Both the jumping viewfinder and the noise point at an image stabiliser fault.
Send it in for repair. Is it still under warranty?
Send it in for repair. Is it still under warranty?
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.
The smaller imaging circle doesn't reduce the physical size of the lens when the angle of view is narrower than 45 degrees (longer than 50mm in FF terms)....be worth it as well if they can maintain a constant f/4.
You realize how nutty that request is? It would be bigger (and more expensive) than the 200-400/4.
Not if it's an EF-S L
Lol....UK pricing for the 16-35 f4 LIS seems to be nearly as expensive as the f2.8 version!It's a tax for the impatient.
While I'm sure the UK price will fall dramatically once the product is on the shelves, i really thing that canon urgently needs to refresh it's UK RRP policy.
In some situations a prime and/or 24mm focal length won't do, even for those who want a large aperture. In those scenarios a zoom covering the range which is as fast as is practical is the best option. f2.8 is still a whole stop up on f4. A whole stop in every respect, including the effects on DoF....my point was that shallow DOF is not the drawing card for UWA lenses...
Not for you, but then, you're not 'everyone'.
Fine, if shallow DOF in ultrawide is your thing, have at it. But you'd get better results with a 24 1.4, than 2.8 zoom
First of all, the plastic mount, slower aperture and slower AF are all pretty big pills to swallow on top of the reduced focal length range - all issues people with 24-105's didn't have to contemplate when looking at the 24-70/4."I highly doubt I'd sidegrade my 10-22mm for this..."
"I'll be keeping my 10-22mm for a bit longer"
"not nice enough for me to switch from my 10-22"
Typical responses from owners of existing lenses that are 'threatened' by the new lens. Same kind of resposnes from owners of 24-105 when the 24-70 f/4 was introduced, and the 70-200 f/2.8 owners when the Mark II was introduced.
Without any reviews, these folks were able to determine that the new lens is inferior to what they already own. Impartial conclusions, or divertiture aversion?
Or, maybe these folks are right on this one. The 24-70 f/4 and the 70-200 f/2.8 II were more expensive that what was previously offered. The 70-200 II was an upgraded version, whereas the 24-70 trades focal length for some IQ and macro capabilities, but it still costs more. This one is designed to be slower and to cost less than what is in the market (10-22). The MTF charts don't look radically different, so at the end of the day it may come down to IS and price versus aperture, build quality.
You see the same kind of reaction from existing 16-35 f/2.8 II owners when the 16-35 f/4 IS was announced on the same day. Now this one is a cheaper and slower lens. How do you explain that? It's a cheaper lens that has IS and a better MTF chart, despite losing out in other areas. Perhaps that lens was to replace the 17-40, but 16-35 f/2.8 II owners feel the need to defend their choice of lens as well.
As for MTF charts, I can easily put it another way, of the 3 crop sensor Canon UWAs, the 10-22 is the WORST performing, beaten by the 11-22 and 10-18 that are both cheaper and IS equipped.
Thinking mainly aboit landscape on tripod I don't need much aperture or even IS. Just wondering, under which use cases would you need f2.8 wide angles? Events/weddings?Opening up the aperture doesn't just reduce the depth of field - it also yields faster shutter speeds for the same ISO. So if we take the depth of field at ultrawide angles as being minimally reduced by shooting at f2.8 instead of f4, it's for anyone who wants a fast shutter speed, or keep the same shutter speed with a lower ISO. Which means any photographer shooting moving subjects who want to minimise noise. Events, weddings, sports, and stars all spring to mind.
If you shoot raw, the colour space in the files is limited purely by the sensor. Any pre-defined colour space standard is only applied as you convert the raw file to a format such as jpeg - so you can choose what you like at that point - sRGB, Adobe RGB, ProPhoto RGB etc... Cameras only offer an option of colour space for the jpegs it creates.No 14-bit RAW or AdobeRGB; boo-hiss!from Canon's website:
(...)Shooting and Recording Modes Including 14-bit RAW + JPEG
The PowerShot G1 X Mark II offers a host of shooting and recording modes ranging from fully automatic to fully manual, plus Full HD movies and full-resolution high speed continuous shooting. The camera recognizes 58 shooting situations, automatically optimizing settings for achieving the highest quality shots on the go. Alternatively, you can exert complete creative control over the look and feel of your images. 14-bit signal processing, just as in EOS-series cameras, gives images notably rich detail and smooth gradation, and RAW images are available in a choice of 3:2 or 4:3 aspect ratios. Compared with 12-bit processing, 14-bit offers a 4x increase in RAW data for a visible impact, giving images rich detail in both highlights and shadows as well as smoother, more natural tonal gradation for outstanding image quality.(...)
Thanks for debunking that for me; I recall reading it in the specs but I can't remember where, & I couldn't find anything on it in the manual. I'll still miss the AdobeRGB (my Fuji X10 does it!) but the lower bit depth would have been more of a bummer.
Can movie theaters show 4K movies with their digital projectors? I'm not really sure what resolution the average 'non-hollywood' film is shot in though. I would assume it is 1080p or the wide screen equivalent.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_cinema
In digital cinema, resolutions are represented by the horizontal pixel count, usually 2K (2048×1080 or 2.2 megapixels) or 4K (4096×2160 or 8.8 megapixels).
Wondering if it would be for Full frame or cropped sensors... Don't have much experience on Fish eyes, but I am quite sure I will buy one at some point in the future, after so many other adquisitions!It doesn't say the image height in the patent, so its not too clear. However, typically fisheyes for APS-C are around the 8 to 10mm mark, whereas fisheyes for full frame bodies are around the 15mm mark.
To me, it looks like an ultrawide (possibly fisheye) cine lens - the very shallow lens hood and gearing give it away.Considering the left lens' bulbous element and small hood, I'd guess it's wider than 10mm.I think you're right about the knobs, but I don't see the front elements at all, just the hoods.
Edit: then again, it looks like knobs on the barrel - maybe a tilt-shift lens?
Purely from a technology capability standpoint, I wonder if it's possible to get the same lens + 2X converter performance with an 800mm lens, than photographers are getting with the 300 f2.8 + 2X converter.I'd have thought that in theory it would be. Having results which look great wide open with the 2x on a ~20MP body would indicate that the bare lens or even lens + 1.4x would look great wide open with a possible future high MP body.
Yes, I do know the 1.4X converter delivers better results.