July 22, 2014, 03:19:43 AM

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 - Marsu42

Pages: 1 ... 171 172 [173] 174 175 ... 291
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Sigma 35 f/1.4 Available for Preorder
« on: November 07, 2012, 02:01:57 PM »
can someon explain what he reads out of the MTF chart?

Sigma obviously only shows the lens "wide open" results, Canon also has the f8 graphs (see attachment).

Having read http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/understanding-mtf.shtml and http://www.sigmaphoto.com/pu-mtf-chart-guide ...

... [edit] I'd say leave I should only interpret mtf charts when I'm fully awake :-p

But charts are just charts, doesn't mean much - the charts predicted the new 24-70/2.8 to be "THE" lens, but in real life of course it isn't and no mtf chart tells you about distortion, flare or onion bokeh.

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Sigma 35 f/1.4 Available for Preorder
« on: November 07, 2012, 11:51:54 AM »
I hope 3rd party products like this moderates how Canon prices future lenses like the 35/1.4 II.

It'll influence Canon's pricing alright - by making the L glass even more expensive because people are usually thinking "it's mighty expensive, it has to be stellar".

If the new Canon 35/2IS would be a couple of hundred $$$ more expensive they might even sell more, now that the price is comparable to the Sigma 35/1.4 people will actually compare the lenses on equal footing - and the Canon without the red ring might not necessarily come out on top.

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Sigma 35 f/1.4 Available for Preorder
« on: November 07, 2012, 11:38:13 AM »
I bet the USB port was included to reduce the number of warranty service requests. The Sigma 50mm 1.4 has some of the worst focus shift I have ever seen.

And surely it's there in case Canon (or another manufacturer) decides to modify the upcoming firmware updates or camera bodies so that 3rd party lenses miraculously show strange behaviors :-p

The lens looks really attractive, but if buying 3rd party lenses for Canon - why use Canon at all since they are behind in sensor tech and camera body price? That's what lets me still hope for an updates Canon 50mm prime, though the Sigma 50mm is good and has a good price, too.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS [CR1]
« on: November 07, 2012, 08:36:30 AM »
Making a normal zoom, especially a fast normal zoom with IS is the greatest challenge their is.

I was under the impression Canon didn't choose the 24-70/2.8IS prototype because of weight and bulk issues, and not because it's very difficult to add IS to any lens?

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/4L IS Coming [CR3]
« on: November 07, 2012, 04:12:59 AM »
Why in hell would I care about lens size over usability?

The newer IS system and near-macro capabilty is a big usability plus, many people might want to trade in the 70-105 zoom range if they have a 70- tele zoom anyway (and most will sooner or later). So as with the 6d, this zoom is ideal for traveling, maybe in combination with a physically short 70-300L

It's just and again the price tag that clouds the sky and the assumption that Canon does not want to give people the choice but wants to engineer them into buying more expensive gear than they'd like. And imho it's still the aftermath of the 5d3 price shock, Canon simply being greedy and thus alienating their former loyal customers.

it's possible Canon does not expect to move a huge volume of them (unlike, say, the 24-105/4L IS or 17-40/4L), and has priced it higher to compensate.

Possible, it's a pity we don't know the manufacturing cost curve in comparison to units produced. It is obvious lenses like a 600L will be expensive because of low volume, but I'd expect the costs for (kit?) lenses like the 24-70/4 to drop drastically even if they don't reach the #1 sales position.

And Canon is known to try to get away with as much as they can grab I'm afraid to say looking at the 5d3 price - I don't believe the manufacturing cost of the 1dx af system and a modified (silent) shutter explains the initial $3500 price tag.

Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS
« on: November 06, 2012, 02:04:32 PM »
I know their sales numbers on aggregate haven't been stellar, but in general, the company wouldn't be here very long if it couldn't course correct as needed.

A large enterprise like Canon doesn't just disappear because they can soften the fall and distribute profits and losses between divisions. They can survive quite a long time without good sales if their shares don't plummet and there's a hostile takeover. And Canon just has the advantage of a user base that is tied to their system, so they are quite safe unless they completely screw up.

That's why it takes them so long to correct a flawed strategy in one segment like dlsr - in a smaller company the execs would get fired much faster enabling changes. But if they are really persistent to ignore reality they'll indeed go the way of Kodak and all other long-gone electronics companies.

For many years, it has been argued that people who buy Macs, and more recently, iPhones, are paying more to get less.  So maybe it's the same silent majority that has made Apple the largest company in the world...

"Two mouse buttons confuse me" Mac-users aside, iPhones offer not less, but more for more money: fast hardware, more apps, a fine-tuned integrated and *working* ecosystem, better usability, better os upgrades (unlike Android). And unlike Canon Apple makes their customers go ecstatic with each and every product, while Canon just manages to make most people I know shake their heads in disbelief.

But the main difference is: Apple is way more innovative while Canon is the most conservative company I can imagine, the current Canon execs would get fired @Apple in no time. The only strategy I can see from Canon atm is to make people believe "it's expensive, it has to be stellar".

Canon is listening to customers, they're just not listening to the vocal minority ???
The thing is, the people on the forum are not, generally speaking, Canon's major target audience.

I agree that this forum is not a representation of Canon's whole customer base - well, maybe the enthusiast "L only" side.

But what silent majority is supposed to be Canon's target audience that wants to pay more to get less? Even newbies to dlsr won't say "what? built-in gps? I'll take two!" when the Nikon body next to it has more mp and a lower price tag.

Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS
« on: November 06, 2012, 10:26:56 AM »
so will they offer a choice of two lenses when the 24-70 f4 is released? How will that work then since the 24-105 kit will be much cheaper?

The 24-105 kits will be just there as long as they've sold all old lenses and the new 24-70 are in volume production.

And the 6d+24-70/4 kit might not be more expensive, the price for the lens alone is likely to be overpriced because Canon wants to make the kit appear more discounted and attractive - otherwise the 6d is sure to loose big time against the d600.

I can see them falling into third place behind Nikon and Sony in a couple of years.

As soon as their strategy appears even non-working to Canon shareholders, they'll come around and fire their executives and revise their pricing. The only ones sure to loose are the customers paying the current high prices until Canon realizes this won't work forever.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/4L IS Coming [CR3]
« on: November 06, 2012, 10:21:07 AM »
Congratulations! At the MSRP of 1500$ for the 24-70 f/4L IS. This lens is now


I agree if purchased separately, but the theory was all along that this price will be just a marketing joke to be able to sell heavily "discounted" kits with the 6d making the new camera body more attractive.

Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS
« on: November 06, 2012, 06:29:16 AM »
. And The hybrid IS will shine on the standard zoom since it's wasted on real macro lenses like the 100L - the IS is nearly useless at very close distances..
Why is it wasted?  Because you do not use it?
I was very skeptical of the hybrid IS on the 100L, but when I found I could handhold very close images with the lens, it is certainly a worthwhile feature.
1/40th second exposure @ f/8
Perfect answer. Your great picture is worth thousand words. 

I still don't think so - and esp. posting a (downsized? cropped?) "good" shot doesn't mean anything. I could do the the same with old shots from my non-L macro - so what?

I'm using the IS all the time of course, but IS is all about *statistics* and a better keeper rate. If someone posts a picture and writes "just point and shoot with IS and this is what you get" this simply isn't true - you might have been very, very lucky, but in (my) real life IS raises the keeper rate esp. at medium range (like a full butterfly), but 1:1 handheld sharp shots @100% crop and lower exposure time still need a lot of exposures to get a good one. Coming from the 100 non-L, I don't see a significant improvement in these cases.

The one thing IS does help (except dual-use as a portrait lens) with is exactly what Canon states: IS on macro is for stable composing & setting the focus pane, not for getting much longer exposure times. So IS is not really "wasted" as I wrote above, but it doesn't magically axe your exposure time at macro distances, but it'll be great on the non-1:1 24-70/4:

In macro photography, shift camera shake and angle camera shake affect both the image formed on the sensor and the image shown in the viewfinder. This is especially relevant to handheld shooting at 1x, since the inability to properly compose and focus due to a shaky image in the viewfinder makes it extremely difficult to record sharp images.

Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS
« on: November 06, 2012, 04:55:45 AM »
Something to worried about: MFD 200mm, lens lenght at 70 is 124mm so MFD to the front of the lens = 30-40mm so shoot only static or dead subjects :D

It's indeed a fact that the best macro shots are taken of frozen, bound, stunned, paralyzed or simply dead animals :-\ ... and much easier to get a "natural" background w/o distracting objects if your subject doesn't decide to flee.

I don't see the 24-70/4 as a 100% replacement for a macro lens, for shooting live animals you will need a longer focal length like 100mm on crop, 180mm on ff or a tc. But the new zoom should be sufficient for the occasional close-up while traveling which is a big plus.

Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS
« on: November 05, 2012, 02:38:06 PM »
Pricing will also be higher than the previously unconfirmed suggestions.

Now here's a surprise - not :-(

... though I have to admit the near-macro capability is very interesting since you now only need two travel lenses, the new 24-70/4 and a 70- tele like the 70-300L. And The hybrid IS will shine on the standard zoom since it's wasted on real macro lenses like the 100L - the IS is nearly useless at very close distances.

Pity they didn't announce a new 35L since they'll hardly release *two* new 35mm lenses in short succession.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/4L IS Coming [CR3]
« on: November 01, 2012, 01:01:08 PM »
Non of this compares to the feel and sturdiness of my old FD lenses.

I found the LensRentals review of the 24-70ii most interesting concerning the "sturdiness" because Roger pointed out that the mk1 might be metal, but at the same time it's more fragile than the mk2 because the older lens is much more prone to decentering when taking a hit.

So when not always thinking of the worst-case scenario (lens or body falls from a skyscraper and is overrun by a truck) a newer plastic construction might outmatch an older/cheaper metal one in real world usage. But I'd still like my 100L to be metal :-p

Pages: 1 ... 171 172 [173] 174 175 ... 291