April 20, 2014, 08:41:38 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 - AvTvM

Pages: 1 ... 23 24 [25] 26 27 ... 52
361
EOS-M / Re: FF EOS-M?
« on: June 09, 2013, 10:17:50 AM »
Therefor for serious use I postulate some things which have to be happened until a Replacement of the mirror makes seriously sense:

- adequate electronic wysiwig-viewfinder
- permanent autofokus in the quality of the actual systems, incl. sensitivity under low ligh
- compatibility-bridge to the existing system
- new body-desing to bring serious advantage to the user.

On all four points above ... micro-4/3 is check, check, check & check. Mirrorless technology is here, now and fully usable. Conclusion? Canon is falling behind, as is Nikon, with only their lenses keeping the (obsolete) cameras afloat.

+1  exactly!


re. size/weight advantage of mirrorles vs. DSLRs: yes, tele-lenses and tele-zooms like a 70-200/2.8 L IS will be the same size and weight and their use will almost nullify the size/weight advantage of a compact FF-mirrorless.
BUT unless totally specialized in photography of certain sports or wildlife, most photographers will not use tele-zooms or long tele lenses ALL the time on their cameras. Actually, many photographers will never use such lenses. Probably 99% of all images are captured using focal lengths between 24 and 100 mm. These lenses especially wide-angle for a FF camera body with a short flange back distance could be considerably smaller than current EF-lenses. Point in case is the Leica M-system and its "surprisingly small" (fixed focal) lenses. And contrary to common belief, adding a ring-USM AF drive would mean very little additional weight and bulk, since movable lens mass is quite small in these lenses. IS would ideally be in-body IS. Viewfinder image on an EVF can be stabilized by purely electronic means. Using a few clever algorithms and ample procesing power, legacy EF (tele) lenses with IS would work in tandem with the in-body IS to give up to 5 or even 6 stops total stabilization effect. 

That would finally yield a really small and light kit for the many occasions when we want to go small and light without sacrificing anything in performance, speed, ergonomcis and IQ compared to a good but big DSLR. The only limitation would be available tele-range in native-mount. Only when we need more tele range will we then pack and carry a simple and cheap-to-build extension tube adapter without optical elements plus any existing EF-lens (tele/zooms). But only then. Not all the time.

This is what I am waiting for. My current 7D plus EF-S and EF lenses is my last DSLR-based system. I want and will "upgrade" as soon as I get a Canon EOS 5D-M with a mirrorless body only slightly larger than a Sony RX-1 - to accomodate a built in Hi-End EVF. With a new sensor with ultra-fast in-plane phase-AF of course and an image processing pipeline that at least fully matches the current Nikon D800. Along with in-body IS and built-in WiFi, GPS and EX-RT wireless flash radio commander ... these radio components can be had ridiculously cheap and small. Price? Clearly below a 5D III, since it is so much cheaper to make a mirrorlss body without all the hi-precision mechanical cr*p in it - mirror, sub-mirrors, large and expensive glass prism etc. And, Canon - please aslo do away with that mechanical shutter and start using fully electronic shutters with X-sync all the way to 1/8000s.

And put an "as large as possible" fully FF-capable lens mount up front. Along with a number of "as small as possible" FF pancake AF-lenses (think of the EF 40/2.8) between 20mm and 85mm [20/2.8, 35/1.8, 50/1.4, 85/1.8). Make them AF-only. Forget about those manul focus rings and gears. I don't ever use 'em. That way, it will be smaller, lighter,  easier to fully weather-seal and lower cost. And for conven ience two hi-quality, ultra-compact "folding" zooms: a tiny 17-50/4 kit zoom and a 50-150/2.8 even smaller than the former Sigma 50-150/2.8. And the EF-adapter. That's all I need. :-)

362
EOS-M / Re: EF-M 11-22 / 4-5.6 IS STM - officially announced
« on: June 07, 2013, 09:30:02 AM »
that 11-22 MTF chart indeed looks a lot better than the EF-S 10-22 ... http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/tech/report/200501/200501-02.html

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

363
EOS-M / Re: FF EOS-M?
« on: June 07, 2013, 09:24:22 AM »
I always chuckle when I see folk wanting full frame mirrorless.  They just haven't got the concept.  Big sensor means big lenses. big. big. Not small.

One day soon Canon will finally be forced to come up with a super-compact (think Sony RX-1 size) hi-performance FF mirrorless body plus a couple of tiny but fully FF-capable pancake lenses with AF (think EF 40/2.8 size) and an adaptor for EF lenses. And if they manage to do so before somebody else does, I will buy it from Canon ... :-) 
 

364
Lenses / Re: When is the New 100-400 Coming?
« on: June 07, 2013, 03:45:12 AM »
finally we get some real measurements, how the current 100-400 fares against the other 400mm lenses from Canon (except 400DO). As expected, by today's standards it is not really good @400mm.

http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/06/lensrentals-com-tests-the-ef-200-400-f4l-is-1-4x/


I would like a 100-400/4.0-5.6 L IS Mk. II, turning zoom (not push-pull), with 4 stop IS, full wheather-sealing, 9 aperture blades and IQ matching the current 400/5.6 at 400mm,  f/5.6 ...

For the flexibility of a zoom lens and IS I would be prepared to pay up to twice the price of the current 400/5.6 for it, But not more. :-)

P.S. The EF 400/5.6 currently retails for Euro 1260,- including 20% VAT where I live ...

365
EOS-M / Re: EF-M 11-22 / 4-5.6 IS STM - officially announced
« on: June 07, 2013, 03:06:52 AM »
Bummer for Europe. Is that including or before VAT?


Yes. "Recommended Retail Prices" must be quoted inclusive of VAT [~ "Sales Tax"] in EU-countries.
Applicable VAT standard rates as of May 2013 are between 15% (Luxembourg) and 27% (Hungary) depending on country. Typical rates are in the 20-22% range.

http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/resources/documents/taxation/vat/how_vat_works/rates/vat_rates_en.pdf


366
Lenses / Re: Why Does the 100-400L Sell So Well Still ?
« on: June 07, 2013, 02:54:18 AM »
finally we get some real measurements, how the current 100-400 fares against the other 400mm lenses from Canon (except 400DO).

http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/06/lensrentals-com-tests-the-ef-200-400-f4l-is-1-4x/


I would like a 100-400/4.0-5.6 L IS Mk. II, turning zoom (not push-pull), with 4 stop IS, full wheather-sealing, 9 aperture blades and IQ matching the current 400/5.6 at 400mm,  f/5.6 ...

For the flexibility of a zoom lens and IS I would be prepared to pay up to twice the price of the current 400/5.6 for it, But not more. :-)

P.S. The EF 400/5.6 currently retails for Euro 1260,- including 20% VAT where I live ...

367
Lenses / Re: Euro Trip Lens selection.
« on: June 06, 2013, 12:39:49 PM »
Paris & London for a week. I will shoot a little of everything and want to travel light with f/4 zooms and a fast 50mm.

I'd just take along the 24-105, 50 and the 135/2, since you like that lens. Excellent IQ plus it is black and far less conspicuos than even a 70-200/4 (white).   

Flash? Will depend on what/where you will shoot. But at many of the interesting places / churches / sites / museums etc. flash photography is strictly forbidden. If it is just for fill flash/portraits on the go, a small & light 270EX II will do just nicely.

368
Lenses / Re: Why Does the 100-400L Sell So Well Still ?
« on: June 06, 2013, 12:20:20 PM »
Really, what I would most like to see in a new 100-400 is a modern IS and AF (the 100-400 is a FIFTEEN-YEAR-OLD design!) with somewhat improved IQ that might make a II with a 1.4 have similar IQ to the original.

(Heck, if they just dropped modern IS (4 stops, please!) & AF into the current lens, I'd pay them $500 more than what it is now!)

YES, this is what so MANY of us would like to get! Actually all of us, except those individuals who absolutely do not want a push-pull zoom or who are able & willing to purchase the 200-400/1.4x.

I for one would be interested in either of the following lenses: 

A 100-400/4.5-5.6 IS L Mk. II - push-pull design, same amount of weather-sealing, but 4 stop IS and slightly better IQ at the long end, at a price similar to the current lens - meaning: way below 2000 USD/€

OR

B. 100-400/4.0-5.6 IS L Mk. II, turning zoom, better weather-/dustsealing (!), clearly better IQ across the entire focal range and frame - especially at the long end - and significantly better Bokeh (9-aperture blades), and included detachable tripod ring with integrated Arca-Swiss compatible grooves on its foot which also serves as nice carrying handle ... for around USD/Euro 2.500

However, based on my longstanding observations of Canon product development and pricing decisions I predict, they will eventually offer a 100-400/4.5-5.6 turning zoom with all other specs as in option A above ... "in order not to cannibalize the 200-400/1.4x"  ::) ... AND a price tag north of 3000 USD/Euro  :o

Some may be, but I'm not sure that would be the best idea just yet. It's not like the current lens will diasppear. When/If a new 100-400 arrives, the current one will likely be cheaper to buy used, well, at least still cheaper than the new one certainly will be! There will be lots of us who will be looking for ways to fund the version II by selling their version I!

If Canon comes up with what I predict [only very slightly improved Mk. II costing 3k+ USD/Euro], prices for well maintained, used 100-400's will go up and remain high for a long time.

369
EOS-M / Re: EF-M 11-22 / 4-5.6 IS STM - officially announced
« on: June 06, 2013, 06:40:12 AM »
...And how grossly overpriced most of Canon's EF-S and EF lenses really are.

Or a lack of understanding of lens design by people with that opinion...  :P  Small image circle + less retro focus in the design because of the shorter flange distance means a cheaper lens (the latter is why the EF 50/1.8 is so much cheaper than the EF 35/2). 

If they wanted, Canon could sell M-pancakes at prices very similar to the ultra-compact FF-capable EF 40/2.8 pancake - with excellent IQ and "good enough for me" build quality - and still make tons of money. 

And for € 399 they could just as well have built an EF-M 11-22 IS with a constant f/4 aperture. All the difference would have been a slightly larger front element and a 62 filter thread instead of 55.

But lets wait what image quality the 11-22 will really deliver. And as long as there is no adequately performing EOS-M body, I am not interested anyways.  :P

370
Lenses / Re: Why Does the 100-400L Sell So Well Still ?
« on: June 06, 2013, 04:20:04 AM »
1. Price, price, price!
2. 400mm
3. IS
4. Zoom

The 70-300L is a good lens, but just way too expensive.
And 300mm is too short for "real tele use" - e.g. wildlife, outdoor sports, airshows etc. ... especially on FF sensors.

 

371
EOS-M / EF-M 11-22 / 4-5.6 IS STM - officially announced
« on: June 06, 2013, 04:10:34 AM »
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/06/06/canon-announces-ef-m-11-22mm-f4-5-6-is-stm-image-stabilised-wide-angle-zoom-for-eos-m
Yes it's small. And it has IS. And list price is 399,- USD.
But it's not constant aperture f/4.
It is not as wide, not as bright but same weight and not a lot smaller than Sony NEX 10-18/4.0
* Canon 11-22mm F4-5.6 220 gram 61 x 58 mm (D)
* Sony NEX 10-18 F4 225 gram 70 x 63.5 mm (D)

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon-efm-11-22-4-5p6-is-stm
"Canon is making grand claims for the 11-22mm's optical quality, and saying that its 12 element / 9 group design will offer significantly better image quality than the (already well-regarded) EF-S 10-22mm."

Wait and see ... IF true, it demonstrates that Canon can make and sell an excellent APS-C UWA-Zoom including  IS for a list price of € 399. And how grossly overpriced most of Canon's EF-S and EF lenses really are. 

372
EOS-M / Re: EF-M 11-22mm f/4-5.6 IS STM Announcement Soon? [CR2]
« on: June 04, 2013, 08:14:45 AM »
Yes. EF-M 11mm f/4 STM pancake would be great.

  • seconded!


And as a zoom-lens, the 11-22 should really come with constant f/4.

373
Lighting / Re: Using 600EX-rt aboard
« on: May 28, 2013, 12:52:15 PM »
it is CYA.
Like the Chinese radio trigger makers which effectively forced  Canon into offering some degree of radio remote flash control the Canon EX-RT system uses the 2.4 GHz band which is basically free to use almost anywhere in the civilized world.
http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2012/speedlite_600exrt_radio_basics.shtml

---
Radio Transmission:
IEEE 802.15.4, ARIB STD-T66
Primary modulation: OQPSK
Secondary modulation: DS-SS
Sending frequency (center): 2405 to 2475 MHz
---

Pocketwizard chose different frequency bands between 315 MHz and 434 MHz and ran into a lot of regulatory issues.  Effectively they make 3 product variations for different parts of the world, which are mutually non-compatible and which may not be allowed to operate in other countries.
see http://www.pocketwizard.com/inspirations/technology/frequency/

-----
North & South America and parts of Asia = 340.00 to 354.00 MHz FCC/US
Europe, India, China, and other countries = 433.62 - 434.22 MHz CE
Japan = 315.50 - 317.00 MHz

IMPORTANT, PLEASE READ:
PocketWizard radio devices operating on one frequency can not operate with PocketWizard devices on a different radio frequency.  Retailers can not ship devices to markets that use a different frequency and we can not provide proper warranty service for products shipped out of their intended market.
-----

374
Lenses / Re: Do you wish your 70-200L were black?
« on: May 23, 2013, 02:07:02 PM »
Yes white reflects more light than black and causes less temperature build-up. However, as far as lenses are concerned its irrevelevant. Some time ago I saw an interview with Chuck Westfall were he basically admitted that the off-white coloring on some Canon lenses is pure and utter marketing S___.

Canon uses the white coloring even on some L-lenses - e.g. 70-200/2.8 L and 70-200/2.8 L IS without any fluorite element. http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/infobank/lenses/fluorite_aspherical_and_ud_lenses.do
 
There are only two valid reasons for the white coloring used in many Canon L-tele-lenses and a few Minolta G-tele-lenses:
1. white lenses stand out at large (sports and other) public events   
2. white color as well as the red L-ring are used by Canon and Minolta to create the impression of "premium grade" in order to charge more than for equally good black lenses

375
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 70D & EOS 7D Mark II
« on: May 23, 2013, 12:44:04 PM »
Except that Canon would have had to have different camera body models because radio spectra and requirements vary from country to country.

Nope. Just another urban legend.
Canon is selling its Speedlite 660EX-RT and trigger ST-E3 globally.
These devices are apparently using the very same frequency range/channels everywhere. 
Otherwise we would be seeing product variations - like "model A" or "B" ... or "Euro" vs. "US" vs. "Asia" type.

Pages: 1 ... 23 24 [25] 26 27 ... 52