August 23, 2014, 01:26:07 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.


Messages - risc32

Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23 ... 31
301
Lenses / Re: new ziess 55mm, redefining?
« on: September 07, 2012, 09:50:13 AM »
it's my understanding that Ziess worked with Canon for it's EOS mount lenses. That is Canon offerred support. Maybe Canon is unwilling to offer aid if Ziess starts rolling out AF lenses.  I don't believe the other 3rd party guys had this sort of deal with Canon. They just reverse engineer things until it works out. I don't really put them at the same level.

302
Lenses / Re: The First Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II Review
« on: September 07, 2012, 09:42:16 AM »
as for the v2 having a warmer image, couldn't that just be from AWB just grabbing a different value? I don't think he mentioned anything about locking that variable down. just saying. Also, in his tree/water/sun flare shot i see better performance from the v2, and he seems to see that the other way around.

303
Lenses / Re: new ziess 55mm, redefining?
« on: September 07, 2012, 08:22:26 AM »
Can someone give me a good reason why Zeiss has never adopted AF?  Always wondered.


I've never heard anything definitive about that either. I just assumed that Sony won't allow them to do it. MF fine, AF no.

304
Lenses / new ziess 55mm, redefining?
« on: September 06, 2012, 09:12:09 PM »
http://thedigitalpicture.com/News/Default.aspx?Cat=Zeiss-News


"A must-see attraction is a high-performance, full-format SLR camera lens with manual focus. With a focal length of 55 mm and aperture of f/1.4, this lens is the first model of a new product family designed for demanding users. Thanks to a newly developed optical design, this lens is superior to conventional full-frame lenses, and it achieves with powerful full-frame, full-format cameras an image performance that until now has only been seen with medium-format systems."

real deal of fluff?  cost estimates? Am i reading the lens correctly? 82mm filter on a 55mm 1.4? 

305
EOS Bodies / Re: A question about dust...
« on: September 06, 2012, 08:45:54 PM »
I also bought a 5d just a couple months before the mk2 came out, and I preordered the 5dmk3. I use them a pretty good amount yet i've never cleaned either of them.

306
EOS Bodies / Re: Pre digital days, please shed some light for me
« on: September 06, 2012, 08:36:38 PM »
so now we are suggesting that they should all have the same sensor? damn, i had been lamenting how they(other than the 5d/1d series) all did seem to have the same (7d) sensor. No, i hear what you are saying. other than costs involved in sensor sizes, and i don't doubt they are real differences, you are just paying for things like metering, build, whatever,whatever. they, the camera makers, just found themselves with another thing, sensors, they can use to their advantage to mix up the line-up. i don't dislike them for it. if they all waited until "full frame" sensors hit low costs instead of making up the little crop sensors cameras, us nonrich guys would still be only dreaming of shooting digital.

307
Lighting / Re: TTL + remote simultaneously?
« on: September 05, 2012, 10:07:58 PM »
the pockect wizard's can do this, but it gets pricey, quickly.

308
Lenses / Re: Post your 24-70 II Experiences Here
« on: September 05, 2012, 10:06:43 PM »
first of all 30 years ago pro photographer did not use crap lenses. they used good primes because 30 years ago zooms sucked. plus they used something at least as large as 6x6, and that is pretty large stuff(compared to the little sissy things used now) giving it a big mechanical advantage.    today zooms are very good, and some are great. you are also wrong about that 35l and 50l being sharper than the 24-70mm v1. look it up, from brain's site at the digital picture, photozone, or some of the sites where they look at the 35l -vs- the 24-70 and others for astro work. the sometimes unloved 24-70 is pretty darn good.  from looking at the charts and what canon is asking and saying about this lens, it'll probably be everything we can hope for. (other than IS !) BTW- i've never seen any 50l chart or photo that was very sharp. if it was, i'd own one . but my 50mm1.8 stopped down a stop is much better in sharpness and it's a 100$ lens made or plastic with a plastic mount! the 35mm was very good at it's release , now a cheap korean 35mm 1.4 is sharper. now i said sharper, not better. i don't want to fool with it's other limitations for everyday use.   BTW- what happened to this thread?  and i'm only making it worse, sigh...

309
doesn't look like anything i've seen from a lens/filter/sun issue. looks like digital hijinks to me. I hate to say it, but if i was you i'd get in touch with whoever i bought that camera from and talk about getting a replacement.

310
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III Main Dial problem
« on: September 02, 2012, 10:57:53 PM »
actually, i think i know what it is, and i think it just needs to be disabled in the menu system. you just have to disable the "rubber band dispenser" feature.  damn, that was not cool, but i just couldn't help myself. i still stand by my first reply.

311
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1D X Structural Weakness
« on: September 02, 2012, 10:53:28 PM »
hope it's an easy, inexpensive fix. i'm a bit surprised how thin that casting looks. i don't know how thin they where in the past, or the techniques used to make them. from the complex shape and thin walls i would guess one of the high tech rotation methods. maybe one of the vacuum methods. anyway, hope it turns out to be no big deal.

312
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III Main Dial problem
« on: September 02, 2012, 08:37:13 PM »
sorry, i came here thinking you were going to rag on the lock button in the center of the left side dial. what a piece of crap that is.  what you have here is general weirdness. My 5d is from the first batch also and i haven't had any problems at all. of course now that i wrote that it'll lock up on me the next time i touch it. i think you need to place a call into canon HQ and get that resolved.

313
while i understand that there is more to something than set of numbers from a lone test. that is the empirical data that they use to test lenses, and they don't jive. you left out that TDP had to get his lens replaced due to it not operating properly, and that while i love ken, he is careful of exactly what words he uses. when he says it's the highest performing 21mm slr lens, he mean JUST that. not 24mm not 25mm, not 22. not zoom, not any other of thing.  I don't disagree of it's performance. I've never used one, but clearly it's awesome. I'm just telling you what i've read and seen. does it not have complex distortion? bye the numbers at photo zone, isn't it beaten by the canon? Doesn't it have high corner shading?  i think so.

314
Lenses / Re: Samyang 24mm f/1.4 Review
« on: August 30, 2012, 08:34:16 PM »
i'm not so sure i'm feeling that hyperfocal stuff. for my exp, focus does matter, even at 24mm. Does the samyang operate in 1/3 stops, 1/2? whole stops or some weird mix? very often setting my aperture precisely is of great importance, and i'm not talking about for DOF's sake. I for one don't care to screw around with anything but 1/3 stop increments everywhere. it's the only real complaint i have with my fuji MF rangefinder. 1/2 stop aperture, full stop shutter speed, what BS. then again running with no batteries and having as fast as 1/500th synch speed is sweet.

315
i'm sure there are variable at play here that have to be considered but since we are talking about the ziess 21mm f2.8 i for one would look pretty hard at the canon 24mm 1.4. is photozone biased? look at the resolution charts for the ziess and canon next to each other. they are full of praise for the ziess, and call the canon's performance a rollercoaster. well, i don't know what numbers they are looking at because their numbers show canon is better than the ziess everywhere, then drops off as the aperture is opened to amounts the ziess can't even reach. perhaps canon shouldn't have permitted this lens to open wider than f2.8, then it would have gotten better press. add autofocus, weather seals, and a 77mm filter size and it's really looking good. 

Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23 ... 31