April 18, 2014, 12:12:24 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 - WoodyWindy

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
1
6D Sample Images / Re: Shooting in Namibia with the Canon EOS 6D
« on: April 13, 2014, 07:59:16 AM »
Very cool! Sounds like you're having a great trip!

The interior shots are particularly interesting. I have always loved "derelict" photography. What was that building before it became the worlds largest sand art tray?

2
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Coming in March? [CR1]
« on: February 22, 2014, 09:44:23 PM »
Keep searching for Nessie  ;D
Nessie was a hoax. It was not real.... Something mythical that people searched for year after year......

Completely unlike the 7D2 :)

Or the "EOS 3D" :)

3
Lenses / Re: Canon PowerShot G1 X II Thoughts from CP+
« on: February 14, 2014, 12:55:08 PM »
This is definitely on my short list as my SX100 IS take everywhere cam replacement, though the true successor (SX700 HS) announced at the same time is also tempting...

4
PowerShot / Re: More Images of the PowerShot G1 X Mark II
« on: February 11, 2014, 07:43:11 AM »
OK, so either the picture is wrong, or the proposed spec of 25-150 equivalent in the other rumor is wrong. I would lean toward the spec in the other rumor being wrong. ;)

Note that NO rumor so far has said anything about the sensor itself. It MIGHT be 4/3, which would rough out to 25-125. But, what if the sensor is actually larger, and the effective range is 20-100 (for example)? Or, what if it is the same 1.5" crop factor as the G1X, but uses a crop of the 70D sensor? that would make it ~23-115, or 24-120, depending upon the rounding used, and about 16 MP (again +/-, depending upon rounding).

Sounds like a winning combo to me...

(Corrected 1.5x to 1.5 inch crop)

5
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon EF 24-85 f/3.5-5.6 IS
« on: February 10, 2014, 06:55:29 AM »
I really liked the idea of a new 24-85. But it will depend on the price, IQ and the size/weight.

The 24-105L is too big and heavy in my eyes and the 28-135 is not wide enough (and big, too). My old 24-85 is a nice small and capable lense and a *real* alltime-workhorse. Of course it's not fast or even weathersealed, but it's sharp from f5.6 on to at least f11 and the USM is fast and nearly silent. I shortly thought of replacing it with the 24-70L4, but the L was too big anyway.

It's one of the few lenses I would never get rid of. I just wonder why the new one will be 3.5-5.6 as the old one is 3.5-4.5. But that's most likely because of the longer IS-calculation.

Example:    24-85@f6.3   (straight out of a 5D)    http://tf.weimarnetz.de/downloads/24_85.jpg


I still have my old 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 as well. I don't use it since I got my 15-85, but I would love to see a resurrection with modern optical quality and IS in the case I were to move to full frame.

6
Canon General / Re: Canon PowerShot G1 X II Image
« on: February 07, 2014, 09:11:55 PM »
Definitely looks more like the S120 and RX100 than the current G1X or even G16.

Layout looks more like an S1xx series camera than a G1X successor. If it is a G1X successor, then the compensation dial is gone and adjustments are done via the universal dial in the rear. That would be strange.

I have to agree. I wonder if, perhaps, this is the S200, which also happens to be the G1X replacement? OR, this is the S200, which is to the G2X what the S1xx series is to the Gxx series? If the latter, perhaps this marks the end of the 1/1.7 sensor line in favor of APS-C?

7
....
Funny you should say that.... I have a Snowy Owl hanging around and hope beyond all reasonable hope that by the time my lens (pre-ordered a month ago) arrives, that Snowy will still be around....

Even funnier, as I am waiting for a LONG!!! lens for birding, I was wandering around yesterday shooting Chickadees at 24mm.... yet I use them as justification for 600mm....

Lucky you!  I've encountered one owl in the wild here, and had a great timing getting shots of it!!  That was a winter ago, however, and I only had the 300mm reach of the 70-300L.

I've been lucky enough to catch juvenile great horned owls on some of my walks...

8
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 135mm f/2 DG OS Art Coming? [CR1]
« on: December 17, 2013, 06:06:44 AM »
Just one quick suggestion - whenever there's a new rumor for an upcoming Sigma lens, please PLEASE find some stock image other than the Jolly Green Giant to head it with, unless of course it is a replacement for that particular ultra fast telephoto...

9
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent - EF-S 18-300 f/3.5-5.6
« on: September 30, 2013, 08:35:32 AM »
There could be design optimizations for video (e.g. parfocal behavior) that give it a major leg up, even if its pixel-level sharpness isn't quite tip-top.

I know Canon often introduces new features in lower-end products, e.g. dual pixel AF in the 650D then 70D, but I doubt the first parfocal lens would be a low end super zoom.

Which touches my other point - the assumption is that this is a low-end zoom. Let's not forget that Canon introduced a 28-300 L - a range that was typically dismissed as "tourist class"... This lens could be a shocker in any number of ways...or not. ;)

10
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent - EF-S 18-300 f/3.5-5.6
« on: September 30, 2013, 06:43:09 AM »
As with all of these, we'll have to wait and see just what the lens is capable of. Canon has set the bar pretty high with the new kit STM lenses.

There could be design optimizations for video (e.g. parfocal behavior) that give it a major leg up, even if its pixel-level sharpness isn't quite tip-top. Then again, this could be shifted upscale from the 18-200, and less of a compromise image-wise, too.

I'll choose "cautiously optimistic" at this point.

11
Canon General / Re: Patent: EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS
« on: September 21, 2013, 09:12:05 AM »
I like that they actually cover up to a 24-80 f/2.8 IS in the patent series.

12
Lenses / Re: Canon EF-S 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS STM Announced
« on: August 25, 2013, 07:12:32 AM »
Let's see...

Roughly two pages of commentary on the new lens, its characteristics, and how they compare to other lenses (including "L" lenses).

Three pages (at posting time) of "So, define 'L'?" flame war.

Sad.

13
Lenses / Re: Canon EF-S 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS STM Announced
« on: August 22, 2013, 04:25:11 PM »
Holy Guacamole! The MTF looks amazing - much more like the 70-300 L than anything else, possibly better even than the 70-200 f/4 L IS.

14
Lenses / Re: New Lens Announcement Tonight [CR3]
« on: August 22, 2013, 11:19:06 AM »
When people are talking about the image quality from their 55-250 lenses, are they actually comparing the same lens?  What's the difference between the original and the II version?

I've got a refurbed II that I purchased for about $200 from Canon.  I'm happy with it and it complements my EOS-M and SL1 nicely.  It's not quite the same as my 700-200/2.8 on my 7D, but it's a nice lens and much more compact.  I think the image quality is very good for the price.

Does anyone make a comparable, but better image quality, EOS-compatible lens in this price range?

No, and that is the real point. :) To get significantly better on a crop body, you MUST go to an L "class" lens, and for many folks, it isn't worth the trip.

P.S. My understanding is there is no optical difference between the original and the II, just cosmetics.

15
Lenses / Re: New Lens Announcement Tonight [CR3]
« on: August 22, 2013, 09:26:31 AM »
...
I have one I picked up for my kids to use, and it's great for what it is, and for the cost; but in a direct comparison to any of the L lenses, it doesn't hold up.

I like the images you posted, but with the possible exception of the lizard one, they're not very sharp (that being said, they are small, and it's tough to judge).  Which is to be expected of that lens unless stopped down to f8-11 or so.  Bokeh is also really nervous, and AF is slow and tends to hunt.  None of these things make it a bad lens though.  I own one, and it was worth EVERY penny.  But to compare it to the 70-300L or any of the 70-200s and try and say it's a better lens, is just not true.

I never, EVER said the existing lens was as good as the L's optically. Only that it was very good for what it was, and if they made any improvement to the optics it would be even harder to justify upgrading to an L for most buyers.

I'm glad you like the images. :) I know they aren't perfect, but they show off the lens very well.

The snake (which I admit exhibits a very small amount of camera shake) has VERY narrow DOF, centered on its eye, and there isn't a lot of detail there to resolve. (It was shot at 250mm, f/5.6, 1/10 sec exposure, handheld, through glass, at essentially minimum focal distance.)

The lizard and the baboon in full size both exhibit clear single-pixel level detail, though shadows on the baboon suffer because it was accidentally taken at ISO 1600 in relatively bright light. (all three were taken with 450D/XSi)

(See, I can pick my work apart as well as anybody...)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5