April 16, 2014, 09:54:51 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 - dolina

Pages: 1 ... 27 28 [29] 30 31 ... 52
421
Lenses / Re: "Native" ISO... is it real and does it make a difference
« on: November 22, 2012, 12:05:48 PM »
It matters to stills to! It's the difference between working to remove noise or remove lesser noise.

422
EOS Bodies / Re: !!!FIRST!!! - Full Frame Mirrorless Camera
« on: November 22, 2012, 01:07:23 AM »
Sony's A-mount SLT is 'technically' a mirrorless. Demount the lens from the body and you will see the A99's full frame immediately.

I was looking at the Leica M but since getting the 40/2.8 Pancake of Canon the requirement waned.

I wish Canon's EOS M was the first sub-$3000 FF mirrorless but I guess Canon was trying to improve profit margins with their APS-C sensors.

423
Lenses / Re: Is the EF 800 f/5.6L IS Due for Replacement? [CR2]
« on: November 20, 2012, 06:48:33 PM »
Ok, ignore the 1200mm. I'm the only one who is wishing for a replacement for that at half the weight.  ;D

I have the 200 and 800 that are rumored to be updated next year and I am not inclined to sell then upgrade to the new one unless it offered a weight savings of more than 50%.

It is guaranteed the price of the Series II will skyrocket to beyond $15,000 to make the 600 and shorter white primes look cheap by comparison.

Canon can update the paint job to lower cost by only having to support one color of L white, sharing 1 lens hood for the sake of reducing SKUs and even the lens cap from leather to the more practical canvass.

In the past Canon have made subtle changes to existing lenses that did not merit a Series II monicker. They did this with the 200/1.8.

The changes are the relabeling of the AF switch to "MF" from "M". Optical coating has a different color. An inclusion to a more rounder aperture was made.

424
Lenses / Re: Hold out for EF 35/2 IS or jump in with classic 35 1.4L
« on: November 20, 2012, 06:24:48 PM »
How are you liking the 40 Dolina? I haven't had any recent work or time with the lens but from my simple tests, it looks amazing and the focus on the 5dm3 is without flaw. That said its not as fast as an L but then i expected that. I didn't buy it for fast focus.
It is good enough for me to forget the 35.  ;D

Physically the smallest at less than an inch, tied at the lightest with the 50/1.8 II, 2nd cheapest Canon lens after the 50/1.8 II while using today's technology.

For me it is the perfect party and street lens. I can even use it as a lens cap.

I am looking forward to stuffing the 40 and a pro body into one of these bags.


425
$499.99?

426
Lenses / Re: Is the EF 800 f/5.6L IS Due for Replacement? [CR2]
« on: November 20, 2012, 12:13:37 AM »
I agree with your counterpoint on #2.

For the past decade Canon has been releasing 4-6 EF & EF-S lenses a year. If you were to ask me, before this rumor was published, when the new 200 and 800 would be released I would have said after the year 2020.

In chronological order. L lenses are in red. EF-S and EF-M lenses are excluded.

80s
1987 EF 135mm f/2.8 with Softfocus
1987 EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro

90s
1990 EF 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM
1990 EF 50mm f/1.8 II
1991 EF 100mm f/2 USM
1991 TS-E 45mm f/2.8
1991 TS-E 90mm f/2.8
1992 EF 20mm f/2.8 USM
1992 EF 85mm f/1.8 USM
1993 EF 1200mm f/5.6L USM
1993 EF 400mm f/5.6L USM
1993 EF 50mm f/1.4 USM
1995 EF 28 f/1.8 USM
1995 EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM
1996 EF 135mm f/2L USM
1996 EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM
1996 EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM
1997 EF 300mm f/4L IS USM
1998 EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM

1998 EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM
1998 EF 35mm f/1.4L USM
1999 EF 70-200mm f/4L USM

1999 EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III
1999 EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM

00's
2003 EF 17-40mm f/4L USM
2004 EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM

2004 EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM
2005 EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

427
Lenses / Re: Is the EF 800 f/5.6L IS Due for Replacement? [CR2]
« on: November 19, 2012, 08:34:26 PM »
The hood of the 400/2.8 IS II fits the 800/5.6 IS lens and vice versa. They differ in paint color and lock mechanism.

Reasons why this rumor is premature.

Point #1: Nikon has yet to release their 800mm VR. Canon would need to know the baseline for which they have to surpass to justify a higher price point.

Point #2: Canon's inability to produce enough big glass to satisfy demand. The 500/600 are perennially out of stock and the 200-400/4 Ext 1.4x has yet to ship after lens development was announced in 7 Feb 2011.

Point #3: These EF lenses predate 2008, the year the 200/2 and 800/5.6 were released. The list of over two dozen lenses is not exhaustive and is meant to make a point.

ULTRA WIDE
1992 EF 20mm f/2.8 USM

WIDE
1995 EF 28 f/1.8 USM
1998 EF 35mm f/1.4L USM

STANDARD & MIDIUM TELEPHOTO
1993 EF 50mm f/1.4 USM
1990 EF 50mm f/1.8 II
1992 EF 85mm f/1.8 USM
1991 EF 100mm f/2 USM

TELEPHOTO
1987 EF 135mm f/2.8 with Softfocus
1996 EF 135mm f/2L USM
1996 EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM
1997 EF 300mm f/4L IS USM

SUPER TELEPHOTO
1993 EF 400mm f/5.6L USM
1993 EF 1200mm f/5.6L USM

MACRO / CLOSE-UP
1987 EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro
1996 EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM

TILT SHIFT
1991 TS-E 45mm f/2.8
1991 TS-E 90mm f/2.8

ZOOM
2003 EF 17-40mm f/4L USM
1998 EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM
1995 EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM
1999 EF 70-200mm f/4L USM
2005 EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
2004 EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM
1999 EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM
1999 EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III
1990 EF 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM
1998 EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM
2004 EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM

Point #4: Not to mention the rumored EF 14-24mm f/2.8L USM

428
Lenses / Re: Why The EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x Delay?
« on: November 15, 2012, 05:20:21 PM »


Other than the filter I could imagine accidental body/lens detachments happening when changing focusing modes and MFD.

But then again Canon has already made warnings about the body bulge for other lenses like the TSE 17mm.

429
Leica, a camera company that still sells manual focus range finders (albeit in digital form) has finally introduced video in their next M body.

With that in mind a dedicated still-only SLR will sell as much as a 1200mm f/5.6 :)

This question reminds me of other questions raised in the past like mobile phones without cameras, cars without power windows, computers with CRT displays, iPods with FM/AM radio, fully furnished homes without a refrigerator, tablets that weigh more than 2 pounds and unpasteurized milk.

BTW none of my statements are meant to ridicule anyone. It is just that modern conveniences have rolled things into one and unrolling them would be unthinkable to a lot of people.

430
The 1D4 never went below $5,000 on BH through the life of the product.



The chart is suspect. It states the price is between 4600-4700 until today and yet shops like BH and Adorama do not have it on stock.

Either way the price of the 1D4 dipped nearing EOL. The 1D X started to ship in June this year. Give it 2 or so more years before Canon decides to slash the price by 7%.

Remember guys the 1-Series bodies has always made up around 1% of all EOS body manufactured monthly.

431
The 1D4 never went below $5,000 on BH through the life of the product.

432
Sports / Re: 2012 Alaska (Philippines) Football Cup
« on: November 13, 2012, 06:58:20 PM »

2012 Alaska Cup by alabang, on Flickr

433
EOS Bodies / Re: A Brief 2013 Canon Roadmap [CR1]
« on: November 13, 2012, 05:11:58 PM »
EOS 7D Mark II - Probably in 2013
EOS 7D - 1 September 2009 (Firmware 2.0 August 6, 2012)

EOS 70D - Probably first half of 2013
EOS 60D - August 26, 2010
EOS 50D - 26 August 2008
EOS 40D - 20 August 2007

EOS 700D - Probably June 2013
EOS 650D - 8 June 2012
EOS 600D - 7 February 2011
EOS 550D - 8 February 2010
EOS 500D - 25 March 2009

EOS 1200D - Probably first half 2014
EOS 1100D - 7 February 2011
EOS 1000D - 10 June 2008

434
EOS Bodies / Re: A Brief 2013 Canon Roadmap [CR1]
« on: November 13, 2012, 02:20:34 PM »
When the 1DX came out I knew the camera wasn't a 1D4 replacement to me. It was a full frame body but did not increase or at least maintain the pixel density. It also lacked f/8 lens autofocus at the time as well.

This made the 5D3 look very competitive to me. But I have grown fond of 1-Series bodies so I kept to what I had.

I am looking towards Canon advancing from the 0.5 ┬Ám generation CIS wafer fab process so better bodies can be made.

But I encourage people to upgrade for the sake of upgrading. ;)

lol yeah new technology for canon, ancient for other brands..

Can you please enlighten us as to what might be ancient technology for you? Are you talking about medium format or Nikon's D800? If yes, what's your point? Canon has been told not to push the megapixels for years. Nikon has been told to do the exact opposite. Both vendors reacted to the demands of their customer base.

Canon pushed the APS to 18Mp  years ago, they can expose a 18x24  cmos surface in one piece to an reasonable price=APS APS H
No, they have not the  sensor tech and the know how to make a 24x36mm sensor with high resolution and with a modern lay out  and to a competing low price.

"Both vendors reacted to the demands of their customer base"

What you base this statement on? People are asking after higher resolution from Canon and  a 24x36mm sensor.
Every time a higher megapixel camera is introduced, we see forum posts about the silliness of the "megapixel war" and how camera makers should really be focusing on improving other things, not "just" giving us more megapixels.  There are often comments about how megapixels are driven by marketing, not by photographers' demands.  A few years back, many photographers said that 8, 10 or 12mp was plenty for their work.  I remember a few photographers objecting the the original 12mp 5D as having "too many megapixels".  I know some who always shoot their 5D2 and 5D3 at the medium (10mp) raw file size.  No doubt Canon has listened to some of that; for example, they substantially upgraded the 5D2 to create the 5D3 without adding more megapixels.  The resulting 5D3 is for many photographers the dream version of the 5D2.

About the only thing I would like to see added to the "roadmap" is a new, improved 50mm f/1.4, sharper wide open and with more reliable AF.  I don't need more megapixels or a new sensor, at least not for my current work.  No doubt some Canon photographers do want more megapixels.  So I won't be surprised if Canon does introduce a high mp body to meet their needs.

435
Lenses / Re: Why The EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x Delay?
« on: November 13, 2012, 01:15:42 PM »
I agree with all your points. Only thing I like about this lens is the built-in Extender that makes using it risk-free.

Separate extenders sell for $500~ and integrating one should be cheaper.

Now, where are those 135 and 400/5.6 updates?


Even though I shoot a lot of sports, I won't get the lens either.  Admittedly I already own the 200 f/2, 300 f/2.8 and 400 f/2.8, but I shoot wider than f/4 a ton and this isn't very useful for me.  In fact, for indoor volleyball and basketball I set aperture range from f/2 to f/4 with ISO safety shift on (or if I'm using the 70-200 lens, f/2.8 to f/4).  I prefer the faster shutter speed in exchange for opening up wider.

However, I can definitely see the utility in this lens, and if I didn't already have the 300 and 400, I probably would use it for football and soccer, as long as they were day games or well-lit venues.  My problem is that my night stuff is NOT well-lit, so to keep a fast shutter I need wider than f/4 probably.

I think this lens would be great for well-lit sports, and wildlife photography, and it'll add a ton of convenience over the longer primes.

Pages: 1 ... 27 28 [29] 30 31 ... 52