August 22, 2014, 07:50:12 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 - bchernicoff

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 37
1
Landscape / Re: LIGHTNING PHOTOS
« on: August 12, 2014, 05:53:43 PM »
Are you just burst-shooting and hope for the best ?
/Thorse

I was. I set a 2 seconds exposure, set the camera to continuous and held down the button on my wired remote.

2
Landscape / Re: LIGHTNING PHOTOS
« on: August 12, 2014, 03:00:19 PM »
This one is from back in 2011. 7D

Man, I miss that view over DC...

3
While it might make sense for Canon to acquire Panasonic's camera division to buy themselves back into current sensor technology the idea of Panasonic and Olympus dropping Micro 4/3? I think this one falls under a bad joke.

EDIT: I accidentally a word.

4
"If it performs anywhere near the Zeiss and comes in at around $1000 and has autofocus, Sigma will definitely have another winner."

I love the way you subtly try to influence the decision makers regarding price. You've got a large podium, so good on you for using it.

I feel like they could charge $1500 and it would sell the same as if it cost $1000.

5
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Dual Pixel Tech Coming to the EOS 5D Mark III?
« on: February 28, 2014, 01:08:52 PM »
Didn't Chipworks or someone already do an analysis on the 5D Mk III CMOS? I feel like they would have noticed something like this.

Edit: Yeah, they did. Here's a link: http://www.chipworks.com/en/technical-competitive-analysis/resources/blog/full-frame-dslr-cameras-canon-stays-the-course/

Also: https://chipworks.secure.force.com/catalog/ProductDetails?sku=CAN-EOS_5D_MarkIII_Pri-Camera&viewState=DetailView&cartID=&g=&parentCategory=&navigationStr=CatalogSearchInc&searchText=canon%20digic

I really think they would have noticed the different architecture if dual-pixel tech was present.

6
43 cameras is not a large sample size. Also the 13 unknown cameras don't appear in the % chart and therefore skew all the results.

7
It's a great lens for portraits. It's less versatile than the 70-200 v2 as a portrait lens, but you gain macro shooting ability and the size/weight savings. It's a tough choice, so I own both. Though also shoots sports with the 70-200 so it has its own justification.

9
PowerShot / Re: Canon PowerShot G1 X Successor Coming Shortly [CR2]
« on: February 02, 2014, 03:04:30 PM »
Come on 70D sensor!!!

10
I saw this ad on craigslist and thought it was amusing enough to share... ;D

http://washingtondc.craigslist.org/doc/pho/4313342024.html

11
If the surface of the sensor was reflective enough to effectively replace the mirror, I don't think it would let enough light through to be an effective sensor. Also, the sensor itself is a delicate bit of electronics. I would be concerned with it's durability when bouncing around as well as the durability of the flexible electrical leads connecting it to the rest of the camera's circuitry.

12
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: FUJIFILM'S latest, X-T1 ?
« on: January 28, 2014, 03:09:31 PM »
If it actually focuses on moving subjects it will steal a lot of DSLR sales. I LOVE my X-E1 and the Fuji lenses, but if I am heading into a situation with moving or otherwise difficult subjects, I grab the Canon every time.

13
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon Curved Aperture Diaphragm
« on: January 27, 2014, 11:14:36 AM »
It wouldn't affect curvature of field, but it sounds like a way to correct for focus shift (the 50 1.2 L has been known to have focus shift at close distances)

You're right. I wasn't thinking it through. As the iris closes from the wide open position, the optical axis of the lens would move forwards or backwards depending on which direction the curved diaphragm was installed.

14
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon Curved Aperture Diaphragm
« on: January 27, 2014, 10:24:24 AM »
Wouldn't that result in field curvature? Or maybe this is a way to correct that?

15
EOS Bodies / Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS
« on: January 21, 2014, 11:13:27 PM »
The patent for the 135mm says f/2.8 not f/2

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 37