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.
Either way, high MP will mean low fps.
And as you said elsewhere on this site, without high fps, you can't take good photos
Ah, welcome back Mikael.
Why do we see extreme tele reach in some "superzoom" compact cameras? Do they only accomplish this through compromised IQ, or do they gain something from the small sensors used?
Ok, take the SX50 HS, FF-equivalent of 1200mm at the long end. But, it's not a 1200mm lens - it's a 215mm lens that's f/6.5 at the long end. The small sensor gives a 215mm lens the FoV of a much longer lens used on a FF camera, but focal length is an intrinsic property of the lens. The SX50 lens isn't a true telephoto design, but even if it were, that would mean only a 33mm diameter front element.
well it is the density of the pixels on a specified area, nothing else
Ah yes the legendary 50-150/2.8, I was waiting for the OS version for so long, I remember it quietly announced but was it ever released?
Actually I would really like some more EF-S primes; like an 85/1.4 to better compete with the 135/2, perhaps a 24/2 and the return of the 200/1.8 in EF-S (or is that going to be too big and expensive against the current 200/2 EF?).
Or why not go really crazy and hope for a 50-150/2.8 with built in 2x (fine maybe 1.4x) extender!lol. I think that might kill off the 100-400/4.5-5.6L though, but who's really buying this other than APS-C wildlife and sports photographers anyway.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/853533-REG/Sigma_692_101_50_150mm_f_2_8_EX_DC.html
.
The 7D is a fantastic camera and still very relevant in the Canon lineup. The 7d is a great match up with any of the EF lenses, especially L glass. The 24-70mm is fantastic on the 7D, it's only not wide enough if all you shoot is wide... If so, it's still a great walk around lens. The 17-55mm lens is fantastic on the 7D and the mid range and long lenses are incredible...+1
I honestly cannot imagine anyone handholding a 500mm for more than a few random shots.
is there ANYONE on here that uses the 500mm handheld exclusively? this doesn't sound like a recipe for great shots.... and it is really expensive.
but hey, if you really want it, and you can handhold it, and no other lens works for you, i don't think it's the worst thing you could spend your money on.
And heaven forgive me if this turns into another bloodbath of a debate.
.
If reach is this critical to you, I strongly suggest you pick up a 7D or wait for the 7DII
A 300 f2.8 IS FoV on APS-C = 480mm
It'd be $$$ smart + leagues more portable.
My ¢¢
I'm curious - you like the 7D for the 'reach' and 'pixels on target' especially with a supertele, but have you tested a 1D X or 5DIII along side the 7D in the same scenarios? I ask because in many cases, empirical reality trumps theory. Case in point are some tests from AlanF. Some time back, he posted some real-world testing of the 7D (and note - only the 7D), and came to the conclusion that, "It doesn’t matter how superior the 5D III is than the 7D, the laws of optics and information theory dictate that at 9 m you can resolve the barbs of feathers on a 7 D but you see a blur with the 5D using a 600mm lens." That conclusion sounds quite consistent with your comments.
Subesquently, Alan got himself a 5DIII and actually tested it along side the 7D - he concluded, "... the 5D III is just about as good for detail as the 7D (now my back up) and has all the advantages of much better focussing and lower noise," and also stated, "...in practice the higher IQ and lower noise of the 5D III more than makes up for the loss of crop factor."
Personally, I had planned on keeping my 7D even after getting the 1D X, for the (supposed) 'reach advantage' in focal length-limited situations. In practice, I came to the same conclusion as AlanF, and my 7D has been a very nice paperweight (ok, that was a little harsh...let's say, a very nice backup camera).
Yes, please go back to step one and explain how, at ISO 400 (or, in fact, any ISO other than 100), enabling HTP results in Half The Photons hitting the sensor.it doesn't, there already a head room created by halving the signal / e at 200iso from 100iso , and agin a halving from 200 to 400iso and from 400 to 800 etc etc , se earlier answer
We're waiting.
Now I have a Sigma 35/1,4 to pick up and test/ compare to my canon 35/1.4
To whom is HTP for? To people who are using the camera in JPG mode and automatic mode to get better reproduction of contrasty motives , raw people with little knowledge understand under exposing and post processing
I will call you men not gays , is that more proper?
Am I the only one that is curious about what gear was packed for the trip??
@f/2, it'd have an 67.5mm front element and could use 77mm filters easily. @f/1.8, the 75mm max aperture would mean 82mm (or bigger) filters. So personally, I'd rather have the f/2 version. Which exists. Could you explain why the 1.8 is so important? Btw, I totally agree on the IS. A 100mm@f/1.8-sized - non-L - 135mm (with or without IS) would be great too, btw. Nicely inconspicuous.
Where's RLPhoto? He is ready to ditch his Holy trinity member for this baby
This lens is exactly how I pronounced it at release. DOA.
Sorry, but not the same thing for me: one reduces the image circle, the other enlarges it.
Which are you saying enlarges the image circle? This adapter and what I described take a full-frame image circle and concentrates onto a smaller area (the size of a crop sensor). This has two effects: the light circle is brighter, and the crop sensor now has a similar angle of view through that lens as if it were a full-frame sensor.
.71x focal length means the focal length is 71% what it was before.
Should have bought less beer 
It is not much to own to that price, it is only ( and now Im using the word uninformed people) who think 50/1,2 is something special. good luck and Elvis is still alive, live in Motala Sweden
Had all the canon 50mm's, and the 50L is the best performing from F1.2-2.8. Its fantastic.
Tell me which one of the four links i have
Provided shows that 50/1,2 is better at 2,0 than 50/1,4
Are all this 4 test humbug? Like some think about DXO Dr test
