February 28, 2015, 01:58:35 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 - insanitybeard

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 20
Lenses / Re: 16-35F4 L IS, Any good?
« on: February 20, 2015, 01:20:40 PM »
This lens is next on my list to replace my 17-40, which I shall be selling to part fund it! The IS will certainly help increase it's overall usefulness in low light.

EOS Bodies / Re: How excited are you about the new 7D II?
« on: September 16, 2014, 04:46:00 AM »
As others have said, the real dealmaker/breaker for me will be how much it manages to improve on IQ over the original 7D, if it's a substantial improvement across the ISO range then I may well be tempted, most of the other specs look like incremental improvements over the original model, which is no bad thing, and the addition of the dual pixel AF will be good for video, and the phase detection AF looks like quite a step up. I await some reviews with interest!

Yea!  In "the year of the lens", we've started out with two lenses no one asked for.

Speak for yourself, but not for everybody. I for one certainly welcome a new Canon ultrawide zoom if it offers improved corner resolution and sharpness. 

I'll await some reviews of the 16-35 IS with interest.... if it's a good 'un I'll add that to my list as a replacement for the the 17-40!

Also, it'll be interesting to see how the EF-S 10-18 measures up against the EF-S 10-22.

Lenses / Re: EF 70-200 f/2.8L II Horror Stories
« on: October 03, 2013, 04:26:31 AM »
Why do people ignore the 70-200mm f/4 IS? It is stunningly sharp, almost as sharp as the "best" f/2.8s, and a fraction of the weight and price.

Indeed, and those are the reasons why I own the f4 IS- less bulky and heavy than the 2.8, so good for travel, almost as good or as good optically and a lot less money! I couldn't justify the expense of the 2.8 but the f4 gives me most of the 2.8's performance with the exception of the max. aperture. Having said that, sometimes it would be nice to have the extra reach of the 70-300L in a single lens.

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L
« on: September 11, 2013, 04:10:35 AM »
But what if the IS version winds up having even worse optics?  Besides...at 17mm, you can't completely stabilize the corners, can you?  Not unless the stabilization can rotate...

If an IS version had worse optics, I certainly wouldn't bother to get it, but I can't imagine Canon would 'update' a lens that performs worse than it's predecessor, especially if recent lenses are anything to go by. Pricing is a different matter of course! If they put hybrid IS in it as well, if I understand correctly hybrid IS can correct for some rotational movement.

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L
« on: September 09, 2013, 11:13:01 AM »
Is the 17-40 really a metal body? Mine appears to be engineering plastic as the main body with a metal zoom ring.

Lenses / Re: Yet another question re ultrawide lenses
« on: August 30, 2013, 02:17:18 PM »
Comparing for example the 17-40 used on a full frame body to an EF-S 10-22 used on a crop body, the EF-S/crop combo will have (at the widest end) less barrel distortion and less vignetting than the full frame/17-40 combo. At 10mm, the EF-S lens has less resolution drop off at wider apertures towards the corners than the 17-40 at 17mm- a more even resolution across the frame. Despite this, the full frame/17-40 combo is able to provide more total resolution due to the physically larger sensor and greater lw/ph (line widths/picture height), even though it performs worse in the corners.

Apologies if this is not relevant to your question or if this is already obvious to you!

EOS Bodies / Re: Why you shouldn't be worried about DR
« on: August 30, 2013, 02:00:57 PM »
you do not know what a selective curve is - do you

You do not know when to stop - do you?

We get it. Nikon is better. How many more times need you tell us?

Lenses / Re: Movement in the mounting with 70-200mm f2.8L IS II on 7D
« on: August 30, 2013, 11:30:23 AM »
As long as it is only rotational movement it should not affect weather sealing, which relies on the contact of the rubber gasket surrounding the lens' mount against the body of the camera. I think the slight rotational play is only due to manufacturing tolerances and how snug a fit the locating pin of the lens release detent is within the corresponding recess of the lens.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: I jumped ship...
« on: August 30, 2013, 10:53:53 AM »
The gear does matter after all......

Lenses / Re: Movement in the mounting with 70-200mm f2.8L IS II on 7D
« on: August 30, 2013, 09:21:31 AM »
it depends on what kind of movement you mean- if you mean with the lens locked in to the body you are able to rotate it very slightly on the mount by the order of half a millimeter or so, I wouldn't worry- some of my lenses do this. If it's a different kind of movement or considerably more than that, then yes I would say there is an issue.

EOS Bodies / Re: 70D and Dxomark....
« on: August 30, 2013, 09:14:15 AM »
It's a thread that discuss the estimation of the sensor's performance based on DXOmark scores. DXOmark doesn't review cameras, as you said, merely sensors (actually, they probably review raw files but that's another issue). It's clearly not the thread to talk about sales and cameras features so I don't understand why you keep bringing this up.

Because it's not just a thread that discusses sensor performance, inevitably all manner of other conclusions are reached ranging from Canon cameras are useless in general to DR is relevant, but not the be all and end all of photography, and everything imaginable inbetween, just like every other DR discussion that occurs on CR.

EOS Bodies / Re: 70D and Dxomark....
« on: August 30, 2013, 06:24:37 AM »
Stupidly, I keep getting riled up by this endless debate. Some people just want to bash Canon regardless. Some people try to be objective and are continually shouted down....... where does it end? I'm not saying there isn't a desire amoungst many Canon users here, myself included, for Canon to improve the DR, SNR etc etc of their sensors, certainly I welcome all improvements, I'm happy to concede Canon lags the competition in this area. How much difference it actually will make to my photography, when there are many other perameters to also consider, I don't know. What I do know is that the same old arguments are very wearing, the same old people triumphantly claiming SoNikon's world dominating superiority- and no, I'm not dismissing people who come up with reasoned arguments from either side. The sun still shines. I think I need to spend less time on this forum.  :-\

EOS Bodies / Re: 70D and Dxomark....
« on: August 29, 2013, 05:44:56 AM »
I don't really get why canon users need to defend their far inferior sensor.....Envy?

It is what it is, and apparently most of the sensors are inferior to the nikon's(or sony) in almost every aspect.
Whether it is noticeable or not in real world usage is not really that relevant.

It only matters that you are happy with the images you are getting, despite maybe not having the best equipment out there....

Looking at it from a canon users perspective (now) , I am just happy that Nikon is totally destroying canon in the sensor department , It means canon will sooner or later have to follow with better sensors.

All the time some of you spend trying to bash Nikon or defend canon, you better spend that time working so you can add a d800 with 14-24 to your kit ;)

I think a majority are not trying to 'defend' their 'inferior' sensors, many are happy to concede at the present time Nikon/Sony sensors have some superior characteristics, myself included. What I am sick of is that it keeps being shoved in our faces again and again and again like it's the only damn thing that matters.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 20