April 16, 2014, 04:07:31 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 - hoodlum

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
EOS Bodies / Re: New DSLR and PowerShots in May [CR2]
« on: April 02, 2014, 07:15:44 PM »

500mm would also give you slightly faster AF for BIF.

EOS Bodies / Re: Is Dual Pixel Tech Coming to the EOS 5D Mark III?
« on: February 28, 2014, 03:35:45 PM »
The "upgrade" for the C100/c300 included sending in the camera for calibration of the on-sensor PDAF.  This is more than just a firmware upgrade.  Canon is also charging $500 for this service.

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS M2 Coming to North America & Europe?
« on: February 28, 2014, 10:32:22 AM »
Just remember that the Dual PDAF is not accurate and is only used for rough estimation of focus.  CDAF is still used to determine final focus.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: In-Depth Review: Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3 VC
« on: February 27, 2014, 10:23:20 AM »
The Digital Picture has posted their initial test results.


PowerShot / Re: Updated PowerShot G1 X II Specs
« on: February 10, 2014, 04:26:42 PM »
I wonder why the 'Dual Pixel' AF sensor technology from the 70d is not getting shared with this and other Canon compact models?

Lenses / Re: Tamron SP 150-600 f/5-6.3 VC Review
« on: February 02, 2014, 05:39:13 PM »

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: In-Depth Review: Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3 VC
« on: February 02, 2014, 05:37:33 PM »
There are reports elsewhere that AF for BIF is problematic. Does anyone have experience of this?

There are also rumours that stocks to the big retailers are being withheld while Tamron sorts out the AF problem. Has anyone any knowledge of this?

These BIF images look very good.


Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EOS 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM by DxO Mark
« on: January 29, 2014, 03:13:02 PM »
This is the same site that confidently claimed that the older 70-200/2.8 IS was sharper than the latest 70-200 Mark 2. I would treat their opinions and testresults with extreme caution...

Where do they claim that?  The test charts clearly show the new 70-200 is sharper.


Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EOS 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM by DxO Mark
« on: January 29, 2014, 01:32:48 PM »
Yes the Tamron 150-600mm test results are expected in a few days.  It would be nice to compare this with the 100-400 and the 50-500.

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Deal: Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM
« on: January 22, 2014, 10:47:18 AM »
Too bad the tamarin review did not compare this lens

Roger from LensRental posted this in the comments section of the Tamron review.

"I won’t be comparing with the Sigma 150-500 because we dropped that lens a couple of years ago. Too much variation and too many soft copies – but even the good copies just weren’t that good."

I would recommend just skipping this lens and go for the Tamron.

The single biggest thing that I am anxious to see from Roger is what I simply cannot test:  sample variation/consistency.  That's a big deal, considering it is clear that there is a pretty broad sample variation with the 100-400L.

If you could consistently get as good or better results that the 100-400L at a lower price with better stabilization and reach, that's a big deal.

So far the 3 samples that Roger has are all centered well with very little sample variation according to his report.  Looks like a good start for QC.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5