December 21, 2014, 01:34:13 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 - Mt Spokane Photography

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 610
1
EOS Bodies / Re: Built in adapter?
« on: December 20, 2014, 09:29:31 PM »
who says they would change the mount distance for a FF mirrorless?
You're proposing they're selling a 6d-size camera with just the phase af, mirror+metering removed? Sure it's a possibility, but on the long run they'll most likely want to make use of smaller cameras with ff iq.
There is a problem moving a FF lens closer to the sensor without losing IQ.

This is just what I'm trying to say here, even if I obviously failed to do so :-p ... if there's a mirrorless ff adapter, it'll basically mean putting the lens just where it is now with mirrored gear.

I doubt that it will happen, that new lens mount that Canon patented a while back was developed for a reason.

They did? I missed that, could you dig out the link and post it please?

Here is one, perhaps what I remembered.  It definitely discusses a new lens mount, and is about as close as Canon comes to saying it will happen.  No patent though.
 
http://www.canonrumors.com/?s=new+canon+mount
 
Here is another.
 
http://www.dailycameranews.com/2013/03/canon-patent-for-new-lens-mount-type/

2
EOS Bodies / Re: Built in adapter?
« on: December 20, 2014, 08:53:04 PM »
who says they would change the mount distance for a FF mirrorless?

You're proposing they're selling a 6d-size camera with just the phase af, mirror+metering removed? Sure it's a possibility, but on the long run they'll most likely want to make use of smaller cameras with ff iq.

There is a problem moving a FF lens closer to the sensor without losing IQ.  you have to bend the light leaving the rear of the lens more, and that causes CA's and other distortions.  Fixing the issue runs up the price and number of elements in a lens, or you make the corrections in software.
 
I'd be very happy with just pulling out the mirror, the pentaprism, and the sub mirror / AF module.  Reliability would improve, and my existing lenses would work without a IQ hit.
 
I doubt that it will happen, that new lens mount that Canon patented a while back was developed for a reason. 

3
Lenses / Re: How satisfied are you with the 100-400 II?
« on: December 20, 2014, 08:22:01 PM »
Voted 1 - Initial satisfaction is same level as when I first used my 70-200 mark 2.  Both lenses exceeded my personal expectations.  Well worth the wait and pre-order "premium price" for me.  YMMV

I wish someone would take some identical comparison shots with the new 100-400 and the great 70-200 2.8 ii at the same focal length. Such as 100mm and 200mm. I'm thinking a lot of peeps with the 70-200 would enjoy seeing that. (Or not, if the 100-400 blows it away!)  :)

Go to TDP (The digital Picture) they are there for various focal lengths, with / without TC's, etc.
 
However, they are very carefully setup still photos with manual focus, so AF speeds are not a factor.  If you are taking photos a still objects, a 70-200mm MK II + 1.4X TC will be excellent, but with a 2X TC, its not good.
 
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=2&LensComp=972&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

4
Have been to the store and we cross-checked everything. They knew some combination of buttons to reset the firmware of the speedlite. Nothing worked. The thing is broken.

The symptoms remind me of the known issue with the 580ex ii that are detailed here:

http://lpadesign.com/580EXII.pdf

Punchline is that the IGBT for regulating the current flowing to the flashbulb has been killed, which might be connected to uncontrolled discharge between the bulb and the reflector, a design-flaw.

Does anybody know if this has been described for the 430ex ii as well in the meantime?

That link was a excuse made up by LPA design because their product (Pocket Wizard) was frying flashes.  It basically happened when using a pocket wizard.  Certainly, components in flashes can fail, and there can be incorrectly assembled products.  Few flash users had the issue compared to a high number of PW users.

5
EOS Bodies / Re: Built in adapter?
« on: December 20, 2014, 07:42:04 PM »
If/when canon brings out a FF mirrorless, would it be possible to have a built in adapter for EF lenses? Compact cameras have "telescope" lenses that collapse into the camera when turned off, would this technology be possible to implement in a mirrorless camera? Would be great if we could mount an EF lens, and the camera would automatically adjust to the correct flange distance.

I'd not want a EF 600mm lens hanging from some sort of telescoping mechanism, it might last for 1 shot.  I'm sure someone could design something, but I believe that any new lens mount would have to be larger than the EF mount.  If smaller, it would block the image circle. 
 
It does not sound practical on the surface, but it might be a way for Canon to design something that would not work with 3rd party lenses.

6
EOS Bodies / Re: Ron Martinsen Blasts the 7DII in his review
« on: December 20, 2014, 07:35:40 PM »
http://www.naturescapes.net/articles/techniques/the-economics-of-digital-photo-sensors/

i read the article. it is outdated (2006). i don't know if the same percentages apply now? the article concluded that you got 5 ff sensors vs 13 crop sensors from a "silicon wafer". that translated to a cost of $385 vs $38. this conclusion was based on knowledge of semiconductor production and conjecture. not known costs. i don't suppose there is any published information about what the actual manufacturing costs of various sensors are?

The old article was based on a Canon white paper, and things have changed.  They now use 12 in wafers instead of 8 inch wafers, and the process of tooling for 18 inch wafers is under way.  There is less waster when using larger wafers, the issue is making one that has few defects.
 
The cost of wafers has dropped a lot as well. 
 
If a wafer has just a few defects evenly spread around the sensor, it can ruin most of the sensors on that wafer.
 
This is a old article, but it gives a good explanation of the issues faced in making camera sensors.   There are some very sophisticated processes involved in trying to eliminate or reduce defects.

7
Canon General / Re: How does one close/delete one's account ?
« on: December 20, 2014, 07:04:36 PM »
Just stop posting.  Your posts will soon be so old that no one reads them.  CR can close your account, but your posts remain.

8
EOS Bodies / Re: Ron Martinsen Blasts the 7DII in his review
« on: December 20, 2014, 07:01:39 PM »

i am not a socialist and i believe in free enterprise but i don't agree with price gouging. i think the price of ff cameras has been artificially inflated for a long time. they are free to charge whatever they want as long as they are not involved in collusion and price fixing. afaik that would be illegal in the u.s.

Try looking over the financial reports for Canon, Sony, Nikon, Panasonic, Samsung.  Then tell them how they can cut the price of products by 50% and still make the 5% profit they now make.

9
Lenses / Re: Quick Comparison: Canon's new 400mm Options
« on: December 19, 2014, 10:46:18 PM »
It's late, and I'm tired, so I don't entirely trust my results here.  However, if I'm right, this will explain these results.

The theoretical maximums, simply caused by diffraction, are 1555 lp/ph for f/5.6 and 2199 lp/ph for f/4.

So, the reason the 100-400L improved less is that there's less room to improve between the old one and the diffraction limit than there was for the old 400/4DO which has a higher diffraction limit due to its faster f-stop.

In fact, the result for the 100-400L II is just 1% less than what I'd calculate from a perfect f/5.6 lens behind an AA filter.  And that 1% number is based on a rule-of-thumb for the AA filter that itself is less accurate than 1%.

We probably will see a bigger difference on high MP bodies where the lens will have a bigger impact.  I'm not about to fool with calculations.

10
EOS Bodies / Re: Ron Martinsen Blasts the 7DII in his review
« on: December 19, 2014, 10:42:41 PM »
I happen to be friends with Ron and have worked with him for some time.  While I do not always agree with his reviews, he's pretty straight up.  One thing is he has always stated what he thought about products - even when it wound up pissing off his sponsors.  Keep in mind that the majority of big review sites out there have to temper their disappointments in order to not suffer financially.

In terms of his review on the 7D2, I happen to agree with it. \

so you recommend that someone who is not using the 7D MK II for wildlife or sports buy a D4s?  A D4s won't do sports or wildlife?  What is he on??
I was kinda wondering the same thing. What does he have against the 1Dx if he recommending a high priced ff? Where does the D4s beat the 1Dx for sports or wildlife? If they're good friends then they may be sharing the same smoke pipe.

Yes, except, as I read it, he is recommending the D4s if you are NOT doing sports or wildlife.  Maybe its just poorly worded, but that's the way I read it, the everyone else meaning those not shooting sports or wildlife.
 
 Canon sports shooters with a big lens investment would be better served investing in a used 1D Mark IV which will outperform this camera both in terms of image quality and performance, and everyone else should consider a D750 (or a D4s if you can afford it)

11
Lenses / Re: Lens internal part falling off? its a refurb lens
« on: December 19, 2014, 10:37:00 PM »
It looks like a shaving from a drill.  make sure its not on the rear of the lens.  Canon drills a small indentation and puts a red paint dot in it for refurbs, at least many of them.  A shaving could have ended up on the rear element.  That's not likely, but check anyway.
 
 

12
Lenses / Re: Further testing to come.
« on: December 19, 2014, 10:24:42 PM »
Yes, it does show up better than the 500 here. Whether that is a fact remains to be seen. I will be field testing over the next few weeks and the results will be more clear cut after that.

I'd expect the 500mm to beat it when there is enough lighting for 1/1000 or 1/2000 sec at f/5.6 at ISO 160.

13
Lenses / Re: How satisfied are you with the 100-400 II?
« on: December 19, 2014, 10:18:34 PM »
I am inclined to stick with my beloved 400 f/5.6L. The new zoom's IS and minimum focusing distance of 1 meter beats the 400 f/5.6 no-IS and minimum focusing distance of 3 meters, so it does sound tempting, but I rarely get that close to birds, and for slow moving tiny critters (snakes, insects, etc), I use the 180 f/3.5L macro with or without the 1.4x TCII. There's a combo that autofocuses s-l-o-w-l-y  when compared to the 400 f/5.6L   ::)

I would really like to try the 500 f/4 or even the 600 f/4 - rent it for a migration week of shooting.

The 400mm f/5.6 is a bargain lens, it would be a shame to see it replaced with a $2,000 lens.  It allows photographers to get into a front line hand held 400mm lens for a reasonable price.

14
Lenses / Re: Quick Comparison: Canon's new 400mm Options
« on: December 19, 2014, 10:15:09 PM »
I really want to see the in-field performance of the 400 f/4 DO II under different lighting conditions. If Canon has solved the DO weakness of poor contrast and flaring, and knows how to make super-sharp DO lenses, then we should expect to see a 500 or 600 f/4 DO someday - maybe 5.5 to 6 pounds, rather than the 7.0 and 8.5 pounds the version II conventional 500 and 600 f/4 weigh. Yeah, I know - unicorns.

I'm sure its possible, it depends on marketing.  Are there enough buyers in the market to go for a 500mm, a 600mm or a 800mm DO?  A lot of people recently invested a big chunk of money in the new 500mm and 600mm lenses, and are not likely to change to a DO version, so maybe the 800mm is the next DO lens??

15
EOS Bodies / Re: Ron Martinsen Blasts the 7DII in his review
« on: December 19, 2014, 10:03:28 PM »
I happen to be friends with Ron and have worked with him for some time.  While I do not always agree with his reviews, he's pretty straight up.  One thing is he has always stated what he thought about products - even when it wound up pissing off his sponsors.  Keep in mind that the majority of big review sites out there have to temper their disappointments in order to not suffer financially.

In terms of his review on the 7D2, I happen to agree with it. \

so you recommend that someone who is not using the 7D MK II for wildlife or sports buy a D4s?  A D4s won't do sports or wildlife?  What is he on??

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 610