October 31, 2014, 11:31:23 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 - Rat

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 18
136
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Emergency wedding, of sorts.
« on: January 27, 2013, 06:45:21 AM »
...what you need is a metric fuckton of knowledge
So it seems :o Friend of mine asked me to be second photographer at his wedding, which I've never done before, but I'm getting lots of excellent advice here. Thanks and keep it coming, please :)

137
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Noise & Aliasing Reduction for Small Pixels
« on: January 20, 2013, 11:18:10 AM »
as you can read the patent was filed 2011 and granted in 2013.
I read the CR post which only told me Canon had filed for a patent. Not a news post, I guess...

138
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Noise & Aliasing Reduction for Small Pixels
« on: January 20, 2013, 10:58:33 AM »
I think the chance that this patent will be applied in the 7DII is negligible, unless the 7DII will be released in 2016 or thereabouts. I'm not sure how much time usually is between filing for patents, getting them granted and using them in products, but I'm assuming it's years rather than months.

139
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS not good for NASA?
« on: January 19, 2013, 06:12:29 PM »
I hate to be a spoilsport, but according to wikipedia, we're talking a bunch of American flies, back in 1947, by a margin of about 6 miles ::)
Quote
The first animals sent into space were fruit flies aboard a U.S.-launched V-2 rocket on February 20, 1947. The purpose of the experiment was to explore the effects of radiation exposure at high altitudes. The rocket reached 68 miles (109 km) in 3 minutes and 10 seconds, past both the U.S. 50-mile and the international 100 km definitions of the edge of space. The Blossom capsule was ejected and successfully deployed its parachute. The fruit flies were recovered alive.

140
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS not good for NASA?
« on: January 17, 2013, 10:36:44 AM »
I'll take your word for it, thanks very much ;D

141
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS not good for NASA?
« on: January 17, 2013, 10:31:46 AM »
Great. After lens envy and body envy, I now got location envy. Badly.

142
Lenses / Re: I want a 135mm 1.8 IS L
« on: January 16, 2013, 05:28:47 PM »
The Sony/Zeiss uses 77mm filter, just sayin' :P
:-[

143
Lenses / Re: I want a 135mm 1.8 IS L
« on: January 16, 2013, 04:33:08 PM »
@f/2, it'd have an 67.5mm front element and could use 77mm filters easily. @f/1.8, the 75mm max aperture would mean 82mm (or bigger) filters. So personally, I'd rather have the f/2 version. Which exists. Could you explain why the 1.8 is so important? Btw, I totally agree on the IS. A 100mm@f/1.8-sized - non-L - 135mm (with or without IS) would be great too, btw. Nicely inconspicuous.

144
I think Nikon has such a wide range of crop primes, because prior to 2007, Nikon didn't have full-frame dslr's. From 1999 to 2007, they sold aps-c-bodies exclusively. Makes no sense to design new full-frame lenses if you don't expect to be selling full-frame bodies ever again, apart from for the dwindling analog market. And for those camera's they already had lenses.

Canon released the 1Ds in 2002. I think they never gave up on full-frame, whereas Nikon (apparently) assumed for years and years that the 1.5x crop format would suffice. If Canon thought primes would primarily be sold to quality-conscious customers, they were always going to aim for full frame ones for the 1Ds owners.

145
EOS Bodies / Re: taurians upgrading to 5d mark 3
« on: January 12, 2013, 03:59:40 PM »
Okay so we have 12 sun signs ,but I'm having a hard time believing taurians as down to earth
As far as I'm concerned, anyone who believes astrology has anything to do with reality, is a couple of cans short of a six-pack - but these are the basics as I've been taught them ;D

146
EOS Bodies / Re: taurians upgrading to 5d mark 3
« on: January 12, 2013, 10:27:09 AM »
P.S- sorry guys Taurus and Libra are the only sun signs I actually know about don't even know the names of the others or what ancient mumbo jumbo attributed them to.
Basically, you got four groups:

water: Cancer, Scorpio, Pisces - social types ("I gotta tell you about this 5D3 I bought!")
air: Gemini, Libra, Aquarius - cerebral types ("Let me tell you why I bought a 5D3!")
fire: Aries, Leo, Sagittarius - active types ("I bought a 5D3! I BOUGHT A 5D3!")
earth: Taurus, Virgo, Capricorn - down to earth types ("What do you care I have a 5D3?")

...and all that, of course, depending on in which of twelve celestial 'houses' or regions the sun was, when you were born. If you want more specifics, you can calculate where the moon and the planets were, so you have a nice set of zodiacal signs to explain your behaviour. Or, of course, you take responsibility for your own actions, but that seems to be less common.

147
EOS Bodies / Re: taurians upgrading to 5d mark 3
« on: January 11, 2013, 01:54:47 PM »
I didn't concern myself with anything, just bought the biggest damn camera I could afford. Aries btw.


148
Actually, in my opinion a Canon 70-200 f2.8 L IS II is a better choice.
I think I'd agree - have experience with neither - but do realize that an 1.4 extender takes away 50% of your focus speed, so the "98-280" is a good deal slower than just the 70-200. Also, they don't overly affect IQ, but it is visible.

149
Am I on the only one that read the entire story and saw this line (it appears twice in the story):

Preorder the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 DG OS HSM for $3599
The price was added to the article at a later stage :)

It is definitely gonna be heavier (2.8kg vs 1,5kg)
Has the weight been confirmed somewhere or is that the previous version?

150
Lenses / Re: 28-400 2.8
« on: January 06, 2013, 04:34:27 PM »
Focal length divided by widest aperture is minimum lens diameter. A 400/2.8 has a diameter of at least 142mm, and your 28-400 would too, of course. The 1200 would have a diameter three times as big, again not counting the thickness of the housing.

I think size and weight (and cost too) put a 28-400/2.8 outside of the realms of practicality. Imagine the 28-300, and then (I'm guessing here) about twice as big in all directions, and if so, at least 4 times the weight (which estimate puts it at 6.5kg). If you're going to put it on a tripod, which you'd need to, it's not at all versatile and even less of a walk-around lens. You'd be a lot better off having a tele on the tripod and a second camera for anything under 100mm on your hip. Would probably be cheaper too - 20k$ seems a conservative estimate if you know that Sigma's 200-500/2.8 already is in the five figure range.

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 18