October 21, 2014, 10:41:25 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 - dryanparker

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 8
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Outed?
« on: October 13, 2013, 06:19:03 PM »
Not sure why someone would go through the process of faking images of a 24-105. It's just not a very polarizing offering. If this was an Art 14-24, seems that would be different!

Ok so my $250k estimate might be a few factors low...

Why not make this with a Summilux or Noctilux? I agree it'll never really be used, but may as well go big, no?

Lenses / Re: Canon Tilt-Shift Updates [CR1]
« on: October 11, 2013, 04:50:44 PM »

<p>We also understand that Canon is redesigning the shift mechanism on the new tilt-shift lenses and that they won’t share the same design... I would gladly welcome a more reliable design to the shift unit, and hopefully Canon can make the new lenses a bit less prone to broken knobs and other issues that I have seen.</p>

Problem with the shift mechanism on the TSE-17? News to me.

If they're redesigning ONLY the shift mechanism, perhaps they're looking at the post-style shift like the PC-Super-Angulon and older shift lenses. The new Schneider PC-TS lenses use barrel rings to adjust both tilt and shift independently. Very cool, indeed.

I will say the post-style shift is really a joy to use. I have the 75mm shift lens for the Mamiya RZ, and I previously owned the TS-E 24L II. Both are extraordinary. I do find the TS-E knobs a bit tedious now that I've experienced a post mechanism. Big fan, though the Mamiya post lacks a way to lock things down.

Anyone ready to bid?

A "1-of-1" offering between Apple and Leica that took 85 days to make and auctioned by Sotheby's?

This could close north of $250,000.

Sports / Re: Marathon Photo Advice?
« on: October 04, 2013, 11:35:17 AM »
If it's a smaller event, and unlikely to have thousands of runners like an established city marathon, I'd consider finding a single, more specialized shot to capture. This lets you be creative without the pressure of capturing the volume of images you hope the pros will grab.

I did something similar for a breast cancer awareness run last year. It was hosted at TPC Sawgrass during the week of THE PLAYERS Championship, so I framed up the start of the run in a way I thought might tell the story of the event in one frame. (5D2 with 24-105, somewhere on the wide end.)

Above all, enjoy the day!

Landscape / Re: First landscape submitted for critique
« on: October 02, 2013, 07:01:57 PM »
I think this image would benefit from a b&w conversion.

EOS Bodies / Re: Prediction for next round of DSLR cameras
« on: October 02, 2013, 08:38:18 AM »
I find the MF talk very exciting. But, I also think it's important that Canon find a way to bridge the gap price-wise. I'm not sure they'll pull people over from Phase One et al with an equally expensive offering. (Roughly $65k for an 80MP Phase One setup these days.)

Maybe if they take their existing FF technology and package it in something like the LEICA S system, there would be better market share opportunities. 50MP+ with great lenses, 1-series build quality and familiar handling. It would definitely be expensive, but it could fill a gap in price between current FF and MF offerings.

EOS Bodies / Re: Prediction for next round of DSLR cameras
« on: October 02, 2013, 08:30:53 AM »
Put 35mm sensor in this chassis ::)

Am I asking too much?


EOS Bodies / Re: 3.5\
« on: September 29, 2013, 11:12:41 PM »
The larger screen could have something to do with the MF rumors...Phase One backs are navigable much like an iPhone.

Canon General / Re: More Medium Format Talk [CR1]
« on: August 16, 2013, 03:02:15 PM »
All hi resolution scans of film do is give you lots of detail of the grain structure. A 21MP FF digital sensor has far more subject detail than a 50MP scanned 135 format film image.

Hmm...that simply has not been my experience. You mean your 4000px digital image at 100% has more detail than my 8000px film scan at 50%? At that size, I'm really not sure if it matters! The truth is a well-shot, well-scanned film negative offers a phenomenal level of detail, provided you've done your job behind the lens.

As for the grain structure, that's only an issue for people who think images have to be perfectly noise-free to be great. (I don't happen to be one of those folks.)

Canon General / Re: More Medium Format Talk [CR1]
« on: August 15, 2013, 09:19:47 PM »

Canon General / Re: More Medium Format Talk [CR1]
« on: August 15, 2013, 01:20:28 PM »
To me, it's about the lenses.... MF has a much wider field of view than Ff, which has a much wider field of view than APSC.

How can a format (without a specified lens) have FOV? Does MF has something wider than 12mm on FF?

Well, you use FF as a benchmark. The FOV is basically the crop factor...so APS-C is 1.6x compared to FF, so a 17-55mm zoom on a 7D is kinda like the 24-70mm on a 5D. This is because the APS-C sensor is physically smaller than FF, so the area of view it records is similarly reduced. This has the effect of cropping the FOV into what appears to be a longer focal length.

On the MF Mamiya RZ that I use, the "crop factor" is 0.48 because the 6x7cm film negative is so much larger than a FF sensor. This makes my 65mm fairly wide, with a 32mm FF equivalent FOV.

Canon General / Re: More Medium Format Talk [CR1]
« on: August 15, 2013, 12:48:58 PM »
Look at sport photography.....see all those people with the FF cameras and the 600mm lenses? With an APSC camera you can get the same field of view with a 400mm lens, but at the cost of image quality. A MF shooter would need a 1500mm lens to get the same field of view, but would have superior image quality. Obviously, this is not practical and MF will never fit this segment of the market.

Regarding the field of view, you are spot-on. But readers should bear in mind, a 600mm lens is still 600mm regardless of platform. With MF, you get the FF field of view, plus a great deal more, so that 600mm appears to be a shorter focal length. (You may have been making this point.)

As for practicality, I shoot the RZ. It is HIGHLY impractical for most stuff you might use a FF to shoot. It's heavy and awkward. It's made for slow, methodical tripod work. That said, I absolutely love it.

My longest lens is currently a 210mm, which offers the field of view of 102mm on FF. The resolving power of the lenses is pretty incredible, and with a 60x70mm negative, my desktop scans are north of 65MP. Pretty cool!

Canon General / Re: More Medium Format Talk [CR1]
« on: August 14, 2013, 03:00:35 PM »

Maybe they plan on bigger for MF ---something in the 80mp range.  If they can make 50 mp FF sensors, then 80 + mp mf sensors shouldn't be that hard. 

My guess is it will be pricey though.  If the 1 series bodies are in the 7k range, then expect over 10k - more $$$ than pentax, but less than hasslebad/leica...just guessing

Phase One IQ and Leaf Credo backs both come in 80MP versions...they're roughly $40k. That puts a new Phase One system at 80MP in the neighborhood of $65k.

Canon General / Re: More Medium Format Talk [CR1]
« on: August 14, 2013, 02:53:34 PM »
It all depends on how many MP they can get into a FF camera compared to how many MP they could get into a MF camera.

I'm sure there are professional phtographers that will buy a high megapixel Canon MF, especially if they can use some of their existing lenses.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but pros won't be able to use their FF lenses on an MF body. It's an issue of the narrower image circle in FF lenses. My guess is if Canon made an EF mount on an MF body, you'd get some serious vignetting, which negates the value of an MF sensor. Bottom line: MF lenses are built differently than FF lenses.

Perhaps the TS-E lenses would show better results since they have larger image circles?

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 8