January 25, 2015, 07:54:14 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 ... 228
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS
« on: June 13, 2013, 10:03:29 PM »
Both of the current 70-300 lenses are f/4-5.6:
70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM
70-300L f/4-5.6 IS USM

Why then would they want to build a f/4.5-5.6 70-300?

EOS Bodies / Re: A Big Megapixel Discussion
« on: June 13, 2013, 12:08:34 AM »
I am really hoping they opt for the 5D series body. I think that would make more sense because the 1D series cameras are built for people who shoot high volume work. High megapixel shooters tend to do low more low volume work.

What is considered to be "high megapixel" changes over time.

In 1 or 2 years time, maybe 30MP will be considered "normal".

EOS Bodies / Re: A Big Megapixel Discussion
« on: June 11, 2013, 05:11:54 PM »


Lenses / Re: WA lens advice 16-35 II or the TSE 17
« on: June 09, 2013, 01:07:18 PM »
Hi CR folks,

My gear is lacking at the wide end. I used to have the 17-40 but sold it off earlier this year with the thoughts of upgrading to the 16-35.

I've tried a few copies of the 16-35 II but have been left unimpressed with the IQ. The upgrade doesn't feel an upgrade to me so I'm looking at the TSE 17mm.

As I already have the 24-70 II, I'm only missing the range between 18-24 which I believe I can crop or zoom with my feet.

Thoughts on this ... downsides besides losing the AF and 2.8 aperture?

Welcome to the club of Canon owners that lament the lack of a wide angle zoom that doesn't suck.

Both the 16-35II and 17-40 under perform in about the same way.

Whilst there are ongoing rumors of a 14-24, that'll suffer from the same issue as the 17TSE: bulbous front element requiring lots of TLC and PITA for filter use.

Lenses / Re: What is the next Canon lens you want or covet and why...
« on: June 08, 2013, 12:04:27 PM »
The next Canon lens that I want is a full frame 16-35II or 17-40 equivalent that doesn't suck. A 14-24 won't suit me as the curved front lens is too hard to protect or use filters with.

Yeah, the next Canon lens I want don't exist right now.


Canon General / Re: EOS 5D Mark III w/24-70 f/4L IS Kit Coming Soon
« on: June 06, 2013, 04:24:41 AM »
Those who don't want crappy wide end performance on FF??
(I got the 24-70 II 2.8, but I can see people going for 24-70 f/4 IS.)

If the 24-105 has "crappy" wide end performance, so does the 24-70 f/4.0, they are very similar optically. 

Your 24-70 2.8 II of course puts both to shame!

Perhaps. I've never used the 24-70 f/4 IS but the MTF charts from Canon are much better at 24mm and the results at Lens Rentals were also better than the 24-105 L.

The 24-105L is widely panned at the wide end due to field curvature and softness around the edges/corners.

Canon General / Re: EOS 5D Mark III w/24-70 f/4L IS Kit Coming Soon
« on: June 06, 2013, 04:19:40 AM »
Because it is optically superior to the 24-105, in fact it's way ahead of even our very good copy of the 24-105.

Pity that they couldn't fix the 24-105...

It is a very useful walk-around lens.

And I'll hasten to add that while it doesn't remove the need for a tele-zoom (70-200, 70-300, 100-400) it does mean a whole lot less lens swapping around when you're out and about.

Landscape / Re: Beautiful sunsets
« on: June 05, 2013, 07:28:24 AM »

Jun 2  IMG_0473-IMG_0474 by ecka84, on Flickr

Sunsets create shadows.

Where are the shadows in this?

Oh, I forgot, it has been HDR'd to death.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: I'm returning my Sigma 35 1.4
« on: June 04, 2013, 08:51:06 AM »

Reading this I begin to wonder, are lenses (such as this) and cameras (such as the D800) becoming such that to use them properly and get the best out of them they require technique and skill that is just that extra step beyond what an ordinary photographer/user has?

Lenses / Re: Tele for backpacking
« on: June 03, 2013, 10:18:36 PM »
My primary considerations for choosing gear are handheld IQ, weight & pack space, and preference for weather sealing (when possible/practical).

The Tamron 70-300 VC is the best bet here as it both costs significantly less than the Canon 70-300L and is significantly less heavy. The 70-300L may be a bit sharper but the increase in IQ does not offset the combination of cost, weight and size.

Lenses / Re: If you could only have three lenses...
« on: June 02, 2013, 08:45:51 PM »
If you could only have three lenses to shoot video AND general photography on FF cameras, (including sports, portraiture with or without flash, macro, etc.), which would you choose?

Since your question doesn't appear to limit the choice to those available...

A 17-40 IS USM that doesn't suffer from stupid amounts of field curvature or soft corners
A 24-105 IS USM that doesn't suffer from stupid amounts of field curvature at the wide end or soft corners at any focal length
A 70-300 IS USM that provides a sharp image and good focusing without weighing a ton.

(For mine, the 24-70 and 70-200 lenses don't offer enough flexibility in zoom range but do have IQ..)

Of course, if I could have only one, it'd be the 50-500/f1.4

the numbers are nonsense, the whole article misleading.
no word about read noise etc.

Why is that necessary?

and the sensor captures photons that donĀ“t belong to visible light too.
so no word about how this will work for photography when you capture IR and UV light.

Filter in front of the sensor, like they do today: IR DSLR conversions are made by REMOVING the filter that blocks out IR light.

Dilbert's Law of Photographic Technology: The eventual ramification of every technological advance in photography will be the proliferation of scatological images throughout the internet, predominantly of felines.

Not quite.

Dilbert's Law of Photographic Technology: The eventual ramification of every technological advance in photography will aid the proliferation of images of felines throughout the Internet.

Sounds fishy to me. The current sensors have about 50% QE. This means that one can only increase it twice, not 1,000 times.

In principle, "sensitivity" is not a well defined term when it comes to digital sensors. They are photon counting machines, missing every other photon, roughly speaking.

Yes, your thinking mirrors mine.  Perhaps its a deeper electron well that holds more photons, but that implies a longer exposure.  The description of "Wang said the key to his new sensor is the use of "light-trapping" nanostructures that use graphene as a base. The nanostructures hold onto light-generated electron particles for much longer than conventional sensors." is a bit vague and does not explain the predicted usefulness for consumer imaging. 

Imagine that the electron well actually has holes in it and that not all of the electrons that you capture stay in there - some get out or some get absorbed by the well.. Giving the well better walls/floor will help prevent that and thus result in a more consistent image being presented.

Some sort of external light is always needed.  I'm hoping that the sensor becomes practical, but, there are
I'm also wondering about the property that he quoters of holding light far longer.  Actually, we want sensors that will reset more quickly so that we get more frames per second.

Well that will definitely help the numbers of cat photos on the Internet swell.

Is there any trick to make 5D Mark III's in-camera CA correction support 3rd party lens such as Sigma 35? Sigma 35 is definitely a nice lens, except with very strong chromatic aberration when shot at large apertures.
Lightroom isn't function very well either... and it would be more helpful if this can be applied to jpg directly

Whether it is in the camera or with Lightroom, it is still software fixing the issue.

Which version of Lightroom are you using?

Pages: 1 ... 106 107 [108] 109 110 ... 228