Messages

31

Lenses / Re: Where's my 50mm f/1.8 IS?

« on: March 04, 2013, 07:29:57 AM »

Where did you lose it?

He didn't lose it - it was shipped to me by mistake, and I like it too much to give it back.

Be nice, do the right thing and give it back to him ... bcoz of you he is upset with Canon

Yes, father, I'll give him his lens back...

32

Lenses / Re: Where's my 50mm f/1.8 IS?

« on: March 04, 2013, 03:10:05 AM »

Where did you lose it?

He didn't lose it - it was shipped to me by mistake, and I like it too much to give it back.

33

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 12-24 f/2.8L [CR1]

« on: February 27, 2013, 09:00:38 AM »

Oh yeah!

34

EOS Bodies / Re: 2013 Predictions for Canon EOS Products

« on: February 19, 2013, 11:42:40 PM »

The 3D will have eye-controlled focus and a blink-activated shutter. You heard it here first.   

But Nikon is working on thought-controlled cameras.....

And the photographer would have to think in Russian?

35

Lenses / Re: Would a 14-28mm f/1.8 be possible?

« on: February 18, 2013, 03:54:23 AM »

C. I don't see the benefit of shallow DOF for ultrawide. Could you enlighten me?

Shallow DOF helps isolate the subject, no matter the focal length. I notice a big difference between f1.8 and f2.8 @ 50mm. I imagine such a difference would exist also at 15mm.

If the background is OOF, what does it matter how much of it did you get? You could get pretty much the same thing with a 24mm f/1.4.

36

Lenses / Re: Would a 14-28mm f/1.8 be possible?

« on: February 17, 2013, 05:46:53 AM »

the want for a lens with large aperture:
bright for viewing
bright for focus... manual or AF
shallow depth of field is image tool for photography.

Wide aperture is useful, but

A & B. How wide does it really have to be (f/1.8? f/1.4? f/1.0? f/0.7?) and at what point it would become too expensive and/or heavy?

C. I don't see the benefit of shallow DOF for ultrawide. Could you enlighten me?

37

Lenses / Re: Is your midrange gear insured?

« on: February 17, 2013, 04:36:09 AM »

Another question since I stayed clear of insurances so far: What happens if I actually loose something and the company has to replace it? Do say "No problem, no need for proof it was really stolen or it's a fraud attempt, here's your (insert value here) and have fun with it"? Does the insurance rate rise afterwards or (when) do they cancel the contract? Sorry if this sounds silly or naive, but I really have no experience with insurances at all.

In Israel the insurance company would like proof the equipment existed in the first place (read: the assessor has seen it when he came when the insurance was made, or a receipt for the purchase of the item was sent to them), though some items of small value were value in lump without being itemized.

Also, a complaint should be filed with the police, though when it comes to property damages, this means very little. A few years back I reported my house was broken into and some property stolen. The police officer signed my copy of the report, didn't keep a copy, and when I asked her whether someone is going to come around and take fingerprints off the window, she said I've seen too many police shows on TV. As newspapers report, this is typical - the police don't have enough man power to investigate, and keeping copies would make for bad stats (lots of unsolved crimes).

There's a clause saying if the stolen equipement is found, it becomes the insurance company's property. As the assessor didn't write down the equipment's serial numbers (just model, e.g. "Canon EF 50mm f/1.4"), I'm not sure they could enforce it.
 
Insurance rate would be higher, though. E.g. there's a discount for not having sued the insurance company.

38

Lenses / Re: Would a 14-28mm f/1.8 be possible?

« on: February 15, 2013, 08:50:56 AM »

I'll settle for the '12-24mm f/4 USM & reasonable price' kind of crazy.

39

Lenses / Re: Is your midrange gear insured?

« on: February 15, 2013, 12:19:14 AM »

I've insured it after I bought an apartment, and had to insure it & it's content. I've extended the photography equipment's insurance to cover it's use outside my apartment.

I didn't insure the cheaper items (filters, 2nd hand film camera, P&S, etc) as in the long range, buying new would be cheaper than having it insurance company pay for it.

40

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: future of sigma art line

« on: February 06, 2013, 08:21:15 AM »

Ellen, I agree, a more extended-range zoom would be great, and is actually a realistic goal, as opposed to my dream lens.  How about a 24-120 f/4, or even a 24-110 f/3.5 with OS?  Sigma could probably sell that for around $1k.  If it was very good optically, they could even start to cut seriously into Nikon and Canon market share.

Both options would be nice.

I think it would be harder for Sigma to compete with kit lenses, as kit sells a little cheaper than the separate components, so my guess is if Sigma would try to compete, it would try to beat the kit lenses in some additional way to price, e.g. a little faster (as in your f/3.5 example) or a little wider / longer.

41

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: future of sigma art line

« on: February 05, 2013, 08:46:52 AM »

I would like to see 24-105mm f4 OS. The Canon version is a bit date, and still expensive; and eventually it will be discontinued, which would leave us only the very expensive 24-70 f2.8 and the slighlty less expensive 24-70 f4 IS. So a Sigma alternative in this area would be very nice, and also a big hit, if Canon really discontinues the 24-105.

I don't see Canon dropping the 24-105mm f/4 without replacing it with some other reasonably priced kit lens.

If Sigma brings out a competing lens, I'd rather see something a bit longer, e.g. 24-120mm f/4 like Nikon's.

42

Lenses / Re: How much would you pay for Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L IS

« on: February 04, 2013, 08:46:15 AM »

2500, same price as the 70-200 IS II when that first came out.  But the IQ would have to be similar to or better than the 24-70 II.

2nd that

43

Canon General / Re: Canon Inc posted a 17.9 percent drop in quarterly operating profit

« on: January 31, 2013, 09:16:53 AM »

Set high prices for lenses, lose sales to competitors, profits go down, what a surprise.

NOT.

Well, thanks for that uninformed opinion.  Did you actually read the linked presentation materials?  Perhaps if you had, you'd have noticed that while Canon lost revenue and profits fell in some business segments, and sales of PowerShot cameras were down, their sales in the dSLR and lens category was actually up 14% in FY12.  Are you surprised now? 

You mean that if Canon sold even more DSLR lenses, it's bottom line wouldn't have improved? That's even more surprising.

44

Canon General / Re: Canon Inc posted a 17.9 percent drop in quarterly operating profit

« on: January 31, 2013, 07:23:46 AM »

Set high prices for lenses, lose sales to competitors, profits go down, what a surprise.

NOT.

Yes, I've heard new lenses' price went down, but price drops (and sometimes the lenses themselves) haven't reached Israel yet. Sigma lenses did.

45

Software & Accessories / Re: Photo storage facility

« on: January 29, 2013, 08:34:57 AM »

I just noticed that Nikon released service, which provides free 2GB of storage space to everyone and free 20GB if you have Nikon camera. Link is here: http://info.nikonimagespace.com/en_00/welcome.html.

It is interesting whether Canon is going to release such service as well?

I don't measure photography equipment manufacturers based on their willingness to provide free photo organiziner web site space.