Messages

271

EOS Bodies / Re: Is anyone else as...

« on: February 09, 2012, 09:47:03 AM »

...completely unmoved by Canon's recent gear as I am?

Me too.

For lenses, I'm interested in fast, low-CA lenses. And no, 2.8 isn't fast. 1.2 or 1.0 is fast.

I'll settle for reasonable priced (= closer to current non-L, rather than L) primes with f/2.0, though reading reviews like this make me think again...

For cameras, I'm interested in high ISO and low noise and more dynamic range. Not more pixels. 10...15mp is fine.

I would go that low, but 18MP would be just fine.

Seriously, it's been years since Canon released *anything* I actually wanted to go out and buy.

My last three lenses are Sigma or Samyang, and so will be my next two. I would have bought an EF 24mm f/2 USM, but Canon would rather sell an EF 24mm f/2.8 IS USM to somebody else.

272

EOS Bodies / Re: What's Next? Lenses & Cameras

« on: February 09, 2012, 09:21:58 AM »

Canon has 3 current 70-200mm lenses F4, F2.8 and F2.8 + IS

Canon has released a 70-200mm f/4 IS over five years ago.

273

EOS Bodies / Re: 40MP Canon that's not the 5D3?

« on: February 09, 2012, 03:23:45 AM »

If they want my $$ they had better listen. I want the 40+ MP, 16Bit, without the AA filter just like the D800E. 1FPS and 800 ISO will do. Not over $6000.00. I'm close to jumping to MF anyway.

sounds like you shoot landscapes, the Nikon D800E and a 14-24 Nikkor will set you back less than $6k
just something to think about since canon dont have any 14-24 competitor

If Canon makes a 24mm f/2.8 IS instead, it must be more important to it's clients.

274

Lenses / Re: I've got a feeling: EF 24/2.8, 28/2.8, 28/1.8, 35/2, 50/1.4, 50/1.8, 85/1.8...

« on: February 08, 2012, 09:12:59 AM »

In todays market with decent high ISO and mirrorless options the worth of primes has I'd say become more about space saving.

I bought a 5Dmk2, rather than some APS-C or m43 or whatever, because I care about low light performance more than I care about equipment size & weight.

I care more about what I can get out of the equipment I have now than what I could get out of the equipment I might have in a couple of years.

In other words, I'd rather have a 1-2 stops faster lens now (and for the years in which I'll own the lens) rather than another 1-2 stops cleaner body in two years, which would perform even better with faster lens.

275

Lenses / Re: Pricing of the New Lenses

« on: February 08, 2012, 05:04:33 AM »

I guess we should have expected this from Canon given some of their recent EF lenses:

• EF 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro:  ~2x the price of the non-IS version
• EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye:  ~2x the price of the 15mm f/2.8 prime Fisheye, while losing a full stop

The success of these lenses (not to mention the Zeiss ones) has obviously emboldened Canon to continue this strategy in replacing these old, non-USM primes.  So how about we all just agree not to buy any of these new ones and see the effect of supply and demand?!?

I think it's illogical to compare the prices of the 8-15mm f/4 and the 15mm f/2.8 as (a) a zoom lens is more complex than a prime, and (b) the 8-15mm can do the work of both a FF circular fisheye prime and a FF diagonal fisheye prime.

276

Lenses / Re: Three New Lenses~~~

« on: February 07, 2012, 07:08:10 AM »

If it's f/2.8, it's not fast enough relative to the 24-105mm f/4 for me to really consider it, and I'd wait for the Samyang 24mm f/1.4 to be reviewed.

Smaller, lighter, cheaper, faster, reduced minimum focus distance, possibly better image quality.  They've definitely got some positives.  I say, "well done Canon!" for giving these guys an update.  They might not be everyone's cup of tea, but I'm keen to read some reviews on the 24mm.

I already have the 24-105mm and carry it with me anyway, so "smaller, lighter, cheaper" is of no consequence. The MTF charts are not impressing, and are worse than the new 24-70mm f/2.8's.

I say "yawn, see 3rd party lens manufacturers get my money".

277

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24 f/2.8 IS USM

« on: February 07, 2012, 04:45:34 AM »

Holy crap, it's real!

http://usa.canon.com/cusa/professional/products/lenses/ef_lens_lineup/lens_wide_pro/ef_24mm_f_2_8_is_usm

And yes, it's EF.  As I stated on the page for the new EF 28mm f/2.8 IS, the long drought of Canon non-L primes is finally coming to an end!

I want a 24mm prime for two reasons - shoot in low light situations, and panoramas using a tripod. I've considered buying the 24mm f/2.8, but the max aperture and IQ at corners made me decide against it, and wait for Samyang 24mm f/1.4, even though it's fully manual.

The new 24mm f/2.8 IS USM is as slow as the 24mm f/2.8, and from the MTF it appears to me the corners wouldn't be significantly better, so I'll pass. Had Canon made a 24mm f/2 USM with good corners, I would have bought it.

So, with all due respect to "up to 4 stops of shake correction", I'd rather keep on waiting for the Samyang f/1.4, and gain two stops aperture.

With this trend, the most I'll spend on the new primes would be to upgrade to 85mm f/1.8 IS USM & 50mm f/1.4 [IS would be nice] non-micro-USM.

278

Lenses / Re: Three New Lenses~~~

« on: February 06, 2012, 09:06:55 AM »

This looks suspicious to me.

Say Canon makes a new 24mm prime. Why make it f/2.8 (rather than f/2) & why add IS?

If Canon makes a 24mm f/2 USM with good IQ, I'll buy it immediately. If it's f/2.8, it's not fast enough relative to the 24-105mm f/4 for me to really consider it, and I'd wait for the Samyang 24mm f/1.4 to be reviewed.

279

Lenses / Re: Sigma 8mm f/3.5 EX DG - what should the circle's diameter be?

« on: February 04, 2012, 08:24:26 AM »

Is your body FF or APS-C?

For FF, then isn't the WIDTH about 36mm, rather than 24mm?

AFAIK, diagonal fisheye (15mm on FF) would cover the whole frame with a diameter of 43mm, while a circular fisheye (8mm on APS-C) should create a circle contained within the frame, so it's diameter can't exceed 24mm.

280

Lenses / Re: If you could buy one ...

« on: February 01, 2012, 06:55:00 AM »

I would buy a 35mm f/1.4

For my uses, I'd rather keep on carrying the 24-105mm over the 24-70mm. I prefer the additional range & IS over the one extra stop.

I already have an EF 50mm f/1.4, don't need sealing, and I wouldn't cough up the money to gain 1/3rd of a stop.

I have & use the 35mm f/2, and USM, extra full stop, and improved IQ will be welcome.

281

Software & Accessories / Re: TIFF or JPeg for storage

« on: February 01, 2012, 05:33:44 AM »

Hopefully, there will be better options than TIF, maybe a version of DNG will catch on at some point, or PSD with lossless compression.  Sure, baseline TIF will be around, and will be supported, but may not be the best solution.  Also, TIF contains less information than CR2.

This is the same problem as in other areas of computing: data formats evolve and create obsolete files.  Fortunately for us, so long as we keep our files in managed libraries like LightRoom, we'll probably have the option to migrate the whole thing to the newest/bestest format in one command.

TIFF probably contain less info than CR2, as it wasn't designed to serve as raw format, but rather as a format to keep image data from scanners & faxes. IMHO, TIFF is more likely to be readable in the far future, so it would be a case of something is better than nothing.

I'm not a fan of TIFF, and share your hope that something better than TIFF will become, at least for the purposes we're talking about, an industry standard. DNG seems to do a good job, and is half way there, so why not?

282

Software & Accessories / Re: TIFF or JPeg for storage

« on: February 01, 2012, 12:38:45 AM »

I'm writing this with my "computer guy" hat on.

TIFF is largely obsolete, and you should avoid it, generally-speaking.  Technically it has no advantages over RAW or PSD.  I'll give one exception at the end.

RAW: Your RAW file represents the full information from the image capture, and this possibly can never be reproduced exactly.  RAW files are your jewels.

PSD: These represent all the post-production work you have done to make the original capture conform to your vision.  While you could reproduce this work, it would take time and effort.  You should keep those PSD's in which you have invested a lot of effort.

JPEG: JPEG is largely an "output" format.  It loses a significant amount of your original capture.  For a photographer, save JPEG's as a convenience if you expect to need to send them out again for general use.

Exception on TIFF's: This format has been around a long time and has a very regular structure.  My guess is that 50 years from now, it'll be easier to import or use an uncompressed TIFF than any of the above formats.  (Think phonograph records: even after needles are no longer made, they can still be played with lasers)  For those rare, no, for those extremely rare, very valuable photos that could be important in 50 years, keep them also in TIFF.

I think TIFF is here to stay, as it is an open standard, easy to add to image processing software via libtiff, already included in many such softwares, is lossless, and has 16 bit support in both color & greyscale. There's nothing else in that not so niche corner.

The day I see CR2 support fading, I'm going to convert all my photos to TIFF, not because I think each and every one of them is very valuable, but my disk is my photo album, disk space is cheap, and I hope in two generations my family would enjoy that photo album as much as my cousins & me enjoy our grandparents'.

283

EOS Bodies / Re: 7D Mk2 ..... APS-H

« on: January 31, 2012, 08:01:44 AM »

In this case, owners of 7D might be unhappy about downgrading from 1.6x crop to 1.3x crop. At best, this would require buying a 1.4x teleconverter ($300 for the mark II, $470 for the mark III). At worst this might require buying new telephoto lenses, and that's really big money.

They have already done this to the 1.3 owners by moving to the ff 1DX - of which a lot were already using the 800 f/5.6. By taking away the f/8 capability there is no way of getting back the extra reach. The longest they can get now is the 600 f/4 + 1.4 to give 840.

The only way to get the extra reach would be by going to a 1.6 - which then hits the noise issues when trying to get the shutter speeds to 1/1500.

A lose/lose situation

The only way I see to resolve the issue is to continue making both both APS-C and APS-H body (whether those are called 7D and 1D or not), anything else taking something away from current owners.

[OK, Canon might be bought by santa, who would offer 1D owners to replace their telephotos with 1.3x longer lenses, but that's not a likely scenario.]

284

EOS Bodies / Re: 7D Mk2 ..... APS-H

« on: January 31, 2012, 04:32:57 AM »

Except the 16-35mm on APS-H isn't as wide as 10-22mm on APS-C. I assume Canon would check how many owners of 7D are interested in ultra wide lenses and are unwilling to buy an APS-C body (say a 60D) to keep the ability.

.... but the excellent 14mm is wider.

The EF 14mm would be a bit narrower than 18mm on FF. B&H lists the 16-35mm at ~U.S.$1,450, and the 14mm at ~U.S.$2,000. This is good money.

So Canon would sell you the 16-35 and a 14mm or maybe the 8-15. Sounds like a good business plan.

The EF 8-15mm is not rectilinear and is a stop slower. Canon might be happy to sell three lenses in place of one, the buyers, well, not so much.

The 7D has always been sold as a sports camera and certainly most of the complaints have been about the lack of reach of the 1.3 crop/ff. So not to move because of one uw lens is something that will not stop them

In this case, owners of 7D might be unhappy about downgrading from 1.6x crop to 1.3x crop. At best, this would require buying a 1.4x teleconverter ($300 for the mark II, $470 for the mark III). At worst this might require buying new telephoto lenses, and that's really big money.

285

EOS Bodies / Re: 7D Mk2 ..... APS-H

« on: January 31, 2012, 02:00:06 AM »

Canon did stick a near-APS-C sensor into the G-series camera, while still calling it the G-series.  this broke two rules that everyone assumed that they would adhere to: a. that we can't change sensor size without changing the lineup name, and b. that canon's large-sensor compact would HAVE to be interchangeable lens because that's what everyone else was doing.

As the G series does not have interchangeable lenses, owners don't lose any of their investment upgrading to a G series camera with a bigger sensor.

I don't see why Canon's next surprise won't be an APS-H 7D Mark II.  sure, people will bitch for a while about not being able to use their 10-22 ... until they buy their 16-35.

Except the 16-35mm on APS-H isn't as wide as 10-22mm on APS-C. I assume Canon would check how many owners of 7D are interested in ultra wide lenses and are unwilling to buy an APS-C body (say a 60D) to keep the ability.