466
EOS Bodies / Re: New crop bodies coming!
« on: November 08, 2012, 07:15:59 AM »
Such blatant optimism wont take you far. 
May 22, 2013, 02:37:14 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.
467
Lenses / Re: do image stabilisers decrease image quality?
« on: November 08, 2012, 02:29:28 AM »Sanj, how could it do anything to IQ? It is a mechanical device outside of the row of elements in the lens, it is not optical.
The only way it would affect optics is if it doesn't work properly.
But really this thread is about a non issue. There is no IS vs non IS lens that Canon makes that would be equal, those that are close the IS version is superior to the Non IS version.
I don't know but am trying my best to understand!
I bought the X100 and asked the Fuji 'guys' about IS and this is what they said:
Hello Greg and Billy.
Great video, great camera! Mine will be with me end of this month...!!
Could you please educate me on one point:
Why is incorporating Stabilization into the camera a bad idea: Does it:
a) Increase costs?
b) Increase size?
c) Reduce quality?
Asking because I am sure ISO 400 results in better quality than ISO 3200 (which 4 stops stabilization would provide.)
I understand that u guys strongly believe that this camera does not require IS but my question is: HOW CAN IT HURT?
Sanjay Gupta 1 year ago
Reply
A) Yes, B) Yes, C) Yes as the ability for customization of the lens to the sensor would not be possible (well at least cost effective). I believe in I.S. however not so much with a 35mm equivalent lens. Especially the quality of ISO settings up to 3200 and a fast lens should allow for decent shutterspeeds for most situation. Others, use a tripod, or enable the flash.
| Fuji Guys - X100 Frequently Asked Questions | Small | Large |
468
1D X Sample Images / Re: vancouver zombie walk with 1DX EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II
« on: November 07, 2012, 11:27:48 PM »Not bad, but the eyes look like they don't belong in that face. A big part of it is not just the selective color processing but also that they're the only things that're sharp due to the shallow depth of field. I'd like to have seen the shot stopped down a bit more, at least enough to have the whole forehead sharp. Really, this particular shot would have been perfect for f/8 - f/11 so you could be hit by the full impact of all the grittiness rather than have some or much of it safely softened and eased out of your mind. I'd even have done so if it meant boosting the ISO -- grain would help, not hurt, this picture.
Just because you can shoot wide-open at a low ISO with only a sliver of the frame in sharp focus doesn't necessarily mean you should....
Cheers,
b&
Your suggestion would make this image boring, passport type, to ME.
469
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Sigma 35 f/1.4 Available for Preorder
« on: November 07, 2012, 11:25:47 PM »
My Zeiss 35 has terrible vignetting at 1.4. That perhaps is the most expensive 35mm.
Lets see how the Sigma competes with that. But I would be more interested in the sharpness at 1.4 than the vignetting problem which can be fixed in PS.
Lets see how the Sigma competes with that. But I would be more interested in the sharpness at 1.4 than the vignetting problem which can be fixed in PS.
470
Lenses / Re: do image stabilisers decrease image quality?
« on: November 07, 2012, 11:19:17 PM »
Yeah, the question: "How does IS reduce quality." needs to be addressed. NOT how IS can reduce quality.
All lenses have IS on/off switch.
I really want to know.
Thx!
All lenses have IS on/off switch.
I really want to know.
Thx!
471
Lenses / Re: do image stabilisers decrease image quality?
« on: November 07, 2012, 10:34:31 PM »If you believe that, then why buy a lens? You can get a sharp image without one? Why don'y you start selling them, you can sell sharper lenses for just the cost of a roll of toilet paper.Hi,So you believe a lens with one element is sharpest? Maybe one with no elements is the ultimate?
IMHO, every element added will decrease IQ by a bit, so a lens without IS will have slightly better IQ than lens with IS (when both lens are from the same generation and same grade) under perfect shooting condition.
That would be so. Looking through a hollow tube will always give you the clearest sharpest image. You can not improve the light when it is in it's near perfect unrestricted form.
Multiple lens elements do, in fact correct the various abberations that come from just one element. Thats why the lenses that are sharpest have multiple elements.
Your theory seems pretty badly flawed when compared with the real world.
Well one does need a lens to take a picture!!
It seems correct that one cannot improve on light/optics 'when it is in it's near perfect unrestricted form.'
No flaw here.
472
Lenses / Re: do image stabilisers decrease image quality?
« on: November 07, 2012, 10:31:07 PM »
But how does IS reduce quality?
I am really trying to understand this for a while now.
Pls educate! THx
I am really trying to understand this for a while now.
Pls educate! THx
474
Canon General / Re: Amazon policies.
« on: November 07, 2012, 10:08:36 AM »
I'll explain.
I want to buy it now while it is still in stock.
BUT I do not know who will visit India next from USA who I know.
SO I thought I will buy it now and when I know someone is coming, I will get it shipped to that person.
Make sense now?
I want to buy it now while it is still in stock.
BUT I do not know who will visit India next from USA who I know.
SO I thought I will buy it now and when I know someone is coming, I will get it shipped to that person.
Make sense now?
475
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Tamron 70-200mm /90mm / sigma 35mm pre-order available
« on: November 07, 2012, 10:05:47 AM »
Love the black velvety finish..!
476
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS [CR1]
« on: November 07, 2012, 07:57:32 AM »
I'm not sure most people understand this but it is much much much much harder to make a normal zoom than a telephoto zoom. You can make extremely good telephoto zooms day and night for cheap, as evidence by every manufacturers and all the third party telephoto zooms being great lenses.
Making a normal zoom, especially a fast normal zoom with IS is the greatest challenge their is. It is actually much harder to do than making a 200-400mm 1.4x TC lens.
I've spoken to Canon reps and Canon has gone to great lengths to try to make a pro image quality 24-70mm f/2.8 IS lens prototypes, even going as far as making a lens that has a 105mm filter thread.
Fast Normal zooms actually have much bigger elements than fast telephoto zooms do. The 70-200mm f/2.8 has 2 77mm elements and a 60mm element as it's largest elements. The 24-70mm f/2.8 Mk. I has three 77mm elements. The 24-70mm Mk. II has even bigger elements.
So yeah just because it looks bigger doesn't mean it's worth more, you're paying for more air, not glass. If anything a fast normal zoom should cost 2-3 times as much as a equal quality telephoto zoom. The only reason why telephoto zooms are the most expensive is because there is a market for them with sports and wildlife photographers.
[/quote]
Really? Hmmm. This does not go down at all with me. Naaa...
Making a normal zoom, especially a fast normal zoom with IS is the greatest challenge their is. It is actually much harder to do than making a 200-400mm 1.4x TC lens.
I've spoken to Canon reps and Canon has gone to great lengths to try to make a pro image quality 24-70mm f/2.8 IS lens prototypes, even going as far as making a lens that has a 105mm filter thread.
Fast Normal zooms actually have much bigger elements than fast telephoto zooms do. The 70-200mm f/2.8 has 2 77mm elements and a 60mm element as it's largest elements. The 24-70mm f/2.8 Mk. I has three 77mm elements. The 24-70mm Mk. II has even bigger elements.
So yeah just because it looks bigger doesn't mean it's worth more, you're paying for more air, not glass. If anything a fast normal zoom should cost 2-3 times as much as a equal quality telephoto zoom. The only reason why telephoto zooms are the most expensive is because there is a market for them with sports and wildlife photographers.
[/quote]
Really? Hmmm. This does not go down at all with me. Naaa...
477
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/4L IS Coming [CR3]
« on: November 07, 2012, 05:02:10 AM »Guys like it or loathe it, Canon sees the future in smaller/lighter FF DSLR bodies, that implies lighter lenses (more plasticky, shorter etc.)
Nope.
478
Canon General / Re: Amazon policies.
« on: November 07, 2012, 02:17:17 AM »
Its not listed with Canon India yet. And YES if would be almost 1.5 times the cost here.
479
Canon General / Re: Amazon policies.
« on: November 07, 2012, 12:49:28 AM »Check out www.reship.com
I use this service all the time to get tough to find items to Canada from the United States.
You can also sign up for reship with a US address, they will warehouse your package for up to 90 days free prior to mailing it. You could have them mail it to you, or to your friend.
Amazon.com has no problem with my Canadian billing address on my Credit Card, and my Oregon shipping address @ reship.
Brian
Thank you!
480
Canon General / Re: Amazon policies.
« on: November 07, 2012, 12:48:35 AM »This is a bit shady, but you can buy it today giving an address but a card that will probably decline because of not having enough funds. They will then take about 3 days to notice and then tell you to give a good card in 3 days and then rinse and repeat and you can buy yourself sometime that way.
Ah! But my card WILL work as the billing address will be correct.