July 28, 2014, 04:03:34 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 - Rocky

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 39
16
If Canon bring back the APS-H, It must be in the niche market and meet the following requirement.
1. Smaller than the 6D for portability
2. Same pixel density(or even smaller) than the 1Dx for low light/high ISO performance.
3. Very fast FPS for sports photographer due to lower MP.
4. At least half of the price of 1Dx
Question is at this day of age, how many photographer can live with a 10 to 12 mp camera as a general purpose camera?


Why does it have to be smaller than the 6D when you're going to be hanging big whites off it?
I think a 7D size 24+MP APS-H body would be attractive since the 1D4 is 16MP and $3500 complements the current line alongside the 5D3
Why it has to be paired with the Big White.  It  can also pair with the shorty 40 To be carried around as "king of low light" for family event.

I think someone is confusing what they would like it to be versus where it should fall in regards to performance within the lineup. 

I don't see a aps-c/h having better low light performance than the current full frame models for at least 10 years... but maybe I'm being pessimistic...
APS-H Does not fit the existing line up either. You already have 6D as low cost FF, 5DIII as mid range FF then the 1DX at the top, 7D as top APS-C. Where does the APS-H fit in??? So if I  want a APS-H I need to think outside of the box and propose what I WANT. I agree that my proposal does not fit the existing line up. So is a general APS-H proposal without any substance. At least my proposed APS-H have a chance to beat or equal to the 1DX in terms of low light and frame rate with the portability of the 6D. What more can I ask for? Only draw back is that it has a low MP count. But Sony has just done  that. There must be someone out there want such type of camera. The existing APS-C cannot match the FF in low light is due to the MP race. With the same technology and same pixel density( read it as pixel size), the APS-C will equal the FF in low light.

17
Lenses / Re: Build quality of Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM?
« on: June 28, 2014, 11:28:26 PM »
The small swing you describe is normal in zoom lens "not L". Canon 28-135mm for example is much worse than that.
Thanks for putting my mine at ease. When I first got my 28mm-135mm, the 'play" of the front part of the lens can be up to 1mm, whether the lens has been extended or not.

Heh.  When I got my 28–135, I screwed a filter on it, and the lens promptly slammed to maximum zoom from the weight of the filter.  I swapped it for another one, which did the same thing, at which point I gave up and stuck with the 24–105L kit lens, despite desperately wanting more reach than that.

I'm still waiting for Canon to release a full-frame lens that's comparable to my 17-85 range-wise and build-quality-wise (besides the 28–300L monster).  I'm not holding my breath, but then again, I think the 28–135 is the oldest non-updated Canon EF lens, so....

But I digress.  Yes, as previously noted, some horizontal play is common in non-L lenses.
the 28mm-135mm lens will extend itself to 135mm( due to the weight of the front element group) when you let the front element points down. That is normal

18
Lenses / Re: Build quality of Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM?
« on: June 28, 2014, 08:17:45 PM »
The small swing you describe is normal in zoom lens "not L". Canon 28-135mm for example is much worse than that.
Thanks for putting my mine at ease. When I first got my 28mm-135mm, the 'play" of the front part of the lens can be up to 1mm, whether the lens has been extended or not.

20
If Canon bring back the APS-H, It must be in the niche market and meet the following requirement.
1. Smaller than the 6D for portability
2. Same pixel density(or even smaller) than the 1Dx for low light/high ISO performance.
3. Very fast FPS for sports photographer due to lower MP.
4. At least half of the price of 1Dx
Question is at this day of age, how many photographer can live with a 10 to 12 mp camera as a general purpose camera?


Why does it have to be smaller than the 6D when you're going to be hanging big whites off it?
I think a 7D size 24+MP APS-H body would be attractive since the 1D4 is 16MP and $3500 complements the current line alongside the 5D3
Why it has to be paired with the Big White.  It  can also pair with the shorty 40 To be carried around as "king of low light" for family event.

21
If Canon bring back the APS-H, It must be in the niche market and meet the following requirement.
1. Smaller than the 6D for portability
2. Same pixel density(or even smaller) than the 1Dx for low light/high ISO performance.
3. Very fast FPS for sports photographer due to lower MP.
4. At least half of the price of 1Dx
Question is at this day of age, how many photographer can live with a 10 to 12 mp camera as a general purpose camera?

22
CraigsList  is a good way (free). Conduct your transaction in a public place. Star Buck, Peets coffee etc at a busy hour. Always 'Cash ans carry" only. No check ,money order, not even bank draft.

23
EOS-M / Re: What is wrong with the AF speed of the M?
« on: June 25, 2014, 09:36:04 PM »
DDR's prefocus method is a "tried and True" standard way for sport photographer during the pre-AF era. Thanks for bring it up.

24
Photography Technique / Re: The definition of insanity
« on: June 25, 2014, 07:57:14 PM »
My standard travel kit was 40D+17-40mm(main lens)+28-135mm(less than 15% usage)+ SD 870(as back up)+8X32 binocular. After the 40D died in Ukraine (fixed with alcohol on the spot) and the SD 870 died in Australia without a suitable replacement, my travel kit IS 40D+20D plus the two above mentioned lens(one on each body). They fit nicely with the binocular in a Amazon sling bag. The total weight of the bag is 9 lbs. It is not a burden for me.
This kit just gone through an Eastern Europe River cruise and a Alaska cruise tour.

25
EOS-M / Re: B&H Selling M Again (Not Canon USA)
« on: June 08, 2014, 05:49:33 PM »
Thanks, AvTvM. 0.25 sec, is almost as fast as a DSLR. That is better than  what I thought.

26
EOS-M / Re: B&H Selling M Again (Not Canon USA)
« on: June 08, 2014, 04:56:33 PM »
People are talking about " Slow AF" of EOS M even with the new firmware. Can some owner Quantify it?? 0.25 sec.? 0.50 sec.? 0,75 sec.? 1.0 sec.? Thanks.

27
Photography Technique / Re: What Lenses Do You Use for Panoramics?
« on: June 05, 2014, 11:15:25 PM »
In my mind, the reason of making Pano is because the lens is not wide enough to cover the scene that you want. On the survey, I see the percentage of people using normal and tele is almost the same as people using wide or ultra wide. If you can take one picture with the wide lens, why people want to stitch 4 picture from a normal lens to get the same scene? If the scenery includes water or trees, you can never get a perfect stitched scenery if you look at it at pixel level.

Larger more detailed prints - I regularly print full width on our 44" Canon iPF8300

The 72" wide shot of Cannon beach I showed earlier would be a pretty low res crop from a single shot.

As to perfect stitching - it's a compromise and sometimes requires more post production work than others. Fortunately stitching software continues to get smarter, meaning I very rarely have to do much work related to stitching errors.

Trees and water are not the problem they might seem (it needs practice though - one reason I'm regularly trying panos, even if not for an actual print).

As to "perfect stitched scenery if you look at it at pixel level" - I don't really care, since it's the overall print that matters. The only people who can spot tiny stitching errors are people who do a lot of panoramic work, and they never ever buy prints ;-) :-)
Thanks. That answers  quite a few questions in my mind. I have done a lot of stitching, mainly for the scenery that I cannot capture with my widest lens. at pixel level I can see the wave of the sea does not match and the trees does not match  due to the wind. Now you have confirmed that is normal. Thanks

28
Photography Technique / Re: What Lenses Do You Use for Panoramics?
« on: June 05, 2014, 12:20:01 PM »
In my mind, the reason of making Pano is because the lens is not wide enough to cover the scene that you want. On the survey, I see the percentage of people using normal and tele is almost the same as people using wide or ultra wide. If you can take one picture with the wide lens, why people want to stitch 4 picture from a normal lens to get the same scene? If the scenery includes water or trees, you can never get a perfect stitched scenery if you look at it at pixel level.

29
As to your second question, I've been using Canon cameras for about, oh, sixteen or seventeen years now. As to your first question, technology is moving ahead (read: mirrorless), yet Canon is stuck in mirrorland.
What makes you think mirrorless is newest technology?? If it is so good why DSLR outsells mirrorless by such a wide margin??? With IS lenses, the advantage of less vibration of mirrorless has been eliminated.  As for weight saving, it is also misleading. Try to hold a M9 or M-E, you will agree that they are as heavy or heavier than the average SLR. As for size, mirrorless does have an advantage. But with a few lenses in the bag, the size of the body will not be the determining factor. Do not get me wrong, I like mirrorless too. With a small short prime (35mm) you can put in in a large coat pocket if you do not mind the weight.

30
PowerShot / Re: Canon PowerShot G17 Coming in May? [CR1]
« on: March 31, 2014, 12:06:40 AM »
If the spec is true, how big will the filter be??? Sony RX10 is already using a 63mm filter for the f 2.8 (24 to 200mm equilvalent) lens. The lens itself will be a  monster for the G17. Sony already selling the RX10 at $1300. With a faster lens, what will be the pricing for the  "G17"??

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 39