January 27, 2015, 04:26:12 PM

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 ... 25 26 [27] 28 29 ... 35
Lenses / Re: *UPDATE* Fujinon for Canon? [CR1]
« on: September 23, 2011, 10:08:59 AM »
Just been poking around Fuji's site and they already do a range of PL mount 35mm video lenses: http://www.fujifilmusa.com/products/optical_devices/digital-film-cinema/pl-mount/

Wouldn't be hard to re-mount them like Zeiss already do with theirs. Being optimised for video I wonder how the resolution would hold out for stills. Two of them are T2! That means they must be f/2 or faster...

14.5–45mm / T2.0 or 18-85mm / T2.0. Sounds good as a replacement kit lens maybe? They are 6.5/6.9kg in weight though. And I think it'll fall into "if you have to ask, you can't afford it" territory.

Lenses / Re: Fujinon for Canon? [CR1]
« on: September 23, 2011, 08:54:54 AM »
My history doesn't go back that far, but when was the last time Fuji seriously dabbling with SLR lenses? I recall they did a series of SLR bodies not long ago but they used Nikon mount.

I can't see them becoming yet another mass market 3rd party SLR lens maker like Sigma/Tamron. Have they historically done exotic lenses that might be of more interest? Could they be "video" lenses?

EOS Bodies / Re: More New Full Frame Rumors [CR1]
« on: September 20, 2011, 02:15:42 PM »
I'd like to remind everyone the *rumour* is that the new camera might have "less than expected" MP, not "less than current". The trade-offs are not as simple as some people seem to think, and optimisations for factors other than "image quality" may bias that towards more or less MP.

Also on V8Beast's post below, personally I don't see a significant difference in "big picture" like for like comparisons between crop and FF. Yes, the differences are there at pixel level, but who looks at pixels? The big differentiator to me is the shallower DoF potential of a bigger sensor, which is harder to replicate with smaller sensors unless you use stupidly fast lenses or a bucket load of photoshop.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS Patent Pending
« on: September 20, 2011, 01:39:08 PM »
It doesn't matter if you have the best there is. Someone will still want "better".

Specifically on a hypothetical 100-400L II, I think the most significant changes will be in areas other than the basic optics. The push-pull vs. twist argument will probably go on forever but at the end of the day you get what you're given or look elsewhere. Updated IS would be a given, and I'd expect a weather sealing upgrade too. If the optics are improved on top of that, I don't think there's much to complain about other than the price tag.

EOS Bodies / Re: More New Full Frame Rumors [CR1]
« on: September 20, 2011, 12:14:34 PM »
To me the angle finder is no substitute to a tilty screen. I got the official Canon one to use for macro, and ended up not really using it as it just wasn't nice to use. The biggest problem being you need to get your eye near it, and it is similarly limiting to the normal viewfinder. A tilty screen gives you so much more freedom of movement.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS Patent Pending
« on: September 20, 2011, 12:09:59 PM »
Can we please just get a 200-400 f/4 zoom? Please?
They announced it a while ago... only a matter of time before it's in production. Someone more geeky than me might be able to say how long a typical delay is between announcement and production release.

I have no idea how to read patents so ... can anyone tell if this would still be a push-pull design?
I think this is only for the optical formula, and nothing to do with the build.

EOS Bodies / Re: More New Full Frame Rumors [CR1]
« on: September 19, 2011, 12:21:23 PM »
Interesting... "lower megapixels than might be expected" doesn't necessarily mean lower than what we have now, just not as much an increase as some might have expected. It could still be anything above what we already have...

Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF135mm f/2L USM
« on: September 10, 2011, 06:27:17 PM »

Click for full size download.

(bought this for astrophotography, but I had to test it on something before then...)

Canon General / Re: Spots (dead pixels or something else?!)
« on: September 10, 2011, 06:23:10 PM »
Exif says that was f/16. My guess is dust. Try a blower on the sensor.

EOS Bodies / Re: article claims Sony mirror-less system eating Canon's lunch
« on: September 08, 2011, 03:18:42 AM »
It would have been useful if they could show how DSLR unit and revenue sales have progressed since the introduction of mirrorless. They're using the "interchangeable lens" shares for headlines and it is inevitable they will eat into the existing share if they define it that way. Moving from counting from DSLRs only, to DSLRs + something else, the DSLR share can only go down by that calculation. The question is are they being bought instead of DSLRs, in addition to DSLRs, or instead of something else?

And are they really comparing the Pentax Q to a SLR?...

Lenses / Re: Filter for direct sun photography
« on: September 04, 2011, 08:50:41 AM »
The film has instructions on mounting it to a cardboard sandwich. I then fixed that cardboard holder onto a spare filter so I can add/remove it from the lens easily.

Lenses / Re: Filter for direct sun photography
« on: September 04, 2011, 05:46:44 AM »
If you want to photograph the sun directly, try this stuff: http://www.baader-planetarium.com/sofifolie/sofi_start_e.htm

Example output with that filter:

100-400L x2 for 800mm. f/11 1/1000s ISO800 cropped and resized.

Lenses / Re: New Article: Adapting your FD or FL lenses to EF/EOS
« on: August 31, 2011, 03:31:19 PM »
Wish there was one for the 50mm f/1.2 non-L too. A mount conversion for that has been an unfinished project of mine for far too long...

There's a more easy way to tell the 5D3 release date. If I buy a 5D2 now, the 5D3 will be out by Christmas. So do I get a 5D2 now... (I don't need one, but it would make many of my lenses more interesting...)

On the possibly crippled AF, I think we can take some note on the 7D which is the best APS-C AF to date. I don't think its as good as people make it out to be, but it is still an improvement over say the 50D. So I do think Canon will upgrade the 5D3 AF almost certainly, but I wouldn't want to guess how far. I'd be satisfied if it was comparable to the 7D's. Compared against Nikon the 5D2 AF does seem very lagging.

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III & The Rest [CR2]
« on: August 24, 2011, 01:52:00 PM »
On pricing, what was the 5D2 at launch? Start guessing from there. It will be more than £2k, and it might be even worse this time around due to currency effects.

Pages: 1 ... 25 26 [27] 28 29 ... 35