July 30, 2014, 04:33:07 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 ... 45
241
Canon General / Re: Patent: EF-S 17-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS STM
« on: February 05, 2014, 09:03:54 AM »
15mm.
Got to start at 15mm.
Replace the old 24-85/3.5-4.5 that was developed for film.

For 35mm film, 15 mm goes into the ultrawide regime. The replacement for 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 is already out: 24-70 f/4 IS and 24-105 f/4 IS.

As should have been obvious, I was talking about a standard zoom for 1.6-crop.

242
Canon General / Re: Patent: EF-S 17-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS STM
« on: February 04, 2014, 11:06:48 PM »
15mm.

Got to start at 15mm.

Replace the old 24-85/3.5-4.5 that was developed for film.

15-55/3.5-5.6 IS

15-60/2.8L IS

15-135/4-5.6 IS

Tap.  Tap.  Tap.  Is this thing on???

243
Lenses / Re: Patent: Canon EF 70-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS
« on: February 04, 2014, 07:34:35 PM »
...I suspect the 70-100 range on a lens such as this adds barely anything to the weight.  Maybe an ounce or two.

I'm more worried about what it might subtract from the IQ...

It's a bigger issue if the lens has to cross into retrofocus territory (like the 28-300L does).  Remember, the Sigma 50-500 is actually better than the 150-500.

244
Lenses / Re: Patent: Canon EF 70-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS
« on: February 04, 2014, 06:32:58 PM »
It will be wasted weight and bulk, as far as I'm concerned.

Probably a negligible amount.  The Sony 70-400/4-5.6 weighs 1.5kg versus the 100-400L at 1.4kg, and Sony's lenses aren't exactly known for their light weight.

The long end drives the size of lenses of this type.  The only real way to make them smaller at all is to go to a prime, and the 400/5.6L is still 1.25kg even though it lacks IS.

In other words, I suspect the 70-100 range on a lens such as this adds barely anything to the weight.  Maybe an ounce or two.

245
Lenses / Re: Patent: Canon EF 70-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS
« on: February 04, 2014, 12:01:45 PM »
I can see many applications, especially in sports and action.  I shot a lot with the 300 F/2.8 IS II last year, and definitely was aching for some extra reach.

No doubt a lot of people are, I was talking about the 70mm wide end - it's probably there to go along with Canon's new 24-70 lenses and to phase out the 24-105, but the 70-100 range will come at a cost and it's doubtful how many people will need this part on a tele lens... if you want flexible get a 70-300L as this is much more portable.

I shoot aircraft (often R/C) all the time, and they go from "dot in the distance" where proper framing means around 4,000mm to landing 20 feet away, which means more like 40mm.  They can do this in a matter of seconds.  Even at full-scale airshows, I usually use my 70-200/2.8L IS II with 2x TC III and when the planes land and taxi by the crowd, I have to take the teleconverter off and even then sometimes 70mm isn't wide enough.

So, yeah, the wide end would be most helpful to me, even though I'd use it at the long end most of the time.

246
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in Q2? [CR1]
« on: February 03, 2014, 08:34:27 PM »
I'm a bit perplexed at the excitement for a 7D II at $1999. At that price point, you could have a 6D, which IMHO, is a superior wildlife camera.

Most wildlife comes out in terrible light, with dark backgrounds (forest, brush, rock etc). The 6D has a far superior center point focus in low light, and it simply takes pictures at dawn and dusk that the 7D cannot.

Fifty extra AF points and nine extra FPS don't matter when you can't freeze a sauntering moose at dusk.

As an owner of both cameras, I often chuckle at the comments that  the 7D is a "great wildlife camera in good light". The problem is, the light is crap more often than not. And a cell phone image looks good in perfect light. The true mark of a good camera is what it does when conditions are marginal to sub-marginal.

I shoot a lot of airshows in full sunlight, and I guarantee you the 7D will crush the 6D in these situations.

That's not lowlight wildlife shooting, though, as conveyed in my post.

The 7D does have faster AI-Servo acquisition than the 6D, that's for sure. But this isn't as big of a problem for giant planes that you can predictably track versus ruffed grouse surprising the hell out of you and taking off through rays of sunlight in a dim forest.

I was talking about 150mph+ small R/C airplanes, that can do 15-50g turns.

247
PowerShot / Re: Canon PowerShot G1 X Successor Coming Shortly [CR2]
« on: February 03, 2014, 02:40:47 PM »
You can expect a smaller and lighter body, a big boost in image quality (sensor size is unknown at this time), DIGIC 6,...

Big boost in image quality?  The 70D sensor would be a small boost in image quality, and the processing of the DIGIC 6 would likewise be a small boost in JPEG image quality.  So is that what passes for a "big boost in image quality" or are they doing something else, like an exceptional lens or better sensor technology than in the 70D?  It's hard for me to believe they'd introduce new sensor tech in a product such as this, so I'm at a loss.

I had a thought.

Let's say it has the 70D sensor, but with firmware that reads each half of each pixel at different ISOs, kind of like what ML is doing to increase dynamic range.  That could be a "big boost in image quality".  And, what if at the release, a new firmware for the 70D comes out that does the same thing with that camera?  That would be kind of cool!

248
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in Q2? [CR1]
« on: February 02, 2014, 10:47:54 PM »
I'm a bit perplexed at the excitement for a 7D II at $1999. At that price point, you could have a 6D, which IMHO, is a superior wildlife camera.

Most wildlife comes out in terrible light, with dark backgrounds (forest, brush, rock etc). The 6D has a far superior center point focus in low light, and it simply takes pictures at dawn and dusk that the 7D cannot.

Fifty extra AF points and nine extra FPS don't matter when you can't freeze a sauntering moose at dusk.

As an owner of both cameras, I often chuckle at the comments that  the 7D is a "great wildlife camera in good light". The problem is, the light is crap more often than not. And a cell phone image looks good in perfect light. The true mark of a good camera is what it does when conditions are marginal to sub-marginal.

I shoot a lot of airshows in full sunlight, and I guarantee you the 7D will crush the 6D in these situations.

249
PowerShot / Re: Canon PowerShot G1 X Successor Coming Shortly [CR2]
« on: February 02, 2014, 08:03:27 PM »
You can expect a smaller and lighter body, a big boost in image quality (sensor size is unknown at this time), DIGIC 6,...

Big boost in image quality?  The 70D sensor would be a small boost in image quality, and the processing of the DIGIC 6 would likewise be a small boost in JPEG image quality.  So is that what passes for a "big boost in image quality" or are they doing something else, like an exceptional lens or better sensor technology than in the 70D?  It's hard for me to believe they'd introduce new sensor tech in a product such as this, so I'm at a loss.

250
Canon General / Re: Review: Canon EOS 17-40 f/4L by DxO Mark
« on: January 23, 2014, 10:28:11 PM »
If you buy a 17-40L as a standard zoom for a crop camera now that plenty of EF-s and other crop options are available, well, you're doing it wrong.  It's an ultrawide zoom for full-frame.

+1 - and that's the point of comparing it to the 18-55/3.5-5.6 IS kit lens or even the 17-55/2.8 IS.  Compared to the 17-40L on APS-C, the former delivers not-too-different IQ and the latter delivering better IQ (and an extra stop of light, a broader range, and IS).  Yet, many people recommend getting the 17-40L 'in case you go FF maybe someday,' which I think is pretty foolish unless 'someday' is next month.

Well, it worked for me, but that was when I bought my 10D, which was before the advent of EF-s.  A year and a half later, I bought a 5D so it worked.  However, if I had to start over again with crop cameras, I'd do exactly what I did at work and buy a 15-85IS instead.

251
Canon General / Re: Review: Canon EOS 17-40 f/4L by DxO Mark
« on: January 23, 2014, 09:58:04 PM »
And unfortunately the price difference does not equate the very minor IQ differences, Yes I've owned both.

If you buy a 17-40L as a standard zoom for a crop camera now that plenty of EF-s and other crop options are available, well, you're doing it wrong.  It's an ultrawide zoom for full-frame.

252
Canon General / Re: Review: Canon EOS 17-40 f/4L by DxO Mark
« on: January 23, 2014, 08:39:26 PM »
When I first bought into dSLRs, I bought four lenses:

17-40L
28-135IS
75-300IS
50/1.8

Since then I've bought and sold:
50/1.4
35/2
Sigma 20/1.8
70-200/2.8L IS I
Tamron 1.4x TC
Tamron 2x TC
Canon 1.4x TC II
100/2

And sold from the original purchase:
28-135IS
50/1.8
75-300IS

The one thing I have left from the original purchase is the 17-40L.  It's a terrific lens.  I like my Sigma 15mm fisheye more and use it much more, but not because of any flaws in the 17-40L, but because I like the field of view, projection and speed of the fish better.

If you don't need a low-light lens, the 17-40L is great.  If you don't need sharp corners on full-frame wide open, the 17-40L is great.  The corners are much improved at f/5.6 and very, very solid at f/11.  The center and the entire APS-c frame is sharp wide open.  Focus is fast and sure, handling is excellent.

253
EOS Bodies / Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS
« on: January 21, 2014, 11:35:28 PM »
Let me see... Image height Y = 21.635mm, not enough to cover FF 24mm?

That's probably radius of the image circle.

254
EOS Bodies / Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS
« on: January 21, 2014, 10:40:04 PM »
Wait, let me guess.

Release prices:  $999, $1,099 and $1,499.

Lee Jay

255
No problem at all.  I intentionally didn't really edit anything so people could see what the lens itself could do without "intervention".

My only point was that this particular sample image is not representative of the optical performance of the lens due to handshake.

Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19 ... 45