September 15, 2014, 12:13:36 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 - hendrik-sg

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
Lenses / Re: When will we see a replacement for the 100-400?
« on: September 10, 2014, 05:03:06 AM »
a new 100-400 will not canibalize the 200-400, thats a completely different Price league and the handling is completly different. Nobody will carry a 200-400 exept for a exactlty planned shooting, or for a special photo tour.

Nikkon seems to have a really good 80-400 lens, and the tamron 150-600 seems to be not bad as well, then there will be a new Sigma.

Maybe 100-400 Looks Little boring compared to the other offers. maybe Canon can strech the range to 450 5.6 with 82mm filter thread, or maybe they have to go for 6.3 opening, without extender compatibility then

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye - Durability?
« on: September 09, 2014, 05:44:22 AM »
Lens cap and shade are 2 pieces, where the cap is cliped on the shade. As generalle known this Connection tends to release unwanted, in the bag for example.

I blocked this release by thooth sticks, which works perfecty. I keep the lens closed, exept when effectivly in use, and remove the shade with the cap on.

If one does not want to see the lens anytime later, i would bond the two parts together

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: SIGMA 150-600!!
« on: September 05, 2014, 09:48:12 AM »
Tha 300 2.8 ii is in a different Price league, nobody can expect the zoom to rival this one. Whats the good News is, that it will put some pressure on Canon..... and offer an alternative to the Tamron.

Interesting will be, which one has better autofocus, better IQ at the long end and what Canons response will be

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 12-24mm f/2.8 L - Constructing the Enigma
« on: September 05, 2014, 09:34:54 AM »
I think 12-24 2.8 may be impossible, at least with good IQ. Lenses tend to get bulbous and big when wider and when faster.

The 14 2.8 is bulbous and the 17tse which has a medium format coverage is bulbous and huge. The Nikon 14-24 is a monstrous lens, and bulbous. the Sigma 12-24 s bulbous, slow and has mediocre IQ which nobody dreams about. The 17tse with a hypothetical 1.4x speed Booster may be a 12mm 2.8, but it's huge, expensive, bulbous and a fix focal lengh.

My unscientific guess is, that the patented 11-24 f4 is the maximum strech which is possible, and we know nothing about it's IQ. I am sure, if it would be producable for acceptable kost, and if IQ would be good, Canon would release this killer lens. If they don't, i think it's because of poor IQ or other unknown reasons.

« on: August 27, 2014, 07:33:18 AM »

Will a 60D do?

If there is sufficient of light then then 60D might do that, just as the 7D or the 70D could do it over there. there is however no guarantee that you can do it from Canon, as it is not build in in the design of the camera. I am not aware which firmware this even might block, but I think Canon could have done this. Did you look at the quality of your link to digital picture? even in the center the sharpness is gone when you compare the 560mm with the 400mm.

It may be interesting from a technical Point of view if it works or not. But:

(My expierience is based on a 50d, with 300 2.8 IS (original one) and Ext 2x iii)

with extender one needs 3 stops more light, 2 stops get lost by the extender and with 2x maginifcation one needs 2x faster shutter Speed.

in a situation where ISO 400 works ISO 3200 would be necessary. this ISO value is already quite bad for a crop camera. Next the quality reduction by the extender and poor AF performance comes to the equation.

With all of this, in my expierience, the lighting situation must be really great that the extender gives a really better result than cropping, but the risk to completely loose the shot (by to finding the subject in the viewfinder until ist gone, by motion blur, by trying to low ISO, by poor AF, by bad framing, etc) is much higher.

means, for my use, i would ot nmeed a long reach tele combination with F8 opening on a crop camera, F5.6 is bad enough. Maybe with lots of practise, there may be a benefit in a 840mm F8 combination, but this needs lots of skill, ond if one has These skills, one knows how to handle the difficulties, and taping the extender may be the smallest difficulty

Canon are market leader.

There is no need to have the best products, to have the highest prices is enough to guarantee exclusivity.


Shot with 6D and ef 70-200 f/2.8 mk2 at f/6.3 1/320 ISO 12800. (Yes, I know f/6.3 was a poor choice, should have gone with f/4.5, my bad).

may i ask you, why you stop down a 2.8 lens to 6.3 and use ISO 12800 to compensate. you could have used ISO <3000 at f=2.8? at ISO 12800 you have a lot of loss in details even with a 6d, use the len wider open at less ISO would give you better quality technically.

If you want to shoot stopped down to 5.6 or less (to have more DOF for example or to be less critical with focusing, why not use a 100-400 lens for even more versatility in focal lengh? Maybe use some of your budget for a 5D3, which has much better autofocus. you 6D you can use as a 2nd cam with a normal zoom, to get wider shots.

Canon General / Re: Another Canon Medium Format Mention
« on: August 11, 2014, 12:25:10 PM »
On a sensor doubled in size by a factor 2 (crop factor 0.5) a lens 100mm f 2.8 delivers the same picture like a 50mm f1.4 lens on FF.
No, it'll be like a 50/5.6.  The light is spread out.


50mm f1.4 on FF is like
100mm f2.8 on MF with crop factor 0.5

Both lenses have opening of about 36mm, and yes on the 100mm lens the light is more spread out :). The equivalent you propose (50 f 5.6) has a opening of about 9mm

Canon General / Re: Another Canon Medium Format Mention
« on: August 11, 2014, 11:47:01 AM »
Could they do this with a built-in reverse speed booster so EF lenses would work?

This would just be a teleconverter. Magnifying the Image just behind the lens to project it on a bigger sensor magnifies all, image, aberrations and diffraction in the same amount. This would only be useful if they could not produce sensors with higher density, which is not the case.

On a sensor doubled in size by a factor 2 (crop factor 0.5) a lens 100mm f 2.8 delivers the same picture like a 50mm f1.4 lens on FF. The question is, which lens can be done better? This is no easy question, as lens design is more difficult with larger image circle (means a 100 2.8 Macro FF Lens will not cover the MF sensor).

One of the core problems of MF is, that FF lenses are that good and that nice speced, and as sensor density is no problem. The key for more resolution is improving lens design and sensor density towards the diffraction limit. Impressive example is the development of astronomy telescopes, there a large opening and sophisticated post Processing are the key for best results.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 50 f/1.2L Goes Missing at Canon Germany
« on: July 31, 2014, 12:49:41 PM »
On is a good comparision of different 50mm lenses, even the most expensive Leica 50 f0.95 is among them (but not yet the Sigma Art and the Otus)

Its clearly visible there that there is a compromis to be accepted between fastness and sharpness, which may be pushed by accepting high costs but not until perfection. the Leica 50f0.95 is average sharp and may have average bokeh. the best lens was a moderate fast Leica lens.

Reading this, it may be an illusion that canon CAN manage to combine best bokeh, higest speed (1.0-1.2), image stabilisation and having the sharpness of the Art and Otus lenses. Beside that physics may prevent the existence of the hoped for lens, Canon would never bring this one in the price range of sigma if they have it.

If Canon had a lens like the Sigma or the Otus, they would price it below the Otus, but way above the current 1.2L.

I dont know, if IS can be easily added to a cheap gaussian design like the 50.1.8, but i assume a 50mm f2.0 IS lens can be realised for acceptable costs.

50 1.8 > 50 2.0IS for maybe 250$ with build like the other new IS primes. This fits most needs (not wishes) in an economical way.
50 1.4 > 50 1.4L with similar performance like the art lens, for 1.5x price. This will be a top product for professional use, it may be better (in a non mystic way) than the 50 2.0 IS

50 1.0-1.2L as a luxury portrait lens, maybe for 3k$-5k$. Expensive wedding Pro's, Fanboys, amatuers with deep pockets and collectors will buy this one. The optical quality may be better than the 1.2L, but worse than the 50 1.4L. Production cost, and quality wise this one may be in the same range as the noctilux, just more sold units.

50 2.5 macro. Did anybody ever bought this one?  I guess will stay as it is or die

This allignment would respect the physical possibilities, mirror the trend of bringing replacement products on a higher (price) level than the precedors, give all owners of the current lenses a logical upgrade path...

Lets see what happens, and to be clear, this is some well reflected speculation and no rumor

Lenses / Re: Safari 300 2.8 Mkii or 200-400 1.4x
« on: July 17, 2014, 09:56:38 AM »
We were in SA on safari, together with my wife. we had a 300f2.8ISi and 70-200f4IS and a 2xiii Extender on 5dii and 50d

in "good light mode" we had the 300mm on the 50d normally with extender, in the evening, we removed first the extender, next changed the 300mm on the 5dii and maybe the 50d to a fast 50mm.

this, because:

- a crop camera is the better extender than a real extender
- the big whites are so bitingly sharp, that their resolution is enough for the spaller pixels on the crop sensor
- with 2 cams one gets different perspectives at the same time.

For the (in my opinion) way overpriced 200-400 you can probably take a 2nd person on the trip, who does the 2nd perspective (and helps to carry all the stuff).

If money doesnt matter, and if y can carry the weight of the 200-400, i would take a 400f2.8 instead, with the same strategy, and would use a 1 crop and one FF camera instead of 2FF

EOS-M / Re: Cheap 400mm advice
« on: July 02, 2014, 04:32:07 AM »
Maybe not the direct answer to your question, but:

- For best moon pics, you would need much more focal lenght than 400mm eqiv
- you need best athmospheric consitions possibe
- you should do stacking to minimize athmospheric blur
- The moon stays the same, means you need one good opportunity, and you wont get it better anymore

So my suggestion:

- Rent the longest lens you can afford for some days, ad a 2x converter, add a matching tripod and head
- go to a better athmospheric place than your town
- inform how to do the stacking of the biggest amount of pics y can take,and how you have to take them (i dont know)

means for total 1000$ you should get breathtaking pictures of the moon, depending on where you live and what lens you can afford to rent

I would not buy any equipment for shootig the moon only.....

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Interested in Hasselblad?
« on: May 12, 2014, 11:43:44 AM »
Let the ill-informed, irrational whining begin.

Hasselblad is the narrowest of niche market players. They've diminished their most valuable asset – their brand name – by releasing the laughingstock of the digital camera market.

As a consumer, it would be bad enough for Canon to throw good money down the medium format rat hole developing their own product. To buy a failing company in a shrinking market would be ridiculous.

Canon and Nikon have had well over 50 years to research and consider the medium format market. During the film era, it would have been cheaper and easier to develop a medium format camera and the market segment was much larger. Yet, neither company did so. Today, the market has shrunk and the cost of entry has risen.

This isn't about whether or not Canon (or Nikon) are innovative. Innovation has nothing to do with this decision, it's just common sense.

Thanks for you unfocused reply. Some economic principles are to be discussed:

- The market leader delivers acceptable price and quality, but is never the best
- A Label and its reputation has a value and can be sold, either to sb else or it can be milked until its no longer there

Canon is the marked leader, thats unquestioned. For sure pictures and videos can be taken by ther equipment, but either has their equipment the best specs or performance nor is it the cheapest (50L vs 50 1.4 Sigma). Further its not the most innovative, Examples are the Sig 18-35 zoom, again the 50mm Sigma which is the first affordable non Gauss 50mm, or the much better exmor sensors in the Sony / Nikon bodies. In sensor performance Canon is the worst of the bigger players now, why? Just because the smaller players have to be innovative against the market leader and Canon does not.

As for the label value, in my opinion Canon is milking their label. People do change brand only under really high pressure, because of habit and for high changing costs. Newcomer buy what they see most frequent, and thats Canon of course. To compare with cars, end of nineties, mercedes sold their high quality image by building a new generation of E-Classes in much lower quality, sold "Opel" quality for Mercedes prices. They needed expensive warranty efforts to partly earn back their reputation, and are still not finished until now. Audi for comparision worked 20 years to earn their quality reputation and label value, to reach same prestige levelas BMW and Mercedes have.

The danger for Canon is, that by their non-innovation, high price politics they sell their label now. Whats later, when high end users do the swich in large numbers and newcomers buy whats said to be better it might be quite late. They may shrink as the complete medium format world has by not going digital in time. This may happen, when EF-mount is getting old and new trends are overslept.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Interested in Hasselblad?
« on: May 12, 2014, 10:06:16 AM »
Canon doesnt need any innovation at all, just marketing. They can llsensors with technology from 200x and be market leader with them.

Their bosses will get nice boni, and share holders nice divident. Developpement and innovation are a waste of money :)

Lenses / Re: Stacked TCs - 1.4x III + 12mm Extension Tube + 2x III
« on: May 07, 2014, 10:59:31 AM »
The best extender is a crop camera. It gives y deeper FOV (if y want), and by more pixel desity y get more magnification, without accepting IQ reduction by additional glass.

I have expierience with the old 300 2.8 IS, a 2xiii and a 50d. With this combination already its really difficult to overcome camera (and tripod and lens foot) shake, means its better than cropping only under ideal conditions.

Other than from a technical point of view, i dont see much use for a manual Focus, 840mmm f8.0 combination on a crop camera, maybe exept under very bright lighting conditions. Normally, cropping will give better Image quality.

For the frequently seen moon shots, with normal techique athmospheric limitations may be more relevant than all other sources of IQ reduction.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5