August 01, 2014, 11:39:27 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 - KyleSTL

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 28
EOS Bodies / Re: High Megapixel EOS on the Way as Mentioned by Canon
« on: July 24, 2014, 01:08:55 PM »
Since the 100M and 70M numbers everyone is quoting goes back to the original EOS 650 in 1987, don't you think the market research and customer habits have changed, and the 95/5% being quoted is accurate for today's market?

EOS Bodies / Re: High Megapixel EOS on the Way as Mentioned by Canon
« on: July 23, 2014, 10:49:03 AM »
Unlike many Google translations, this one is a bit more readable...

I note the comment that the 16-35 mk2 was good for APS-H ;-)

The multiple aspheric lens surfaces allow them to ease some of the compromise between reducing distortion and field flatness. The two front lens elements make quite a significant contribution to this and will likely be seen again in new ultra wide zoom designs.

I still want a TS-E14 though ;-)

If the coverage of the TS-E17 is anything to go by, a TS-E14 with any notable shift would be somewhere between huge, expensive and impossible.

Take a look at this to see the effective angle of view of the imaging circle of the TS-E17 compared to a traditional rectilinear 14mm lens (panoramic comparison, near the bottom of the page):

No scientific fact here, but I'd estimate a TS-E14 with similar levels of shift as the 17 to project an imaging circle with an angle of view something equivalent to a 10mm rectilinear FF lens.

Exactly what I was thinking.

The diagonal angle of view (AOV) for the 14mm f/2.8 is 114°
The AOV for the 17mm TS-E (unshifted) is 104°
The AOV for the 17mm TS-E (fully shifted and merged) is 126°
The AOV for the Sigma 12-24mm at 12mm is 122°
A 14mm TS-E (fully shifted and merged) would be 135°

A 14mm TS-E lens would be equivalent to 9.04mm FF lens (or 5.7mm APS-C lens).

Based on the OP's other posts on CR forum, he was disappointed that his 5D3 could not produce acceptable 40 x 30 prints.  My question is: 

Does anyone believe the difference between 144 dpi (22MP @ 40" width) and 184 dpi (36MP @ 40" width) will actually please the OP?  The difference is only 28% increase in linear resolution.

How about 206 dpi (51MP @ 40" width) from the Pentax 645Z?

When my friend with a D800E shoots models side by side with me, the models have
always preferred the 5D2 jpg on the back of the camera!
I personally like the green skin tones (at least on the camera's LCD) of the D800. /sarcasm

The user interface of Nikon cameras is why I went with Canon in the first place. I don't find it intuitive.
I too loath the controls of Nikons.  The press-and-hold + dial rotation is uncomfortable and many changes require two hands.  I prefer all the Canons I've used (300D, 350D, 400D, 450D, 10D, 20D, 30D, 5D) over the Nikons (D70s, D80, D200, D300, D600).

Lenses / Re: Video Review: Canon EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM
« on: July 08, 2014, 01:42:24 PM »
I love DigitalRev, personally.  They are the Top Gear (which I also love, the UK version) of camera reviews.  Rediculous (sometimes offensive) comments, unscientific and ludicrous challenges and comedy above the small amount of consumer advice offered.  I understand how some people would not like this kind of programming.

I think TCS (The Camera Store) is a much more reliable source of legitimate consumer advice.  I appreciate both of them, though.

Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS
« on: June 30, 2014, 01:20:33 PM »
IMHO the 16-35/f4L reduces the value of the all previous wide angle zooms to sub-$400, if that.

That's what excited me most about this annoucement.  While a 17-40mm won't have nearly as good image quality as the new 16-35 IS, it will certainly be a huge step up from my current film-era Tamron UWA.  I plan to jump on a 17-40mm as soon as they sink into the $400 range.

EDIT: Also Nikon should be thoroughly embarrassed by the performance of their 16-35mm VR, especially at the wide end:

EOS Bodies / Re: More EOS 7D Mark II Talk [CR1]
« on: June 16, 2014, 10:01:02 AM »
If true, the 7D Mark II's viewfinder will be the exact same size as the 5D Mark III:

5D3 - 1.00 / 1.00 x 0.71 = 0.71
7D2 - 1.00 / 1.60 x 1.15 = 0.71

Crop sensor fans would be elated.

Lenses / Re: This thing's gotta go!
« on: June 12, 2014, 11:45:41 AM »
Nikon 35-70mm f/2.8 AF-D Macro - fully disassembled, I was able to fix what was causing the zoom and focus to not be smooth, however, I was not able to reassemble it (I like fixing Canon gear much more)

I sometimes fix Nikon lenses and, yes, yuck to reassemble. You have to get all the gears and such correctly aligned in the correct order or it won't go back together. Very, very troublesome.

I'm glad someone else feels my pain.  I've fixed 4 or 5 other Nikon lenses, but this thing just killed me, with it's double-screw front-extending macro mechanism.  I've sought resources for repair manuals high and low with no success, not even Nikon's tech line could access the resource (let alone provide me with one).

Lenses / Re: This thing's gotta go!
« on: June 11, 2014, 02:10:21 PM »
Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 USM (metal mount) - no longer used since I fixed the 24-105mm f/4L
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM - needs optical adjustment after aperture ribbon cable replacement
Nikon 35-70mm f/2.8 AF-D Macro - fully disassembled, I was able to fix what was causing the zoom and focus to not be smooth, however, I was not able to reassemble it (I like fixing Canon gear much more)
Canon Rebel XSi - need about an hour under a dissecting microscope to solder on a replacement ribbon cable connector (0.6mm pitch between leads) - although I might hang onto this one and turn it into a full-spectrum IR-visible-UV camera for fun

I haven't been buying or selling much over the past 9-12 months, just too many other things going on.

Lenses / Re: What was your first L lens?
« on: June 11, 2014, 01:38:49 PM »
I must be the weirdest person on this thread cos my first L was the TS-E 24mm.

I don't think that's weird, I think it's awesome.

Lenses / Re: What was your first L lens?
« on: June 10, 2014, 01:35:50 PM »
I would love to compliment my first and only L (24-105mm) with the new 16-35mm f4L IS USM and 70-200mm f4L IS USM, but sadly, as a hobbist I simply can not justify $2500 in new lenses.  Most of what I have has been upgraded over the past 4 years incrementally by purchasing broken equipment and fixing it myself for a fraction of the price of even used gear.  I don't think that is going to happen with my two wants at this point.

Lenses / Re: Next Lens Canon Should Release?
« on: June 09, 2014, 02:06:27 PM »
I'd like to see two ASAP which I would go out and buy as soon as they went on sale...

EF 20-200mm f4 IS L - Full frame
EF-M 15-85mm pancake - don't care what f-stop

In the longer term, I'd like to see a EF 200-460mm F4.0-5.6 IS, with 82mm thread for under £2k, that works with a 1.4x extender and a F8.0 focusing patch for the 6D ;-)
Those are what we call pipe dreams, none of those are very realistic physically (pancake) or financially (20-200mm f4L / 200-460mm).
Canon really should replace the oldest lens in ef lineup. Also I would like to see new 400mm f/4 is and 500mm f/5.6 is added to super tele lens lineup. I know a lot of birders who would like to add those lenses in their bags.

The current 400mm DO f4.0 does seem really costly for that extra half stop over the 5.6 - I'm not convinced that Canon will see fit to replace either of the "cheapo" 300/400mm lenses and just say that the new 100-400mm whenever it comes out is the replacement - a 500mm f5.6 IS sounds interesting though...    That might just work with screw on filters, but a drop in one would be pretty cool...   Get the price under £2000 ? ;-)
It is a full stop faster.
Canon really should replace the oldest lens in ef lineup. Also I would like to see new 400mm f/4 is and 500mm f/5.6 is added to super tele lens lineup. I know a lot of birders who would like to add those lenses in their bags.
Which one?

50mm f/2.5 Macro (1987)
135mm f/2.8 Soft Focus (1987)
50mm f/1.8 II (1990)
TS-E 45mm f/2.8 (1991)
TS-E 90mm f/2.8 (1991)
100mm f/2 USM (1991)
20mm f/2.8 USM (1992)
85mm f/1.8 USM (1992)
400mm f/5.6 L USM (1993)
50mm f/1.4 USM (1993)

Something tells me the 135mm SF is going to be dead, not replaced.  The digital world has little need for the soft focus available on that dinosaur.  I could definitely see all other lenses listed above being replaced in the next 3 years.

Lenses / Re: What was your first L lens?
« on: June 05, 2014, 05:04:35 PM »
... the 24-105mm L ... my second L: the 70-200mm L ii really showed me the light.

Yes, double the light.  A'thank ya very much.

Mine is the 24-105mm (the one and only L lens I have owed).

A DC-AC converter (with USB charging port) that allows me to charge batteries and devices while traveling.
+1, I have a Pearstone charger and 6 plates for it (3 Canon DSLR, 2 Canon P&S, 1 Nikon DSLR).  I carry one charger and all the plates for the cameras I'm carrying at any time, and have the ability to charge my iPhone, iPad, etc at the same time.  I wish it was a 10W or 12W USB charger, but for convenience, it cannot be beat.

Lenses / Re: Speculation: Year of the Lens
« on: March 03, 2014, 11:41:25 AM »
...and I think the only money I regret spending is on a 70-300 (non-L) because that lens was SO soft at 300mm.
+1, I wish Canon would update this lens with the features (non-rotating focus, Ring USM) and build quality of the Tamron and Nikon equivalents.  The 70-300L looks like a great lens, but is much larger and more expensive.  I have also considered the 70-200 f4L and f4L IS, but neither will fit it my current bag (I know, not the most valid excuse, but I like my current bag).  I have considered going back to the 70-210 USM and/or 100-300 USM I owned previously (I love their focusing speeds and the IQ from both almost exactly matches the 70-300 IS).  I can't complain, though, I got the 70-300 IS for a song, and could easily sell it for a profit.  I'm just bitter because I've used the Nikon 70-300 VR (released 2006), and enjoyed the experience much more than the Canon (released 2005) lens I have.  I think Canon owes it to it's 6D customers to have some reasonable-quality entry level (read: non-L) zoom lenses, and currently they have zero in the UWA and normal ranges, and three relatively mediocre tele zooms.  Yes, the 24-105L, 24-70 f4L, 17-40L and 70-300L IS are great lenses, but they are not in the same price range (un-kitted) as Nikon's 24-85 VR, 18-35 and 70-300 VR.  Entry-level consumers (and purchasers of used 5D's and 5D Mark II's) need more choices for their cameras without taking the 'L' plunge.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 28