March 05, 2015, 09:37:58 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 - funkboy

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 29
1
I'd buy this if it had IS.

Given that the 35 f/2 has it it's probably not out of the realm of possibility.

2
PowerShot / Re: New PowerShot G17 Coming in Spring [CR2]
« on: March 02, 2015, 01:34:21 PM »
If it is indeed a lens with those specs coupled with a 1" or larger sensor, I'll be all over this thing...

3
PowerShot Cameras / Re: Canon Unveils the HJ24ex7.5B Lens
« on: February 20, 2015, 02:33:15 AM »
I hope we're not supposed to be able to pronounce that.

Maybe it means something in Japanese...

4
"budget-conscious" ?

The difference between the two models is only $50 MSRP.  It'll be interesting to see what the street price difference is.

Also wondering if this new "rebel plus" price bracket is intended to sound the death knell for the XXD mid-rage line...

5
It would be interesting to know if the new 11-20mm will cover a full frame sensor for part of the zoom range like the 11-16mm works at 16mm. That might be the best "feature" of the excellent 11-16mm.

I would imagine so - the 16mm end of my 11-16 works great on my 6D.  It's about the least expensive way buy a new FF 16mm lens with autofocus, and it's and f/2.8 too :-).

On my old 12-24mm Tokina it stopped vignetting on FF about half way through the range (~18-19mm) but then that was an f/4 lens.  I'd imagine that the new 11-20 is probably FF safe at least at the 20mm end; anything wider will depend on the design (almost certainly will vignette at anything wider than 16mm though...).

6
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Yongnuo 35mm f/2 Canon Clone on the Way
« on: January 05, 2015, 09:11:44 AM »
Any idea if the Canon patents on these old optical formulas have expired?

7
To me this seems like a "cover your butt" press release than anything else.

I only use Lithium batteries in my flashes & they work great.  They have an extremely long shelf live, good energy density, and they are noticeably lighter than other battery types I've tried, which is a big deal for me as I have a history of trouble with my right wrist.

They certainly have a faster recycle time than most rechargeables.  However, I don't go nuts with it as I know that it'll overheat the flash head.  Like this:  http://blog1.1001noisycameras.com/2010/01/30seconds-to-overheat-adventures-with-the-sb900-flash-and-nizn-aa-batteries.html

8
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Contact Cleaning Body Cap
« on: November 27, 2014, 05:11:41 AM »

Besides poor plating, there is the near impossible situation of plating a sharp edge or pointy pin.  You just can't do it.  Pins have to have a nice smooth radius on the end, corners the same.
 
Most dirty pins are actually due to a thin film of corrosion that is invisible.  It comes from cracks or porous plating, or from the sharp points and edges.
 
The best designs use a wiping action as the parts come together.  This wipes that microscopic film away. 
 
The ends of the pins in a DSLR are nicely rounded, but even so, its a weak point.  You definitely do not want to be rubbing on them more than is absolutely necessary.  The thinner that gold gets, the worse the problem is.
 
IMHO, the self cleaning cap is one of those designs that will do more harm than good.  The lens already wipes the contacts when its rotated into place. 

Awesome post, Spok.  Personally I think that the only EOS contacts that might benefit from regular cleaning are the plates on the lens, & that whatever cleaning a "self-cleaning lens cap" would do should be very, very light.

So far the biggest problem I've had is the design of the 24-105L rubbing through & shorting out the internal ribbon cable over time, which makes for a nasty error message at any focal length other than 24mm.

9
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Contact Cleaning Body Cap
« on: November 26, 2014, 07:31:23 AM »
great idea, daddy likes.  Assuming the price increase vs. a normal body cap is minimal i.e. this is a <$10 product, unlike a certain German brand that wants $50 for a round chunk of plastic.  Given that it weighs about 46g that's ~$1/g, which it turns out is the same price as something you need to be smoking in order to pay that kind of money for a plastic body cap.

I'd find a contact-cleaning lens cap even more useful as I hardly ever use body caps but I use lens caps all the time.

10
Perhaps if Canon collaborated with more designers, we'd get more functional gear.
Thinking back of the T90 when Luigi Colani was re-interpreting camera design and seeing that this is still the major design approach of todays EOS Cameras... I think you're right.  :)

Ah, the father of modern SLR ergonomics :-)

some of his other stuff is pretty crazy though.  Even some of the cameras were pretty bonkers looking, not to mention the Darth Vader trucks...

Still, '80s design at its finest <grin>

11
Like Apple, Canon has realized that some of their products are as much fashion accessories as they are electronic devices (or at least they want them to be :-), and is acting accordingly.

Personally I think that statement applies to a lot of their smaller cameras, but I'd be surprised if anyone gives a crap what you carry your DSLR around in (from a fashion perspective).

12
Lenses / Re: Do you keep all your boxes?
« on: September 23, 2014, 06:47:43 PM »
I like to know if you keep all your lens boxes? I can imagine that it's useful to keep the camera box , but do you keep all the other boxes too?
Keep in mind that I am a minimalist ;)

I cut the UPC/bar code off the box with a pen knife as proof of purchase (along with the receipt) & chuck out the rest.

As much as keeping boxes around to potentially increase resale value is tempting:

 - I have a small apartment where space is at a premium; there's no place for empty lens boxes here.  The available space in the cabinet is worth way more than the few extra bucks I could potentially make several years down the road.

 - I usually end up keeping my glass for a long time, and 5 year old lens boxes tend to be so beat up that they're not presentable anyway.

13
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: POLL: What's more important, gps or wifi?
« on: September 23, 2014, 03:23:06 AM »
The watch is just a quick glance away compared to other devices such as your phone which could be in a pocket. Though i think habit has a lot to do with it. Even with my phone in my hand, sitting on a train, I always instinctvely glance at my watch to check the time so I don't miss my stop.

Agree wholeheartedly.  I began wearing a watch again when I started cycling to work.  Try pulling a phone out of your pocket on a bike just to check the time...

14
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: POLL: What's more important, gps or wifi?
« on: September 22, 2014, 05:34:41 AM »
You know what I'd really like in terms of radio options built in to a camera:

 - GPS with an intelligent power function connected to the inertia/orientation sensors already in the camera so that it switches off the radio when the camera isn't moving.  It should also have an option to switch off the whole GPS unit when the camera goes to sleep.

 - Bluetooth 4.0 LE radio, with apps to take full control of the camera from a computer or smartphone.  The bluetooth radio is a dual-mode radio that also supports "classic" Bluetooth & will need to be paired in this mode before it can be used as a remote viewfinder (which requires more bandwidth than Bluetooth LE but should work just fine with regular bluetooth 4 if the "viewfinder" video stream is sufficiently compressed).

15
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: POLL: What's more important, gps or wifi?
« on: September 22, 2014, 05:26:03 AM »
when I saw "cannot decide" as a poll option I read

"Canon decides"

:-)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 29