Messages

1

Software & Accessories / Re: What are your lightroom export settings and how big are your jpegs

« on: June 19, 2013, 09:40:07 PM »

I typically have 640x480 (or sometimes 800x600) set for the export size of JPEGs that are destined for the WWW. This is to discourage others from making meaningful use of them.

For printing, I export full size TIFFs.

2

Lenses / Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]

« on: June 19, 2013, 06:23:53 PM »

The other will be a replacement to both the 16-35 f/2.8L II and the 17-40 f/4L. We’re told one of the configurations in test is an EF 16-50 f/4L IS.

This lens is sorely needed but only so long as it fixes the problems of the existing lenses - soft corners, high field curvature at the wide end.

If it doesn't fix both of those then it may as well not exist.

3

EOS Bodies / Re: Is This the EOS 3D?

« on: June 18, 2013, 09:43:40 PM »

while people are pointing out that "why would he openly wear the strap of an unannounced camera", note that he is wearing the strap "upside down", with the lettering turned in. it is only because it is half twisted in this side on view that we can see it.

i.e the strap is being very deliberately worn in a non-traditional manner.

I guess the question is why would Canon make a custom strap for a camera that is not available in the market?

That too! They would most definitely design and build a new strap to be paired with a new camera.

4

EOS Bodies / Re: Is This the EOS 3D?

« on: June 18, 2013, 10:42:00 AM »

while people are pointing out that "why would he openly wear the strap of an unannounced camera", note that he is wearing the strap "upside down", with the lettering turned in. it is only because it is half twisted in this side on view that we can see it.

i.e the strap is being very deliberately worn in a non-traditional manner.

5

EOS Bodies / Re: Is This the EOS 3D?

« on: June 17, 2013, 09:48:06 PM »

this was taken from his microblog. He then deleted it and seems someone from his company filed a complaint about what he posted. This looks promising!

yeah, you don't hide/take-down stuff if it is innocent/fake.

6

EOS Bodies / Re: Is This the EOS 3D?

« on: June 17, 2013, 07:16:37 PM »

but what size body is it?

is it 1-size?
5d-size?
inbetweener?

7

EOS Bodies / Re: Patents: New 50mm, 85mm & 135mm Lenses

« on: June 16, 2013, 01:51:37 AM »

The mechanics are interesting.

The 50/1.4 is 37mm longer than the current 50/1.4.
The 85/1.8 is 45mm longer than the current 85/1.8.

That'll change how well they fit in various people's camera bags but I suppose this is what's required to add image stabilisation to each of these lenses.

8

EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS

« on: June 16, 2013, 01:15:46 AM »

Interesting about 70-300.  The current 70-300 is a great lens; light weight and reasonable sharp.  Wonder what the Canon-gods have in store for us.

This is all due to the same reason: The future high mp ff bodies need sharper lenses, and these will be more costly to produce plus Canon will take a hefty premium.

The current 70-300L/100-400L might be the last sub-€2000 telezooms we have seen, so in the future dslr tele photography might be well out of reach of the average joe.

I'm not convinced this is to replace the 70-300L.

Why?

Because it is f/4.5-5.6.

So I think that this design is to replace the 70-300 IS USM (non-L)

And that this lens will come in at around the $700-$800 (maybe more) mark, similar to the change in price from the 28/1.8 to the 28/2.8 IS.

The catch however is that it needs to be at least as good as, if not better than, the optical performance of the 70-300L. Otherwise it will be a non-event and not worth buying due to the Tamron 70-300VC being about similar in terms of optics but much cheaper.

9

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 DC Available for Preorder

« on: June 15, 2013, 08:18:36 AM »

Now Sigma need to do a 18-35 or 16-35 or 17-35 or 17-40 or whatever version for full frame. Don't care if it is 2.8 or 4.0 or variable, it just needs to be sharp in the corners and not suffer from field curvature like the Canon lenses do in that range.

10

EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS

« on: June 13, 2013, 10:03:29 PM »

Both of the current 70-300 lenses are f/4-5.6:
70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM
70-300L f/4-5.6 IS USM

Why then would they want to build a f/4.5-5.6 70-300?

11

EOS Bodies / Re: A Big Megapixel Discussion

« on: June 13, 2013, 12:08:34 AM »

I am really hoping they opt for the 5D series body. I think that would make more sense because the 1D series cameras are built for people who shoot high volume work. High megapixel shooters tend to do low more low volume work.

What is considered to be "high megapixel" changes over time.

In 1 or 2 years time, maybe 30MP will be considered "normal".

12

EOS Bodies / Re: A Big Megapixel Discussion

« on: June 11, 2013, 05:11:54 PM »

WE WANT BETTER PIXELS

NOT JUST MORE OF THEM!

13

Lenses / Re: WA lens advice 16-35 II or the TSE 17

« on: June 09, 2013, 01:07:18 PM »

Hi CR folks,

My gear is lacking at the wide end. I used to have the 17-40 but sold it off earlier this year with the thoughts of upgrading to the 16-35.

I've tried a few copies of the 16-35 II but have been left unimpressed with the IQ. The upgrade doesn't feel an upgrade to me so I'm looking at the TSE 17mm.

As I already have the 24-70 II, I'm only missing the range between 18-24 which I believe I can crop or zoom with my feet.

Thoughts on this ... downsides besides losing the AF and 2.8 aperture?

Welcome to the club of Canon owners that lament the lack of a wide angle zoom that doesn't suck.

Both the 16-35II and 17-40 under perform in about the same way.

Whilst there are ongoing rumors of a 14-24, that'll suffer from the same issue as the 17TSE: bulbous front element requiring lots of TLC and PITA for filter use.

14

Lenses / Re: What is the next Canon lens you want or covet and why...

« on: June 08, 2013, 12:04:27 PM »

The next Canon lens that I want is a full frame 16-35II or 17-40 equivalent that doesn't suck. A 14-24 won't suit me as the curved front lens is too hard to protect or use filters with.

Yeah, the next Canon lens I want don't exist right now.

Sucks.

15

Canon General / Re: EOS 5D Mark III w/24-70 f/4L IS Kit Coming Soon

« on: June 06, 2013, 04:24:41 AM »

Those who don't want crappy wide end performance on FF??
(I got the 24-70 II 2.8, but I can see people going for 24-70 f/4 IS.)

If the 24-105 has "crappy" wide end performance, so does the 24-70 f/4.0, they are very similar optically. 

Your 24-70 2.8 II of course puts both to shame!

Perhaps. I've never used the 24-70 f/4 IS but the MTF charts from Canon are much better at 24mm and the results at Lens Rentals were also better than the 24-105 L.

The 24-105L is widely panned at the wide end due to field curvature and softness around the edges/corners.