March 01, 2015, 06:17:19 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 ... 25 26 [27] 28 29 ... 36
391
Canon General / Re: New 65 f/2.8 & 180 f/3.5 Macro Patents
« on: October 11, 2011, 01:04:59 PM »
What are the SP & IP markers denoting?
SP = physical aperture
IP = I think is Image Plane, or where the sensor would be.

I'd really love a shorter focal length macro with IS. And longer too. Actually, just IS everything! At least all the patents seem to be full frame lenses. I did wonder at first if the 65mm might replace the EF-S 60mm, but I guess not.

392
Canon General / Re: Photography - Equipment or Skill ?
« on: October 02, 2011, 10:15:41 AM »
You can't get a photo without both the camera and someone (or something) to push the button. One or the other isn't going to get anywhere. Both are important. Sometimes the kit is the limiting factor. Sometimes the photographer is. Maybe more often the photographer than the kit, particularly for less demanding tasks, but not always.

There's two phrases that spring to mind:
1: "a bad workman blames his tools"
2: "use the right tool for the job".

I'm very much in the 2nd camp. If the kit is adequate for the job, any failings are then the photographers. But you need to have a good enough tool in the first place. Further note: "good enough" doesn't mean best. Too often people ask for the best, when they really only want "good enough".

393
Lenses / Re: 300mm f2.8 II vs 200-400mm f4.0 TC1.4 your opinion
« on: September 30, 2011, 06:03:02 PM »
I think the Sigma 200-500/2.8 is a bit much to hand hold for most normal humans...

394
Lenses / Re: 300mm f2.8 II vs 200-400mm f4.0 TC1.4 your opinion
« on: September 30, 2011, 04:47:40 PM »
As others have said it really depends on the usage, and also what the final specs of the 200-400 are when it's ready. Personally, having owned the oldest version of the 300/2.8, I'd have no hesitation in going for the 200-400 for my personal uses (primarily wildlife). A prime to too inflexible unless you have a very specific target. Fitting extenders in the field is not fun and a good time waster. The 200-400 is a dream lens in that respect, and assuming Canon don't totally balls that up (unlikely) then I'm sure it'll be a huge seller, and that's with realistic assumptions on price and weight. I'd even prefer the Sigma 120-300/2.8 over a 300/2.8 prime.

395
Canon General / Re: Canon \
« on: September 23, 2011, 05:23:46 PM »
DigitalRev recently uploaded a video on the Canon event on their youtube channel... it was the regional presentation on a pair of powershots. Funny video as always... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SQ-sIYq68w

396
Lenses / Re: *UPDATE* Fujinon for Canon? [CR1]
« on: September 23, 2011, 12:34:29 PM »
IIRC don't the video and consumer crowd always get cranky when there's no continual-af for video?
If it's a PL re-mount job, those lenses are well into big budget cinematography. They don't care for AF. This wouldn't be a consumer level product.

Thanks to others for filling me in on Fuji's history. If it turns out to be photographic lenses, it will be interesting to see if they're moving into the premium niche market like Zeiss, or more mass market like Sigma. I just can't see anyone else trying to go into the mass market though.

Did Fuji have a particular niche though? For example, Zeiss aren't know for longer telephotos for example. Mostly wide to short tele primes.

397
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.

398
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?

399
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.

400
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.

401
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.

402
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.

403
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...

404
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...)

405
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.

Pages: 1 ... 25 26 [27] 28 29 ... 36