August 01, 2014, 11:29:52 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 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 46
61
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II [CR1]
« on: July 12, 2014, 05:54:54 PM »
I too don't mind the push-pull, but the handling of the 100-400L is actually pretty horrible.  The lock ring is right where I want to put my grip, and if you have it loose so you can zoom, it rotates the AF barrel leading to OOF shots.  I really hate that.  My 70-200 with 2x is way more user friendly.

If the focus ring was at the other end of the push/pull barrel so it didn't get turned accidentally, and if the IS was worth anything, it would be a far more pleasant lens to use.  Well, that and an optical improvement wide open when the IS elements are shifted substantially off center.

I'm guessing the larger front element is about far superior IS causing larger angular shifts and needing a little extra wide at the wide end to accommodate that.

62
EOS Bodies / Re: DSLR ? - thinking out loud ....
« on: July 12, 2014, 08:28:47 AM »
The problem is, you can never beat some aspects of an OVF with an EVF.  How are you going to improve on zero lag, zero power use, virtually infinite dynamic range and color gamut?

EVFs suck power like crazy.  You're going to need a battery breakthrough to replace OVFs as well, or an enormous battery that more than makes up for the size difference of removing the prism and mirror.

63
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: A Summary of Sigma Lens Rumors
« on: July 11, 2014, 10:22:23 PM »
Why do people keep thinking that a 24-70mm f/2 is even remotely likely?

Have they not held the already behemoth Canon 24-70 2.8 mk2 or Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC, both which require 82mm filter threads just to sharply render that zoom range at 2.8?

They are modestly sized lenses.  Not big at all.

Quote
Have they not noticed that the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC is only a 2x zoom, not a 3x, and that it only needs to worry about a largest diaphragm of 35 / 1.8 and an APS-C image circle?  (HUGE difference from 70mm f/2 with an FX image circle!!)

18mm f/1.8 on crop is a harder thing to get to than 24mm and f/2.  This is because Sigma's crop lenses don't reach into the body like EF-s lenses do, so they have to have the regular back focus distance of a full-frame lens.  This makes 18mm much more strongly retrofocus than 24mm, and f/1.8 is still faster than f/2.  I doubt much in the 18-35 is driven by the aperture at the long end, and 70/2 is still only 35mm, which isn't very much aperture.  My 85/1.8 is silly tiny and has 47mm of aperture.

64
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: A Summary of Sigma Lens Rumors
« on: July 10, 2014, 08:54:11 AM »
hmmmmm...I rather like the sound of a 24-70mm f/2 DG ART....  :D

But you probably wouldn't like the weight. Or vignetting. Or price (ymmv).  Really, this won't happen, where's a reason the rest of the world builds f2.8 zooms - "faster" means accepting a unbalance not compatible with mass market production/sales.

Which is, apparently, why no one builds a 70-200/2.8, a 120-300/2.8, a 300/2.8 prime, a 200/2 prime, or anything bigger than a 24-70/2.8.

65
Lenses / Re: 5D3 + teleconverter + Telescope
« on: July 08, 2014, 11:17:31 PM »
Hi,
    Do you have problem if you only use the 5D3 + T-Ring??

    Although I usually don't use teleconverter (I usually use a barlow), but shouldn't be a problem... I do a test on my 6D + 1.4x Kenko Teleconverter (I don't have Canon Teleconverter) + T-Ring and it work as per normal. I look at all my T-Ring and none of them make contact with the DSLR pins.

    Have a nice day.

Not the DSLR pins, the contacts on the teleconverter. I have the same problem and taping the three TC contacts fixes the problem.

66
Lenses / Re: 5D3 + teleconverter + Telescope
« on: July 08, 2014, 10:22:24 PM »
Tape the contacts.  The t ring might be shorting them out.

67
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: A Summary of Sigma Lens Rumors
« on: July 08, 2014, 05:14:11 PM »
A 24-70/2 OS is the only one of these that would excite me.  The 18-35/1.8 seems to indicate Sigma could go this way.  As long as it were around 70-200/2.8 size or smaller, that would be fine.

If the Canon 24-70/2.8 had IS, I might have considered it.  But without IS, all of them are non-starters for me.  I'll just keep my 24-105 in that case, which is exactly what I've done.

68
EOS Bodies / Re: Eos7D mk2, How EXCITED will you be if . . .?
« on: July 07, 2014, 03:16:50 PM »
  • Really high performance AF system, including f/8 AF point(s)
  • Hybrid EVF/OVF viewfinder (for shooting video)
  • Good video features (focus assist, good focus performance, continuous windowing/zoom)
  • High pixel density sensor
  • High quality sensor
  • 100-400L II designed for use on this camera with a 1.4x TC while still preserving outstanding optics and AF

69
EOS Bodies / Re: Eos7D mk2, How disappointed will you be if . . .?
« on: July 07, 2014, 12:39:44 PM »
That's the physics I'm referring to – when it comes to sensors, bigger is better.

Bigger sensors aren't better in low-light, larger apertures are.  Bigger sensors work better in low-light when you can use a longer focal length at the same f-stop, thus increasing aperture.  For example, you might use a 500/4 on full frame (125mm of aperture) instead of a 300/4 on 1.6-crop (75mm of aperture).  However, if that

a smaller sensor can be as good as a bigger one when you give him more light... i can agree to that.

but... maybe it´s my bad english but i don´t get what you say. ;)

What matters for final image quality (aside from sensor performance, processing, etc.) is the total light accumulated during the exposure.  f-stop controls light intensity (illuminance), not total light.  f-stop * sensor area is thus total light, and aperture (not f-stop) controls that.  A larger sensor will do better in lower light at the same f-stop because of the larger aperture and focal length needed to frame the same subject the same way at the same f-stop.

70
EOS Bodies / Re: Eos7D mk2, How disappointed will you be if . . .?
« on: July 07, 2014, 12:13:44 PM »
That's the physics I'm referring to – when it comes to sensors, bigger is better.

Bigger sensors aren't better in low-light, larger apertures are.  Bigger sensors work better in low-light when you can use a longer focal length at the same f-stop, thus increasing aperture.  For example, you might use a 500/4 on full frame (125mm of aperture) instead of a 300/4 on 1.6-crop (75mm of aperture).  However, if that option isn't available lens-wise, then the larger sensor loses its advantage.

I often have that option available, which is why I can (and do) obtain the advantage of a larger sensor in low light.  But one must be careful to make sure such an option is available before buying into the advantage.

71
EOS Bodies / Re: Eos7D mk2, How disappointed will you be if . . .?
« on: July 07, 2014, 11:06:33 AM »
Only a little.  The 7DII sensor is quite good, I'm rarely limited by low-ISO DR, and Canon could potentially use the same sensor and still improve IQ by improving off-sensor electronics and/or using some tricks associated with the dual pixel architecture of that sensor.

72
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Announcement September 5, 2014?
« on: July 07, 2014, 08:58:03 AM »
Bring it on.  And if there is a substantial improvement in sensor technology (by every one else's standards but Canon), let us know when that will percolate up the line, especially to the 5D and 1D series.

73
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.

74
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.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 46