August 20, 2014, 10:56:16 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 - bseitz234

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 18
61
EOS Bodies / Re: From NL: Big Product launch invitations
« on: June 26, 2013, 08:00:30 PM »
Either there's a lot of sarcasm going over my head, or no one realized NL is Northlight...

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/Canon_rumours.html

See "Latest Information"

63

Um? The AF system gets its light through the lens just like anything else... and the camera AFs with the lens wide open. The reason the AF system is dealing with so much less light is that it only gets the fraction of the light that comes through the mirror; anything reflected to the viewfinder can't be used for AF. So, a wider max aperture does provide more light- both to the viewfinder and the AF system...

bseitz234, that doesn't sound like the system used on current Canon DSLRs as I understand it.  To clarify, I'm talking about the phase detection system that uses an array of sensors in the viewfinder area.  This system only does its job when the mirror is down and all the light coming through the lens is reflected up into the viewfinder.  You may be thinking of cameras that use a partially silvered mirror which splits the light between the viewfinder and the image sensor?

Or perhaps you are thinking about the contrast detection system that operates in live view mode?  Let's save that for another discussion. :)

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autofocus#Phase_detection:
"The system uses a beam splitter (implemented as a small semi-transparent area of the main reflex mirror, coupled with a small secondary mirror) to direct light to an AF sensor at the bottom of the camera."

try this: unmount your lens, and look into the camera. start LV, to flip the mirror up. Look down. See those funny looking slots? That's where the AF system is. Those slots allow the light in, so if that light isn't coming through the lens, and through the mirror when it's down, where is it coming from? You can actually see the semi-transparent area of the mirror, too, if you get the angle right...

64
I've seen some discussion of the 6D being able to focus down to EV-1, or something like that, but nobody ever says if that varies with the lens that is attached to the camera.  It seems to me like it should.  Hopefully one of our resident experts can bring this issue into sharp focus!  LOL

The important part about the aperture: the AF-system has its own, and that is always stopped down quite a bit, so anything wider them f/16 or so has no effect on the amount of light the AF gets.

Um? The AF system gets its light through the lens just like anything else... and the camera AFs with the lens wide open. The reason the AF system is dealing with so much less light is that it only gets the fraction of the light that comes through the mirror; anything reflected to the viewfinder can't be used for AF. So, a wider max aperture does provide more light- both to the viewfinder and the AF system...

65
Lenses / Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« on: June 24, 2013, 08:30:05 AM »
About 18 months ago, when I really started investing time reading lens reviews, it was pretty much unanimously stated the the 70-200 f/2.8 II was the world's sharpest zoom lens.

6 months or so ago, the 24-70 II f/2.8 was considered a contender to that crown with some reviewers stating it IS the world's sharpest zoom.

Last month, the 200-400 f/4.0 became the latest to be spoken of in such terms.

Imagine the new 14-24 f/2.8 rouses similar reviews.

So with 4 lenses, you could realistically cover the 14-560 range with potentially the 4 best zoom lenses in the world.

The whole set would probably cost ~$20,000 - can the average participant on this forum fork that much cash for lenses?

I'm sure there are a few photographers on this forum can spend that much cash on lenses, and justify it as well, personally I'll be very happy to be able to add the 24-70mm f/2.8 II & 14-24mm f/2.8 to my collection.

Drop the 200-400 out of that, and you've still got 14-200 covered, which is probably all the average participant on this forum really needs... are there people who need more than 200? Absolutely. But if we're talking averages... Not to mention I don't think there are enough 200-400s in existence to give one to everyone on this forum...  ::)

66
Lenses / Re: Lens Help..EF 28mm f1.8 any good?
« on: June 22, 2013, 05:14:13 PM »
I have been considering this lens as a normal lens for my 7d: love hearing all these good reviews! Thanks all for sharing your real-world experiences, they're very helpful and I'll probably pick one up tonight!

67
Lenses / Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« on: June 20, 2013, 07:26:09 AM »
I guess I'm the odd guy out here, because I don't get the interest in 16-50 at f/4 over 16-35 f/2.8 even with the IS.

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE image stabilization, and I like it on the new 28 2.8 IS. But f/4 does nothing for me, especially in the longer focal length; f/2.8 give me a lot of extra light when I need it.

The 14-24 could be interesting if it doesn't flare like the 4th of July as it does in Nikon-land. Otherwise I am only interested in replacing my 16-35 2.8 II ...  IF version III is significantly better, and the upgrade doesn't kill my bank account.

I'm with you there! The problem with the Nikkor 14-24mm lens is that there is a very vocal group who keep telling every one that it's the best wide lens ever....and yet filters are a pain. The curved front element is very prone to damage and even water drops seem to get magnified on it. Sure it's image corners are sharp wide open, but it's not a lot greater than mose wides when stopped down (ie landscapes). It flares badly due to the bulbous front element and the angular distortion is quite high at 14mm. I don't really see much photographic value of those extra 2mm over the far more versatile 16-35IIL.


I have to agree with this... I never really looked into it much, but after this rumor I was more curious about the 14-24. Sample pictures look... well, not bad, and sharp in the corners, but also almost comically distorted, which actually really bugged me. Given a choice, I'd take the 16-35's soft corners any day.

68
Wait for the refurb store to have a 20% off sale. This last round excluded the 5d3, but they sometimes include it. Then the body is only 2200something...

 they do charge tax...  so that could be a deal breaker.   but the condition is usually like new and very few people complain about the condition.

I love living in NH... no sales tax. ;D

69
I keep all my gear in two HPRC cases. Go Pelican or HPRC brand. Both water tight and can take SERIOUS KNOCK AROUNDS!!!

This is great advice- I've taken my gear off of 20+ foot waterfalls in kayak, inside a pelican case. If it can survive that, I'm sure it can survive a basement. ;-)

70
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1D X Product Advisory
« on: June 18, 2013, 09:23:42 AM »
Potentially Affected Products
    1. EOS-1D X: If the sixth digit of the serial number is “1” ... the phenomena described above may occur.

My serial number is:
(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)1(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)


Gee, I dunno... let's count to six, shall we?

71
EOS Bodies / Re: Is This the EOS 3D?
« on: June 17, 2013, 08:19:07 PM »
Note to self: Get some Canon replica camera straps made asap with 7D Mark II, 2D, 1D Xii, 1D S, 3D and 4D, try to hide them a little then walk taking pictures of myself. Maybe get Nikon to sponsor the shirt, and Sony the second camera ;D 8) . This could be fun.

That would be awesome. I'll rent a supertele and take pictures of you from far away so they have that "long distance spy shot" compression.

72
Wait for the refurb store to have a 20% off sale. This last round excluded the 5d3, but they sometimes include it. Then the body is only 2200something...

73
maybe we (Canon/Nikon users) think it is cheap because we are brainwashed by Canon & Nikon to pay far more than their fair price? :-\

I vote this... sadly.

74
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L Non-IS Discontinued?
« on: June 13, 2013, 04:08:35 PM »
A lot about this sounds odd. Why would they not repair a lens that they're still selling from canon direct? I understand retailer stock could last longer than their own, but still... I have a 70-200 with a UA date code that I damn well expect they'll at least be able to repair until the end of its warantee period (another 4 months). Also,  I can see why they'd discontinue one of their 70-200s, given that there are 5 of them, but why they'd pick the non-is over the IS mkI is beyond me... bigger differentiation between it and the mk II, plus this one is sharper than the mk I...

75
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: cheap lowlight 30-35mm for APS-C
« on: June 12, 2013, 12:49:57 PM »
I can't shed any light on your situation, but I can add more confusion, because I'm in a similar boat (looking for a fast, normal prime for APS-C). Canon's EF 28 f/1.8 is 2/3 of a stop slower, but a bit wider, and still faster than f/2, which I consider to be fast enough. Some people love it, some people hate it. You can get it used for around 300-350, there are a few available on POTN right now I believe.

Will definitely be following this thread to see what people recommend this time...

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 18