August 30, 2014, 04:29:34 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 - Lee Jay

Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19 ... 57
241
EOS-M / Re: Cheap 400mm advice
« on: July 06, 2014, 02:48:37 PM »
Okay...I'll say it again.  Just because a lens has more aperture doesn't mean it has more resolving power because aberrations do matter.A large but poor device may resolve less than a smaller, better one.  Obviously, if quality is comparable, aperture rules.  That's why I sold my 127mm MCT for a 280mm aplantic SCT.

242
EOS-M / Re: Cheap 400mm advice
« on: July 06, 2014, 01:39:37 PM »
Just because a lens is faster for a given focal length doesn't mean it has more resolving power.  It does mean it has more potential resolving power due to larger aperture but aberrations do matter, and small fast mirror lenses are often much poorer optically than larger slower telescopes.

244
EOS-M / Re: Cheap 400mm advice
« on: July 06, 2014, 11:04:11 AM »
There's nothing wrong with cropping.  This was taken with a 100-400L and 2x TC on a T2i.  Still needed heavy cropping.


245
EOS-M / Re: Cheap 400mm advice
« on: July 06, 2014, 08:26:07 AM »
Filling the frame with the moon takes around 4000mm equivalent in the horizontal direction or about 2600mm in the vertical direction.

246
EOS-M / Re: Cheap 400mm advice
« on: July 06, 2014, 12:49:20 AM »
If all you want is some moon pictures....

http://www.astronominsk.org/Moon/Moon2012_en.htm

247
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV To Feature 4K Video?
« on: July 05, 2014, 03:37:05 PM »
Even 180nm is, what, 8 generations ago?

248
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV To Feature 4K Video?
« on: July 05, 2014, 02:58:46 PM »
Even 180nm is, what, 8 generations ago?

249
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV To Feature 4K Video?
« on: July 03, 2014, 09:46:13 PM »
My primary application for 4k is aggressively stabilized video that can still be downres'd to FHD.  Try shooting video from a waterskiing boat or a full scale helicopter handheld (i.e. without a stabilized gimbal system) and you'll see how that can be useful.

250
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV To Feature 4K Video?
« on: July 03, 2014, 12:40:08 PM »
This might be disappointing news, as Canon might use 4K to differentiate the 7D replacement from the 5D replacement, meaning the 7D replacement wouldn't get 4K.  That would be the disappointing part.

As to whether or not the 7D replacement being disappointing without 4K, that'll depend on its price point. If it is over $2000, then yes. Under $2000, not as much.

With Panasonic offering it in a $900 hyperzoom, and it being offered in under $400 sports cameras, I don't think that's a good excuse.

251
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV To Feature 4K Video?
« on: July 03, 2014, 11:14:11 AM »
This might be disappointing news, as Canon might use 4K to differentiate the 7D replacement from the 5D replacement, meaning the 7D replacement wouldn't get 4K.  That would be the disappointing part.

252
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV To Feature 4K Video?
« on: July 03, 2014, 11:12:49 AM »
I hate the fact I had to spend so much extra for a feature I've used once on my 5D3.

I guarantee you that the extra you are paying is negative.

253
If it's more than 150 on the wide end, then I definitely won't be interested.  If I want a narrow range of focal lengths, I'll get a 400/5.6.  I want a zoom because I need a zoom.

Sony makes a 70-400.

Canon's recent L zooms are cited as having prime like image quality. I could live with a 200-400 like that.

The new 70-200 is like that, it has a bigger than 2x zoom range, and because it's both wider and faster, its harder to build than a zoom ending in 400/5.6 with the same zoom range.

It shouldn't be hard at all for Canon to build a 100-400 replacement with at least the optical quality of the 70-200 ii.

254
A 200-400 5.6 won't cut it.

Want a 200-500 5.6 for some 700mm action with a 1.4 TC that will look better than the Tamron 150-600's 600mm @ the same f/8.

The problem is, a 500/5.6 has an aperture of 89.3mm - much larger than the 71.4mm of the 100-400L.  Canon would charge a lot for that aperture - probably well over $4,000.  Since the 100-400L currently sells for $1,500, a $4,000 lens wouldn't exactly be a replacement.  When the 70-200/2.8L IS I was selling for $1,700, the replacement went for $2,500.  I expect a similar jump in price (~50%), not a much larger ~150%-200% jump.  Therefore, a 200-500/5.6 or thereabouts would not be a replacement for a 100-400L in the lineup, but rather a new option.

255
If it's more than 150 on the wide end, then I definitely won't be interested.  If I want a narrow range of focal lengths, I'll get a 400/5.6.  I want a zoom because I need a zoom.

Sony makes a 70-400.

Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19 ... 57