July 29, 2014, 12:57:18 PM

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 - lol

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 33
1
Lenses / Re: 5D3 + teleconverter + Telescope
« on: July 09, 2014, 04:05:02 AM »
A workaround would be to not fully fit the TC until it clicks. e.g. release it slightly and turn it so the contacts aren't lined up with the body any more. Of course, you have to be very careful not to let the body fall off if you do this... I didn't say it was a good workaround!

Alternatively, skip the TC altogether and get a barlow for the scope.

2
EOS Bodies / Re: Eos7D mk2, How EXCITED will you be if . . .?
« on: July 07, 2014, 04:03:29 PM »
Many 'serious crop shooters' also own a full frame body to overcome the limitations of the crop sensor.  The 7D plus 5DII was a well-liked combination.  The 5DIII combined the best of both, obviating the need.
I own such a combination, but to me, the 5D series is no replacement. If I had unlimited funds and said I could only have one camera body, I'd still pick the existing 7D over the 5D3 without hesitation. About the only way I might put up with full frame is once pixel densities get more reasonable. The Nikon D800 would be adequate as a starting point for such a hypothetical body, if you could get it to 8fps and focus well at the same time.

I hate to do this, but I might start sounding like a microFourThirds fanboy at this point. The arguments for choosing crop over full frame are similar to those thrown by MFT to APS-C. For a given "reach", the crop sensor is just better optimised. On full frame you'd need silly big (and expensive) lenses. Even if people could afford them, they wouldn't want to carry it! Why not ever smaller? I have to say the Nikon 1 with native 70-300 lens sounds like an interesting reach combination, but I'm not sold on its overall performance.

Full frame serves a single niche of shallow(er) depth of field. If you're not after that, smaller sensors make more sense. Side note: why not continue my own argument and get smaller sensors? Because mirrorless tracking AF is still a long way off even a basic DSLR.

3
EOS Bodies / Re: Eos7D mk2, How EXCITED will you be if . . .?
« on: July 07, 2014, 02:45:28 PM »
There's one killer feature for me: updated AF/metering system. 1D X equivalent or better (no, the 5D3 doesn't cut it). Everything else is distantly secondary.

4
Any speculations on what *else* the lens could be if not the 100-400L successor?

Personally I wouldn't mind seeing them revisit the 10x zoom lenses. I had a 35-350L for a short time, with failing AF so returned to dealer. Although it wasn't quite as good as the 100-400L on the long end, the extra wide end was welcome. I know the 28-300L replaced that, but we're getting a bit short again. Perhaps something like the Sigma 50-500 given the L treatment?

Knowing my luck, it'll be another 400mm f/5.6 prime...

5
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Speculation [CR1]
« on: June 18, 2014, 08:08:12 AM »
Random speculation on my part: I wonder if a higher than expected MP count could be somehow related to some successor to the dual pixel AF system?

6
Lenses / Re: Night Pollution Filter
« on: June 02, 2014, 07:56:40 AM »
I have the astronomik clip filters. They can be affected by very fast lenses, but I've used them with f/2 without problem. You will likely need to do some work on restoring white balance at the end though, and for very short focal length lenses you will get a noticeable shift in the focus range. My Samyang 8mm fisheye can't infinity focus with it in place.

They will cut out some of the wanted light, but of course that is outweighed by cutting out much more of the unwanted light. It is very effective on sodium lighting. I can point my camera at a street lamp outside my house and it is reduced to a faint glow of part of the internal mechanism (keeping the rest of the scene at reasonable exposure).

7
Gave it its first serious use today... and I left myself more confused than when I started. Long story short, initial testing seemed to show focus was good enough, so I just used it. I saw backfocusing in the field but wasn't sure if that just me being too rusty on using the 5D2 or was it due to the lens. Then I noticed the AFMA was set to +17. My guess is this is the value I entered for the Zeiss 50 makro, and as they report themselves as "50mm lens" they ended up sharing the same value. I tried fiddling with it in the field but was getting nowhere.

Now, the above didn't stop me getting shots, although it may be a question of focus reliability. 50mm f/1.4 at close range for wildlife wasn't the best mix, as the DoF was often smaller than the width of the subject's eye...

Swan vs. dog by Crestie Crazy, on Flickr

Canon 5D mk2, Sigma 50mm f/1.4 A, at f/1.4, 1/5000s, ISO100.

A quick sample for now. This was more distant, and the focus was good enough by luck I have to admit. I did crop this image to better frame it, but if you can figure out flickr's current interface it is 100%. I should also add I just did a quick and dirty process on this, and the 100% view wasn't optimised as it was just an intermediate step to a smaller web view I posted elsewhere.

I need to get bigger ND filters as even on this overcast day I was close to overexposure when wide open.

8
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 DO
« on: May 24, 2014, 05:06:12 PM »
The size is an interesting observation. Note the patent shows the DO element is relatively small and inside the lens. The existing 70-300 DO and 400/4 DO has the DO element at the front of the lens so relatively large.

On the existing 70-300 DO lenses, I don't think there's a contrast problem myself, but it is very prone to glare which reduces contrast. So shooting into bright lights is something to be particularly careful with. Maybe using it further in, that wont be as much a problem any more.

9
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 DO
« on: May 24, 2014, 12:27:03 PM »
Looking at the current DO compared to the L, the DO is slightly cheaper.

I think DO has promise, but only if they bring it into the mainstream and out of the odd niche it has now. I think there is space for a reasonable quality mid range lens, placed between the non-L and L, especially if smaller size was a contributing factor. May go nicely with a 100D as a small(er) DLSR setup.

10
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 DO
« on: May 24, 2014, 08:10:24 AM »
I'd like to see a new updated 70-300 DO. I used to have the current one. It was a bit poor wide open but decent at f/8, but what really struck me was the size. The 70-300L isn't even close to being as small.

If they were to release a new 70-300 DO, improving on the weaknesses of the old one, at a similar size, I could see myself looking at it once again as a travel lens.

11
Lenses / Re: Traveling to the UK/Ireland
« on: May 23, 2014, 03:07:59 PM »
When I was younger and stupider, I have had stuff stolen from my car, which were left on view. So don't do that!

More recently, at a meeting with a group of friends at a tourist location in central location, they had some bags lifted without anyone noticing, so do be extra careful if you have to put them down anywhere.

12
Lenses / Re: EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM Image Samples
« on: May 16, 2014, 05:24:15 PM »
There are bigger samples if you click the link below the image in its caption - just right from the number of the picture which is in a readable "language". (I just hovered with the mouse over the caption to see if there is something more representative ... and found it.)

They are some 20 MPix large so they might be taken with EOS 6D and EOS 70D ...
Thanks. Picked a few at random, exif says they're taken with the Kiss X7 (100D). Samples lacked a little punch but easily fixed by a tad more sharpening... think I might get one sooner than later at this rate!

13
Lenses / Re: EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM Image Samples
« on: May 16, 2014, 03:37:17 AM »
Am I being silly or are there bigger sample images available yet?


It has been a while since I was in US or JP, but from memory prices in both countries exclude sales tax right? What is the "going rate"? UK £300 ex. VAT would be £250.

As for comparing prices to the US for a JP company, that can work. If you look at currency conversions, it all balances out. If it didn't, people would exploit those differences by changing money between them and make a profit.

I don't know about other countries, but historically in the UK, lenses seem to be released at full RRP for pre-orders and shortly after launch. Depending on availability and market forces, it will tend to quickly drop to a more reasonable street level after some time. The bigger question is how much and when, but you tend to see faster drops early on, before the slower drop or even flat price over the longer term. I don't know if there is much of this effect in other countries also.

Back to the lens itself, I find myself likely to get one. I used to have the old variable aperture Sigma before I was on Canon and never got round to replacing it, making do with a fisheye instead. Not quite the same I'll admit. To me personally, the speed difference is not significant as I'll be using it around f/8 anyway for more depth of field and better sharpness across the frame. It will be used more at the wide end than long end so I wont miss that. Focus speed? Is that really important for a UWA? Give it a little time and it will be half the price of the 10-22, and I don't think you can complain about the value there.

Side note: for the 10-22's money, I'd rather be looking at the Sigma 8-16 anyway...

14
Is it too early to compare the 10-18 to the 10-22?  I think I might like to have that (to complement my 35 2.0 IS).

It is rather early since we know practically nothing other than the claimed leaked image.

Just saw it pointed out elsewhere it has a plastic mount, if that may alter expectations...

15
The 10-18 is interesting to me. It seems an ideal "third zoom" for the budget starter, alongside the 18-55 and 55-250. If the quality and price is in line with those, I'll bite. For my occasional wide angle uses, I don't really want to spend more.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 33