September 18, 2014, 06:04:05 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 - lol

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 34
16
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 DO
« on: May 24, 2014, 08:10:24 AM »
I'd like to see a new updated 70-300 DO. I used to have the current one. It was a bit poor wide open but decent at f/8, but what really struck me was the size. The 70-300L isn't even close to being as small.

If they were to release a new 70-300 DO, improving on the weaknesses of the old one, at a similar size, I could see myself looking at it once again as a travel lens.

17
Lenses / Re: Traveling to the UK/Ireland
« on: May 23, 2014, 03:07:59 PM »
When I was younger and stupider, I have had stuff stolen from my car, which were left on view. So don't do that!

More recently, at a meeting with a group of friends at a tourist location in central location, they had some bags lifted without anyone noticing, so do be extra careful if you have to put them down anywhere.

18
Lenses / Re: EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM Image Samples
« on: May 16, 2014, 05:24:15 PM »
There are bigger samples if you click the link below the image in its caption - just right from the number of the picture which is in a readable "language". (I just hovered with the mouse over the caption to see if there is something more representative ... and found it.)

They are some 20 MPix large so they might be taken with EOS 6D and EOS 70D ...
Thanks. Picked a few at random, exif says they're taken with the Kiss X7 (100D). Samples lacked a little punch but easily fixed by a tad more sharpening... think I might get one sooner than later at this rate!

19
Lenses / Re: EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM Image Samples
« on: May 16, 2014, 03:37:17 AM »
Am I being silly or are there bigger sample images available yet?


It has been a while since I was in US or JP, but from memory prices in both countries exclude sales tax right? What is the "going rate"? UK £300 ex. VAT would be £250.

As for comparing prices to the US for a JP company, that can work. If you look at currency conversions, it all balances out. If it didn't, people would exploit those differences by changing money between them and make a profit.

I don't know about other countries, but historically in the UK, lenses seem to be released at full RRP for pre-orders and shortly after launch. Depending on availability and market forces, it will tend to quickly drop to a more reasonable street level after some time. The bigger question is how much and when, but you tend to see faster drops early on, before the slower drop or even flat price over the longer term. I don't know if there is much of this effect in other countries also.

Back to the lens itself, I find myself likely to get one. I used to have the old variable aperture Sigma before I was on Canon and never got round to replacing it, making do with a fisheye instead. Not quite the same I'll admit. To me personally, the speed difference is not significant as I'll be using it around f/8 anyway for more depth of field and better sharpness across the frame. It will be used more at the wide end than long end so I wont miss that. Focus speed? Is that really important for a UWA? Give it a little time and it will be half the price of the 10-22, and I don't think you can complain about the value there.

Side note: for the 10-22's money, I'd rather be looking at the Sigma 8-16 anyway...

20
Is it too early to compare the 10-18 to the 10-22?  I think I might like to have that (to complement my 35 2.0 IS).

It is rather early since we know practically nothing other than the claimed leaked image.

Just saw it pointed out elsewhere it has a plastic mount, if that may alter expectations...

21
The 10-18 is interesting to me. It seems an ideal "third zoom" for the budget starter, alongside the 18-55 and 55-250. If the quality and price is in line with those, I'll bite. For my occasional wide angle uses, I don't really want to spend more.

22
PowerShot / Re: Canon EOS Smart 1 Phone
« on: March 31, 2014, 01:38:48 PM »
Putting aside the earlier probable source photos, I was wondering about it from the other side. If those specs were accurate, how big would the optical system have to be?

Firstly "1 inch sensor 12,2×8,8mm" doesn't match with anything I can find here. Let's round it to 4x crop factor for that sensor. 35mm equivalent would therefore be a tad under 9mm focal length. How short can you make a 9mm focal length lens? As that, combined with the sensor thickness, and then the screen thickness assuming they're overlapping as shown, would determine the phone thickness. This is going to be a bit of a brick even if they made it telephoto type, unless it pokes out when in use?

Repeating for the 2nd claimed sensor, 1/1.7" at 4.55 crop factor. 3x zoom lens, from what angle though? Usually 24 or 28mm equivalent, let's say 24mm equiv. in this case to make the tele end easier. We're still looking at 16mm max focal length required here.

As a side note, I have been wondering if I'm the only person that'll rather have a slightly thicker phone if it means I get more battery life out of it? Add an extra mm or two wont make a practical difference to carrying, but if that extra volume was given to putting in more battery, I think we could double life!

23
Lenses / Re: Soon to be MP-E 65 owner has a couple questions
« on: February 24, 2014, 06:40:02 PM »
I did try a filter on mine for a bit because it was so close to the subject, particularly at higher magnifications. But then I realised I'd rather have the few mm working distance back instead since there is so little anyway.

24
Lenses / Re: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art Price leaked
« on: February 06, 2014, 05:07:59 PM »
They apparently are gunning at Otus level: http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2014/01/08/sigma-50mm-f-1.4-art-targets-zeiss-otus-ignores-canon-l-nikon-glass

Sigma themselves also mention their goal of a lot of optical corrections: http://www.sigma-photo.co.jp/english/new/new_topic.php?id=408

Of course, the price and quality are still unknown to us.

25
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon 11-24mm f/4 Lens
« on: January 25, 2014, 09:48:44 AM »
"image height" would give the radius of the image circle. Double that is enough to cover the diagonal of a full frame sensor.

26
Curious, but will it be backwardly compatible with existing versions of jpeg? As in, could older standard jpeg software open these new jpegs? If not, that's a big hurdle there.

Also I can't see it replacing raw directly. If you need/want raw, you still need/want raw even if this exists and was supported.

Where I can see possible benefit here is for viewing. More bit depth at the display could be beneficial, but it'll take some time for the whole computing chain to build up and support that. Think it would be nice to have higher bit depths in the mainstream.

27
Landscape / Re: Deep Sky Astrophotography
« on: January 05, 2014, 05:41:06 AM »
The Andromeda I posted was, as said, one of my older ones. I've since paid more attention to removing the blue hue. That shot was more to show the 135L and red halo around brighter stars which hinders its use if you want to do multiple colour channels at once.

Since I didn't mention it, that was at 1 minute exposures. That does need tracking, and I used the Astrortac at the time. I don't have notes on the ISO used but I normally leave it pretty high, either 1600 or 3200. For sure, once you can get a bit of exposure time thrown at it, it helps a lot with getting the dark stuff out. Then repeat the exposures as much as you can to get the noise down.

I played with DSS early on, but never really got on with it. I've gone to PixInsight but it isn't cheap and has more of a learning curve to it.


Here's a more recent attack on it. 450D with all filters removed. Astronomik CLS-CCD. Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 OS EX at 300mm f/2.8. 2 minute exposures. Note the stars don't suffer the red glow the 1235L does.

Due to the light pollution where I live, I can't do really long exposures even with filters. I can perhaps get 4 minutes usefully with a narrowband filter at f/2.8, after which I'm just picking up the noise floor.

If I stop being lazy, I really want to have a go with the Rosette nebula with the 300/2.8. I've only tried that with the 135L in the past and it is rather small in it.

28
Landscape / Re: Deep Sky Astrophotography
« on: January 04, 2014, 12:58:33 PM »
I had a chat with Astronomik in the past about their narrowband filters and fast lenses. I think the e-mails are on my work account so I can't find it right now. Although their website rates them as usable from f/2.8, they said f/2.0 was ok. Any benefit from going even faster will reduce.

I did a lot of my early attempts with the 135L wide open. Note the lens is rather horrible for wideband imaging as the red focus is some way off that of green/blue. It is fine for narrowband.

If you go for only light pollution filters like the CLS, that should be less affected by extreme speed but I haven't tried it.

And finally, I didn't realised they did full frame clip filters now! Shall have to have a look. Requiring mirror lock up isn't a big deal. People like using USB connection to help with focusing so you see what the sensor sees. My biggest problem now is, do I really want to modify my 5D2?... probaby not, I've not gathered a single night sky photon this winter. Must stop being lazy! Not a great hobby if you don't like the cold.

Edit: here's one of my early attempts at Andromeda galaxy with the 135L at f/2, CLS filter on 600D (unmodified). 100% crop, processed. I have got a bit better since then... :)


29
Lenses / Re: Two New 24-70's Coming in 2014? [CR1]
« on: December 20, 2013, 03:15:02 PM »
If full frame is going to push its way down, then a non-L kit lens makes some sense. Still, if variable aperture, a longer zoom range would also be desirable like a replacement to the 28-135.

I would be in the market for a 24-70 f/2.8L IS, but certainly the likely price (above non-IS) is likely to hinder that.

30
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 135mm f/2 DG OS Art Coming? [CR1]
« on: December 17, 2013, 05:28:10 PM »
Maybe the 200mm f/1.8L was better for the guy disappointed with the 200mm f/2L :) I've certainly heard good things about the 200mm f/2.8 too, although "only" f/2.8 and for the more serious they stop down slightly from there anyway.

Back to the 135L, I guess we have different tolerances to aberrations. As said, I can live with it on the 135L for normal use, although still wish it wasn't there. If the Sigma is better for a similar ball park cost, I'll probably make the switch. If it costs more, it better be a LOT better, but that doesn't sound like the Sigma we know.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 34