August 27, 2014, 05:01:46 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 - Bob Howland

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 17
1
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon mirrorless: Status?
« on: August 18, 2014, 08:39:56 AM »
Nobody knows or, at least, is talking about it.

2
Reviews / Re: NIKON Releasing a Medium format DSLR 50MP
« on: August 01, 2014, 07:58:45 AM »
They don't have a history of making MF lenses.
http://www.popphoto.com/gallery/12-film-cameras-worth-buying-right-now

They also made (make?) some of the best lenses available for large format view cameras.

3
EOS Bodies / Re: One other hoped-for feature on the 7D2
« on: July 29, 2014, 12:22:22 PM »
I have both a 7D and 5D3 and, no, EC doesn't work with auto-ISO in M with either one. And you're not the only one who very much wishes it did.

There is another gotcha with auto-ISO in M, that being how the camera responds when auto ISO hits its max or min, mostly its min. This is mostly an issue on partly cloudy days during hectic days at the race track. When the sun comes out from the clouds, the auto-ISO setting can easily go below 100. The user should be able to tell the camera to use a faster shutter speed or to stop down the lens in that case. Nikon apparently does a much better job with this issue.

Adding these features is just firmware, meaning really easy to fix.

4
Lenses / Re: What Lenses are missing from Canon's range
« on: July 16, 2014, 02:50:28 PM »
Canon could add a non-tank like 28-300 similar in price and quality to the Nikon 28-300 as well as the Nikon 18-300.  I use the 18-300 on my D7100 and that has replaced by for my event camera which was a 60D with 18-200.  I've been surprised just how good the 18-300 and D7100 combo is.  They have been a joy to use.

Agreed.  I'd like to see the 28-300L remade along the lines of the 70-300L - compact, twist zoom, light, great IS.  It would be great to have a full-frame all-in-one with L quality that didn't break your neck for hiking, kids sports, etc. Although if they're gonna list it at $3k, don't bother.

+1, and maybe an L-quality 28-200 f/2.8-4.5. From what i understand, the 28-300's are popular with paparazzi taking red carpet shots at premieres and award ceremonies. My guess is that 200mm would suffice on the long end.

5
EOS-M / Re: Next official EF-M Lens
« on: July 13, 2014, 10:04:56 AM »
I would like to see someone make a quality speedbooster adapter for the EOS M with EF lenses! I would buy one as soon as it's made, as long as AF still works reasonably well.

Theoretically, the adapter will offer a similar field of view as full frame and give 1 stop more light. That would make the M system really interesting...

+1. This is a prerequisite for me buying into the M-system. (The other major prerequisite is a viewfinder, presumably an EVF.) Incidentally, since the Canon APS-C sensor size is 1.6X, the speedbooster could give 1-1/3 stops more light. However, to provide good corner resolution, it would probably have to be very good and therefore very expensive.

6
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: A Summary of Sigma Lens Rumors
« on: July 08, 2014, 09:25:03 PM »
A 300-600 f/4 would be huge. An f/4.5 slightly smaller but might create problems when used with TC's, especially the 2X, i.e., 600-1200 f/9 wouldn't be usable with 1Dx AF while a 600-1200 f/8 would. A 300-600 f/5.6 wouldn't be usable at all with a 2X TC. The problems are even worse with camera bodies that only AF with lenses f/5.6 or faster.

So, at the risk of repeating myself yet again, why not a 200-500 f/2.8-4, that holds f/2.8 max aperture from 200mm to 350mm? And why not a 300-800 f/4-5.6 that holds f/4 from 300mm to 560mm?

7
If the print is being made to be part of a document and the rest of the document is 8-1/2 x 11, then the print should probably be the same size. This probably happens much more than the print being hung on the wall. What does get hung on the wall are completion certificates from professional continuing education courses. My dentist has a whole wall of them, all 8-1/2 by 11.

Remember that 50 years ago, a lot of commercial work was done with 4 x 5 and 8 x 10 view cameras.  There was also a 5 x 7 size that never made sense to me. Now most prints are made with sensors with 4:3 and 3:2 aspect ratios. Unfortunately, all of the European A size paper/prints have the same aspect ratio, 1.414, which is the (SQRT2) x 1 (or 2 x SQRT2). My local craft store carries many more frames in 4 x 6, 8-1/2 x 11 and 8 x 12 than 8 x 10. I order my frames from Frame Destinations. They have some truly strange sizes, such as 8 x 32 inches, 20 x 20 and, my favorite, 20 x 30.

8
EOS-M / Re: Next official EF-M Lens
« on: June 29, 2014, 09:43:25 AM »
a 15-85 EF-M would be a winner

+1, the smaller the better

9
EOS Bodies / Re: What do you hope-for MOST from Canon in 2014
« on: June 22, 2014, 08:53:02 AM »
I am hoping that Canon comes out with a killer mirrorless ... either a Pro EOS-M3 or a full frame, either of which should beat the Sony A7 series. Features: fast AF, awesome IQ, amazing low light, excellent video, Video AF with dual pixel, full sensor readout for video with no artifacts (moire, aliasing), excellent ergonomics, built in wifi with livestream to YouTube capability.

What product do you hope-for the most from Canon this year?

Wouldn't a Pro EOS-M3 be APS-C? If so, I doubt that it would beat the Sony A7 series. I would settle for something similar to the Sony A6000, only better. I would also like a tiny 16-135 or 15-85 native lens.

A FF camera based on the EF mount (with a 22 to 24mm sensor-flange distance) is something else entirely. That conceivably could be a fully professional body. I think people would accept an extremely high quality EVF, instead of an OVF, if it allowed 24 or 30FPS, full resolution? I might even buy one if the price wasn't too absurd.

10
Lenses / Re: EF-M 55-200 4.5-6.3 IS STM Coming Shortly
« on: June 16, 2014, 04:36:28 PM »
Nononono...   I want a EOS-M 15-135mm

+1000

And an M body similar in concept to the Sony A6000, only better.

11
I routinely use the 234RC on a Manfrotto aluminum monopod with a 300 f/2.8 IS, with and without TCs, to photograph races with a gripped 7D at Watkins Glen. It works fine. Unlike Neuro, I like the RC2 attachment system and have it on several tripod heads.

12
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS M Vanishes from Canon USA Web Site
« on: May 27, 2014, 02:19:51 PM »
CR .. you're mixing canon and canon usa up in this post / announcement quite a bit.  canon USA doesn't have plans.  canon as afar as we know are still going ahead with EOS-M.  Huge difference.

OK, yet another wild guess. First, Canon USA does indeed have plans. They control the marketing of Canon products in the USA, which includes product positioning relative to their marketplace and setting prices. Effectively, they sit between Canon corporate and US customers. I've worked for multinationals. It is not a good idea to ignore the local marketing divisiions.

Consider the following possibility: (1) At long last, Canon USA has cleared the stockpiled inventory of M-bodies and kits. (2) Canon is planning their M-system "relaunch", whatever that means, in August, in time for Photokina. (3) To provide an M-system body for the next three months, they would have to import M2 bodies and kits, actions which incur substantial marketing and support costs. And, oh yes, they would have to charge prices that the US market finds unacceptable.

So what does Canon USA do? Exactly what it appear they have done. CR thinks (2) above won't happen. I think it will. We'll know soon enough.

13
Awhile back I might have been more excited.   I have the 7D and 5Dm3 pair - however current needs really have me looking for a second FF.

Most of my work these days is Landscape and Motorsports.   Yes, an odd mix but I enjoy the different work and thought processes. 

For Motorsports - now that I got the 300/2.8 II which works great with the 1.4 and 2.0 TC's, what I really want at the track is one FF with the 300 and one with the 70/200.  Having a Crop Body just doesnt work for me.  But I could really use a 1DX in this case.  If the sensor was a significant jump, maybe I would use a 7DII for the long shots.  But for the next year, I have wondered if just getting a 6D as second body would be the better pairing.

For Landscape, I am almost always 5Dm3.  Only when I need the extra reach, maybe wildlife, do I use the 7D.  At present it comes along primarily as backup.  What I am really looking for is the next FF high MP camera.

In neither case does the 7Dm2 enter the discussion, except as a reason to get an updated crop body.

Why the 300 f/2.8 II and not the 200-400? I have the previous generation 300 f/2.8 IS and really don't like taking the lens off to put on or take off a TC. I also have a 7D and 5D3 but think it's an excellent pairing.

14
EOS-M / Re: Where is the M-3 with the dual pixel sensor!!!!
« on: May 04, 2014, 08:24:20 AM »
For anybody interested in a 35mm equivalent FOV, there is nothing anywhere in the canon lineup that comes close to touching the quality of the M + 22mm f/2 at any kind of reasonable price point.

I assume "reasonable price point" means the current M price point, or does it mean the original price point of the M or the current price point of the M2?

15
In this aspect, Nikon is a little misleading, because it puts the count also your old lenses, manual focus. On the other hand, Canon only makes counting their EF lenses, which started production in 1987. Canon took a bold attitude when he abandoned the compatibility of their previous camears and lenses to exclusively support EF lenses in 1987 to enable faster AF and silent, and compatibility with AF in video, after many years.

As somebody who had a significant MF Canon system in 1987, I'll add this:

First, in 1987, the F1 and T90 were still the premier Canon professional models. It wasn't until the EOS-1 was introduced in 1989 that AF Canon was taken really seriously by professionals. Reportedly, the T90 and EOS-1 development occurred in parallel, with the exception of the EOS-1 AF circuitry.

Second, There was a lag in filling out the professional EF lens lineup, something like Fuji X-mount users are facing now, only Fuji is doing a better job of it than Canon did.

Third, A lot of us expected Canon to introduce focus confirmation capability into its MF line, something like MF is done with current EOS lenses. It never happened. If it had, a lot of us might still be using MF systems.

Fourth, Canon explicitly stated that one goal with the EF mount was to enlarge it. The FD mount was the smallest diameter lens mount used by any major SLR manufacturer. The Canon 50 f/1.2 was offered as an example of a lens that could not be made using an FD mount.

Correction: It was the 50 f/1.0, not f/1.2 that couldn't be done with the FD mount.

Fifth, both Nikon and Minolta (Sony) originally put the focusing motor in the camera body. Canon put their's in the lenses. Suffice it to say, Canon won that argument.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 17