July 30, 2014, 09:59:06 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 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17 ... 28
Lenses / Re: Canon Makes the EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS Official
« on: November 05, 2012, 11:56:15 PM »
Glad I got the 35mm f/2 for a steal.  This new one is way above what I can justify for my hobby.

Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS
« on: November 05, 2012, 01:38:06 PM »
If this indeed replaces the 24-105mm (in price and position in the lens lineup), put yourself in the shoes of a buyer for first-time FF camera:

D600 (24MP) + AF-S 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 VR = $2600
6D (20MP) + EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM = $2900

D600 >> 6D

Even if the 24-70mm delivers substantially better IQ, the average consumer is going to buy the Nikon on numbers alone.  If Canon cannot put a $500 kit lens with the 6D they are going to be steamrolled.

EDIT:  Add in the fact that the D600 has a built in flash (extra $160 for an EX270 II), an impressive sounding 39 autofocus points and a bigger screen, Canon's sales will suffer a lot.

Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS
« on: November 05, 2012, 08:22:05 AM »
Why the filter size of 77mm still?  Why didn't they make it 67mm just like the 70-200mm f4L and IS?  I guess the 17-40mm f/4L is also 77mm, but I see most first-time FF users pairing this lens up first with the tele zoom and then adding the UWA later.

Same is true for the rumored 35mm.  Why 67mm (up from 52mm of the previous model)?  I would think that 58mm just like the 24 and 28mm IS lenses would make a lot more sense.  58mm is easily big enough to squeeze in the objective element for 35mm f/2.  The objective elements in the 24mm and 28mm are a larger diameter than they mathematically need to be, and maybe that factors into their excellent performance.  Maybe the 35mm f/2 is even larger and will have similar or superior IQ because of it.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/4L IS Coming [CR3]
« on: November 01, 2012, 04:31:17 PM »
"rumored" canon 14-24 l 2.8 + 24-70 2.8 ii + 70-200 2.8 is ii - this is the pro setup.

Some f4 wide angle (ex. 12-24 f4) + 24-70 f4 is + canon 70-200 f4 is -enthusiast setup
I think the f/2.8 wide angle will be 14-24mm, but I think the f/4 will be 16-35 IS to directly compete in all aspects with the Nikon lens.  That will make it wider than the current f/4, sharper (as pretty much all lenses have been over their predecessors) and likely more expensive.  Hopefully, Canon will come out with cheaper variable aperture [or non-IS] UWA to replace the long-extinct 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 USM for the lower end of the budget (~$500), as well.  Think about this (as a beginner):

Canon 6D + '24-70mm f/4 IS'  = $2600 (same price as Nikon D600 kit)
Canon '18-35mm f/4' or '16-35mm non-IS' = $500
Canon 70-200mm f/4 USM = $630
TOTAL = $3730

Pretty sweet [theoretical] package for <$4000, right?  Not that 2 of the three lenses even exist, but it is certainly possible.

Lenses / Re: EF-M 55mm f/1.3 Coming in 2013? [CR1]
« on: November 01, 2012, 02:25:49 PM »
Comparing a D30 with a 1DX is as silly as comparing Velveeta with Cojack.

In your hypothetical world, yes, I think your assertion is correct that a frame with a crop factor of 1.4x would have 1 stop worse noise (and 2x would be 2 stops, 0.7x would have a 1 stop advantage, etc).  However we don't live in the world of film anymore and not all sensors are created equal at the pixel level and simply scale by overal size of the sensor.

But facedodge's statement is still true that the exposure triangle remains unchanged (f/2.8, ISO 400, 1/250 is the same no matter what format the camera is in) is still completely valid.  I understand people pointing out the DOF different in formats in terms of equivalence, but I think stating the same thing in ISO would only serve to confuse less informed people attempting to understand the fundamentals of photography and the differences in formats.

Well, if we're talking lenses too:

2010 - 18-55mm II (sold in 2011)
2010 - 50mm f/1.8 II (sold in 2011)
2011 - 100-300mm USM (sold in 2012)
2011 - 28mm f/2.8 (sold in 2012)
2011 - 28-135mm (sold in 2012)
2011 - 17-85mm (currently for sale)
2012 - 50mm f/1.8 I
2012 - 35mm f/2
2012 - Tamron 200-400mm f/5.6 (sold 2012)
2012 - 85mm f/1.8 USM
2012 - 70-210mm USM
2012 - 15mm Fisheye
2012 - 28-105mm II USM
2012 - Tamron 19-35mm f/3.5-4.5

A lot of the stuff I have (and had) was purchased broken and fixed.  I've fixed 7 lenses, 13 bodies, and a flash commander.  In all, out of pocket over the past 3 years I have spent just a shade over $1000 for all my equipment (and profitted around $1500 fixing stuff I never intended to keep).  Not a bad hobby, and it keeps my wife happy that my photography interest doesn't really cost anything, as I haven't spent above what I make fixing stuff, and occasionally keeping stuff I've fixed.

1999 - Nikon FM (HS photography class)
2002 - Sony P71 P&S
2006 - Canon SD600
2010 - Canon XT
2011 - Canon XTi
2012 (Feb) - Canon 30D (also picked up an S90)
2012 (Sep) - Canon 5D

Lenses / Re: EF-M 55mm f/1.3 Coming in 2013? [CR1]
« on: October 31, 2012, 06:05:45 PM »
Actually, when you take noise into effect, you also have to decrease the effective aperture to get a valid comparison with a larger format. I can't do the math, but it's also roughly a stop.

That is, f/1.3 @ ISO 100 on APS-C really is comparable to f/2.0 @ ISO 200 on full frame. And f/1.3 @ ISO 100 on full frame would be comparable to f/1.0 @ ISO 50 on APS-C. (Roughly, with rounding, etc., etc., etc.)

So the noise from a EOS D30 (2001) is one stop behind the 1D X?  I don't think so.  Everyone understands noise is in constant flux throughout models, formats, etc.  So I think it is fair to leave noise out of the equation as it is not a constant like shutter speed and aperture.  Given two models of camera it is fair to make a comparison on the level of noise and how many stops of advantage one has over another, but to make a blanket statement is not fair.

Here's the math:

FF crop factor: 1
APS-C crop factor: 1.6

f/1.3 * 1.6 = f/2.0 equivalent 90mm (for background blur of 55mm f/1.3 lens in FF terms)
f/1.3 / 1.6 = f/0.83 equivalent (although your point is misleading as an EF-M lens has a flange distance too short for a FF DSLR - and most likely an image circle to small to cover a full frame sensor)

All you need to do is multiply the aperture (or focal length) by the crop factor to go up in formats, and divide to go down.

Lenses / Re: EF-M 55mm f/1.3 Coming in 2013? [CR1]
« on: October 31, 2012, 04:34:40 PM »
"For arguments sake, that would give an approximate field of view of 90mm f/1.3. A nice portrait lens for the new system."

Just to clarify, it would be the approximate equivalent of a 90mm f/2.0 FF lens. You have to take the crop factor into account when comparing apertures as well as focal lengths.
It only took 3 responses for someone to state the DOF-aperture comparison.
Yeah... DOF would be about f/2 compared to full frame, but you still get the low light advantage of f/1.3 and you get the normal lens look too if that is something you like.
And one more to correct the statement to not confuse people about the unchanged exposure triangle.  Good job, CR commenters.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/4L IS Coming [CR3]
« on: October 31, 2012, 10:15:23 AM »
How many people who think this thing will be $500 are going to switch camps if its not?
Absolutely I'd switch camps, it this proposed lens is $1000+ and/or replaces the 24-105mm in the Canon lineup I would be extremely disappointed.  Even if it has IQ equal to 24-70mm II for the same price as the lens it is replacing, I think the good image quality is an excellent trade-off for the expanded range of the current 24-105mm.  When was the last time you actually saw range shrink with a replacement lens?:

80-200 -> 70-200    ( 2.8 )
35-70 -> 28-70 -> 24-70    ( 2.8 )
20-35 -> 17-35 -> 16-35    ( 2.8 )
75-300 -> 70-300    ( 4-5.6 )
... or any number of lower quality variable aperture zooms

The only one I can think of is the mid-grade USM standard zoom:
35-135 (1990) -> 28-80 (1991) -> 28-105 (1992) -> 24-85 (1996) -> 28-135 (1998) -> 28-105 II (2000)

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/4L IS Coming [CR3]
« on: October 30, 2012, 11:13:36 PM »
I think this is an obvious replacement of the relatively old 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM to go along with the 6D.  I think it will definitely be smaller and lighter than the aforementioned lens (as well as the 24-105mm f/4L IS USM), and priced around $600 to compete with the Nikon 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 VR.  It would be the perfect kit lens for a first-FF DSLR buyer.  It would definitely have better IQ and IS than the 1998.

Think about a 6D buyer looking at the currently lineup of FF standard zooms:

28-135mm $450 alone (big, heavy, old, fair IQ)
24-105mm $970 alone $800 kit (big, heavy, very good IQ, somewhat expensive)
24-70mm II $2300 alone (big, heavy, superb IQ, more expensive than the body)

...and that is all your currently-available new (not used) Canon options

Replacing the 28-135 makes total sense with the first entry-level FF coming out in a couple months.  If the only option is 6D+24-105mm ($2900), it is more expensive than a D600+24-85mm ($2600), then Canon WILL lose customers, period.  A more affordable is needed, and the 28-135mm is not the solution.  A red ring and L in the name will elate potential customers (much better branding than Nikon's ED and gold ring designations).

EDIT: Price correction on 28-135mm

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS [CR1]
« on: October 29, 2012, 11:27:14 AM »
Seriously, if they release a 24-70mm IS, it'll be like $3K.  That'll make it the second most expensive Canon zoom ever (behind the waiting-to-be-released 200-400mm f/4L IS 1.4x USM).  Undoubtedly, it will have none of the compromises of the Tamron VC (distortion, slow AF).

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EF Lens Speculation [CR1]
« on: October 24, 2012, 01:23:14 PM »
A new 135mm f/2L IS would be a dream all right - albeit sharpness can take a slight hit, maybe a 135mm f/1.4L?  :D Probably they can find a way to let in more light in a longer lens but the lens could look like a longer 85 1.2L and cost too much.

135 f/1.4 - 135/1.4 = 96.4mm (105mm filter?)
135 f/1.8 - 135/1.8 = 75mm (77mm or 82mm filter)
135 f/2 - 135/2 = 67.5mm (72mm filter)

A 135mm f/1.4 would put it in the same class as the 200mm f/2 (100mm objective) and 300mm f/2.8 (107mm objective) both in terms of size and weight.  A suggested 135mm f/1.8 is definitely more reasonable in terms of size, weight and price.

True, over the last three decades. Not quite as much over the last decade, and most of Canon's previous generation of lenses are within a decade old.
The EF 24mm f/2.8, EF 28mm f/2.8, and TS-E 24mm f/3.5 are less than a decade old?

To put numbers behind it, Canon has made 159 different EF/EF-S lens models since 1987.  Currently Canon USA lists 68 lenses (I take issue with 5, as they are no longer in production and no longer available new - 300mm f/2.8 IS I, 400mm f/2.8 IS I, 70-200mm f/2.8 IS I, 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM, 15mm Fisheye).  Out of the remaining 63 lenses here is how they break down by release date:

0-10 years - 37
10-15 years - 10
15-20 years - 9
20+ years - 7

So his statement is correct - 37/63 (59%) are 10 years old or less, which constitutes 'most'

Lenses / Re: A New EF 800 f/5.6L IS II? [CR2]
« on: October 22, 2012, 09:09:25 AM »
$15K?  $20?  The weight savings is probably one reason, but the change in the white paint is probably a driving force, too.  C'mon, who wants big, expensive lenses that don't match in color, right?

EOS Bodies / Re: Why are flash sync shutter speeds getting worse?
« on: October 19, 2012, 02:04:01 PM »
I was hoping my breakdown would add to the discussion, but it seems to have died.  I think that organizing them by image size shows that the overall distance travelled affects sync speed.

If I remember correctly from my Art Photography classes the vertical plane shutters at their highest speeds (1/1000+) never have the entire frame exposed at the same time.  Essential what happens is a slit between the upper and lower blades travels down the frame.  That is what affects the sync speed because the entire frame needs to be exposed during the short burst of light provided by the flash.  I would assume that the sync speeds listed above are the shortest intervals each camera is able to have the whole frame exposed prior to the dropping of the upper blade.  Someone with more intimate knowledge about shutter design may be able to backup or refute my statements.

Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17 ... 28