July 23, 2014, 04:19:23 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 ... 44
241
If I understand it correctly, it's your typical Imatest result like on Photozone. The ordinate is LW/PH.

I can't tell if it's center and edges, or center and corners, or center and average. But they go on pretty close, so it doesn't really matter. It's just good :)

I think they used a 5D MK III. As an approximation based on other available imatest data, 600mm f/8 is very, very close to the 100-400 L at 400mm f/5.6. Only very slightly worse, if you consider the error margin.

Here's my problem with that chart.  Unless I'm doing the math wrong or not understanding what this chart means (certainly possible since it's in Chinese), the f/32 numbers are beating the diffraction limit, calling the entire thing into question.

From what I've seen of visual tests, it loses more contrast than detail at 600mm and f/6.3, and gains it back in huge steps from f/7.1 to f/8.  That's probably okay for me as I would use this as a daylight airshow lens, and switch to my 70-200/2.8L IS II (with and without TCs) if the light got lower.


242
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: EF-M 18-40 Pancake
« on: January 19, 2014, 08:01:05 PM »
Another stupid lens that starts at 28mm instead of 24mm (equivalent).

How many kit lens (FF, APS-C or m43) starts at 24 mm? Maybe you can design and fabricate one to show the world how it's done?

24-105.  Many modern compacts including the little Elph 500HS in my pocket.  My EFs 15-85 IS.

243
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: EF-M 18-40 Pancake
« on: January 19, 2014, 06:54:33 PM »
Another stupid lens that starts at 28mm instead of 24mm (equivalent).

244
Helpful, but the two things I really wanted to know weren't answered:  How effective the VC is while panning, and how much it improves at 600mm when you stop down to f/7.1 and f/8.


http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fqicai.fengniao.com%2F425%2F4259287_all.html


Whatever that is, it triggered AVG for a web-based exploit.

245
Helpful, but the two things I really wanted to know weren't answered:  How effective the VC is while panning, and how much it improves at 600mm when you stop down to f/7.1 and f/8.

246
Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Lightroom for iPad Coming Soon
« on: January 18, 2014, 11:20:32 PM »
So apparently you didnt even read the original CR post...and i quote

"It appears Adobe accidentally leaked Lightroom for iPad before the official announcement. It looks like the app will be a cloud subscription of $99 on an annual basis."

Nuff said.

That isn't about the existing LR application.  Maybe you should reread your quote.

247
Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Lightroom for iPad Coming Soon
« on: January 18, 2014, 10:45:32 AM »
Sorry to see LR take a cloud model.

Where does it say that???

99 is just the beginning.  Wait until you need that sharpening module only offered as an in-app add-on.

Oh, I get it now.  You're just making stuff up.

Do you pay much attention to the modern world of apps? In-app microtransactions for addons of one kind or another are all the rage. Zynga, for example, is famous for employing microtransactions in their games, to the great financial detriment of the players who become addicted to them. It's how some app developers have raked in hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars for apps that cost a mere few bucks or are even free...and it is certainly no longer limited to just games.

I wouldn't say he is just making stuff up. It's a real-world thing that is becoming far more common, and with Adobe's apparent unquenchable greed as of late, it isn't surprising to hear this brought up as a potential concern. At some point, I fully expect Adobe to figure out that they could make even more money off their already tapped customers by employing microtransactions...and they will probably find an effective way of restructuring their products to take full advantage of the concept. Whether that happens now, with Lightroom for iPad, or at some later date, is yet to be seen...I suspect a later date, but I do expect Adobe to jump on the bandwagon at some point.

Like I said,  he made it all up.  Even if this leak is real it says nothing about in app purchases or about LR adopting a cloud model.

248
Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Lightroom for iPad Coming Soon
« on: January 17, 2014, 11:47:51 PM »
Sorry to see LR take a cloud model.

Where does it say that???

99 is just the beginning.  Wait until you need that sharpening module only offered as an in-app add-on.

Oh, I get it now.  You're just making stuff up.

249
Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Lightroom for iPad Coming Soon
« on: January 17, 2014, 08:57:05 PM »
Sorry to see LR take a cloud model.

Where does it say that???

250
PowerShot / Re: PowerShot G1 X Mark II Specs Emerge? [CR1]
« on: January 17, 2014, 12:07:07 PM »
Having re-read the post, I see that it is NOT an electronic VF ... the post says "New real image optical viewfinder" ... wonder that that means.

The G-series OVFs have looked like they've been covered in Vaseline of late.  Maybe they're removing the Vaseline.

If this could be a little longer at the long end, my wife might like it for her purse camera.  She currently has an SX260 (25-500 equivalent range) but doesn't use more than 300mm or so very often at all.  Since this is a larger sensor and has more pixels, it's more cropable, but I'm not sure 120mm equivalent at 20MP is cropable enough for her to get where she'd like to be.  24-200 would do it for sure, but then it might look like the Pro 1 did and not fit in her purse anymore.

251
Lenses / Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« on: January 15, 2014, 03:46:59 PM »
I can understand, but I'm not just not a fan of the fisheye look.


This is the problem with fisheye lenses in general - people don't understand what they do or how to use them.

Tell me which of these was taken with a fisheye:

http://photos.imageevent.com/sipphoto/samplepictures/huge/IMG_3334.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/sipphoto/samplepictures/huge/5D_24461-5D_24461.jpg

I agree, there are a ton of bad fisheye photos out there, and these are good examples of proper use.  Even still, I don't like being limited to keeping the lens perfectly level.  If they made a tilt-shift fisheye, I could probably get on board with that :)


The second one wasn't perfectly level, it was corrected (not defished) later.  Software is good for that now, and a fisheye provides for more options, including cropping and defishing.

252
Lenses / Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« on: January 15, 2014, 11:36:10 AM »
I can understand, but I'm not just not a fan of the fisheye look.


This is the problem with fisheye lenses in general - people don't understand what they do or how to use them.

Tell me which of these was taken with a fisheye:

http://photos.imageevent.com/sipphoto/samplepictures/huge/IMG_3334.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/sipphoto/samplepictures/huge/5D_24461-5D_24461.jpg

253
EOS Bodies / Re: Hybrid Viewfinder Coming To Canon DSLRs? [CR1]
« on: January 15, 2014, 11:31:34 AM »
I see this as a possibility in one of two cameras initially. Either a replacement to the EOS-1D C or in the EOS 7D Mark II (could be named something else).

Please make it so!!!

254
Lenses / Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« on: January 15, 2014, 08:38:24 AM »
A 16-50 f/4 IS would be just the ticket.
I like the idea of that, but would still love something really wide like the Sigma 12-24 II I used to own.  I fear that Canon considers our dreams of a super wide covered by the 8-15 f/4.  A lot of their articles have pitched it as a wide angle lens, but at least to me, I don't care for the fisheye distortion even if it can be minimized with a perfectly level shot.

Oh totally! They need something in that ultra wide range other than the costly 14L. Their foolin no one with the 8-15 fisheye! I opted for the Samyang 14mm f/2.8 instead as I got fed up waiting. It's a pity I can't use filters with it though. Blasted bulbous ends! Haha!

What is the widest you can get without going bulbous end? Is it 16mm? I imagine a 12-24 or 14-24 would be quite expensive anyway and wouldn't take filters.

I may get rid of my 17-40l because I use my Sigma 15mm fisheye instead.  To me, it's a better solution in almost all circumstances.

255
PowerShot / Re: Canon PowerShot N100 Official
« on: January 09, 2014, 10:45:29 PM »
This looks (maybe?) like the first genuine replacement for my beloved pocket cam, the Elph 500 HS, which is 24-105 and f/2 at the wide end, unlike all the newer, slower Elphs.  And this one looks like it has the 1/1.7" sensor size of the S-series and G-series too.  I wonder how thick it is, though.

Never mind.  Way too thick.

No one has yet come up with a more perfect pocket camera than the Elph 500 HS, IMHO.

I had that. and sold it because the jpg's had a greenish tint. And the long end of the focal range is not usable  due to the body being so tiny. We all wish for different types of perfection ;)

Must have been a bad copy, as I've had several and none have had any problems with colors.

Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19 ... 44