December 21, 2014, 01:21:56 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 - rs

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 47
76
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: will the samsung NX1 steal the show?
« on: September 04, 2014, 02:35:54 AM »
No.

The question I want to know the answer to is who's going to be the first person to mount a great white on their smartphone via a metabones adapter and a Sony QX1?
OK, someone's already done it with sony lenses:

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/this-is-how-weird-the-qx1-looks-with-huge-lenses/

77
Japanese rumors: As i heard from my Japanese girlfriends, the 50MP Sony is not the highlight. The highlight is, that sony is working on an curved sensor. This sensor could possibly be an little revolution on the sensor market. The image quality of the edges and non-center areas would be dramatically better, CAs and other optical problem would be reduced. And optically this curved sensor would rise the resolution in the edge areas.
Sony - (rumored!) - is working on new lenses that could be optimized on this new sensor. The lenses would be a lot cheaper to be produced (abberation correction would be not so difficult).
Nikon is interested in this technology too.
Yeah, that idea has been mentioned before, including official photos from such technology. Ideal for a permanently attached fixed focal length lens, such as an RX1 type camera or a smart phone. Or even a perfume bottle.

78
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: will the samsung NX1 steal the show?
« on: September 03, 2014, 03:24:36 PM »
No.

The question I want to know the answer to is who's going to be the first person to mount a great white on their smartphone via a metabones adapter and a Sony QX1?

79
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Features seen in the past and absent today
« on: September 01, 2014, 07:09:58 AM »
I wonder why canon packed older cameras with some very useful features that are totally absent in modern cameras. Here I refer to the Canon EOS 1D released in 2001 vs modern professional canon cameras.

I refer strictly to:

1/16,000 shutter speed
X-sync speed 1/500

I would think its to do with it being APS, smaller, lighter shutter, less distance to travel etc. Not on modern pro APS now due to cost / usage considerations I would think.
The 1D was an APS-H body with an electronic shutter.

Quick bit of research; also used CCD rather than CMOS which allowed the use of an electronic shutter. So as CMOS replaced CDD those features were lost.
Yeah, Nikon had some CCD cameras with fast sync speeds, such as the 1/500th D40.

80
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7DMk II or the 1DMk IV
« on: September 01, 2014, 04:07:12 AM »
A 2x TC and any f5.6 lens will not AF on any body (unless using live view). Whichever way you look at it, the lack of AF and IS, the slow aperture and very long focal length will make hand holding return a very low keeper rate, even with the most skilled photographer behind it.

Hand held requirements include functioning AF (preferably fully functional for BIF, so f5.6), some form of IS (mode 3 is great for BIF), and a lens which is not only long and bright, but light. Lots of compromises. The best setups require support of some sort and deep pockets.

81
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Features seen in the past and absent today
« on: September 01, 2014, 03:57:22 AM »
I wonder why canon packed older cameras with some very useful features that are totally absent in modern cameras. Here I refer to the Canon EOS 1D released in 2001 vs modern professional canon cameras.

I refer strictly to:

1/16,000 shutter speed
X-sync speed 1/500

I would think its to do with it being APS, smaller, lighter shutter, less distance to travel etc. Not on modern pro APS now due to cost / usage considerations I would think.
The 1D was an APS-H body with an electronic shutter.

82
I agree that there is absolutely nothing unethical about disabling features in firmware on lower priced models. The research that went into developing those features costs money, so if you'd like to use them, pay for them. Would you also find it unethical for a software company to make you pay for a license, when all it takes to unlock full functionality is typing in a serial number?
It's standard practice in many industries. For instance, 15 years ago Volvo found it was cheaper to build all their cars with central locking, and then disable that feature through software on the cheaper models than to design, engineer, test and produce a whole new locking system for the cheaper models.

83
Lenses / Re: New Lens Information for Photokina
« on: August 29, 2014, 09:28:52 AM »
Yes, F2.8 doesn't make any sense. Why don't I use the F3.5 on the kit lens? The difference is negligible. I'll consider buying it if it's F2
Size. If it truly is a pancake, it'll be a much nicer size for the 100D/SL1 than an 18-55
If they can make an F2 for the M, there's no reason why they cannot do the same for EF-S
The 44mm flange distance and 24mm focal length already makes for plenty of complexity to meet the size requirements of a pancake lens. Throw into the retrofocus mix a relatively large aperture, and you've got something even harder to pull off. The M mount with its 18mm flange distance doesn't have such issues.

84
Lenses / Re: New Lens Information for Photokina
« on: August 29, 2014, 09:08:00 AM »
Yes, F2.8 doesn't make any sense. Why don't I use the F3.5 on the kit lens? The difference is negligible. I'll consider buying it if it's F2
Size. If it truly is a pancake, it'll be a much nicer size for the 100D/SL1 than an 18-55

85
Lenses / Re: New Lens Information for Photokina
« on: August 29, 2014, 09:06:24 AM »
Who the heck would want a FF lens that only goes to f/5.6 at 105mm? 

For years I've been saying American businesses are under a curse of stupidity.  The Japanese might be under the same spell.  What a waste of marketing and manufacturing time.

PATHETIC if this rumor proves true.

Ok, now come the slavish apologist RemarkS.
There have been one or two standard EF zooms which end at f/5.6 in the past:

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/lens/ef/data/standard_zoom/ef_28~80_35~56.html
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/lens/ef/data/standard_zoom/ef_28~80_35~56_usm.html
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/lens/ef/data/standard_zoom/ef_28~80_35~56ii.html
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/lens/ef/data/standard_zoom/ef_28~80_35~56ii_usm.html
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/lens/ef/data/standard_zoom/ef_28~80_35~56iii_usm.html
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/lens/ef/data/standard_zoom/ef_28~80_35~56iv_usm.html
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/lens/ef/data/standard_zoom/ef_28~80_35~56v_usm.html
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/lens/ef/data/standard_zoom/ef_28~90_4~56.html
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/lens/ef/data/standard_zoom/ef_28~90_4~56_usm.html
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/lens/ef/data/standard_zoom/ef_28~90_4~56ii.html
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/lens/ef/data/standard_zoom/ef_28~90_4~56ii_usm.html
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/lens/ef/data/standard_zoom/ef_28~90_4~56iii.html
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/lens/ef/data/standard_zoom/ef_28~105_4~56.html
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/lens/ef/data/standard_zoom/ef_28~105_4~56_usm.html
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/lens/ef/data/standard_zoom/ef_28~135_35~56is_usm.html
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/lens/ef/data/standard_zoom/ef_35~80_4~56pz.html
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/lens/ef/data/standard_zoom/ef_35~80_4~56.html
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/lens/ef/data/standard_zoom/ef_35~80_4~56_usm.html
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/lens/ef/data/standard_zoom/ef_35~80_4~56ii.html
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/lens/ef/data/standard_zoom/ef_35~80_4~56iii.html
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/lens/ef/data/standard_zoom/ef_35~105_45~56.html
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/lens/ef/data/standard_zoom/ef_35~105_45~56_usm.html
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/lens/ef/data/standard_zoom/ef_35~135_4~56_usm.html
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/lens/ef/data/standard_zoom/ef_38~76_45~56.html

As full frame edges towards being more affordable, the demand for such a lens increases. Please remember that 105mm f5.6 on a FF body is the equivalent of 65mm f3.5 on a 1.6x crop.

86
Lenses / Re: New Lens Information for Photokina
« on: August 29, 2014, 08:35:54 AM »
Great!  Three lenses in which I have absolutely no interest.  Canon is saving me money all over the place!

There are three lenses that interest me right now and, would you believe it, they're all Tamrons!
If Canon were to introduce any three lenses, you can guarantee that a fair share of photographers out there will have zero interest in the products.

Each one of these rumoured lenses, if well executed, could have a great reputation and sales for their segment - regardless of whether they suit my needs or yours.

87
Lenses / Re: New Lens Information for Photokina
« on: August 29, 2014, 08:32:08 AM »
24-105 - slow FF kit - No, thanks.

An EF 24-105 f/3.5-5.6 IS STM could be an indication FF sensors with DPAF are coming.
+1

It would make sense for a lens like this to become the kit lens for a future cheap FF body with DPAF. 6D mk II, or do Canon have plans to introduce a fourth FF DSLR? Nikon already have four and have a fifth in the pipeline (D4S, D810, D610, DF, and possibly the rumoured D750)

88
Lenses / Re: Another standard zoom advice topic
« on: August 28, 2014, 04:40:01 PM »
I'll probably get a knee-jerk reaction for saying this, but if you can somehow stretch to both afford and can carry it, the mk II version of the 24-70/2.8 is smaller, lighter (805g vs 950g), and has noticeably better IQ. If cost and weight is an issue, my next port of call would be a white box Canon 24-105.

89
EOS Bodies / Re: F8 AUTOFOCUS
« on: August 28, 2014, 07:31:19 AM »
If you use a non reporting TC, even a old 10D will autofocus at f/8 with some lenses.  Others do not work.  I've tried in numerous bodies and lens combinations over the years.  The TC you use also makes a huge difference, some work better than others.

Again beside the point, though.

The claims by some here are that AF simply won't work in the circumstances we're discussing: I'm saying that I've got a shed-load of actual personal experience - over a number of years, bodies and TCs - that flies directly counter to the "facts" being stated by these individuals.

Of course there's an element of compromise to this, and of course some combos work better than others; but the fact is that they work, despite these authoritative claims that they simply can't.

The only body I couldn't get to AF at all with a TC and my 100-400mm was the 40D; in fact, I believe I was the first person to break this news, on DP Review.

But others could get AF with that body and a TC using the 400mm f/5.6 prime, so - even there - the blanket "can't work" claim was utterly bogus.

All I'm really saying is this: don't take it as gospel that your camera won't AF at f/8 simply because some "expert" on the internet says it won't. Try it yourself
Before you get too critical of other peoples opinions here on this thread, just take a moment to read what they're saying. It's all identical to your findings, just some are saying the glass is half empty while others are saying the glass is half full. It all amounts to the same thing. AF can and does work with some/many f8 lens/TC combos and f5.6 capable bodies, but it can't be guaranteed to work reliably with every f8 lens/TC combo and every f5.6 body in every typical shooting scenario.

90
EOS Bodies / Re: F8 AUTOFOCUS
« on: August 27, 2014, 07:03:55 AM »

Will a 60D do?

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=113&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=8&API=0&LensComp=0&CameraComp=0&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

If there is sufficient of light then then 60D might do that, just as the 7D or the 70D could do it over there. there is however no guarantee that you can do it from Canon, as it is not build in in the design of the camera. I am not aware which firmware this even might block, but I think Canon could have done this. Did you look at the quality of your link to digital picture? even in the center the sharpness is gone when you compare the 560mm with the 400mm.
This combo is f8 wide open at the long end. Due to the pixel density of the 60D, diffraction starts to limit resolution at f6.9, so smaller apertures don't have much scope to tidy up the already quite bad resolving power of that lens/TC combo in the centre.

There are no rumours of the hardware in any of the existing Canon crop bodies being capable of autofocusing at f8, so as far as I know there is no possibility of a firmware update for a 60D, 70D or 7D to allow for this feature. There's nothing stopping you from manually focusing it, trying out AF through live view, or even taping over the extra pins on the TC to trick the camera into attempting autofocus.

However f8 autofocus on the 7D mk II is a distinct possibility, even if the rumoured pixel density will mean apertures smaller than f6.6 will run into resolution limiting diffraction.

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 47