March 01, 2015, 10:31:35 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 - Gcon

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9
106
Lenses / Re: RIP Canon EF 15 f/2.8 Fisheye
« on: November 22, 2011, 03:57:27 AM »
I just saw the cost of the Sigma fisheye - wow! So much cheaper! If cost is an issue then definitely get that one. The Canon one shouldn't be that much more expensive - possibly it's still at "early adopter" prices. I think if the Sigma is worth US$600-700, then the Canon 8-15mm f/4L should probably be around the US$1000 mark. It is 100% deserving of its 'L' designation though and build quality is great (easily removed lens cap excepted!).

Again - I wouldn't worry about about losing f/2.8. Who really needs depth of field on a fisheye? It's not like you're going to get much at 14mm or 15mm anyways. Faster shutter? Have you seen the 1Dx high ISO ability?! ;)  f/2.8 is not really needed, or won't be, for a fisheye lens. A sound choice I think by Canon.

So if you want the very best you have to pay through the nose for it. If you can wait then wait - perhaps it'll have big price drops once Japan/Thailand recovers and early adopters like me have theirs. I'm guessing it'll be $1200 in 6 months but hopefully it'll drop more.

107
Lenses / Re: RIP Canon EF 15 f/2.8 Fisheye
« on: November 22, 2011, 03:43:17 AM »
I hear from lots of people that aren’t happy with the 8-15 f/4L fisheye. They wish Canon would update the full frame fisheye 2.8 prime.

Who are these people?  I have no experience with this lens, but every review I've read online is glowing. They all say it's sharp, contrasty, and has excellent build quality. Heck, even the Nikon users are extremely jealous about this lens.

I think the people who are complaining are the ones that don't own the new lens. I have to admit - I was a complainer at first. I wanted f/2.8 and as a full frame shooter - couldn't care less about the zoom. Then I read the review on The Digital Picture (.com) and realised that f/2.8 on the original is pretty blurry and for me that makes it a useless aperture. I think it's probably impossible based on physics of light to make f/2.8 sharp on a 15mm fisheye. Since a soft aperture is unacceptable for a L-designated lens, I'd say this is a contributing factor in making the widest f/4 - that and it being a zoom where f/4 is standard.

Anyway I went out and got one and did a two week road trip pulling out the fisheye regularly (new toy). It has all the "C's" in spades - color, clarity, contrast - all fantastic. Unfortunately also cost - not cheap.  It's a little bit punchier in the colors that my 17-40mm f/4L. I really can't fault the IQ at all except corner sharpness until you stop down but that's to be expected for a fisheye.

What a lot of people don't realise is that you can use it on a full frame down to just below 14mm. The difference between 15mm and 14mm is quite large, and I'm really glad I've got that extra mm over the original one.

Besides cost, the only other thing that annoys me is the outer lens cover comes off really easily with the slightest push of the release button. The built in 'hood' stays on pretty well as that twists off.

If you are a full frame shooter then if you want f/2.8 then you can go out and buy the old one, but expect pretty ordinary soft results and if you are a pixel peeper, you just won't use it. As an owner of the new lens, I really don't think anyone should shed a tear with the news of the old lens being discontinued.

108
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS "Soonish" [CR2]
« on: November 13, 2011, 10:54:09 PM »
Will it take the 1.4x or 2x extenders?

109
EOS Bodies / Re: Nikon D800 at 36mp, Will Canon Respond?
« on: October 04, 2011, 10:44:10 PM »
Based on Moore's Law, Canon should be able to get four times as many pixels in their sensor, now, as they could have, three years ago. Of course, it's not always about more pixels, as has been pointed out. There are trade-offs, such as reduced heat, power, noise, etc. Still, I would be surprised if Canon couldn't make a FF sensor that is one or two stops better and still increase the pixel count.

The most misquoted law around ;)

Moore's law is that the quantity of transistors in silicon will double for a given price point every 18-24 months.

There are some similarities with digital camera pixels over recent years but it's definitely not Moore's law.



110
EOS Bodies / Re: A Very Detailed 1D Mark V Spec List [CR1]
« on: August 06, 2011, 12:49:56 PM »
I'm calling shenanigans too.

"Metering modes Multi Center-weighted, Spot" - just those two metering modes on a pro camera? Don't think so.

I also don't think they would have SD on this.  32MP at 9+FPS. Do you know how much data that is? That's a lot of freakin' data! They are going to be needing dual UDMA and probably dual Digic 5's for that.

I also don't think they'd downgrade speed from the 10FPS of the ID Mark III and IV. Speed is paramount for a sports shooter. 1 extra frame per second could be the different between getting, and not getting the shot.

Total shenanigans. Glad this is only CR1.

111
Lenses / Re: EF 8-15 f/4L Fisheye Available for Pre-Order at B&H
« on: July 29, 2011, 12:43:50 PM »
I've been receiving a lot of email of late - especially from people who send emails.

112
Finally! A calculator mouse - my life is now complete.  ???

113
EOS Bodies / Re: 3D (Again) & 5D Mark III (CR1)
« on: June 16, 2011, 03:28:45 AM »
FF
24 MP
30+ pt af
8 fps
dual digic V
dual card slots
weather sealed

~$3.5K - $4K and I'd buy 2

It could be more sports/wildlife oriented than the new 5D which could remain the slow, entry level FF that people expect.  That leaves plenty of features left over for a flagship 1 series body with 10fps, integrated grip, 1.3 crop mode and a gazillion megapixels.....

I'm with you on this one buddy!

114
EOS Bodies / Re: 3D (Again) & 5D Mark III (CR1)
« on: June 15, 2011, 03:30:41 AM »
The more I think about it, the more I think the 3D is going to happen. People are screaming out for a full-frame 7D equivalent - rugged, compact, weather sealed, with better AF.  (OK I am - hopefully others are too!). An outdoor/landscape shooter's dream, for those who can't afford or don't want medium-format digital.

If they made the 5DIII like that it would do two things:
1) push the price right up for that model
2) cannibalize sales from the 1D line

So the market is ripe now for a model that sits in-between the 5D and the 1D lines. There's a big hole in their lineup that they currently aren't filling.

The 5DIII will be the cheapest full-frame offering. The new version will bring more megapixels and better AF from the 7D but not much else, except for perhaps newer video-specific features. It will compete aggressively on price.

The 3D will basically be a full-frame 7D. It won't have integrated vertical grip. It might even borrow some other features from the 1D line but not enough to cannibalize it, but will be a price premium above the 5DmarkIII line, the same way the 7D is at a premium above the 60D. Shutter speeds will definitely be held back as this is a 1D feature - expect a single Digic V for the 3D.

The 1D and 1Ds series will merge together into a fast-shooting, fully-featured, top of the line model - everything we have now but with more Megapixels and the updated interface from dual Digic V. What Canon will do with this camera is enable a toggle to go into 1.3x crop mode, discarding the outer-most pixels which will allow a faster shutter speed, so you'll have a 1D and 1Ds all in one.

Thus we'll end up with a nice matrix of cameras:
Rebel / 60D / 7D for crop sensor
5DmarkIII / 3D / 1DmarkV for full frame

I'll be going for the 3D for sure - maybe upgrade both of my 5DII's to them. Bring it Canon!

115
Lenses / Re: Canon Announces EF-S 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS II
« on: June 13, 2011, 09:27:04 AM »
*yawn*. next!

116
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III [CR1]
« on: May 21, 2011, 12:32:11 AM »
This is a very believable spec sheet.

32mp. Given that 600D, 60D and 7D are 18mp, the same pixel density on full frame is approx 46mp. Thus a move to 32mp is reasonable.

ISO to 25600. I don't expect it to go that high. I have no need for it in any case.

Digic V - to be expected. Hopefully it comes with an overhauled menu system and can do advanced things like electronic leveling.

4.2 shots/sec. A small increase from 3.9 of the 5DII. No threat to the 1DIV.

19 point AF. Taken straight from 7D.

CF card - to keep people with large investments in this card happy. Also it is appropriate for large RAW file transfer speeds.

All the video stuff I don't care for, but would imagine this is a good platform for video, as it's shot horizontal so don't need the vertical grip of the 1D series.

==========
Rant - I was hoping that Canon would bring the 5D line closer to the 1D line with a more rugged body and weather sealing, and using buttons instead of mode dial, and having an integrated viewfinder cover.

It doesn't look they will go that bold, but will keep the status quo and just bump up the features a bit to have a "full frame 7D" but without the same level of weather sealing.

This is a shame really, as Canon users need something akin to the Nikon D700, and it's imminent successor.


117
Lenses / Re: EF 24-105 f/4L IS II [CR1]
« on: April 20, 2011, 10:30:41 AM »
I'm very happy with the sharpness, color and contrast from this lens.

Have you objectively compared the sharpness of it to a 100 macro or 70-200 or something else known to be sharp? The reason I ask is to help determine if the particular one I tried was just off or if it is a characteristic of the design. I may be interested in the existing one if a II doesn't materialize fairly soon and there is reason to try another copy.

I have used a borrowed 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, and own the 100mm f/2.8L macro. The macro is so sharp, it would have to be one of the sharpest lenses of any out there in terms of mainstream lenses. I haven't shot enough with the 70-200 enough to have an opinion. The 100mm trumps everything, but that's not a fair comparison ;)
I've only really compared it to my 24-70mm f/2.8L, and find it to be comparatively sharp. I like the smaller size, bigger zoom and IS over the 24-70, which is a bit of stinker in really contrasty situations (bad CA), and flary as well. Of course f/4 is slow, so the 24-70 comes out for gigs.  http://www.flickr.com/photos/gavaconda/tags/ef24105mmf4lisusm/ for examples. Check my profile for other tagged shots for other lenses.


118
Lenses / Re: EF 24-105 f/4L IS II [CR1]
« on: April 19, 2011, 11:07:39 AM »
I love my EF 24-105 f/4L IS. The only bad things I can say about it are:
1. Barrel distortion at 24mm is quite pronounced but fixable in Lightroom.
2. IS is not tripod sensing. In my early forays into landscape shooting with this lens I destroyed some great shots by forgetting to turn that off. Most newer IS'es are smarter than that.

I've never had any problems with flaring with this lens, so the same hood is fine by me. My experience has been that the wider the lens, the more flaring your are likely to get, so the better hood you'll need. Being a relatively slow f/4, I don't think it needs as good a shielding as the 24-70mm f/2.8 shot wide open.

I'm very happy with the sharpness, color and contrast from this lens. It's every bit as sharp if not better than my 24-70mm f/2.8 on my camera body (5D2). Some people (who probably have never owned one) might say that since it's a kit lens, it can't be any good. These people probably owned EF-S kit lenses (the horrible 18-55) and were burned by that.

I won't be rushing to upgrade my 24-105. I'd prefer Canon release an improved 17-40, and the updated the 35mm and 50mm primes. More than anything I want a compact full frame (5DIII) that has 7D-like AF and WEATHER SEALING! (Are you hearing me Canon?!)

119
EOS Bodies / Re: 600D/T3i Specs [CR2]
« on: February 03, 2011, 08:30:15 PM »
This seems like a Rebel without a cause.

120
EOS Bodies / Re: “1Dsq” & 3D [CR1]
« on: January 26, 2011, 11:13:01 PM »
Oooh the 3D is exactly what I want. Well I'd like to stay at 21MP (I'm a 5DmkII user) but for the stuff I shoot and sizes I print then 3MP difference (14% drop) probably wouldn't be an issue, but if they can increase low-light performance, add 1d-level pro weather sealing, up the shutter speed and improve the AF then I am so there!!!

Lenses - new improved 50mm f/1.2L II would be good to go with it  - a low-light specialist body needs a better low-light prime to go with it.. hint hint... ;)

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9