July 30, 2014, 03:54:29 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 ... 39
Considering the left lens' bulbous element and small hood, I'd guess it's wider than 10mm.

Edit: then again, it looks like knobs on the barrel - maybe a tilt-shift lens?
I think you're right about the knobs, but I don't see the front elements at all, just the hoods.
To me, it looks like an ultrawide (possibly fisheye) cine lens - the very shallow lens hood and gearing give it away.

Lenses / Re: Thinking about this but wanting your thoughts....
« on: March 17, 2014, 06:49:36 PM »
Any lens which is compatible with extenders will physically work with any EF or EF-S mount body. However, if the resulting combo has an f8 max aperture (such as a 70-200/4 and 2x TC), it won't AF with most bodies.

The 70-200 II with a 1.4x TC gives you a 98-280/4 lens, which is equivalent to a 157-448/6.4 lens once the 1.6x crop is taken into account.

Likewise, with a 2x TC it's a 140-400/5.6, which is equivalent to a 224-640/9 lens when mounted on the 70D.

As for the quality, take a look at this for the quality on a 60D compared to your old 550D and 55-250 (actually a 50D):


That's with the 1.4x TC wide open (one stop faster than the 55-250), and the 70D should yield better results than the 60D.

Here's with the 2x TC compared to the native lens, again on the 60D:


As for the 100-400 II, some people have been waiting years for that. It might be the very next lens to be announced, but equally you could end up waiting another 5 years and see nothing...

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.

Yes, I do know the 1.4X converter delivers better results.
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.

Other than an indicator of the quality of the lens, I can't see much call for using an f5.6 lens with a 2x TC myself. The resulting f11 lens wouldn't AF on any body (excluding DPAF), and it doesn't leave you many options in terms of apertures for maximum detail due to diffraction.

Lenses / Re: Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS III
« on: March 16, 2014, 02:23:21 AM »
It's pretty much guaranteed to not be updated within the next year. A lens as significant as that isn't likely to sidestep the rumour mill such as a new 18-55 can, and from rumours to physical product on the shelves can take quite a few years - just look at the 100-400 mk II situation.

It was only released in 2010, and before the advent of the Canon 200-400 it was described as the best zoom lens in the world. No third party or rival OEM manufacturer has a genuine answer to this lens. There's clearly not too much to improve.

Go for it. It's a simply great addition to your 24-70 mk II

The 300-600 MkII supertele lenses were something like 18 months from development announcement to launch.  Hopefully Canon can do better...
Lets hope that was in part due to getting new materials into a production ready state - which has already been done, so let's hope this one is faster. 

From a spec point of view, an optical refresh so it outperforms the 600/4 with the 1.4x TC wouldn't go amiss, together with less weight than it's predecessor. And what about an integrated 1.4x TC like the 200-400 has? An 800/5.6 switchable to a 1120/8 at the flick of a switch?

EOS Bodies / Re: Calumet Photo Files Chapter 7 Bankruptcy
« on: March 14, 2014, 06:17:21 PM »
Whoa! I should have looked at the court filing first. They are listing less than $50,000 in assets. I'm guessing there are individuals on this forum (not me) that have more than that in Canon equipment.

I don't know how this works in the camera retail business. Is it customary for a supplier to retain ownership of the stock until it is sold?

Maybe it will be the Canon refurbished store that gets all this stock back?
When Jessops went under in the UK, almost all of their stock was owned by the distributors/manufacturers, and was reclaimed. As far as I know, only items such as Jessops branded filters and bags were left.

EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: EF 16-35 f/4L, 17-40 f/4L and Others
« on: March 10, 2014, 01:08:57 PM »
But I don't understand why people need a wide angle with F2.8. You don't do portrait with a wide-angle that had "by nature" some distortion.

You use the wide angle at F8, 10 and more..  so why bother and pay for a "new" f2.8 that would be heavier and much costly...  New versions cost always a lot more with canon.
Events (plus of course other examples like astrophotography mentioned above). Sometimes you need a wider angle of view than 24mm, and sometimes light levels are too for the subject movement, and flashes aren't always appropriate. While bodies are getting better and better at high ISO's, adding a whole stop of light gathering with the lens is quite attractive.

Yes, landscape, architecture and many other uses for an ultrawide rectilinear lens don't go hand in hand with a fast aperture, but just because it isn't for you doesn't mean not for anyone.

Canon General / Re: In need of a "walk around" camera
« on: March 06, 2014, 04:59:13 PM »
6D and 40/2.8

I find when event shooting I tire out trying to continually see if the focus is locked on where I need it to be so I shoot one shot most of the time for focus confirmation. When people are moving towards or away I switch to AI Servo. I agree that AI Servo works well for static objects and many people leave it on.

I still to this day wonder with the technology out there why Canon could not provide a dedicated button or an assignable one that when you press and release switches to the other shooting mode. Maybe an indicator in the viewfinder. Even if you can assign another button yo have to hold it which I find uncomfortable. I just usually use the Q screen. It is typically on the FEC setting as I'm always tuning the flash so it takes a few extra seconds and is still a bit of a pain.         
Custom modes. You can have a whole raft of settings saved, available to you in an instant. Personally I use C1 for portraits/landscape etc - one shot AF, central AF point, AV mode (defaulted to wide open) etc. C2 is for action - AI servo, all AF points, Tv 1/500th etc. C3 is for flash - M etc.

No word on apertures or bodies used for the test, but judging by the different magnification, the Nikon and Zeiss were probably tested on a higher MP body than the Sony and the Sigma. Although having said that, both the Nikon and Zeiss are longer than 50mm.

I'm guessing the Nikon and Zeiss were on a D800, and the Sony was on a 24mp FF body. The Sigma looks to be tested on the same resolution too, but I'd have thought Sigma would make a Sony mount last, so possibly Canon mount on an A7?

Anyway, to me the Sigma appears slightly better than the Zeiss - but this doesn't reveal much - clearly different post processing, lower MP to hide problems, and no word on what aperture setting was used.

Lenses / Re: General purpose zoom for honeymoon
« on: February 26, 2014, 05:18:06 AM »
Thanks for all the comments. Some really great advice here.

I think I'll go with just maybe 2 primes. Think it might end up being 24mm and 100l (because I love macro).

And pack my compact for days when life is more important than ultimate iq

If you were considering taking a zoom plus one other lens as some have recommended, why not just take two primes? It's what you're used to, doesn't require any additional expenditure, and you already have a great idea how to use them and what results you'd be able to get with them. Plus two primes are typically lighter than a zoom and a prime.

This looks like the higher ISO's are mostly down to a jpeg processing change, in other words stronger noise reduction. The 'new' 16.2 MP sensor is probably the mild refresh it received when it was dropped in the Df.

The frame rate merely halves the gap between the D4 and the 1D X - nothing to make Canon sweat. And the other changes seem fairly minor for an all new higher priced replacement. Auto ISO in manual? A free of charge firmware update did that on that Canon side.

Canon's flagship model announced way back in 2011 is looking pretty good right now with its higher MP, frame rate and more AF points. The D5 might eventually trump it, but Canon will no doubt have a new model out around then. Or will the D5 just bridge the gap to the 1D X a little more?

FF cameras such as the 6D give better a better S/N ratio than crop cameras not because of the tech used in the sensors, but because of the size of their sensors.

If you compare a full image from a 6D taken with a 135mm lens at a fixed aperture and ISO, and then compare it to a crop image from a 6D (39%, as APS-C sees) at 85mm with the same aperture and ISO, it won't retain the same S/N ratio. The simple act of enlarging the output more from the crop to get the same final output means not only is the (61% weaker) signal magnified/enlarged, but the noise is magnified/enlarged too.

As long as the microlenses are gapless, and assuming the extra circuitry on the sensor introduces no more noise, more MP shouldn't lower the S/N ratio when looking at the image as a whole.

Lenses / Re: Lenses sharper on FF
« on: February 22, 2014, 04:44:40 PM »
The enlargement still applies when viewing at 100%.

J.R. - Viewing at 100% simply means a 1:1 mapping of pixels from the sensor to pixels on your monitor. It's a useful tool to see how detailed your image is by making sure none of the pixels are merged together when outputted to screen, but that's about it.

If the number of megapixels or the dpi of the monitor were to change, the size of the details at 1:1 or 100% would vary. Therefore stating it's at 100% is no way to quantify enlargement.

Enlargement is merely the ratio between the size of the image projected by the back of the lens (onto a sensor or film), compared to the output size (monitor, print etc). If you view a low quality picture on a 4" phone display it might appear fine. Enlarge it more to fill a 30" monitor, and any flaws within that image are more visible, or enlarged.

Polaroids are a good example of an output with no enlargement, whereas a smartphone photo printed as a large poster is the complete opposite. More MP don't mean less enlargement is needed for a particular output size. It's just the same as scanning a smaller section of film at higher res. If the detail isn't there in the first place (due to the lens, AF or whatever), more data in more pixels don't help.

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 39