November 27, 2014, 03:31:28 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 - Hillsilly

Pages: 1 ... 32 33 [34] 35 36 ... 53
496
EOS Bodies / Re: A New 100-400 & Coming Announcements [CR2]
« on: July 26, 2012, 01:09:52 AM »
I hope Canon realises that the top end of the 400mm market is already well catered for.  If they choose to discontinue the 400/5.6 then a new 100-400 really needs to be similarly priced to the current model.  Otherwise, they'll price themselves out of the market and will slowly start to lose their reputation as the "go to" brand for enthusiast sports and wildlife photographers.  There is precendence for new "affordable" 400mm lenses.  The Sony 70-400 comes to mind.

497
EOS Bodies / Re: could the new EF-M mount support FF sensors too?
« on: July 25, 2012, 08:16:44 AM »

Don't worry. All that will come, and more....

This is just the very first EOS-M camera.

I'd like to think so too.  But given that this type of cameras has evolved a lot over the last couple of years, it was a calculated decision by Canon not to include the things that many would like to have seen - in my case, an electronic viewfinder and in-body IS (oh...and decent camera strap lugs).

I see two possible reasons:

1.  They're just not on Canon's radar; or
2.  The second version will feature all of this.  And because the Mk ii model will correct the problems with Mk i, then Mk i buyers will buy a Mk ii.  They will effectively double sales.

Either way, I don't think the new model is so enticing that I'll rush out for one.  Instead, I'll wait to see what's next. 

498
Glad my comment helped a bit.  The Canon designers, in their ultimate wisdom, have dictated that AF assist cannot be used in AI Servo mode.  Unfortunately, this is my favourite mode and it always takes me a few seconds to figure out what's wrong. 

Sorry, I can't help with the C.fn and green light.  Does the flash go off and do the exposures seem ok?  If the flash is working properly, I wouldn't be too concerned about the C.fn thing.  I'd just assume the function relates to something your flash can't do.  Your flash probably lacks the ability to communicate with the camera.  But I'd still expect a green light to come on.  This should just be an indicator that the flash is ready to go and would be independent of camera settings.  Are you using fresh batteries?

With the AF assist, I've found a big difference in effectiveness between various flashes.  If it is working consistently on objects less than two to three meters away, I'd say it is probably working ok.  They generally don't have a long effective range.  Do you have more than one lens?  If so, try different lenses and see if they work better.  I assume you're doing all of this in the dark?  I'm just guessing at this, but its possible some zoom lenses might not letting enough light into the camera for it to work very effectively.  Your centre focus point is probably the best one to use, so make sure you're testing on this one.

If AF assist is a big thing for you, I've been eyeing the Yongnuo ST-E2 recently.  I've heard it has the best AF Assist distance.  (But its not a flash - just an infra-red flash trigger which may or may not work with your flash). 

499
EOS Bodies / Re: could the new EF-M mount support FF sensors too?
« on: July 24, 2012, 06:36:17 AM »
I'd agree.  It would have to be a very high MP sensor or medium format.  For a serious photographer looking at investing a lot of money into a system, why else would you give up the speed and autofocus advantages of a DSLR?  Outstanding image quality is the only answer I keep coming back to.

500
EOS Bodies / Re: could the new EF-M mount support FF sensors too?
« on: July 24, 2012, 05:24:21 AM »
The enigmatic individuals who'd prefer to spend their money on a FF mirrorless rather than a 5Diii would only want small, high quality primes specifically designed for the body.  They're not concerned with DSLR usability. Their driving desire would be unparalleled image quality.  They'd see some form of EF compatibility as a bonus, but not the be all and end all.  They would accept that mirrorless models are a new camera system and wouldn't take full compatibility for granted.

In the past, there have been camera systems designed around only a few lenses that have sold in sufficient quantities to make it worthwhile.  My Mamiya 6 is one.  It only comes with a 50mm, 75mm and 150mm.  (Essentially 30mm, 45mm and 90mm in FF equivalents).  The Mamiya 7 only has six lenses.  I'd see a Canon FF mirrorless as the modern day equivalent.  It would only need a few top quality lenses to gain a lot of interest.

501
EOS Bodies / Re: could the new EF-M mount support FF sensors too?
« on: July 24, 2012, 12:02:40 AM »
I'll preface this by saying I have no idea what I'm talking about, but....

The image size only has to be FF in size at the sensor.  The image could come out in a pyramidal shape from the lens (ie very narrow at the base of the lens and then expand to cover the FF sensor).  Most lenses work this way. It's pretty easy from a design perspective and I'd like to think EF-M lenses work this way, too.

Existing EF lenses might have their images come out in a different way (they might be "fatter" at the point of the mount - leading to loss of image / vignetting at the edges.  They might not be 100% compatible with a FF EF-M mount.  But they would still work in crop mode.

I learnt all of this in wishful thinking 101.


502
What an esoteric community - It would take me a while to work out what a thirty five point four is.  Being a bit simple, and liking things easy, I'll vote for the "point" too.  But I think most people wouldn't have a problem either way.  F/14 would be "F fourteen" anyway, not "F one four".

Just learnt that US Air Force photographic reconnaissance aircraft from 1930 to1948 were designated the F1 to the F15.  Very appropriate.

503
Make sure the autofocus mode is in One Shot [ie not AI Focus or AI Servo].

504
EOS Bodies / Re: first pic of canon mirrorless?
« on: July 22, 2012, 02:54:59 AM »
Who is this camera geared towards? Point and shooters that want to feel like they have a small dsrl?

If the pricing is acceptable, it autofocuses with EF lenses and it has an EVF, I bet most buyers will be current Canon DSLR users who want something smaller and unobtrusive (but high IQ) when going to parties, the beach, pubs, mountain biking etc etc.  It will be the people on this forum that snap them up. 

And I think Canon got it right by releasing the budget model first.  Right now, few people are going to drop $2500 for a mirrorless FF when they've just bought (or are saving up towards) a feature packed 5Diii.  But if there's an APS-C one for around $400-$600, most of us will consider it very tempting. Very, very tempting.

I currently use a Olympus PEN when my Mamiya medium format or 1Ds aren't really appropriate. (And I know many other use Sony's for the same reason).  I love my little Olympus, but I'd drop it in a flash if the new Canon satisfies my criteria (reasonable price, EF compatibility and EVF).

505
EOS Bodies / Re: Should/can Canon keep making its own sensors?
« on: July 21, 2012, 03:16:10 AM »
If Canon became a pure marketing company, selling a camera made of components from other supplier's spare parts bins, it would quickly dissolve into irrelevance.  I'm not keen for that to happen and encourage Canon to keep making their own sensors. 

Despite numerous claims that Sony sensors are better, where is the real world proof?  They might have a slightly different "look", but better?  I've never taken a photo and thought it would be better if I'd used a Nikon or Sony.   

Anyway, arguments about sensors pale in consideration to the real issues - black and white vs colour, negatives vs transparencies, Velvia vs Provia vs Astia, kodak vs Ilford vs Rollei vs Fuji vs Fompan vs Agfa vs .... If only there was one film!

506
EOS Bodies / Re: first pic of canon mirrorless?
« on: July 21, 2012, 02:46:23 AM »
I'm reasonably ok with this.  But I'm anxiously waiting for confirmation of an external electronic viewfinder.  For any semi-serious photographer, this is a "must have".  Very curious about those camera strap connectors.  Looking forward to more details.


507
Lenses / Re: Question...To UV or not to UV...that IS the question!
« on: July 19, 2012, 09:02:06 AM »
I've no idea if a UV lens significantly distorts or degrades the image, but for what its worth, I rarely use one.  The only time I put one is when I'm shooting in dusty or dirty conditions (eg rally car races).  They are easier to clean and give me a little peace of mind when there are rocks flying around.

The only time I've ever dropped a lens (a 17-40), it had a UV filter on.  It fell on its side.  But the UV filter smashed into tiny pieces.  The lens itself was fine.  Cleaning all of the tiny shards of glass from the front element and filter thread was a time consuming process, as I didn't want to scratch it.  I thought I was quite lucky as the broken glass could have easily damaged the lens.

508
Portrait / Re: Goat Portrait
« on: July 18, 2012, 05:46:03 AM »
Wow, a goat topic.  OK - Not technically a portrait, but just wanted to warn everyone about this guy.  He lives on  top of Cheddar Gorge in the UK.  A nice place to picnic (see photo 2).  But this guy thinks he owns the place and likes to push people around.  A bit of a bully.  So I'm naming and shaming!

509
Portrait / Re: My photos look so dull
« on: July 18, 2012, 05:11:30 AM »
The 50mm should be fine.  I see that some of the sample photos were taken with more expensive lenses.  But really, this would only produce minor differences.  I've got a 50 / 1.8 myself and have never thought it lacking.  A couple of tips for using the lens:

1.  Buy a lens hood and use it.  Doesn't have to be the overpriced "Canon" one.  Just pick up a cheap one off eBay.
2.  It doesn't produce optimal results when you are aiming in the direction of the sun.  Try taking photos with the sun behind you (so that your shadow is pointed towards the subject) and see if this makes a difference.

I don't know if all of your photos always look like this.  If so, play around with some contrast and saturation settings until things start looking better.  But I suspect that your photos were just taken on an uninspiring,  dreary day.  If your subjects aren't in great light, the camera is unlikely to make things look better.  Taking photos in the early morning or late afternoon usually produces the best results.

You might notice that the sample photos were taken with a flash - The sparkle in the boys' eyes gives this away.   Try using a flash yourself (if outdoors, try it on a very low setting for a little fill).  Bouncing the flash off a wall or ceiling also works well to give a nice diffuse light.  The other advantage of using a flash is that you can keep your subject well lit, but reduce the background brightness slightly (making your subject stand out more).  Some fun things to try.

510
Site Information / Re: In Sympathy for CR Guy
« on: July 17, 2012, 07:52:44 AM »
I'm so sorry.  Our deepest sympathy is with you.

Pages: 1 ... 32 33 [34] 35 36 ... 53