July 29, 2014, 02:52:02 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 - dilbert

Pages: 1 ... 106 107 [108] 109 110 ... 179
1606
CanonTamron

1607
From ephotozine...

CanonTamron
24mm
35mm
70mm

1608
Landscape / Re: Venus transit
« on: June 06, 2012, 12:14:54 AM »
Slept in...

1609
EOS Bodies - For Stills / DxO compares the 5D Mark III with the D800
« on: June 05, 2012, 05:07:12 AM »
Even if you think DxO don't know anything and their testing is rubbish, you should have a read of this as they go into more detail about their testing, specifically the signal-to-noise testing:

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Canon-5D-Mark-III-Review/Sensor-Comparison

1610
EOS Bodies / Re: What's your acceptable price for the 1Dx
« on: June 04, 2012, 07:36:40 PM »
At this point, given that Canon can't deliver, don't you think it is a bit early to be discussing price?

1611
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 70D & 3D Prediction from Japan
« on: June 04, 2012, 12:39:03 PM »
WTF do they need to put the "3D" series in a 1D-like body?

Can't they deliver us a 3D in a body like the EOS 3 series?

Vertical rotation isn't absolutely required...

Or is this just to justify putting it in a more expensive price bracket?

1612
Tamron is more like all purpose workaround lens with very good, but not great IQ.

The center sharpness is outstanding with nearly every focal length and f-stop reaching well into the "excellent" category.

Aside from the "onion bokeh", this Tamron lens has better IQ than Canon's 24-105/f4 "L". And they're about the same price.

To put this in shopping terms, instead of buying the Canon, you buy the Tamron lens, get better IQ and an extra f-stop of light.

What's not to love about that?

1613
EOS Bodies / Re: Odds & Ends - Mirrorless [CR1]
« on: June 01, 2012, 12:14:53 PM »
Significant announcement #1 - New mirrorless camera
Significant announcement #2 - Shipping date of 1DX for retail customers

1614
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS-1D X Delays [CR2]
« on: May 31, 2012, 10:08:53 AM »
What I heard is the reflex mirror problem because of the 14fps continious shoot

Previously I imagined it to be the AF at f/8 issue but if they've problems like this then that'll do it.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     

1615
Lenses / Re: Bokeh...is the look getting dated?
« on: May 31, 2012, 10:04:15 AM »
Many or even most people have a point and shoot camera with a small sensor, and a huge depth of field.  I've bought little used DSLR's from many who just felt that it was out of focus due to the shallow depth of field, they preferred the everything in focus look.
 
So, I think you might be right, the average casual point and shoot person has been trained to expect everything to be in focus, and they are uncomfortable to the point of thinking something is defective with a shallow depth of field.

+1 on this.

There's a similar issue with audio - so many young folks expect good quality audio to sound like MP3s and are uncomfortable when they hear real fidelity that comes from a CD.

1616
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS-1D X Delays [CR2]
« on: May 31, 2012, 05:07:17 AM »
Maybe we'll have red af points and f8 in the revised version.

My money would be on this too.

1617
PowerShot Cameras / Re: Patent: 24-1060mm Zoom Lens
« on: May 30, 2012, 09:28:50 PM »
Interesting that they've gone and included some "exotic" glass elements in this (UD, flourite)

1618
Lenses / Re: 70-300L on 5D Mark III
« on: May 30, 2012, 06:20:47 PM »
- weight. The 70-300L is significantly heavier than the other 70-300 lenses, so if you're walking to the top of Half Dome and back in a day, you may want to carry a lighter long zoom lens with you.

[snip]

Would you like to comment on the weight issue in a way that is meaningful?


The lightest zoom is a P&S superzoom which you appear to be concerned about


That's comparing apples with oranges. so not really helpful.



Quote
Looked up the review http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/592-tamron70300f456vceosapsc

Quote

The build quality is not comparable to e.g. Canon's EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 USM L IS but it's very good nonetheless



- It is 285g lighter than the 70-300L - not exactly a significant weight advantage.


Let me translate that for you: it's about the weight of a bottle of water.

Quote
- it is not weather sealed
- IS is not to the same standard and the VC does not offer a tripod detection
- The lens body is made of quite high quality plastics based on a metal mount.


If you need these then you wouldn't even be asking the question of whether or not to buy the 70-300L, you simply would.

Quote

Verdict - The most interesting question is, of course, how it compares to the genuine Canon lenses in this range. The Tamron manages to stay a little ahead of the consumer-grade Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 USM IS but it doesn't totally reach the professional-grade Canon L variant (especially in terms of bokeh quality). Even so it represents an excellent value offer in the APS-C market.


You forgot to mention:

Price/performance: 5 out of 5 (for the Tamron lens)

Additionally, the Tamron 70-300 VC is the 70-300 lens of choice for those that use Nikon, including the D800/E.

1619
Lenses / Re: 70-300L on 5D Mark III
« on: May 30, 2012, 12:31:29 PM »
There are plenty of topics discussing the 70-300L, but they are from the pre-5DmkIII era. I've been thinking of getting a nice tele lens to complement my kit 24-105 f/4, and I cannot find a single reason not to choose the 70-300L. It will be a lens that is going to be used during in field action during walks, political meetings, etc, so hauling the 70-200 f/2.8 mk II around is going to be tiresome, and it is widely regarded that 70-300's IQ is similar to that of the 70-200 f/4 IS, while still having 100mm extra.

Since 5DmkIII is here and slower aperture problems might be overcome with higher ISO numbers, is there a reason not to choose the 70-300L? Thank you.

Reasons why I wouldn't choose the 70-300L:
- budget. Not enough to cover the extra charge over the Tamron 70-300 VC
- weight. The 70-300L is significantly heavier than the other 70-300 lenses, so if you're walking to the top of Half Dome and back in a day, you may want to carry a lighter long zoom lens with you.

So which zoom in your experience has the IQ, contrast and IS to match the 70-300L.

The IS in the Tamron 70-300 is in the same ball park as that of the 70-300L. As for the other attributes, go check some reviews.

Quote
If weight is a problem then perhaps a P&S superzoom would suit?

Would you like to comment on the weight issue in a way that is meaningful?

1620
Lenses / Re: 70-300L on 5D Mark III
« on: May 30, 2012, 12:04:20 PM »
There are plenty of topics discussing the 70-300L, but they are from the pre-5DmkIII era. I've been thinking of getting a nice tele lens to complement my kit 24-105 f/4, and I cannot find a single reason not to choose the 70-300L. It will be a lens that is going to be used during in field action during walks, political meetings, etc, so hauling the 70-200 f/2.8 mk II around is going to be tiresome, and it is widely regarded that 70-300's IQ is similar to that of the 70-200 f/4 IS, while still having 100mm extra.

Since 5DmkIII is here and slower aperture problems might be overcome with higher ISO numbers, is there a reason not to choose the 70-300L? Thank you.

Reasons why I wouldn't choose the 70-300L:
- budget. Not enough to cover the extra charge over the Tamron 70-300 VC
- weight. The 70-300L is significantly heavier than the other 70-300 lenses, so if you're walking to the top of Half Dome and back in a day, you may want to carry a lighter long zoom lens with you.

Pages: 1 ... 106 107 [108] 109 110 ... 179