16
EOS-M / Re: Subsequrnt m naming...
« on: May 04, 2013, 04:25:48 AM »
M mark II
M 100, M 200, etc.
M 100, M 200, etc.
June 19, 2013, 12:02:18 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.
17
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 35 1.4 compatibility with future canon cameras
« on: May 03, 2013, 12:46:07 PM »
Personally I look at this a little differently. Don't worry too far in the future, look at what's best for the near future. Even if the worst were to happen with a future model, you can continue to use it with existing equipment for its working life. Unless they release a firmware to break it...
18
Lenses / Re: A review of the Samyang Tilt Shift
« on: May 01, 2013, 07:44:45 AM »
I'm more concerned about distortion than outright resolution given the insane amount the 14mm had. Thankfully they report 2.5% barrel which is not great, but not too bad either. The Canon mk2 was under 1% barrel as measured by photozone though.
19
EOS Bodies / Re: The Future of EOS M [CR1]
« on: April 26, 2013, 07:37:42 AM »
I got the feeling the existing M was Canon reacting slowly to mirrorless, and when they eventually decided to join in, they wanted to get a product out faster (but still far later than everyone else), than get it out done well. They certainly have room for performance improvement and need to get competitive at least. To say they will aim for class leading is a bit of a challenge, one I'm not sure they will be able to reach. But for now we have to bare in mind it is a CR1 source saying that, not Canon.
Looking at the others, micro4/3 was slow AF when it first came out and they certainly sped it up. Same with Fuji. Can't remember about NEX, don't think they're that fast but they're not that bad either. And about the only good thing about the Nikon 1 was the AF, so that's more the exception than the rule. You would have thought that with Canon joining so late with the M they could have got it right first time...
Looking at the others, micro4/3 was slow AF when it first came out and they certainly sped it up. Same with Fuji. Can't remember about NEX, don't think they're that fast but they're not that bad either. And about the only good thing about the Nikon 1 was the AF, so that's more the exception than the rule. You would have thought that with Canon joining so late with the M they could have got it right first time...
20
PowerShot / Re: SX50 outperforming 5DIII +100-400mm
« on: April 04, 2013, 07:02:15 PM »
Ooh, this thread timing is great. Only today I was wondering what's around in high(er) quality longer range zooms. I had a work trip overseas next week, and was thinking of playing tourist. Now last time I did carry 7D + 70+300L but the size still was a bit much when trying to travel light. And my compact (Sony HX9V) is ok for a pocket camera, but I wanted both more zoom and quality.
Having looked at those raw samples above, I think I'd be happy with those results and accept that tracking AF might not be like a DSLR.
Having looked at those raw samples above, I think I'd be happy with those results and accept that tracking AF might not be like a DSLR.
21
Landscape / Re: Post Your Comet Pictures
« on: April 04, 2013, 04:34:08 PM »
I didn't want to lose any light since I couldn't use longer exposures on this occasion. I can't remember if the 135/2 did improve much stopped down now... and when you say CA filter, do you mean the optical sort or software sort? Effectively I did my own version of a software approach for this image. I haven't looked at exactly how the optical ones work but presume they filter out certain wavelengths so as to reduce the effect. But I'm not sure they're applicable in this scenario anyway.
22
Landscape / Re: Post Your Comet Pictures
« on: April 04, 2013, 03:56:14 PM »
I did most of the processing in PixInsight. I made flats to correct for the vignetting of the 135/2 wide open and calibrated, aligned and stacked in there. Then some cosmetic fixes in PSE afterwards. The 135/2 isn't great for OSC astro imaging. The red focus is quite a bit off compared to green and blue, so you get nasty red halos around bright stars. I'm wondering if the new Zeiss 135/2 APO would be better, but it isn't at a price that means I will find out any time soon. The Canon 135/2 does ok for narrowband imaging though.
23
Landscape / Re: Post Your Comet Pictures
« on: April 04, 2013, 01:46:15 PM »
Canon 600D unmodified. Astronomik CLS-CCD filter (reduces impact of sodium lighting). Canon 135mm f/2L at f/2. ISO3200. 50 shots stacked of 5s exposure each.
I only took a fixed tripod so had to keep exposures short to reduce the impact of star trailing. The fizzy blob above the comet is Andromeda galaxy. The two should be very close in the sky around now, if I get another clear night I'll give it another go.
I only took a fixed tripod so had to keep exposures short to reduce the impact of star trailing. The fizzy blob above the comet is Andromeda galaxy. The two should be very close in the sky around now, if I get another clear night I'll give it another go.
24
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D L Announced, Shipping in May
« on: April 01, 2013, 09:07:40 AM »
Actually, this could be handy for all... ever wished you could have a camera in each hand at the same time? With that, you could!
25
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D L Announced, Shipping in May
« on: April 01, 2013, 08:46:00 AM »
It would probably sell ok if they actually made this. If that happened, it would be interesting to see sales numbers relative to right handed ones, as it may indicate if photographers fit the ratio of the general population or not. However it could be skewed if there aren't other models available so ending up drawing more than its share.
26
Canon General / Re: Sigma 120-300mm F2.8 DG OS HSM
« on: March 31, 2013, 01:28:46 PM »Sigma 120-300mm F2.8 DG OS HSM
http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/01/sigma-120-300mm-f2-8-dg-os-hsm/
They've had a couple of versions, this is the third one.
Consider the one that's in the shops now. The price has crashed since they announced the new one even though you can't get it yet, and they're the same optical construction anyway. It's good wide open and excellent stopped down. It is rather heavy though, so not something you want to carry around all day unless you need it.
27
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 DG OS HSM Delayed
« on: March 29, 2013, 09:18:44 AM »
What I nickname as "focal length shrinkage" at close focus isn't exactly unknown either. The 70-300L does that quite strongly too.
28
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 DG OS HSM Delayed
« on: March 28, 2013, 04:31:17 PM »what about people reporting that its not really 300mm on the long end so not providing much benefit over the 70-200 from canon anyway?
It is an industry standard practice to round the values. Canon do it too.
In theory, the front aperture should be 300/2.8=107mm in size. I just put a tape measure across the unobstructed front element of mine. It's near enough 100mm diameter. Therefore either the focal length is a bit less, and/or the focal ratio is a bit slower. It could be either 300mm f/3, or 280mm f/2.8, or somewhere in between. Regardless, it's still a truck load more than 200mm f/2.8.
29
EOS Bodies / Re: What is missing from the 7DII specs
« on: March 28, 2013, 03:29:06 PM »
The biggest clincher for me would be more advanced tracking AF, e.g. assisted by RGB metering as found on the 1D X and many Nikon models. f/8 centre AF would be a nice plus too.
I don't care about video unless they offer much less compressed output, then it would start to become interesting. It doesn't have to be raw. If each frame was as good as a high quality jpeg it would suffice. Right now it is far too compressed.
I don't care about video unless they offer much less compressed output, then it would start to become interesting. It doesn't have to be raw. If each frame was as good as a high quality jpeg it would suffice. Right now it is far too compressed.
30
Lenses / Re: New 100-400 to Launch with EOS 7D Mark II [CR2]
« on: March 27, 2013, 09:06:01 AM »
The expensive part of the 200-400 isn't the extender, it is 400mm f/4. You need a lot of glass to make that happen. And if you really do want a 100-400 f/4 of similar quality, that could possibly cost even more to get the longer zoom range corrected. If you genuinely need 400mm f/4, you have to pay for it. This is NOT what the 100-400 zoom is about, which is a greater range alternative to the 70-300 class lenses.