July 28, 2014, 08:43:32 AM

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 - dufflover

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7
1
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Macros with APS-C or Fullframe?
« on: June 28, 2014, 10:46:42 PM »
Is there any specific part about the 6D you really like about the image quality? Is it because for the same lens it's more forgiving and looks sharper? Or is it because given the small apertures in macro the cleaner high ISO?

If the thinner DoF is the main concern, you can try shooting with the same lens at roughly the same distance so the DoF is the same, then crop it in post. Yes it's a bit of waste and you get into a comparison on MPs vs noise vs whatever-else but could be a good place to start with the 6D and practice from there.

2
I think its too soon for 5D3 refresh but this would be my list for me to buy a 5d4.

...


+1 ... nice list, although I like having 1 CF, 1 SD slot . I have a high speed CF, and I use an Eye-fi in the SD slot to transfer Medium sized JPGs

Mate get real - you pretty much want a 1D-X level camera. Canon aren't going to give you all that in a 5-series. Even the dual CF slots looks pretty exclusive to the 1-series. Cameras like the 6D show a willingness to dumb stuff down between models and I don't see that changing anytime soon.


3
EOS Bodies / Re: New Sensor Tech in EOS 7D Mark II [CR2]
« on: June 19, 2014, 07:17:44 PM »
Considering what Canon has called "big leaps" in the past few years I am very skeptical LOL. Sure some of it was good like DPAF, but when it comes to sensor tech considering how old their general line up is (in the crop space) I would not be surprised one bit if their (r)evolutionary (whatever word you want) new sensor only ends up matching the competition ... welcome step nonetheless ofcourse!

4
The Canon L version has been the long-standing one that it's presumably targeted by this. Not my type of lens but would be good to see how it stands up (esp at the this price) against the ol' lens.

5
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM
« on: June 19, 2014, 05:10:23 AM »
Would the USM/STM thing affect the optical formula much? I'm a bit busy to go comparing the patents/existing designs to see if they're similar, but what I'm thinking it would be nice to see what kind of optical formula is involved and whether it would nonetheless still be a decent improvement on the current 100-400L given it's age and how a lot of the new lenses are so much better (L or otherwise)

6
EOS-M / Re: Canon EF-M 55-200 f/4.5-6.3 IS STM Gets Official
« on: June 17, 2014, 06:34:41 PM »
Yeah cost will be the other one. I already have the adapter and have seen the 55-250 STM for some decent prices lately. Cheaper than this forecast price and if it isn't pocketable (in otherwords anything except the 22mm pancake) then it goes in a bag where even my smallest config would have no real difference carrying this or the EF-S via adapter.

That is noticeably smaller though so can imagine a few people being pretty happy with that.

7
EOS-M / Re: Canon EF-M 55-200 f/4.5-6.3 IS STM Gets Official
« on: June 17, 2014, 07:00:24 AM »
ehh I'm not so sure on this one. I'm kinda disappointed Canon has started to go the f/6.3 route on the tele end, and 200mm is not even that long. I sure hope it is a big chunk smaller than the 55-250mm IS STM because I gotta say that has more appeal as being longer, slightly faster (hey can use that 1/3 stop to improve IQ slightly) and possibly not that much bigger - in the sense that they both may cross the line in terms of requiring a certain sized bag, etc.

8
EOS Bodies / Re: Reports of EOS 7D Reaching End of Life [CR2]
« on: June 16, 2014, 06:49:24 AM »
The "we want 15 stops DR or the camera is a failure" brigade.

Whilst not the highest on my list, it would weaken my personal perceived value of the camera (or at least a perception of where Canon continues to head) if they could not at least match the DR of Sony sensors from yester-year (by the time it comes out).


9
EOS Bodies / Re: Reports of EOS 7D Reaching End of Life [CR2]
« on: June 05, 2014, 08:54:24 AM »
Didn't we all think this about 18 months ago? lol

LOL exactly what I was thinking.

10
Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM
« on: June 04, 2014, 08:01:03 AM »
Any reviews/comments on how it stacks up for people who already own a cheapo EOS-M and 11-22mm combo?


11
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 DO
« on: May 30, 2014, 01:29:32 AM »
I just looked at Canon website,it says:

EF 400mm f/4 DO IS USM - 1,940g
EF 400mm f/5.6L USM - 1,250
EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II USM - 3850

It's significantly lighter than f/2.8 one, which is not a surprise when considering it's a f/4 lens, also its heavier than f/5.6 now I see no reason to buy DO lens unless its way too much cheaper.
No duh it's heavier (it can't defy basic physics like 400/4 = 100mm+ opening).
The better comparison is that it's a lot lighter than the aperture/light equivalent 300mm f/2.8L mk1 (2,550g).

The MkII is closer but I wonder what weight saving developments with these II's would make any DO lenses lighter too.

12
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 DO
« on: May 25, 2014, 08:07:40 AM »
I think it's good to keep pushing DO technology but it would only really make sense when used for superteles. Though I wonder if that would make them more or less expensive than the already jacked up price of the mkIIs.

A new 400/4 DO or 500/4 (or cheaper/better 500 5.6 DO) would be nice options to have. *end dreaming*

13
Lenses / Re: The Next
« on: May 21, 2014, 08:18:28 AM »
That's the classic rubbish line about the 3rd party. You can just as easily get a dud Canon or Nikon. You could make a fuss with the exact numbers but unless there is something inherently wrong with the design then "in practice" it is not particularly more likely than the other.

People have had bad 100-400s. I think mine is pretty good compared against the 400 prime I borrowed once (behind but not too far)

14
Lenses / Re: The Next
« on: May 21, 2014, 12:32:38 AM »
I would surprised if Canon were bothered to refresh the 400mm prime (unless to deliberately provide a cheaper alternative) after re-doing the 100-400mm as it is likely going to be plenty sharp. Most of their new lenses, expensive and cheap, have fantastic performance.

Granted that assessment could again change depending what kind of resolution the 7DII ends up sporting to once again "expose the minute flaws" in the sharpness.

15
Lenses / Re: The Next
« on: May 20, 2014, 07:04:12 PM »
The pricing of the new lenses are pretty good (given it's Canon! lol) but I don't think it'll apply for a new 100-400.

There are just more options around the shorter focal lengths whereas I don't think lenses like the Sigma 120-300mm don't even register on their radar as competitors, let alone the cheaper alternatives like the Tamron 150-600 and Sigma 50-500.


Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7