Any info at all would be amazing, herd good things about this lens, did anyone else even know it exsisted?
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.
Here's my 10-22 submission. I took a ride to the Hamptons and this was taken at the end of Gin Lane in Southampton.
I wish I could have photoshopped that building being built out of the photo.... but l can't unless someone knows how to in light room.
Hand held a 600mm lens without IS? Ridiculous, and that's not even taking into account that it must have weighed a ton holding that thing. Must have some pretty big guns lol (not talking about lenses)
its MF only too
the technique I use was set the lens to minimum focus distance, held the lens and camera lookign through the viewfinder, advance slowly then when the image came into focus drop onto one knee kind of in a kneeling rifle shooting position and snapped of a short burst, (only 3 shots, 2 of which were sharp.
definately not a lens that you can handhold often or for too long since the lens is 4.5kg and the 1D is 1.3kg its quite a beefy combo, much more comfy on a gimbal
Awesome shot. How much does that lens go for? (Too tired to look it up.)
But why on earth would a $20k digital back use such outdated tech. You would think they would improve it over the years? I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just really curious as to why! If such a sensor existed, even I would buy one. I would take out a loan if I had to. So if that is true that they could have advanced MF tech but didn't, that seems like the biggest marketing oops of all time, no? They don't want to expand the tiny MF market into something resembling the 1dx/D4 market, which I assume is many times bigger?
Fact is, Leica (S2), Pentax (P645), Leaf, Phase One, Hasselblad, probably put them all together and their sensor R&D budgets wouldn't go anywhere near that of Canon or Sony.
It's unfortunate, but MF technology is going to lag further and further behind, if not least because of their lower budgets. Take the latest sensors, the D800, D4, 5D3, and compare them on a *pixel level* (100%) to an MF sensor, half the time the 35mm outperforms the MF, and that's despite the individual pixels being a crudload smaller and closer together, and despite the MF sensors costing as much as a small house.
If Canon or Sony took what they'd learned from making APS-C and FF sensors, and put the same tech into an MF, that would be phenomenal. Take the low-light performance of the 5D3 and make those pixels twice the size again? Take the DR of the D800 and double or triple their full-well capacity and increase another 1 or 2 bits? Even take an MF sensor now and add gapless microlenses would bump up performance a stop or two.
I don't care how expensive that sensor would be, it would be phenomenal and leave even the IQ180 for dust.
Canon should make a 5d2 of the MF world. Something that is affordable enough for the masses, but super amazing. I don't see why they can't, but I know they wont.
Setting up an event for next week, I was 'checking the light levels' when this person 'walked infront of the camera'I really like this, little less motion blur would be wonderful, but hey, its candid, what can I say?
Thanks. A judge criticised the lack of catchlights on the first one and suggested that some should be put in, but it wouldn't have suited the mood I wanted to generate. He also criticised the other one for the model not looking at the camera .