« on: June 19, 2014, 12:50:56 PM »
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.
Tony Northrup: How To Create Stunning Photography and he also has to a channel on YouTube. Fro knows photo is also is a good source of info as someone has mentionedTo answer your original question, google Jared Polin or Fro Knows Photo; his reviews are interesting even if you don't agree with everything he says.
Thanks Jim, will do. Are there also any books on lightning that you would suggest me read?
+1That's why all the newer ones have the mode dial lock?Can somebody explain to me HOW lack of a mode dial is a good thing? I've never really understood the button system on the 1D line. To me it seems to be a lot slower to switch modes like this.
That's the point. You don't want the mode changing accidentally and more to the point, the mode doesn't change that often - less often than you change lens/camera.
+1000000000000000000000000000000000000000I feel that cps members with a crap ton of points should get this free...
A free cow-poop ice cream cone is still a cow-poop ice cream cone :/
I'm deeply entrenched in the tech industry and I just can't see using "cloud" at this time:
1) ISPs feel they have the right to choke you down if you use 'too much'* bandwidth or to the wrong provider
2) Likelihood of outage to your ISP, anyone in between, the actual service
3) Data breeches by adverse outside parties
4) Sharing of data with outside sources via pressure (national security letter)
5) Sharing of data for profit (advertisers, 'meta data')
6) Hidden clauses in endless EULAs that turn ownership of your IP into someone else's
Now, I'm beginning to sound like a security nut, but I've had it with the cloud snake oil. There has been a systematic disingenuousness of most large companies that seems to be the accepted norm, and people are turning over more and more control and aren't really getting anything for it.
Don't get me wrong, I'll gladly hop on board when I might be getting something I really want, but until, at very least, ISPs are forced to disclose limits and advertise ACTUAL average upstream/downstream and who they are blacklisting/whitelisting, I'll take my local software and hard backups.
Oi. Rant off.
*an arbitrary number, that they won't ever tell you
Do a total reset of the flash to its factory settings, sometimes that clears software glitches. Be sure to install fresh batteries too.Thank you Spokane I will do that
+1Concerning the bulbous front element:
At least Zeiss is able to build an excellent 15/2,8 lens without a bulbous front element. Well, but it's a prime lens and not a zoom lense.
ok, yes a couple of things:
1) prime as you stated so totally different
2) not bulbous but requires 95mm filter - 16-35 II 82mm
3) no autofocus
I know for an event photographer likely all three of these compromises would be a deal killer. Canon's last improvement to the 16-35 included increasing the front element so that it required 82mm filters instead of 77mm. While further improvements could be made likely by going beyond 82mm, question is do people want this for event photography/reportage as some already complain the current 82mm is too big.
might make more sense to focus on landscape who would probably prefer wider than 16mm and wouldn't care about front element size/shape.
Wondering if it is the outrageous initial price of the 24-70 f/4 IS that makes this 16-35 f/4 IS seem "reasonable." After all, it sports quite a premium over the 17-40. Not to say that it won't be worth it because it probably will be once the reviews are in, but just an observation...Random that's a great point which I can't deny...hummmmmm!!!!
Finger crossed here. Canon adding the IS is a great idea and the price is good.I had my heart to set on a Canon version of the Nikon 14-24mm but I'm willing to take a crack at this one!! I'll wait for the reviews.I'm with you, but I took the leap and pre-ordered this morning. I'm going to sell of my 16-35 II and hope that the new lens is as good in person as it looks on paper
I am not a good MTF reader
Can someone explain to me the IQ difference between the 16-35 f/2.8II and the 16-35 f/4 IS based on the MTF's?
I put them here (upper images are the 16-35 f/2.8II)
Simple, more contrast (bold lines) and more sharpness in the corners (thin lines), from left to right = center to extreme borders, the higher the lines on the graph, the more transmission of contrast (bold) and sharpness (thin), usually, black lines are for wide open aperture whilst blue lines are for f/8. At least, if Canon did not change its MTF legend
EDIT: after more observation of those MTF from 16-35/4L, damn, that will be bitingly sharp at f/8. Landscapers rejoice