July 28, 2014, 07:17:19 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 - Rudeofus

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
I have an Epson V700 for scanning my negs&slides, and with 35mm material sharpness is dreadful, so is dynamic range (which means sensor noise). And the V700 is supposedly top of the line when it comes to flat bed film scanners.

If DSLRs have soooo many megapixels, sharp lenses and tons of dynamic range, then I really wonder why everybody recommends flat bed scanners.

I recommended a film/slide scanner, but yes, my V700 does a great job on slides as compared to my 5D MK III.  It is not a dedicated film scanner or a drum scanner, so I do not expect that kind of results.

EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon 55mm f/1.4 & Other Primes
« on: July 07, 2014, 04:46:32 PM »
Would a patent mention whether there is IS or not? Seems that could be a separate issue.

Even if Canon tried to sneak an IS lens by us, its image cycle would give away all the secrets. Since the image cycle of these lenses is barely large enough to cover a full frame sensor, we can be reasonably sure that these lens designs will not support IS.

EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon 55mm f/1.4 & Other Primes
« on: July 07, 2014, 02:45:37 AM »
So, no IS, but lighter, cheaper (to build), and faster.
This is beginning to sound like a consumer lens, not a expensive "L" type.

I'd be not so sure about this. If Canon patents a 35mm and a 55mm design with very similarly looking construction, the 55mm design is most likely a retrofocal design. This would follow the recent trend started by Zeiss 55mm Otus and Sigma 50 Art and should be considered a good thing. Expect heavy, expensive and good to excellent imaging performance. And you are right, no IS.

It sounds like Canon will finally release a ~50mm lens worth looking at ...

Your making some wild accusations about the Elop thing. I think they are unfounded, and I think THAT is the kind of crap Microsoft gets rap for that they do not deserve. Elop is an idiot. He always has been, always will be. If Microsoft had chosen Elop to be their new CEO, then I'd have probably ditched MS products in the long term...Elop would have UTTERLY DESTROYED Microsoft. He would have sold off their most lucrative brands and catered to the every whim of the stock holder. They would have been a completely dead brand outside of a niche enterprise market within less than a decade.
Elop was as much an idiot as Kim Philby, or he would not have collected a massive paycheck from Microsoft after he finally brought Nokia to its knees. Remember that Nokia was once the pride of Finland's electronics industry and a leading maker of mobile phone hand sets, in the end they were scooped up by Microsoft for a pittance. The reason Elop didn't become Microsofts next CEO was not his alleged incompetence, but that they were probably deadly afraid of a person with his skills and his character.

BTW I fully understand your sentiment about Apple, having had a PowerMac go through three major faults in 2 1/2 years, the last one would have cost more to repair than a decent new PC would cost. That was my last Apple product as far as I am concerned. But you have to understand (but not necessarily support) the general sentiment about Microsoft and Apple: Microsoft is what you were forced to use at work, like it or not, regardless of its technical merits. Apple, and in particular iPhones, were the first products to break that corporate stronghold, and welcomed by many people for this very reason, regardless of all their flaws. Their walled garden for software installations were loathed by many nerds, but welcomed by computing illiterates (i.e. the general masses) because it avoided the whole virus issue for good (still remember code red, nimda and "I love you"?)

jrista, the way you normally write about Canon's product line and strategic decisions, and now about Microsoft and their latest products, reminds me a lot about the time when I was a teenager and fell in love for the first time. It's a long time since then, but I still remember the mind set I was in.

To put some ugly zits on that Microsoft crush you seemingly have developed, I may draw to your attention to the fact that Microsoft has not abandoned their predatory style. Just remember the way their henchman Stephen "trojan horse" Elop took over Nokia, killed its long awaited new product strategy, turned a profitable company into a loss making, demoralized corporate cadaver that was ultimately coup de grace'd by Microsoft themselves - with a paycheck for Elop that easily matches all of CR's membership taken together. One should not be surprised that computer folks, who got burned by Microsoft's tactics twenty years ago, are still a bit touchy, especially when the company and their products are presented like ... well, see my first paragraph here.

Back to the original topic: If Microsoft would have wanted access to DSLR or lens related patents, they could have gotten a similar deal from Nikon for a lot less. After all Nikon is a much, much smaller company, most likely with a much smaller patent portfolio, and they are still able to manufacture and market competitive DSLRs and lenses. Let's not forget that Canon's camera division is just a small part of the whole enterprise, and I can well imagine that Microsoft saw a lot more utility in Canon's large office product line and IP, and that this was the real motivation behind the deal.

Lenses / Re: Sigma 50mm Art 1.4 Focusing problems
« on: May 30, 2014, 06:49:23 PM »
I have read lots and lots of threads here with people having AF problems with the 50A, but so far all of them had these issues with their 1D series camera, most notably the 1Dx.

Can someone confirm that these issues also affect other cameras as well?

Lighting / Re: yongnuo yn560-iii any good
« on: May 30, 2014, 12:25:56 PM »
I have heard that 1D series cameras can be incompatible with some third party flashes (Metz comes to mind). Evidently there is some difference in protocol between 1D and other cameras, and flashes aimed mostly at the entry level consumer market may not support the 1D series all that well.

Not to be scare mongering, but I do recommend you check that flash for full compatibility before you commit to buying it.

When people rag on Sigma AF issues, they should at least differentiate between past issues and the current issue seemingly affecting the new 50.

The big set of AF problems that seemed to have plagued Sigma glass forever appears to come from poor and/or incomplete decoding of Canon's lens protocol, and the art line seems to have resolved this issue for now. Thanks to the usb dock Canon can't pull any further "the new camera ain't done until Sigma glass won't run" stunts.

The problems that seem to have affected Eldar and Viggo appear to be plain manufacturing issues, that are not uncommon when brand new products are introduced. These issues shouldn't become the new normal either, and I sure hope that Sigma's manufacturing lines get their act together quickly.

PS: If people draw a straight line through 35 and 50 price points to determine the expected price of the new 85, then I wonder what price people would expect for upcoming wide angle glass in the art line ... :P

EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 DO
« on: May 27, 2014, 06:51:56 AM »
Can you actually apply an antireflective coating to a fresnel lens like on a normal lens? Would such a coating be effective against flare on a fresnel lens?

Interestingly B&H list the lens at $ 1,199 in the UK its listed by Park Cameras at £ 1,199 at current exchange that makes it $ 2,014 our side of the pond.  The US price converted is £ 713.00 our side of the pond granted the US price needs the sales tax added whilst the UK price include 20% sales tax (VAT). Even if you add 20% to the US list it comes out at $1,498.75 dividing that by the current exchange rate makes it £ 892.11 making the US price
£ 306.89 cheaper. Riff off Britain is alive & well.

That may be true, but you Brits got the white rebel first :P :P

Lenses / Re: New Canon Tilt-Shift Lenses at Photokina [CR1]
« on: May 10, 2014, 03:27:57 PM »
If you look at the Scheimpflug principle, you see that the distance ratio lens to sensor/film plane vs. lens to subject plane is an important factor how much tilting you actually need. If the lens is much closer to your sensor/film than to the subject, a few degrees tilt may put some planar subject matter into focus that is 45 or more degrees off. Typical examples are landscape images which are tack sharp from front to back: although the surface is 90° off the sensor/film plane, relatively small lens movements are all that is needed.

In the case of macro, your lens may be closer to your sensor/film plane than to your subject, and you need much more tilt capability to put some subject into focus that is not parallel to your sensor/film plane. 8° tilt, as afforded by current Canon T&S line up may compensate for not much over 20° subject plane tilt, and that is not all that much. jrista provided an example where 8° tilt may or may not have helped, whereas fussi III seems to speak from experience where 20° tilt was too little to be helpful.

Ask yourself, how many times your subject plane is less than 15° off your sensor/film plane, and whether that kind of subject matter would allow you to play with lens movements.

Lenses / Re: New Canon Tilt-Shift Lenses at Photokina [CR1]
« on: May 09, 2014, 05:46:29 AM »
Tilt in macro is certainly not pointless if it is done correctly, and several good examples have been already listed in this very thread. Large format cameras were never used for their convenience or ease of use, they were professional tools to be used when smaller cameras couldn't do the job properly.

The reason why I brought up medium format cameras is their bigger size compared to DSLRs which gives designers extra degrees of freedom and the traditionally low price sensitivity of the medium format market. If decent T&S was available for medium format, an improvement in fine mechanics, manufacturing and lens design could well trickle down into the world of small format cameras. Since this is not the case, I would not expect much from a DSLR compatible T&S macro lens, even if it bears the Canon label.

Lenses / Re: New Canon Tilt-Shift Lenses at Photokina [CR1]
« on: May 08, 2014, 02:12:12 PM »
The question still remains, how much tilting you can achieve with an SLR camera where you have to account for the mirror box. Even in medium format T&S is mostly seen as toy, only large format cameras give you the flexibility to take full advantage of the Scheimpflug principle.

If you look at the latest announcements here on CR, you see lots of new, and sometimes innovative products from Canon's competitors, followed by discounted offers for Canon products. Sigma releases a new lens that crushes Canon's similar products? Canon offers a discount on some semi pro camera body. Sony produces new camera that many folks here lust for? Canon takes US$ 200 off their 6D. And so on ...

Some here may remember a semi recent thread here about the rapidly declining photographic market, DSLRs down 19% last year, precipitous decline in lens sales. This may not be the correct time for big investments in new, risky products.

Like it or not, but given current market conditions Canon could well make the most sensible business decisions at the moment.

Lenses / Re: Review: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens
« on: April 29, 2014, 11:07:38 AM »
no focus shift i can see but it breathes a fair bit if that matters to you

Very interesting. Did you test this under the right circumstances? At or near minimum focus distance, aperture stopped down to F/2.8-F/4?

There have been many theories, that modern Canon DSLRs compensate for 50L focus shift in software. If the 50A doesn't exhibit this shift, and it obviously can't rely on any Canon to support this kind of quirk, then this puts more shame on the 50L.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5