the rear end of the lens barrel. Think a lens with a fixed, built-in extension tube. That is exactly what Samyang did with the 5 lenses they released for the Sony FF MLC E-mount. Their Sony MLC lenses have exactly the same flange distance as their Canon and Nikon DSLR counterparts:

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon naming policy
« on: January 19, 2014, 05:00:53 AM »
You're bound to run into confusion when you have (a) too many cameras simultaneously on the market, (b) when you release cameras too rapidly. The EOS 100D came out in 2013 ... it's an "entry-level" camera, so the EOS 150D should be here this year, as well as the 750D ... what happens in 2017 (the new 300D) and 2019 (the new 100D or 1000D or 000D)? Plus, eventually the 5D and the 1D series will reach Mark L and even more eventually Mark C level. But before then, there'll be the Mark XXXVIII and, fitting for the 1D series, the Mark XL.

You forgot about the 100D/SL1. What will happen to  the x0D line after the 80D and 90D?

Canon General / Is the x0D line doomed? (Canon naming scheme)
« on: January 17, 2014, 11:53:25 AM »

One thing I never quite understood is why Canon has different naming schemes for its entry-level product line across North America, Europe, and Japan.

I mean, the whole "the smaller the number, the better the camera" as a whole is awesome, so why ruin it and replace it in North America with T2i, XSi, SL1, T3? Isn't 600D, 100D, 1000D much better?

Well, you may be tempted to answer that the reason is historic, that Canon already had the Rebel brand well-stablished here. But that only pushes the question backward: why did they name it Rebel back in the film days to start with?

Which begs the question: now that we have a 100D camera, what will be of the x0D line after the 80D and 90D are released in a couple of years? Makes me wonder if they are going to bring the Elan brand back.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5