January 25, 2015, 03:57:13 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 - AvTvM

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 82
1
What's better than the 50 or 40? On my SL1, the EF-S 24 2.8 (with the forty in my pocket)

Yes! These pancakes make a very decent combo on an SL1/100D.

I'd love to have the same for my new 5d iii. But ungortunately, the 24 pancake is only EF-S.

The 40 IS the same as the 24 on a crop, well close enough. I love the 40 on my Mk3

Yes. I was not clear enough: i would like to have an EF 24/2.8 pancake ... as small, cheap and good as the ef 40/2.8. And a EF 75/2.4 pancake in addition. ;)

2
What's better than the 50 or 40? On my SL1, the EF-S 24 2.8 (with the forty in my pocket)

Yes! Thise teo pancakes make a very decent combo on an SL1/100D.

I'd love to have the same for my new 5d iii. But ungortunately, the 24 pancake is only EF-S.

3
I don't see any major issues related to bokeh or contrast from these images.

It may not show in carefully arranged and selected official glossy marketing materials ... but it will rear its ugly head in real life - exactly in those situations, when owners of the lens are already most challenged to capture good images. ;)

There is an issue! Otherwise Nikon would never have admitted to it up front and included warning language and images in their 300/4 phase fresnel "brochures" and added (only partially effective) correction functionality to nikon software ...

4
@DFM: thanks for the information. As you are posting here, would you possibly also have some information as to whether LR 6 will be offered also as one-time purchase license - or only as cloud service (CC)?

The question is of significant importance to me. I do like LR a lot, but will not move to a cloud-based rental scheme. If LR 6 comes as CC version only, I will either revert back to Canon DPP or migrate to Capture One.

I also have a license for PS CS5 but don't like the UI at all, so I am not using it and am also not interested in the LR/PS combo offer on CC. 

5
I never saw the point of the 1D C. Why did canon not put 4k just into all their C video cameras? And sell a C100 wirh 4k at 9999 or less? C300 and C500 higher price but also fully competitive ...

Why all that obsession with putting high end video into an unsuited for DSLR camera?

6
Funny. I would be excited, if it was a 300/2.8 @ 755grams and 160 mm length @ € 2,000. Or a 400/4.0. :)
300/4.0 ... 1st gen nikon DO design ... no, thanks!

For 2k i'd much rather buy the EF 100-400 II - with "diffractive stuff" only happening at f/16 and above.

In my book, fresnel lenses will stay where they are: in beautiful, old lighthouses, that i will take pictures of using strictly "non-fresnel optics". ;)


There are not many lenses for which I envy Nikon users but one of them is the new Nikon 300mm f/4 VR with "Phase Fresnel" optics (sounds similar to DO optics). It appears to be about 8" long, weighs 755g and costs $2,000 (despite which many Nikon users are complaining about the high price!). I would absolutely love a 755g, 8" long 300mm f/4 DO IS at $2,000, especially in unobtrusive black.

I really think Nikon has nailed the potential of diffractive optics with their new lens and hope that Canon will follow suit.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYe3ht8-oJs

7
If the Pancake is an option, the Pancake is always the correct choice.

hehe! 
+1
8)

Had and sold the 50/1.8. Have the 50/1.4, but hardly use it. Also got the 40/2.8 and like it. Currently I only got the EOS-M to use it with.
Don't have the 35/2 IS, but consider it mainly a video lens. To me not worth it "for stills" only. Especially for street photography. Shutter times mostly used in street with typically "not very fast moving" subjects can be hand-held without IS with 40/2.8.   

8
obvious conclusion: 1D C is not selling well at all. So price comes down.  ;D

9
Canon EF-S and EF-M Lenses / Re: Canon EF-M 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM
« on: January 18, 2015, 02:04:51 PM »
I take my M for travel and walks. This picture was taken with 18-55mm at 18 mm.

just love this image. Kudos!  8)

10
it might be cheaper to just destroy the faulty units and manufacture new ones ... instead of shipping back, reparing, shipping again. 

11
EOS-M / Re: EOS M Owners Post Your Pictures
« on: January 15, 2015, 02:39:26 AM »
Interesting picture! Aboard a cargo plane or en-route to Guantanamo? :-)

Untitled by kranjay, on Flickr

12
Canon General / Re: Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path
« on: January 14, 2015, 10:46:01 AM »
You don't think everyone else is tired of your non-stop "antiquated, mechanical  mirrorslapper" BS?

might well be the case. But it is a rather different thing to voice an opinion on a "technical/gear issue over and over again" or to attack other forum members personally, over and over again.

13
It's been said a hundred times just what additional value Canon gives through reliability and the robustness of their products.

Some people are apparently too young to remember the EOS 1Ds III auto focus debacle right after introduction ... and Sigma's initial problems with OS in 120-400 and 150-500 ... or Metz's issues with exploding flash bulbs ...

Let's get real: getting a newly introduced product exposes you to inherent risks, and a proper recall is 1000x better and more honest than a company singing "lala, I can't hear you" to a torrent of problem reports.

What you say is true and understandable. But such things happen FAR less with Canon than with other manufacturer. Ya?

Since the 1D III AF disaster things have been better at Canon ... until now. Keep fingers crossed. :)

Nikon certainly has a QA problem. 4 out of their 6 recent FF DSLRs had a QA problem.
* D800 left side AF problem 
* D600 oil splatter [not acknowledged - until mass litigation forced Nikon to step up to it; fix offered: D610 
* D810 white spots [acknowledged, fixed]
* D750 flare problem [quickly acknowledged, fix offered]
see also Thom Hogan's blog: http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/the-good-news-and-bad-news.html

14
Canon General / Re: Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path
« on: January 14, 2015, 07:57:05 AM »
Neuro, I really ask you to post to the topic of the respective threads rather than launching repeat personal attacks on me (and on other members of this forum).  Every time you run out of arguments you come with the same type of sh*t. I'm getting sick and tired of it.

Post information and opinion re. the "upgrade path (from APS-C gear to FF gear)", rather than taking guesses at other user's "personality recipe". That's not the subject of this thread. So stop the cr*p.

So, you have a problem...you know the solution...  Personality recipe: two parts stubbornness, one part wishing for something that doesn't exist, throw in a dash of good heart and sprinkle generously with jealousy.

15
it is not a quiet recall. It is the announced FIX for the flare-problem affecting many but not all D750 bodies produced and sold to date.

https://support.nikonusa.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/19336/~/to-users-of-the-nikon-d750-digital-slr-camera

While the problem should not have occurred at all in the first place, this time round Nikon's handling of the issue has been very good. As opposed to the D600 splatter problem and the D800 left-side AF problem, when Nikon denied the problem fo9r a long time and then tried to just dodge their responisibilities until they were finally brought down on the issue in court via massive/mass litigation. :-)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 82