Messages

46

Canon General / Re: Why did you choose Canon?

« on: January 29, 2013, 03:57:25 AM »

Because the white light and voices of an angels chorus coming out of the 450D's box made me open my wallet.


As a beginner it seemed my life would be easier with Canon, e.g. as all lenses have motors and pages in Wikipedia, and the shop employee said it doesn't really matter, though when he made the transition from film to digital, he chose Canon over Nikon.

47

Lenses / Re: I want a 135mm 1.8 IS L

« on: January 17, 2013, 07:24:43 AM »

Going on a tangent - someone mentioned on the forums a 135mm(?) lens with an aperture made from liquid(?) that would darken under electric current creating a soft edged hole and excellent bokeh.

Could anyone remind the lens' manufacturer & model?

That would be this one.

Thanks!

(although I'm not sure about the 'darkening under current', i'm not sure how the Sony works.
The 'darkening under current' thingy was actually a Canon Patent (that will probably never make it into a lens)

Seems I mixed a few details from the thread.

48

Lenses / Re: I want a 135mm 1.8 IS L

« on: January 17, 2013, 04:27:22 AM »

Going on a tangent - someone mentioned on the forums a 135mm(?) lens with an aperture made from liquid(?) that would darken under electric current creating a soft edged hole and excellent bokeh.

Could anyone remind the lens' manufacturer & model?

49

Canon General / Re: EF mount's obselences

« on: January 15, 2013, 09:14:34 AM »

With Canon finally making a mirrorless interchangeable lens camera makes you wonder when they will abandon SLRs all together. If I am not mistaken it took Canon 5 years to transition from FD mount to EF mount.

So what do you think? Will we be seeing our beloved gear become yesterday's news or a decades old survivor?

I've lost you. Canon's MIL cameras use the same EF mount, except for a shorter flange distance. If anything, it supports a longer lifetime for the mount, not quick obselences.

50

Lenses / Re: Reasons why 14-24L zoom will not be coming soon

« on: January 15, 2013, 04:44:49 AM »

1) A minor issue is that there is no such thing as a "perfect" UWA zoom; ... So they won't be in a hurry to introduce yet another UWA zoom that comes up short…as it invariably will be given the high expectations.

I'm not expecting an EF 14-24mm to be perfect, but rather about as good as the Nikkor 14-24mm.

2) Second problem is Canon's current line up on the WA and UWA end and its marketing strategy. The existence of a patent does not mean a product will be forthcoming soon.  They introduced relatively in quick succession  (not including the 17 TSE, and the 17-40L), the 16-35 II, and 14L II, and 24L II...and note all these are version II “updates”!  A high quality 14-24 zoom that goes across all these will be an issue. Especially with the 17-40 and relatively young 16-35II already in the lineup.

I agree a patent does not mean a product will be introduced, but I do think it indicates Canon is considering introducing one.

The 17-40mm is part of the cheap[er?] f/4 line, and I don't think it would compete with a new 14-24mm. The 24mm f/1.4 is two stops faster, and therefore has it's own niche.

IMHO, a 14-24mm wouldn't compete with the 16-35mm as there's a big difference between 24mm and 35mm. E.g. I see a wedding photographer using a 16-35mm, but not a 14-24mm.

3) And above all, the worst assumption is that Canon will "have" to somehow match and compete with Nikon lenses on the EF mount! ...

Once you are in the lens kennel tied to the EF mount with multiple lenses in your collection, you are like fish in a barrel for Canon. And let’s face it, for a high priced UWA zoom, we are talking well-heeled folks who are unlikely to be newbies to the Canon Brand.

There already are used Nikon D700 & Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8 on sale, plenty good for A4-A3 prints. I'll be happy to settle for that. Canon would not lose sale on a 14-24mm it wouldn't make, but the next time I buy a lens I would consider buying it Nikkor for the D700 - and that's a sale Canon might lose.

Why didn't I buy those yet? Cause I can wait for that saving account to be release in October.

51

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Inside the Canon EOS-1D C

« on: January 09, 2013, 08:22:27 AM »

actually, when you download any canon firmware update you agree to these terms:

You shall not alter, modify, disassemble, decompile or otherwise reverse engineer the Software and you also shall not have any third party to do so.

I hope this announcement will be enough to make people leave us alone about hacking the 1D

Easy to write, not so easy to enforce.

E.g. John could ask Peter to download the firmware for him. Peter did not ask John to do anything with the firmware, and John did not agree to the terms. John doesn't even have to name John, so Canon would have to prove in court that Peter downloaded the firmware himself.

52

Lenses / Re: Did you use a UV filter on 70-200 f2.8L IS (I or II) during its last use? (Poll)

« on: January 01, 2013, 02:09:33 AM »

This is an expensive lens, so it's to be expected owners would like to protect it.

Of the lenses I have, it's the one I'm most worried would be damaged, though I have my photography equipment insured.

Yet, I don't use a UV filter for this lens. If I was shooting in a hostile environment, say a desert or rain, I would use one. In the urban environment I usually shoot, I feel using the hood when shooting and the cap when returning the lens to the bag are sufficient protection, and wasn't disappointed so far.

Another angle is that a quality 77mm UV filter isn't cheap either. It's cheaper than the lens or fixing it, but I would still worry it would get damaged, so why use one unless it's actually needed?

53

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Accessory for Induro PHQ3 head to allow rotation around nodal point

« on: December 28, 2012, 10:21:48 AM »

A macro rail would work, or a nodal slide from RRS: ...

Thanks!

54

EOS Bodies / Re: An EOS 3D Mention [CR1]

« on: December 28, 2012, 10:18:30 AM »

Canon has eight lines of DSLR bodies (xxxxD, xxxD, xxD, four single digit bodies, and EOS-M) requiring two lines of lenses, exclusive of video cameras.

Isn't Canon already stretching itself thin enough w/o starting another line of bodies?

55

Third Party Manufacturers / Accessory for Induro PHQ3 head to allow rotation around nodal point

« on: December 28, 2012, 09:32:12 AM »

I plan to buy an Induro PHQ3 tripod head, and noted - w/o surprise - that in order to have a camera + lens rotate around the lens' nodal point, a third party accessory would be required.

What would that accessory be? Would a macro rail do the trick?

Thanks!

56

Lenses / Re: Announcement on January 8, 2013? New Lenses [CR1]

« on: December 24, 2012, 07:52:04 AM »

There is a fly in the ointment ... Great rouse to stem the sigma tide

I'm considering the Sigma in place of the 35mm f/2 - the price of the mk1 L is far too high for me, and the mk2 L would be even more expensive.

57

Lenses / Re: Announcement on January 8, 2013? New Lenses [CR1]

« on: December 23, 2012, 08:45:58 AM »

I hope so - a savings account would be opened just after the reviews of the EF 14-24mm f/2.8 would be released.

58

Lenses / Re: The great battle: primes vs zooms

« on: December 18, 2012, 05:53:27 AM »

The 2nd might be best for my bag,  but I just don't have the $ to buy all those primes.

59

Lenses / Re: Patent: A New Canon EF 50 f/1.2 & Suggestion of a Full Frame Mirrorless?

« on: December 17, 2012, 05:41:47 AM »

Also, that means another line of FF mirrorless lenses...*shiver*

Yeah, thats really the piece that makes this technology pretty far off. To actually release a full-frame mirrorless camera with all the lens options a pro would want (fast zooms, primes, tilt-shifts, super teles, etc), it'd take them years to fill out the line. Even if they release the body in the next year, it's probably 3-4yrs down the line until its a viable option as a system. That also assumes 3rd party manufacturers get behind it, otherwise it's probably 5-6yrs

The whole point with a mirrorless is it's small size, which makes big lenses - such as super teles - pointless.

So I think the FF mirrorless' line of lenses would be small, say primes from wide up to ~100mm & couple of fast zooms in same focal range.

60

Lenses / Re: Recommendations for three weeks in the Middle East

« on: December 16, 2012, 04:29:33 AM »

I took
1Dmk2, 17-40, 24-70, 28-135(cheapo), 70-200, 50ml 1.4, 100-400(hardly used), 1.4extender(didn't use), 580exii flash(used in shuks...markets), tripod (must have for those awesome night shots of old buildings..Gitzo 2451 carbon, spare battery, lots of cards, laptop, external drive.

If you go to the markets, take filters and/or lens cleaning kit.

I went to "shuk hacarmel" in Tel-Aviv with a friend to shoot a video, and there were 2-3 people in the market who didn't want to be shoot and just pushed (assertively, not brutally) the lens away with their hands, leaving finger prints on the front element.