July 23, 2014, 02:45:27 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 [4] 5 6 ... 28
46
Lenses / Re: Image of the New 100-400?
« on: October 25, 2013, 11:25:23 AM »
It's an adapted Minolta 80-200 f/2.8 as seen here: http://kenrockwell.com/minolta/maxxum/80-200mm-f28.htm

The flange distance for Konica-Minolta is only 0.5mm longer than EF.  No chance of mount adapter for that without losing infinity focus.  You could change out the mount itself to EF, but it would still be a manual focus lens with no aperture control (wide-open only).  I can't see anyone with a press pass to photograph the World Series doing that.

*UPDATE 2*

Another suggestion from a man who knows everything about lenses.  He thinks it’s a “28-300 with filter barrel removed”.

So Roger think it's a modified 28-300mm.  Any pictures online of such a beast?  Any reason given for why one would modify it as such?

Game 2 picture from the gigapan - same guy (hard to tell since his face is obscured, but he's in the same area as Game 1)?  If so, he's a Canon shooter, as that is the 200-400mm f/4L.

47
Lenses / Re: Image of the New 100-400?
« on: October 24, 2013, 11:13:08 AM »
No red ring....this is nothing.....

Plus...seems too small for the 100-400L....

+1

a99 + 70-200mm seems almost definitely the combo (although a3000 or a58 could be possibilities since they are the only other two Sony cameras with white 'a' logos on the front - although that's probably unlikely):



Especially considering the small orange-red glow to the right of the lens mount in the OP (either the alignment dot or the orange lens mount in the case of the a99).


48
Lenses / Re: Image of the New 100-400?
« on: October 24, 2013, 08:51:20 AM »
This may help:

http://www.mlb.com/photos/gigapan/?gpId=6db032d85980b65987c98e4820c12e1c&c_id=bos&year=2013&year=2013

On the first base line, just above the middle sign that says "WelcomeBackVeterns.org" in a red jacket.

49
At $250 you're crazy for passing it up.  They typically go for $500-700 nowadays.  At the least you could make some money in a flip if it is still in good, working condition.

50
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Removal of IR Highpass filter
« on: October 16, 2013, 01:21:55 PM »
Really good DIY step-by-step (with excellent pictures):

http://www.lifepixel.com/tutorials/infrared-diy-tutorials
http://www.lifepixel.com/tutorials/infrared-diy-tutorials/canon-drebel-xti

I have removed the IR filter from an XSi that was damaged beyond repair (the sensor was still in good shape).  The removal was not as easy as most tutorials indicate (the glass cracked multiple times as I was prying it out of the dust removal frame).  Have not put it into an operable camera yet to see what the results look like, yet.  I should be done fixing another XSi in the next couple of weeks and I'd like to throw it in there to see what results I get.

51
Canon General / Re: Irritating photography advice
« on: October 08, 2013, 01:27:46 PM »
You sink 2000$ in a small odd shaped lens and all the picture it takes comes blurry  - My wife 

 tilt shift?  I still don't understand tilt shifts,  but maybe I'll borrow one one day and figure out the draw.
I think he's talking about the 85L (narrow depth of field with very blurred background).  But I do take issue with calling it odd-shaped (the 17mm TS-E and 8-15mm take that crown), even if it is a chunky little monster.

52
Canon General / Re: Irritating photography advice
« on: October 07, 2013, 02:02:20 PM »
Or the other extreme, you NEED 2.8 lenses or faster to be taken seriously... or even better yet, you need all prime lenses.
That sounds a lot like Jared Polin.  Also, from the same guy:
  • Never crop

53
EOS Bodies / Re: Prediction for next round of DSLR cameras
« on: October 04, 2013, 12:07:35 PM »
Higher resolution LCD screens

If Canon were to produce an LCD with the same pixel pitch (326 ppi) as the iPhone 4-5S and the 3:2 aspect ratio it would have a resolution of -
3.0":  814 x 542 (1.32 million dot)
3.2":  868 x 579 (1.51 million dot)
3.5":  960 x 640 (1.84 million dot) - same size as iPhone 4/4S

If Canon were to produce an LCD with the same pixel pitch (441 ppi) as the Samsung Galaxy S4 and 3:2 AR it would be -
3.0":  1100 x 733 (2.42 million dot)
3.2":  1174 x 783 (2.76 million dot)
3.5":  1284 x 856 (3.30 million dot)

Better than the current 720 x 480 (1.04 million dot) displays (288 ppi @ 3", 270 ppi @ 3.2"), and could allow Canon to tout the highest resolution LCD on any DSLR (Samsung would still have the biggest, though, with the almost-unusably-large Galaxy series at 4.8").  Does anyone know what type of panel technology is used in current DSLR LCDs (TN, MVA, PVA, IPS, eIPS, etc)?

What are your thoughts?

Canon does not produce LCD's, they buy them from Sony. 
 
I'd like them to use a OLED display so it is bright enough to use outdoors.
Yes, the same Sony that makes the Xperia Z (5.0" LCD at 1080p - 443ppi). 

OLED would be a good option.  My dream is for someone to come up with a full color screen that is as easy to read in full sunlight as e-Ink but also has backlight for darker conditions.  Also, S-IPS color accuracy (100%+ sRGB spectrum), RGB LED backlight and 1000:1 contrast ratio.  I'm not asking for too much, am I?

54
Lenses / Re: Lens reversal macro on canon 17-40mm
« on: October 04, 2013, 11:39:07 AM »
77mm reverse macro adapter is liable to not fit very well on your camera body. I tried one out of curiosity, but there isn't enough clearance from the flash/hotshoe protrusion to really work.

+1 for nifty fifty with 52mm reverse adapter. Or if you're thinking of doing a lot of reverse macro, find a lens that lets you set the aperture manually on the barrel (Nikon's nifty fifty on a Canon body, for example, is even better than Canon's).
I was thinking the same thing, but you could always do something like a EF to 58mm thread and add a step-down ring for 77 to 58 or something like that to give you a bit more clearance, but that would also affect your macro maginfication by moving the lens further out.

55
EOS Bodies / Prediction for next round of DSLR cameras
« on: October 01, 2013, 03:57:36 PM »
Higher resolution LCD screens

If Canon were to produce an LCD with the same pixel pitch (326 ppi) as the iPhone 4-5S and the 3:2 aspect ratio it would have a resolution of -
3.0":  814 x 542 (1.32 million dot)
3.2":  868 x 579 (1.51 million dot)
3.5":  960 x 640 (1.84 million dot) - same size as iPhone 4/4S

If Canon were to produce an LCD with the same pixel pitch (441 ppi) as the Samsung Galaxy S4 and 3:2 AR it would be -
3.0":  1100 x 733 (2.42 million dot)
3.2":  1174 x 783 (2.76 million dot)
3.5":  1284 x 856 (3.30 million dot)

Better than the current 720 x 480 (1.04 million dot) displays (288 ppi @ 3", 270 ppi @ 3.2"), and could allow Canon to tout the highest resolution LCD on any DSLR (Samsung would still have the biggest, though, with the almost-unusably-large Galaxy series at 4.8").  Does anyone know what type of panel technology is used in current DSLR LCDs (TN, MVA, PVA, IPS, eIPS, etc)?

What are your thoughts?

56
Lenses / Re: UCSD Science FAIL
« on: September 27, 2013, 08:37:46 AM »
OK, now it's starting to make sense.  Thanks for sharing the link, Pi.  This does seem like an interesting technology.  I just wonder what that section of the image would look like if you put a Pentax Q + shift adapter (for the higher pixel density ~ 250MP FF equivalent) on the Canon 8-15mm.

Also, here's a presentation:
http://psilab.ucsd.edu/publications/(presentation_2013)_stamenov_(OSA_IS).pdf

57
Lenses / Re: UCSD Science FAIL
« on: September 26, 2013, 07:04:24 PM »
OK, maybe the science isn't quite as horrible as Tom's lead me to believe.  I read through the link posted by Drizzt321 and still think the images provided have a very skewed control.  We could rename the paper:

"UCSD Discovers Using Higher Pixel Density Results in Pictures with Greater Detail"

Read through it, what I took away from it is that they created a 12mm lens (what is the effective image circle?) much smaller than the Canon 8-15mm Fisheye - definitely an impressive feat.  However the article talks about 5MP sensors (what size are said sensors?) with an unknown pixel pitch being used with this lens.  The graphic and caption read:



Quote
Advantages of a monocentric lens. Top: This image was captured with a conventional wide-angle lens, a Canon EOS 5D Mark III DSLR with a 12mm focal length. Middle: An inset of the image above. A close-up (right) of the man holding the board shows that this picture, taken with a conventional wide-angle camera with 12mm focal length, does not have very high resolution. Bottom: An image taken with a monocentric lens relayed onto a high-magnification digital microscope. This system did not include the fiber coupling developed by the researchers for their prototype camera, but the clarity of the detail shows the potential of using monocentric lenses to take images with both high resolution and a wide field of view.


So why is there no level playing field, say, each lens tested with the same sensor (or at least of the same pixel pitch), like shown in the test bench?:



I'm not knocking the fact that they have created a pretty impressive lens, especially considering its size (and also the apparent lack of chromatic aberation), but the picture shown, I feel, is extremely misleading and implies that the absolute most the 8-15mm can resolve is 22 MP (which I don't believe for a second).

58
Lenses / UCSD Science FAIL
« on: September 26, 2013, 03:39:39 PM »
http://www.tomsguide.com/us/marblelike-lens-smartphone-slr,news-17607.html

I'm not even sure where to begin with this article.  If anyone can find the paper on which this is based, I would love to pick apart their scientific method.

59
Lenses / Re: Cost for Canon Factory Adjustment/Tuning
« on: September 25, 2013, 08:41:46 AM »
I did some testing last night and both lenses need to be sent in.   :(  They are pretty soft wide open.  Luckily I got each lens and parts for $418 and $410, respectively.  I'm going to ask some of my friends if they'd be willing to send them in under their CPS account so at least I can get a bit of a discount on the calibration.

60
Lenses / Cost for Canon Factory Adjustment/Tuning
« on: September 23, 2013, 08:01:21 PM »
I just fixed 2 copies of the 24-105mm (both had the infamous broken aperture ribbon cable issue).  They are both working flawlessly, however, I have no way of testing the lens to see what affect on image quality removing and re-installling the two sets of eccentric adjusting sliders had.  I would like to send the lens to Canon for adjustment before I sell one off, but Canon does not do up-front quotes without inspecting the lens.  Has anyone sent a lens to Canon out of warranty for adjustment (not repair)?  If so, how costly was it in the US?  Any help or experiences are greatly appreciated. 

I would like to be totally upfront about a lens when I go to sell it, and I would prefer to say it just came back from Canon for optical tuning (either way I'll tell the buyer I personally did the aperture replacement).  If the cost for tuning is fairly inexpensive I'll do it, but if it's going to run $150+ then it won't be worth it.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 28