March 05, 2015, 03:46:53 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 - Hillsilly

Pages: 1 ... 22 23 [24] 25 26 ... 55
EOS-M / Re: Future EOS-M Lenses
« on: February 27, 2013, 05:33:59 AM »
Unfortunatly, no long glass is available yet for micro 4/3 :(
99% (or more?) of long lens use is for sports or wildlife.  Micro 4/3 isn't quite there yet.  The AF systems, while improving, currently isn't suited to this.  For example, its very, very difficult to get a good bird in fight shot.  Most people who can get a decent shot are using old-school manual focus lenses with adapters.  But, the next OM-D should move things up a notch.  Panasonic are also promising something special.  Following that, I'd be surprised if none of the m43 lens manufacturers (and there are 20 or so companies involved) didn't release a decent 200mm (AKA 400mm) or 300mm (AKA 600mm) lens.  After all, the real interest in micro four thirds lenses is in fast primes.

Ignoring arguments about aperture equivalence and sensor noise, an M43 300mm/f4 is going to be a lot more affordable and easier to handhold and use than the Canon 600mm.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Can't they make 28mm F1.4
« on: February 27, 2013, 03:48:11 AM »
28mm is so 1980's!

(Actually, I'll take that back.  I could have sworn that was a fast FD 28mm lens.  But even back then 24mm was were all the cool people were hanging out.)

PowerShot / Re: Compact Camera suggestions?
« on: February 26, 2013, 04:08:22 AM »
If he likes smaller cameras, have a look at the Panasonic G3 ($249 at B&H without a lens).  The kit lens is an extra $99, but there are a number of lens options that would also keep him under budget.  Its a little bigger than traditional point and shoots, but should be a better performer overall. 

Lenses / Re: 70-400/ f4.0-5.6 Zoom ... Canon, where are you?
« on: February 26, 2013, 12:12:47 AM »
While one lens won't encourage anyone to change, it is interesting to see Sony covering all of the key focal lengths that are of interest to most enthusiasts.  Sony already has a couple of interesting longer lenses - 300 and 500mm.  By having a quality range of lenses, they're removing a major impediment to changing systems.  Plus, from the Minolta days, they've also got a few more designs up their sleeve.  Overall, I'm surprised they don't do better in the enthusiast sports and wildlife photography market.  At least they are (hopefully) keeping Nikon and Canon on their toes.

Lenses / Re: Why aren't zoom lenses faster than 2.8?
« on: February 25, 2013, 08:47:13 PM »
Pentax 67 55-100mm F/4.5.  Works out to be a 35mm equivalent f/2.2 zoom.  There would be a few more floating around in medium format land.

Lenses / Re: Why aren't zoom lenses faster than 2.8?
« on: February 24, 2013, 11:15:46 AM »
To respond to your post though, there is NO benefit to a 1 stop faster aperture on APS-C sensor vs full frame because they (more than) cancel each other out. You don't stop action any quicker at all, whatsoever, because remember the ISO is skewed too, so all you're doing is just turning up the ISO sensitivity in a roundabout way.
Ok, Thanks.  So, assuming similar generation sensors, an APS-C based camera at ISO 100 at 1/100s would have similar (maybe even worse) image quality to a FF camera at ISO 200 at 1/100s.  Therefore no real speed benefit.  You'd just have more MPs, which may o may not be important.  Makes sense.

Although, we might still have to disagree on the conversion of apertures to 35mm equivalents. While converting the focal length to a 35mm equivalent makes sense (with the preponderance of different sensor sizes, it's good to have a commonly accepted way of understanding focal length), converting the aperture causes confusion.  At the same focus distance, a 30.5mm f/2.8 on a G15 has essentially the same background blur and requires the same shutter speed as a 30.5mm f/2.8 lens on a 7D and a 30.5mm f/2.8 lens on a 1Dx. In other words, a 30.5mm f/2.8 lens doesn't change any of its attributes when the sensor changes in size.   Therefore, there is no need to convert it to a 35mm equivalent.   The 30.5mm f2/8 is already a 35mm equivalent for every exposure and depth of field measurement.

Lenses / Re: first trip to England any recommendations ?
« on: February 24, 2013, 01:12:42 AM »
I haven't used it, but I imagine it would be very handy over there.  I've typically taken a 17-40 (or 10-22) when visiting the country formerly known as Great Britain.  Often these are used at the wider end and I up with buildings that are leaning backwards.  While this can be corrected in software, doing this cuts off large parts of the image, often destroying the impact of the photo.  A tilt shift woud save a lot of hassle and lead to better pictures.

Lenses / Re: Why aren't zoom lenses faster than 2.8?
« on: February 24, 2013, 12:09:45 AM »
In 35mm terms, its 6.1-30.5/1.8-2.8 lens is the equivalent of a 28-140/8.3-12.9 lens. Nothing too special.

Don't want to go off topic, but in 35mm terms it is still an f/1.8 - 2.8 lens.  It might have an equivalent field of view as a 28-140mm lens.  But the shutter speed is based on the f/1.8 to 2.8 aperture, which is pretty good.  The equivalent background (or lack of) is what you'd expect from a 6.1 - 30.5mm lens (which is largely independent of sensor size).  That is, you'd have similar background blur at 30.5mm at f/2.8 on G15 as you would with a 16-35mm zoomed to 30.5mm at f/2.8 on a 5Diii.  And in dark shooting conditions, shooting macro, or when capturing action with the fastest possible shutter speed, the ability to have more in focus for a given aperture is sometimes just as important.  (And besides, in post production it is easier to blur a background than add more detail in).

In a round about way, just trying to say that the aperture range of a lens should be viewed independently of sensor size.  From there, most sensible photographers can use their own judgement as to whether a particular system/sensor size is suitable for their purpose.  Need more background in focus, shoot m43 or the G15.  Need more background blur, shoot medium format (or adjust in post production).  Need it just right, shoot full frame.

Imagine this scenario - Canon releases an EF-S 400mm f/4 with image quality, build and price equivalent to the EF 400mm f/5.6.  Even though some might say it is still a "f/5.6 equivalent", most people would instantly see the benefit of the faster aperture.

Lenses / Re: Could we ever see leaf shutters in EF lenses?
« on: February 23, 2013, 11:26:31 PM »
You can adapt a leaf shutter to a DSLR, just get a Hasselblad lens and adapter.  It might take a little experimenting, but you can do it with no problem, except its all manual.

I started thinking this way too.  My solution was to put the camera in a mode similar to sensor cleaning that would keep the focal plane shutter open and the sensor ready for action.  Aperture and shutter speed would be dialled in manually on the lens.  From there, you would simply trigger the lens via an old school cable release that is attached to the lens itself.  Mamiya RB67 and RZ67 lenses work this way in mirror lock up mode.

In theory, it would work perfectly....except you'd have a flat battery in half an hour.   Back to the drawing board.

Lenses / Re: Could we ever see leaf shutters in EF lenses?
« on: February 22, 2013, 02:25:49 AM »
Plus there must be some basic information already going to the lens.  Otherwise, how does it know when to stop down and for how long?  Maybe a feature we'll see on the Canon medium format camera?  1/1000 flash synch times would be a big selling point.

Lenses / Re: Why aren't zoom lenses faster than 2.8?
« on: February 21, 2013, 03:53:16 AM »
Olympus make a 14-35 f/2 and a 35-100 f/2.  Both are $2k+ and only cover a four thirds size sensor.  These lenses are big, but not that big.  With their superior economies of scale and production capabilities, Canon could make similar EF-S lenses without too much of a size, weight or cost penalty.  But is there a market for $2k+ EF-S lenses? 

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Spec List [CR2]
« on: February 21, 2013, 03:29:30 AM »
Hey Canon......

I guess I'm learning it the hard way...  ;D

Sorry, just having some fun.  Realistically, with Canon being such a big company I'd be surprised if there weren't employees looking at forums like this to get ideas and feedback.  But Given that we're already invested in the Canon system, they know they don't have to do anything too special to please us.  They just have to make it unattractive to change brands.  To paraphrase Edward de Bono, Canon don't need to make the best cameras in the world to please their existing customers.  They just need to make cameras that aren't significantly worse than Nikon or Sony.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Spec List [CR2]
« on: February 20, 2013, 07:44:16 PM »
How harmful would it be for them to pay a small team of photo nerds to surf the web all day and find out what buyers want?
(Heck, I'd do it for free if they let me try some prototypes every now and then.)

Hey Canon, I want a 1DXs - a 45mp full frame camera with 1DX performance.  Will happily pay up to $1500.  Don't forget to make it EF-S compatable in crop sensor mode.

And how's that Eos-Me going with built in EVF and zippy AF?  I assume we've got some new lenses coming out soon?

PS - Where can I send my invoice for market research work? :)

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Spec List [CR2]
« on: February 20, 2013, 03:16:35 AM »
Now that Canon has pocketed all of the cash from 5Dii to 5Diii upgraders, they can now start releasing cameras with their revolutionary next generation sensor. Can't wait to see the discussion when DXO give it an "83".

I used to use a 30D for sports.  It worked well.  I'd assume a 40D would be even better.

Pages: 1 ... 22 23 [24] 25 26 ... 55