September 19, 2014, 01:51:02 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 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19 ... 28
241
This would be the kind of design I'd expect if they ever made a square format sensor. This has been discussed here before and only about 4% of readers seem to agree with me this is a good idea.

I'd love a sports camera that didn't force me try to jerk the camera 90° because there was a diving catch of a grounder instead of a leaping catch of a line drive. Let me shoot everything square and I'll apply the crop that doesn't amputate limbs later. (Or leave cropping to the client, as my primary customers prefer.)

The problem I see with that is the same as the problem you get when doing portraits.  Most printing is done in standard sizes (4x6, 5x7, 8x10, 11x14, 13x19, etc) to fit standard frames.  When you compose a picture, considerations are usually not taken of what the aspect ratio of the final print will be.  In the past manufacturers produced focusing screens with 5:4 lines so that you could ensure good composition whether you printed 4x6 or 8x10.  A square sensor would not help in composing a scene well within a given aspect ratio, without additional crop lines in the viewfinder.

242
Lenses / Re: Canon EF-S 18-300 f/3.5-5.6 IS STM on the Way? [CR1]
« on: October 02, 2012, 01:10:25 PM »
...apologies to the 28-300L, but you’re too big and expensive for most people to carry around....

I can see Canon making it lighter and cheaper, something akin to the superzoom Nikon put out 2 years ago.

Nikkor 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 VR - 83 x 115mm - 800g - 77mm filter - $1050 currently
Canon 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM - 92 x 184mm - 1670g - 77mm filter - $2570 currently

Hopefully it's not junk like the 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 USM:
http://usa.canon.com/cusa/support/consumer/eos_slr_camera_systems/lenses/ef_28_200mm_f_3_5_5_6_usm#Specifications
No IS, Micro-Motor USM (not Ring), no FTM, terrible IQ

Actually, comparing the Canon 28-200 to the Nikon 28-300 shows that the Nikon is marginally better than the Canon.
TDP Comparison Canon 28-200 vs. Nikon 28-300

The Nikon is definitely worse than the Canon 28-300, though (especially when it comes to CA and corner sharpness), as you would expect with the L designation and significant cost differential.
TDP Comparison Canon 28-300 vs. Nikon 28-300

243
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon EOS-M Begins Shipping
« on: October 02, 2012, 09:52:14 AM »
I think the two most important questions will be answered when reviews start coming out:

1) How quickly and accurately does it focus?
2) How good (optically) is the 22mm f/2?

But above those two is a question only Canon can answer:

1) Where are the other lenses for the system? / Where's the road map?

244
Lenses / Re: Broken 24-105...what should I do??
« on: October 01, 2012, 12:59:18 PM »
As someone who buys not-working/for parts cameras and lenses regularly on eBay, I would say you could get about $250-350 for a submerged 24-120mm.  That'll be a nice little chunk of change for a new replacement.

245
Lenses / Re: No compact 'standard' L zoom?
« on: September 27, 2012, 05:02:33 PM »
Hope that the new push for FF will encourage Canon to come out with a few more designs quickly, but don't hold your breath.
I could definitely see Canon coming out with a 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 IS USM in the near (within 12 months for announcement) future to match what Nikon is offering.  Development of reasonable build quality, affordable FF zooms has completely died since 1998 (with the exception of 28-105mm II in 2000).  Timeline of metal-mount non-L zooms:

Wide angle:
20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 USM (1993)

Normal:
28-70mm f/3.5-4.5 (1987)
35-70mm f/3.5-4.5 (1987)
35-105mm f/3.5-4.5 (1987)
28-70mm f/3.5-4.5 II (1988)
35-70mm f/3.5-4.5A (1988)
35-135mm f/3.5-4.5 (1988)
35-135mm f/4-5.6 USM (1990)
28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 I USM (1991)
28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 USM (1992)
24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM (1996)
28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM (1998)
28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM (2000)

Tele:
50-200mm f/3.5-4.5 (1987)
70-210mm f/4 (1987)
100-300mm f/5.6 (1987)
100-200mm f/4.5A (1988)
70-210mm f/3.5-4.5 USM (1990)
100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM (1990)
75-300mm f/4-5.6 I/USM (1991), II/USM (1995), III/USM (1999) - non-Ring-type USM
75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM (1995) - non-Ring-type USM
70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM (2005)

All-In-One:
28-200mm f/3.5-5.6   I/USM (2000) - non-Ring-type USM

Not everyone interested in a 6D (when it finally comes out) will be interested in spending $450 for the OK-but-old 28-135mm or $800 for the 24-105mm ($950 un-kitted).  There is definitely room in there for a $400-600 modern (latest IS version, ring-USM) normal zoom and a wide zoom cheaper than 17-40mm (maybe 18-35mm?)with at least ring USM (if not IS aswell).

246
EOS Bodies / Re: More Big Megapixel Talk [CR1]
« on: September 25, 2012, 05:04:03 PM »
maybe called EOS-S  (for studio).   ;)

I like that, I think Freelancer is the front runner right now for the possible name of said high-MP camera.

...it could be that this camera even has the rumored square sensor.

I thought we had all gone over this many times before that a square sensor cannot exist due to mirror clearance issues (unless of course it is 24mm x 24mm, which would be pointless)?

247
EOS Bodies / Re: What does the "D" in all camera bodies mean?
« on: September 25, 2012, 01:29:34 PM »
But, as Canon has shown us with the Powershot S100, they don't have a problem reusing model numbers.   ;)
And the S110 aswell. 

At some point, old technology is forgotten, what with the playstation and i-phone generation. Remember when music was on big black vinyl discs, and nobody bothered calling it 'analog'??  ;D
You really don't have to specify a technology when another technology did not exist.  Cameras used to use film, and one did not need that a camera was a 'film' camera, and music came on records, 4 tracks, 8 tracks, reel-to-reel, cassette tapes, all these are analog, but one does not have to state it when it preceeds the invention of digital means.

Now that we've all had a little fun with 'D', how about 'L'?  I'll go first:

Ludicrous (as in prices, for 24-70 II, supertelephoto IS II versions, 24 IS, 28 IS)
Languish (as in interest, in lenses that take years to go from announcement to shipping)

248
Lenses / Re: Vintage Lenses: Any Advise?
« on: September 24, 2012, 01:01:39 PM »
I don't have any frist hand exp, but i would imagine some older F mounts might be a good idea. If that's not trick enough, you could get some Leica R mounts.

Yes, I've been reading too that old Nikon AI-S lenses might be quite interesting. I find harder to identify which specific models though...

What about Canon FD lenses?
Might not help you to choose which ones are good, but at least you'll be able to identify them (and know which models exist):
http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/serialno.html

249
EOS Bodies / Re: 450D to 6D
« on: September 23, 2012, 07:42:29 PM »
Several have suggested that, but the flash sync is still a issue for a very few people.
+1
Can't agree more, I can't believe such a big deal has been made about this non-issue (for 99% of photographers, and 99.99% of photographers that are in the demographic for which this camera is intended).

250
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 4D reference in Wifi remote app video
« on: September 19, 2012, 03:49:43 PM »
I don't see 4D. For me it's more 1D than 4D.
Sounds like similar problem as early Mars face photos :-)
If Canon's app webpage has 6D and 7D picture references, I assume that also 1DX could be included. If 7D has WiFi add-on, so has 1DX...
Then wouldn't it say '1D X'?  Clearly it would not be referencing the 11-year-old 1D that has no way of connecting to Wifi.

251
Lenses / Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 II USM teardown
« on: September 11, 2012, 05:41:19 PM »
Roger Cicala has received his first shipment of 24-70 II's, and unsuprizingly has already disassembled one.  Great read:

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/09/a-peak-inside-the-canon-24-70-f2-8-mk-ii

252
EOS Bodies / Re: 3D X and 7D Mark II at Photokina?
« on: September 04, 2012, 02:29:44 PM »
Good catch preppyak.  Looks like the rumor has come full circle.  I thought that PR would only post things it is very confident will be announced at Photokina.  Maybe it's true, but it seems like a CR1 rumor might have just been inflated by another website.  Time will tell.

253
Lenses / Re: A New EF 400 f/5.6L Before Photokina? [CR1]
« on: September 04, 2012, 10:36:04 AM »
If it's sharper, faster focus, lighter, smaller, I would look at it. Maybe cheaper too.
I hope that was sarcastic. Have you seen Canon's recent releases?

254
EOS Bodies / 3D X and 7D Mark II at Photokina?
« on: September 04, 2012, 10:23:39 AM »
Photo Rumors is reporting Canon will announce these two bodies at Photokina.  Any validity to that, Craig?  What have you heard? 

http://photorumors.com/2012/09/03/what-to-expect-at-photokina/

255
Lenses / Re: Help with efs 17-85
« on: August 30, 2012, 05:13:39 PM »
I have repaired two 17-85mm's (both purchased broken).  My first (the lens I'm still using) was a broken aperture cable (which is exactly what you describe with your lens - cost of parts <$35).  The second one needed to have the USM motor replaced (much more costly - $85 for the motor alone).  These lenses, while they have decent build quality, second generation IS, and Ring-USM are famous for these two problems.  The image quality is not excellent, but the price (especially used) is not substantial.

Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19 ... 28