August 27, 2014, 07:16:05 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 - rs

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 41
EOS Bodies / Re: More EOS 7D Replacement Buzz Going Around [CR2]
« on: June 09, 2014, 02:36:36 PM »
Just to throw this out there... If Dual pixel tech is ever going to hit full frame cameras like the 5d4 or 6d2 or 4d then FF will need a compatable STM lens too.

Good point. We already have the 40, but a slow zoom is the typical deployment of such technology. These EF-S zooms so far been optically very good, and very cheap. Does anyone see an EF 28-135/3.5-5.6 IS STM on the horizon? Nikon recently refreshed their budget full frame variable aperture zoom.

Lenses / Re: What was your first L lens?
« on: June 05, 2014, 04:29:48 PM »
70-200 f2.8 IS mrk I - bought it used, got hooked from there. To me, this is still excellent lens on the market for those on tighter budget.

Same here.

Sublime build quality, AF speed and handling, and while the colours and rendering were superior to my 10-22 and 17-55, it never delivered the detail or contrast I expected wide open.

Next up, the 100L, and I got a taste for what's possible. After much research I bit the bullet, sold up the 70-200 mk I to fund the mk II, and eventually followed up with a third stunning L - the 24-70 mk II.

I feel kind of spoiled now, and don't want to buy another lens that falls short of the standard set by those three.

Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM
« on: June 02, 2014, 10:28:37 AM »
Depending on what you do, not everyone considers USM a plus over STM. And are you sure the actual mount of the 10-22 is metal, or is it just the end piece visible?

Without having disassembled mine, I'd hazard a guess at it being not much more then the visible part of the mount which is metal. Which is exactly the way it should be. Engineered in failure point which isn't the mount in the body, and metal where the main contact/wear point is.
Have you ever seen a plastic mount lens which has been on/off the body as often as a typical pro use lens has been? I'd hate to think where all that worn out plastic has worked its way into.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 6D or 5DM3 need your help guys
« on: June 02, 2014, 08:59:49 AM »
also waiting for tripod info :p

Price, stability and portability are three factors which need balancing here. You can't have all three unfortunately.

For stills, a good ball head with an arca swiss type quick release is probably the most sensible way to go. And for stability, try to get a tripod which extends to the height you'll typically use it at without requiring the centre column to be extended.

Beyond that, I'm guessing for travel you want something that's both light and compact. If you want something light and compact which is also stable with a good head, it's serious money.

On the other hand, you could compromise and just go for a top end gorillapod, and keep an eye out for rocks, benches, railings or branches to get the camera into the sort of position you require.

Whichever way you go, make sure the tripod is rated to hold a lot more than the weight of your heaviest lens/body combined. If you buy the right tripod now, it could do you for countless years - long after the body and even lenses you're planning on buying now are retired.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS M Vanishes from Canon USA Web Site
« on: June 02, 2014, 01:15:04 AM »
There's over 2 stops advantage from FF vs crop for pics.

Once you're at high ISO. There's not 2 stops at 100, or 400, or even 800. And for most uses (subject matter + viewing size) crop is perfectly fine to 3200 even if FF is starting to show it's advantage there.


No, it's human nature for people to have strong beliefs about A vs. B even though they can't pick A from B in a double blind study. I've actually put unlabeled 20" prints in front of people only to watch them stumble in trying to guess sensor format. Have you?

That's the whole point of equivalence. You can take equivalent photos with either system. It's just the finer details of focal length, ISO and aperture which have to be tweaked to create the equivalent image. If you were to provide that metadata with the print, a highly trained eye could well work out what sensor size was used.

Page 128 of the manual should make things clear:

Quote from: Canon
You can set the manually-settable ISO speed range (minimum and maximum limits). You can set the minimum limit within L (ISO 50) to H1 (ISO 51200), and the maximum limit within ISO 100 to H2 (ISO 102400).

EOS Bodies / Re: Do what?
« on: May 28, 2014, 08:50:53 AM »
3.) This resolution differential can clearly be seen in downsized images (as small 1800x1200 px for instance).

How wrong my assumptions are. I was under the impression that if you have two images, both taken with lenses and sensors capable of exceeding 2.1 MP by a big margin, and then output them at a resolution of just 2.1 MP, the resolution would be the same.

Still, what does logic mean when you can throw in a good dose of moiré which can create false information, corrupting the image at any size?

EOS Bodies / Re: Debating on selling my 5D II and 35L/135L for a...
« on: May 26, 2014, 12:24:03 PM »
Sony RX10.
24-200mm 2.8 equivalent, 1in sensor, good size and grip.

It has an 8.8-73.3/2.8 lens. Which, in 35mm equivalent terms is a 24-200/7.6

My guess is that Canon will retain the 82mm filter size, and upgrade the next 70-200/2.8L to 82mm as well.
In this way, the f72.8L "holy trinity" series (16-35, 24-70, 70-200) all use 82mm filters, whereas the f/4L mid-range series uses 77mm filters.
Both the 70-200/4 lenses have 67mm filter threads

Technical Support / Re: canon 70-200 f2.8 II problem
« on: May 21, 2014, 11:11:28 AM »
but shouldn't it stop when he swithed the stabilizer off???
It could be something as innocent as a faulty IS switch - so no matter what physical position the switch is in, it intermittently shorts, turning the IS on/off regularly?

Typically turning the IS on/off yourself regularly will cause those exact same symptoms - the viewfinder jumping and motor noise.

Technical Support / Re: canon 70-200 f2.8 II problem
« on: May 21, 2014, 07:22:31 AM »
Both the jumping viewfinder and the noise point at an image stabiliser fault.

Send it in for repair. Is it still under warranty?

Lenses / Re: The Next \
« on: May 20, 2014, 01:21:36 AM » 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   8)
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).

A 400/4 lens requires an entrance pupil that's exactly 100mm in diameter. That means the front element cannot be any smaller than 100mm, regardless of the imaging circle size. Add in the complexities of a zoom and IS, and you've got a full size 200-400.

Lol....UK pricing for the 16-35 f4 LIS seems to be nearly as expensive as the f2.8 version!
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.
It's a tax for the impatient.

89 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
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.

Lenses / Re: EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM Image Samples
« on: May 17, 2014, 04:19:18 AM »
"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.
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.

And secondly, the MTF charts look pretty damn similar at f8. Comparing the performance at any other aperture is impossible with the data so far - one MTF shows 10mm f3.5 performance and the other 10/4.5. Who's to say what's Canon's simulated MTF of the 10-22 looks like at 10mm when stopped down to 4.5? And at the long end it's even harder to compare due to different aperture and focal length.

This lens is a great addition to the lineup. But it is clearly part of the plastic mount, STM, budget lineup. Not the premium EF-S lens range. The budget range is now looking pretty spectacular, and the premium range is getting a little bit old, but you don't hear of many people preferring the really sharp 18-55 STM over the 17-55. They're just not in the same ball park.

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 41