April 18, 2014, 11:04:43 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 - Drizzt321

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 110
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: In-Depth Review: Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3 VC
« on: February 26, 2014, 12:53:13 PM »
No 2 position VC (1 to allow panning)

Does the Tamron 150-600 have automatic panning detection?  I use 'mode 2 IS' quite frequently for birds, and it makes a difference.

I was also curious about this so I contacted Tamron via their website and here is the response from Tamron USA:

"Thank you for contacting Tamron. Unfortunately the lens does not have a specific mode for panning. Of course the VC will try to compensate for any movement when panning in any direction but not like it would on some Canon lenses. Actually I usually recommend turning VC off when panning the lens if you can; VC is beneficial for camera shake but it also makes focus lag just a bit.

If you have any questions please ask.

Kind regards,

Brian Marley
Customer Service Supervisor
Tamron USA, INC"

Well that's unfortunate. Thanks for posting this.

Lighting / Re: 3D Printed Lightboxes Mounted on Canon 100mm 2.8 Macro
« on: February 24, 2014, 05:56:07 PM »
Nifty. Are you going to publish a full list of parts & diagrams as well as the 3-D model file?

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: In-Depth Review: Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3 VC
« on: February 14, 2014, 05:41:29 PM »
I din't need a 600mm lens and even if i did i would not consider the tamron lens, because tamron is not willing to equip their lenses in ef-version with matching zoomring anf focus ring rotation direction. As long as they make their lenses nikon style only Which causes lost shots for canon users, i will not buy from them. I liked the optical quality of the tamron 17-50/2.8, but sold it after a few months for this reason and got the canon 17-55 instead. I also trll the tamron people at any tradeshow i visit, that their products are seriously flawed.

Personal choice, and fine for you if you don't want to adapt to that style when you change lenses.

Besides the horrible grammar an attitude towards the company & representatives, most of us seem to be fine adapting when switching lenses. I rented the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 and it took me less than an hour to generally be used to it, and if I had used it regularly I'm sure I would have adapted as soon as I put the lens on.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon's Medium Format
« on: February 14, 2014, 01:03:58 PM »
When they can give me a full frame MF sensor (6x4.5) for about the price of a 1DX I'll start saving for one. :)  (yeah, fat chance, I know)
There is an option there - new Pentax 645D 2014 which will become available probably by mid 2014. Pricewise should be not big difference from 1DX system

With the back? Cause that's be really impressive actually.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: In-Depth Review: Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3 VC
« on: February 14, 2014, 01:01:56 PM »
Not a bad shot at all.  But I wonder why you would pair the 1DX with this lens?  If you need 600mm, it seems a big white, or a combo with a TC, would better serve the 1DX.  Looks like the Tamron is in fine form, though.

The 600mm Canon lens is $12,000+.
The Tamron lens is ~$1100.
The 1DX is $6800.

You can afford 2x1DX+Tamron for the price of 1DX+Canon 600mm.

As much as I love my 400mm f2.8 IS II, I still couldn't figure out why the hood + case would cost $1300ish ::)

Maybe Neuro has the answer :)

I seriously can't understand why the hood is as much as the case. The case...a bit overpriced perhaps, but I do understand why a high quality protective case can cost that much. Especially one custom engineered for a single lens.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon's Medium Format
« on: February 13, 2014, 02:32:27 PM »
I'm curious.  How does digital MF have better low light capability?  From what I've read on Luminous Landscape and other sites many (most?) MF backs don't even do above 800ISO and if they do it's not very good, also I've read they have issues with long exposure heat build up?  Have I missed something lately that they are  getting good 4 and 5 digit ISOs on digital MF backs now?

Most MF digital backs use CCD-based sensors and most smaller format cameras these days tend to use CMOS sensors so there is a difference in technology. The SNR numbers I put down are based on calculations where equivalent technology is employed, the only difference being the size of the sensor.

I think most new MF backs are actually CMOS these days. I remember reading that somewhere...although I could be wrong. But for quite some time, yea, CCD. However, most still don't have the super-high ISOs that 35mm CMOS has been getting lately.

Also just as an aside, why so much comparison to Canons Cinema line?  Did medium format film get used that much?  Other than 70mm that is.

I didn't make any comparisons to Canon's cinema line, so I'm a bit confused. Was that question meant for someone else?

MF film (120 roll) used to be used constantly, and actually has experienced somewhat of a slight resurgence thanks to the whole Holga type movement/experimentation, and the fact that hobbyists like myself have discovered MF and a rather low price for the older (but still great) film gear.

Also, the comparison is partly due to the rather high price of MF Digital. Most especially for the digital backs, and the lenses since they tend to be much larger (e.g. bigger pieces of glass, which is more expensive) than the 35mm lenses. Especially some of the bigger formats, such as 6x9, where the lens had to project a significantly larger image circle.

Canon General / Photographer Olympics anyone?
« on: February 13, 2014, 12:41:24 PM »
So Alex Garcia from Chicago Tribune has some suggestions for a Photographer's Olympics. Given his background, seems more like Photojournalists Olympics, but I think it's a great start. Any other suggested events?


Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sony raw files lossy compressed
« on: February 12, 2014, 07:26:18 PM »
But...but...the a7R is the perfect camera. Everything a camera should be, and nothing it shouldn't. How can this possibly be??   ::)

Everything I've read about the A7R says, despite some of it's flaws, it's actually quite a good camera in a incredibly small package. I thought "awesome!"...until I heard this. Come on, it's not that hard. Lossless compression is easy. Just grab libz, gzip, lzo, or bzip2, stick it in the pipeline based on which works best for raw image, and make sure you have enough CPU for it and you're done.

Third Party Manufacturers / Sony raw files lossy compressed
« on: February 12, 2014, 06:46:52 PM »
Lloyd Chambers has an very interesting post up describing the Sony A7 & A7R & other Sony camera raw file format. Apparently it uses "11 + 7-bit lossy compression scheme". Lossy compression. Seriously Sony. You don't have "14-bit raw recording" when you use a lossy compression scheme.


Note that this new flash is weaker - I guess they called it "MR14" because it looks the same and "MR10.5-EX" would have sounded lame.  The GN of the new flash is 10.5m/34 ft, vs the GN of the original that is 14m/46 ft.

Other than the LED modeling lights, a revised LCD display, and a shorter recycle time I really don't see any benefit of this flash over the original.  The shorter recycle time may simply be due to the fact that it's less powerful...

There's also confusion over whether this is RT or not.  The DPR blurb states, "Canon also announced the MR-14EX II Macro Ring Light, which can be controlled wirelessly using the radio-based 'RT' system."  Controlled wirelessly isn't the same as controlling wirelessly, and an RT slave-only capability for a flash that only mounts to the end of the lens seems really stupid.  No real information one way or the other, because the 'wireless' in the vendor product pages could refer to optical control.  Having the new MR14 be a master for the -RT system would be quite useful, but it's not clear if this is the case (I'm guessing no, simply because I'd assume if it was, Canon would have called it the MR14-EX-RT).

Good notes. And here I was just thinking how having a ring-light that's a wireless RT master. If it's not...WTF is Canon thinking?!

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon's Medium Format
« on: February 10, 2014, 08:01:24 PM »
Medium Format (in my limited experience) is obviously quite a bit bigger than 35mm, but from what I see briefly on Wikipedia the digital sensors are smaller than the smallest 'normal' film equivalent, which is 6x4.5cm (aka 645 format). That aside, the market is so incredibly smaller, it's already almost crowded. Canon would have to do something crazy like a full 6x6cm or 6x7cm format sensor and all new, super-high quality lenses in order to have pretty much anyone using digital MF even consider switching. And at that, it'd be insanely expensive, especially for full size sensors like that.

Canon General / Re: Gear envy
« on: February 07, 2014, 06:50:23 PM »
And I can't believe they don't have at least 1 200-400 w/1.4x lens. Hmmm...well, ok. They'll be shooting from more known locations & distances, so I guess you can go with all primes like they have.

They took 7, their order just doesn't translate well...

"7 Canon 200-400mm zoom lenses"

Oh there they are. I guess it's just so many lenses I'm blinded by my G.A.S. jealousy  ;D ::)

Canon General / Re: Gear envy
« on: February 07, 2014, 05:56:04 PM »
I think that list is wrong... I don't think that Canon has a 14mm fisheye. 14mm rectilinear, yes.

And I can't believe they don't have at least 1 200-400 w/1.4x lens. Hmmm...well, ok. They'll be shooting from more known locations & distances, so I guess you can go with all primes like they have.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Panasonic Lumix GH4 ...
« on: February 07, 2014, 01:03:03 PM »
Here's some editorial (plus full press release) from Cinema5d

Personally, especially with the accessory, it puts even more high quality film making and experimentation into the hands of more people, and that's a good thing. I'm kind of wondering if maybe this camera will take over from the 5d2/5d3 for when they need a camera for small spaces, or one that may be damaged/destroyed. Especially with pro features like timecode, HD-SDI out, and XLR.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: In-Depth Review: Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3 VC
« on: February 04, 2014, 02:10:11 PM »
I'd be happy to do a longer range test in SoCal if someone wants to let me borrow a lens ;)  Or when I end up getting this lens in the next few months I'd be happy to as well, although I imagine there will be plenty of examples by then.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 110