July 28, 2014, 03:43:06 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 - 3kramd5

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 21
31
Um, okay, but that's not what I asked. At least, that's not what I intended to ask. Let me add the missing letter to my question:

What do you expect to get from an EF-S L prime that you can't get from an EF L prime?

You are moving the goalposts, but what the hey ... I'll walk right into it, so's you-know-who can have a giggle.

That's not "moving the goalposts." I don't have any goalposts; I'm just asking a question about what you want. It was a typo.

An EF-S L-prime would take advantage of the shorter "back-focus" distance. This could possibly eliminate the need for a retro-focal design in certain focal lengths, as an example. If you don't know why this is desirable, then you also wouldn't understand it if I explained it to you. And I suspects you don't, which why you also cannot fathom the point of EF-S primes (L or not).

In other words, not      usefulness on APS-C formats      corner quality      color quality. Now we have a reasonable idea of what moving the goalposts is. And congrats on being preposterously arrogant!

32
Out of curiosity, what do you expect to get from an EF-S L prime that you can't get from an EF prime? Lighter? Probably. Maybe it will be cheaper to manufacture, but if they brand it as Luxury it's anyone's guess how much if any of that savings will be passed to the consumer.

I have found that L-lenses generally have better colour and more pleasing image rendition than non-L-lenses (made by Canon). But I suspect you don't view lenses in this light.

Um, okay, but that's not what I asked. At least, that's not what I intended to ask. Let me add the missing letter to my question:

What do you expect to get from an EF-S L prime that you can't get from an EF L prime?

I think he already answered that: smaller, lighter and cheaper.

The first two are likely, the third... I don't know.

Here's a question, though: All else being equal, would a smaller (EF-S) image circle have equivalent corner performance on APS-C as a larger (EF) image circle has on 135 format? Put another way, is the difficulty in maintaining corner quality a function of size, or is it merely a function of approaching the perimeter of the elements? It may be a little of both, but I lean tend towards the latter not being insignificant given how TS-E lenses (which necessarily have larger image circles) perform in the neutral position (pretty damn good edge to edge).

And so, perhaps an EF-S L Prime would be less desirable than an EF L Prime on APS-C for that particular trait (you know, the one after EF lenses were useless but before color became the important quality).

33
Out of curiosity, what do you expect to get from an EF-S L prime that you can't get from an EF prime? Lighter? Probably. Maybe it will be cheaper to manufacture, but if they brand it as Luxury it's anyone's guess how much if any of that savings will be passed to the consumer.

I have found that L-lenses generally have better colour and more pleasing image rendition than non-L-lenses (made by Canon). But I suspect you don't view lenses in this light.

Um, okay, but that's not what I asked. At least, that's not what I intended to ask. Let me add the missing letter to my question:

What do you expect to get from an EF-S L prime that you can't get from an EF L prime?

34
... L lenses are desired not only due to their IQ but also because of their more rugged build quality - one of the reasons why you buy L you own and use it for quite a few years.

Exactly why I wanted Canon to make EF-S L-primes.

Out of curiosity, what do you expect to get from an EF-S L prime that you can't get from an EF prime? Lighter? Probably. Maybe it will be cheaper to manufacture, but if they brand it as Luxury it's anyone's guess how much if any of that savings will be passed to the consumer.

35
^^ Can't you export sidecar xml files to preserve your work?

36
Dude, you worry too much about stuff that's just not worth worrying about.

You pay for those excellent corners, but don't use them on a "crop-frame" camera. Bad economy and a waste of good money ... like driving grandma to church in your Ferrari. It does the job, but at what expense?

What you're doing seems more like suggesting a Ferrari is a waste of money because you can't hear the stereo over the engine noise... :P

37
Obviously they are not wasted.

Yes, L-primes are wasted on a "crop-frame" camera, because one of the characteristics of L-primes - and also that which makes them more costly - is the better corner performance. Only on a "crop-frame" sensor these, shall we say, quality corners are discarded/disregarded/wasted.

One facet of a good lens can be corner performance (unless that's not what you want, e.g. 50L), but I don't know if it's fair to say that a lens is wasted because the sensor can't see the edges. I think most people using primes do so for speed. Not having zoom glass generally improves optical performance and weight too, but it's the max aperture that draws me to primes. YMMV.





But I'm struggling with why you put the word in quotation marks. Are you purposefully arguing a point which you don't believe?

Because terms like "full-frame" and "crop-frame" mean absolutely zip ... unless your point of reference is the old 35mm films and the lenses made for that size, like L-primes.

It was the quotes around the word wasted that got me curious.

38
None of those three are primes. All L-primes are "full-frame" and a thus "wasted" on a "crop-frame" camera.

Obviously they are not wasted. A great many people shoot primes designed for 135 format image circles on smaller platforms (APS-H and -C). But I'm struggling with why you put the word in quotation marks. Are you purposefully arguing a point which you don't believe?




There was another post (not sure by whom, can't find it, maybe it was in a different thread) about a lack of frame-equivalent primes for small sensors. I have to ask the question: why would someone with no interest in a different sensor platform (e.g. a fully satisfied APS-C customer) care one iota about how his lenses frame on a different sensor platform? Gone, I think, are the days when long-time 135 format shooters made the transition to digital and would have experienced culture shock via crop factor." In the coming years, many or most new DLSR consumers will have no inkling of what a certain focal length would look like on a 35mm sensor, or larger formats for that matter. Crop factor is a useful tool for people like me who occasionally shoot with two platforms simultaneously. For folks who tend to stick with one, it's trivial information to relate one arbitrarially to another. Just buy the focal length you want for your subject and don't worry about what your subject would have looked like had you strapped your 200mm lens on an iphone.


This thread has really jumped the shark. It's devolved (amusingly so) into a series of skirmishes about "why doesn't Canon" or "why does Canon," all of which can be answered at once: because Canon doesn't / does think it worthwhile to the bottom line.

39
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DOUBLE SMACKDOWN on Neuro
« on: June 09, 2014, 10:02:43 AM »
Exactly. It may not be as pretty as a low ISO studio shot, but you can't very well bring birds in flight into a studio setting. Noise > unintended motion blur.

Get a bigger flash :)
LOL! I'd love me something like that :P

40
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DOUBLE SMACKDOWN on Neuro
« on: June 08, 2014, 10:46:58 AM »
I don't get why people want to shoot with high ISO or case so much.

I disagree. You do get it

At that point you've decided that getting the shot is more important than absolute IQ.

Exactly. It may not be as pretty as a low ISO studio shot, but you can't very well bring birds in flight into a studio setting. Noise > unintended motion blur.

41
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon's D800E 30% sharper than D800
« on: June 05, 2014, 04:12:36 PM »
Dilbert, Canon Rumors is a Canon equipment related webseite and forum. Who cares about Nikon?!

Care to take a gander at the sub forum you're in?

42
Lenses / Re: Need a 600mm. Don't want to pay for one
« on: June 05, 2014, 03:04:36 PM »
Canon will need more titanium
Beryllium!
I'm sorry for my lapse in affordability, err, I mean times, but beryllium???  What is this the 1990s?  Graphene is what we all want  ;).

haha, at least now we have flat lenses from a decade ago. :)

I'm not sure they've really figured out how to make solid geometry from graphene yet, but if they have then yah, bring it on!  600mm lens with a barrel a few atoms thick :))

43
Lenses / Re: Need a 600mm. Don't want to pay for one
« on: June 05, 2014, 01:40:20 PM »
Canon will need more titanium

What is this, the 1980s?

Beryllium! Two-and-a-half times as stiff, 40% as heavy.

Just don't drop it, but it's a lens, so you already knew that :)

44
Lenses / Re: Need a 600mm. Don't want to pay for one
« on: June 05, 2014, 12:40:25 PM »
If Canon SOME HOW ::) can reduce the current 400mm f2.8 IS II weight down to 300mm f2.8 IS II - that would be AWESOME.

They could, and yes, it would be AWE$OME.

45
Lenses / Re: Tamron SP 150-600 f/5-6.3 VC Availability
« on: June 05, 2014, 12:38:33 PM »
I would have though almost everybody would have the same answer as me: the 24-105mm L! I wasn't blown away with it; having used a good 17-55mm on crop for a while before that lens. But my second L: the 70-200mm L ii really showed me the light.



I'm guessing this was intended to go here: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=21186.0

I find that sometimes when you are in a thread when you log into the site, it forwards you to the next thread from the login screen rather than returning you to the appropriate thread.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 21