December 18, 2014, 10:26:08 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
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:

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.

Lenses / Re: EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 USM L IS
« on: August 21, 2011, 05:48:22 AM »
Look back at the original statement in context. Someone said they wanted a constant aperture zoom. Fixed f/5.6 was constant too, as an example, and returning the question if that was also desired. Even if you don't want it yourself, is it not interesting to see what is possible?

And my statement on constant f/5.6 aperture being easier (not any faster constant aperture, that was never mentioned) is based on the specific case you would only need to make a lens slower than needed on the wide end to achieve it. For example, take the existing 100-400L and do nothing other than fix it to f/5.6 max in the entire range. There's your constant aperture, and easy to do too. Now would you prefer that or the existing variable aperture? Of course that is a question to those asking for a constant aperture without specifying what value that would be.

Personally I don't care if a lens is variable aperture or not. I'll use whatever I have. I think the goal of more affordable long focal length zooms is not to provide a big aperture, but to provide a long focal length at a reasonable cost and quality. f/5.6 on the long end is more than acceptable to me there, since you get a long lens if you need a long lens, and long end performance is often defining the reason for it's existence. If the wide end is faster, that's a bonus. There is also a place for more premium models, as we're seeing with the upcoming 200-400 extender, but that's another story...

Canon General / Re: Will the new Sonys force Canon to rethink?
« on: August 20, 2011, 04:55:35 AM »
Based on previous SLT models there might still be significant issues with the high fps rate. Can the EVF keep up with the display? On earlier models you get a lagging slide show so that does need to be fixed unless you only want to shoot stationary subjects.

Fair enough on the video AF, if that's something you need or want. In itself, there's nothing I'm seeing so far that makes me want to jump ship. Side note: I previously jumped ship from Sony to Canon as I got bored waiting for an A700 replacement... :P

And also, don't forget Canon aren't sitting still either. Their next generation bodies I'm sure are being developed and they will have something sooner or later. Body releases have often been a game of leapfrog depending on who releases when. You can't stay at the top forever.

Lenses / Re: EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 USM L IS
« on: August 18, 2011, 07:38:43 AM »
Edwin, you are definitely seeing things I did not write. I think what I wrote on each previous occasion was very clear, particularly taken in context of the talk at the time.

For example, the constant f/5.6 zoom was only mentioned in passing as something that would be dead easy to do, since some people keep asking for constant aperture zooms. f/5.6 is constant too. I'm not suggesting that I'd want such a thing.

Lenses / Re: EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 USM L IS
« on: August 17, 2011, 03:30:44 PM »
Edwin, I think you've got the wrong end of the stick. My comment on a 200-400 range being a short zoom range remains. Yes, the 200-400 extender would mitigate that by the built in extender, so overall we're about a 3x zoom then.

I never said the zoom ratio was a significant indicator for image quality. It may be a compact camera marketing spec dream, but even in DSLR-land it has some use. As a generalisation, for a given general quality level, if you want faster, you get less zoom range. Primes get the biggest apertures but no zoom. f/2.8 zooms have a short range. f/4 zooms get a bit longer. At f/5.6 you can get pretty much as much as you want. That was my point in looking at the zoom ratio. For a f/4, the 200-400 is a relatively short range. Maybe they wanted to make it extra special? Or it was required to make the extender work better.

On the 100-400L vs the 400mm fast primes, that's not exactly comparing like with like is it? Does a zoom really have much of a chance keeping up with something of fixed focal length and big aperture with price tag to match? If you want much better you have to pay for it. The 100-400L is still very competitive for the focal length range and cost.

My interest in these longer lenses is for wildlife. Sure, many times I wish I had something longer than a 400, but the 100-400L does the job well. The two sticking points for me with the more exotic teles is not the price, but a combination of them being prime and the weight. The weight can't be helped, but the prime doesn't sell it for me. I had a 300/2.8 for a while, but didn't find myself using it as it lacked flexibility. Even the short zoom of the 200-400 extender would help a lot there I think, even if it wont help on the weight side, and I'm not looking forward to finding out how much Canon want for it!

On the "dust pump" I've never had a dust problem with the lens or sensor and I do use the 100-400L a lot. Probably over 80% of my lifetime photos are taken with it. You can tell the front isn't sealed, as the pressure when pumping it does change with a filter fitted compared to without. I found that air vent handy actually as it helps dries out the lens elements faster when I get condensation inside. Stick a cap on the back end and pump away!

Hypothetically, if they remade a future 100-400L in the style of the 70-300L I would be disappointed. The 70-300L just isn't as good to zoom with, although it has its charms like not needing me to dry out its insides like I do on the 100-400L...

Lenses / Re: EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 USM L IS
« on: August 17, 2011, 07:51:27 AM »
200-400 isn't a "short zoom," it's a very useful focal range - just as 100-300 is (or 70-300, or 120-300, to name a few other focal length ranges found in real lenses).
A short zoom is a short zoom. 2x is nothing for a zoom and we only really see that sort a range on more exotic lenses like wide angle lenses nowadays. But I didn't say it couldn't be useful. If it couldn't, then prime users would need serious help! Of course, by short I'm not referring to the focal length, but the zoom ratio.

Sigma has a competitive option out for just 2/3 the price, and the only weakness of that lens is the optics.  I don't really understand why the 400mm focal length is getting abandoned like this; the 70-300mm L is admittedly a nice lens but it's no replacement for a 100-400.
For a lens, optical quality is rather important, at least for the price point it sits at. As much as I love my 100-400L, I wouldn't say no if a truly better replacement came along. But it remains a good lens amongst the Nikon/Sony equivalents.

Lenses / Re: EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 USM L IS
« on: August 15, 2011, 07:40:40 PM »
Push-pull is just one of those love-hate things I guess... I'd be sad to see it go. Twist zoom is just so much slower.

Landscape / Re: Old sensor - broken pixels or noise?
« on: August 15, 2011, 04:17:42 PM »
Can't argue with that logic :D

Landscape / Re: Old sensor - broken pixels or noise?
« on: August 15, 2011, 04:02:56 PM »
Even newer cameras will produce those bright spots on a very long exposure. Just learn to process them out :)

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