December 21, 2014, 10:14:22 AM

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 - tron

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 129
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 5DIV: 36 MP US $ 3799 TBA in March 2015
« on: November 23, 2014, 07:32:51 AM »
Another mid twenties mp count with very high QE, saturation capacity, low light performance etc etc... is much more desirable for the vast majority of users.
+1000000000000000000000 Exactlyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!

It would be stupid for Canon to mess with a successful recipe...

Making a different body series is something else, messing with 5D series would be a mess and a pity!

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7D Mark II Reported Issues
« on: November 19, 2014, 07:39:21 AM »
Also if the lens works fine with other bodies then it's not likely the lens. 
It wouldnt be intermittent one one body and not on another.  Therefore I suspect it may be contct related or something with that camera body.
7DII is a new body. Dirty contacts? In that case the problem would be with all lenses attached to that body...

The camera exchange suggestion is good if possible but I suspect it will work the same...

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: New Sigma Lenses Coming Q1 of 2015 [CR1]
« on: November 17, 2014, 10:02:54 PM »
A reported roadmap for Sigma has shown up over at They’re told that Sigma’s 24mm f/1.4 ART lens has been delayed until Q1 of 2015. This has been a rumoured lens for quite some time.
Also mentioned are a 14-24mm f/4 Art which makes a lot of sense. Also mentioned is a 16-20mm f/2, which seems a bit constrained on the zoom range, why not just make a 16mm f/2?
Mmmmm, 16mm f/2 is fantastic for astrophotography IF: 1. it has no coma 2. It contains a flat element that supports a hood to protect from falling light

« on: November 17, 2014, 08:15:23 AM »
NOW, The question is =  Am I stupid enough ??? , If I  buy the new 100-400 mm , MK II ?---Or just make me a happy/ stupid man again.
Thank you, Sir/ Madam.
Dear surapon.  YOU ARE NOT stupid AT ALL!

Get the new/better 100-400 and BE HAPPY!   :)

Lenses / Re: EF 35mm f/1.4L II to Finally Come as Well? [CR2]
« on: November 15, 2014, 10:39:57 AM »
I am turning 60 yrs. in  5 days...and although I still going strong (I put 8 widows in a house this week!) ... I am just going to have to let the beast go!!!!  Times (and gear) are a-changin..... LOL!!!!
Congratulations a few days ahead of time! Both to the 60th birthday and to have managed to do whatever it is that you did to those widows. I'm impressed! ;)

May the light be with you, and your shutter finger steady!

Thanks!   4 of them were on the second floor and one was a DOOOOOZEY to get to for the install!!!
I am planning on going to the new Fulton Center in Manhattan early tomorrow morning to just take some images. The architecture looks unbelievable. I am traveling from Jersey car>train>train and a lot of FF kit will be sitting at home....AGAIN!!!  It is supposed to be my day off.   LOL!  :P
Ehhhmmmm, 8 widows  :o :o :o :o :o or may be ... 8 windows?  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Lenses / Re: Danny Green Talks the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II
« on: November 12, 2014, 02:48:17 PM »
“It works with an EF1.4x converter* too, unlike the old 100-400 which would only let you manual focus with it fitted. With this new lens you can use AF no problem with the central focusing point. Another big step forward.”

Rubbish. The original 100~400 will AF with an Extender 1.4× provided you are using a body with f/8 AF. If you are using a body with AF limited to f/5.6 the original 100~400 with Extender 1.4× will not AF, but presumably neither will ne new version.
Maybe Mr Green got a little bit confused by the lens performance.
But it's odd to see Canon Marketing didn't correct this statement in their own article.
This was too stupid to tell even for a simple Canon user not a ... "Canon Explorer"  ::)

Lenses / Re: Danny Green Talks the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II
« on: November 12, 2014, 02:41:18 PM »
Psoing with his finger touching the focusing ring...

And we have to believe he is about to take a well ... autofocused picture?  ;D

Seriously now what is the opinion of 70-300L owners?

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7D Mark II Reported Issues
« on: November 11, 2014, 08:23:58 AM »
Another issue that can slow down AF is the use of Spot AF.  Canon used to warn about that.

Yes I considered that but found the lag in all AF modes.  I was performing a AFMA on my 24 1.2 II last night and I did not see the lag as I did on the 300.  I will try my 70-200 today and my 600 tomorrow (Need to find a vacant football field)
Interesting! My 5D3 is fast even in spot AF (with AFMA)...

Lenses / Re: Old lenses Canon will phase out
« on: November 10, 2014, 09:19:53 AM »
The 28-135 USM has already disappeared from Canon's listings.

It's logical replacement is the 24-105 STM, as a junior to the 24-105L
Still being sold on Adorama & BHPhoto.

Some surprise upgrades

2012 EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM
2012 EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM
2014 EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM

The lens they were supposed to replace are still being sold. Excess stock, perhaps?

2002 EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
2003 EF 17-40mm f/4L USM
2005 EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM
EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM ?  Where exactly Canon mentioned that 24-105 has been or is about to be replaced? I would not mind a version II of that lens but 24-70 f/4L IS is not a replacement for 24-105.

Lenses / Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II
« on: November 10, 2014, 05:06:32 AM »
Front fat ring is the zoom. Can even see half an FL marker in the graphic.
Indeed! But it's a shame it is the opposite of what is comfortable for use (and consistent to 70-200 lenses  :( ) I hoped that they wouldn't adopt the 70-300 L design...

Lenses / Re: Another EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II Mention
« on: November 05, 2014, 09:57:52 AM »
Please allow me to quote Douglas Adams:

"Curiously enough, the only thing that went through the mind of the bowl of petunias as it fell was ..."

If you will complete the sentence you will have my comment for this rumor  ;D ;D ;D ;D

EOS Bodies / Re: 46MP body rumor is hoax?
« on: November 05, 2014, 09:27:05 AM »
The reality with 46 mp on FF is that you are only gaining potential resolution via more pixels. The magnification and light gathering is still limited to the FF format size. It takes takes resolving power of the lens to use those extra pixel densities, and magnification on FF isn't that high.

This is why people are not seeing the benefit of real extra 'reach' on the crop sensors, or at least nothing like they would expect when comparing up sampled central 8 mp from the FF and 18 from the whole of the crop sensor.

In practice you don't just need more pixels for more resolution; you need magnification and light as well. The crop sensor gives you the extra pixels but no more magnification and light than the FF sensor cropped to APS.

In just the same way you can up sample the image without losing anything like you would expect so you can do the same with a 23 mp FF sensor against a 36 or 46 or whatever FF sensor. You can also run into the issues of smaller pixels receiving less individual light and less saturation etc.

I'm sure the reason why Canon haven't yet introduced a 'very high' mp FF sensor is that in reality there just isn't much point to it.
Nice analysis. I do hope  that Canon will stick to 22Mp sensor and improve it in terms of High and Low ISO noise (one can always hope...)

EOS Bodies / Re: 46MP body rumor is hoax?
« on: November 05, 2014, 06:42:33 AM »
it is as hoax as as the 100-400 II or 35 1.4II rumors in this site  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

In fact I believe that we will see first the above mentioned lenses and then the 46Mp Canon body  ;D

Albeit the 6D is 4mp less than the 5DIII
2 mp not 4 (20 vs 22).

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sony A7S Shooter's Report Part II
« on: November 03, 2014, 08:38:09 AM »
I don't know what this is doing on a Canon forum!

You don't?  Here's a hint...

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 129