July 28, 2014, 08:53:49 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 [2] 3 4 ... 8
16
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/4L IS Coming [CR3]
« on: October 30, 2012, 11:05:03 PM »
I read "24"..."70"...."IS"... and got excited. Then I read "f/4", and immediately got a migraine.

Why Canon - for the love of God why?!!!!! With so many other lens models in the line-up that actually need an update or need to come out - WHY?!!!!!

35L - needs rounded aperture blades and weather sealing
17-40L - needs improved edge sharpness and better coatings for richer colors/contrast
16-35L - as above
100-400L - needs a refresh I'm told
200-400L - needs to come out
14-24L - needs to come out
24-70 f/2.8 IS - needs to come out

Canon is making as much sense as a wookie choosing to live on endor.

17
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS-1D X Firmware 1.1.1 Now Available
« on: October 18, 2012, 02:41:23 AM »
I notice on the splash page, http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/standard_display/EOS1DX_firmware, that the first lens listed as newly compatible with the 1.4x is the 70-300L. WTF? The two aren't physically compatible.  Does Canon want to boost service revenue by repairing broken elements?


Good pickup! Tell me this someone please. I have these two components - the Canon 1.4x III and the Canon 70-300L. Will anything break if I put them together?! I thought it was a physical limitation. Hmmmm. Hope Canon enable this functionality in the 5D3 if it can be done!

18
+1 for 5D3 for these tweaks. I'm not terribly fussed about the f/8 option as I'm not a birder / sporter, and don't have any lenses that are f/4 and can be combined with a 2x (unless I get a 1.4x or 2x for my 70-300L).

The red point illumination would be mighty handy though, with the Aussie wedding season about to krank up.

19
EOS Bodies / Re: New firmware to Canon 7D, v2.0.3
« on: October 16, 2012, 07:41:29 AM »
Does the firmware update reduce the noise at ISO100? I find that really grainy noise even at base ISO is really the major disappointment with this body. In fact it's so bad I don't know why anyone would use it. I personally prefer the images from the 50D, and think Canon took a backwards step with this sensor.

20
Site Information / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II in Stock at Adorama
« on: October 15, 2012, 05:10:03 PM »
It would want to be good for that money! Can't wait for the reviews to hit. Usually I'd rush out and be first to buy but for that asking price - I'm a bit wary.

21
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 4D reference in Wifi remote app video
« on: September 19, 2012, 09:18:41 PM »
It'll be the 4D for sure. Guaranteed. Why? Think about it.

7D - taken
6D - taken
5D - taken
4D - free
3D - misleading. Consumers will think "Dimension" rather than "Digital"
2D - misleading. Consumers will think "Dimension" rather than "Digital"
1D - taken

Of course it could be 8D or 9D, but really would they want to make it look worse from a numbering perspective than the 7D or 6D? No. they have nowhere else to go. 4D it is.  Nikon did the right thing IMHO by putting the D in the front - another win to Nikon. (I'm a Canon fan but I call it like it is).

22
Image 5 [Portrait] = cute girl. Absolutely horrible image quality. Don't tell me it's a front-focus issue. It's Canon's own website - as if they would post images of front-focused images. If they do then they need to sort themselves out ASAP. It's probably that the 6D can't focus to save itself. FAIL!

Image 6 [Portrait] = eyes are soft. Hair on the top of the head is sharper. Another "horrible focus abilities" issue? FAIL!

Image 2 [Madagascar] = horrible perspective, and bad CA on the RHS.  FAIL!

Image 1 [Baobab] = nice image but IQ doesn't impress. Barely a pass.


2005 called  (original 5D), and said it wants its AF system back!!!

Canon is so full of fail now, that it's unbelievable.

23
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 6D Official Specs
« on: September 17, 2012, 06:15:23 AM »
Anyway am I the only photographer that thinks the 18mp sensor is absolute rubbish?? The 100-400ISO range which I shoot in most, is awful in comparison to the 40Ds 10mp. It is extremely noisy, not clean at all and there is a lot of banding! I read a lot on hear about it and poo poo'd the problems because I thought people were being overly critical as its a tech forum. But 800ISO and over is a great improvement, but most of my stuff is done in the 100-400 range. So I am extremely disappointed in the 7D for IQ which is what I want. Everything else about the camera is perfect IMO, but there is no point in having a great camera with poor IQ.

You are spot on. I shot for a couple of years with the 5DII, and then bought the 7D as a backup, and a bit of a birder. I was horrified by the amount of noise at ISO100. I tried again using it in different situations. Sharp yes. Noisy - absolutely! It's horrible. It has sat in my spare bag for about a year - I just haven't got around to getting rid of it, but I haven't used it either.

If they brought out a 7DMarkII with some kind of huge base ISO noise improvements, and all other features the same (same 18MP), then I'd get one in a flash. It's unusable to me in its current form though.

24
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 6D Specs Leaked?
« on: September 16, 2012, 12:40:36 AM »
Other than the 11 AF with 1 cross type I don't see anything that is a disappointment from a lower cost FF DSLR. What did you guys want. A MkIII at $1500?
All new FF DSLRs should have dual slots, preferably of the same type

That way you can save to 2 cards at the same time for added safety. The first wedding you shoot where the card gets damaged before dumping the shots - you'll agree with me.

25
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 6D Specs Leaked?
« on: September 15, 2012, 07:03:19 PM »
What a huge dissapointment. Canon have to bury that horrible horrible 5D AF system. No excuse for not having all cross-type AF. Also, WTF would their entry level FF have built-in wifi and GPS and not the top level 5D3 and 1DX? Can

26
"a pop star on a faraway stage" lol.  200mm or more would be much better for a "faraway stage".

27
Lenses / Re: Patent: Canon EF 300 f/4L IS II
« on: August 25, 2012, 07:48:00 AM »
I'd much rather use the 7-200 f/2.8 IS II USM plus the 1.4x extender than this lens - so much more flexible.

28
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specs? [CR1]
« on: August 21, 2012, 12:42:55 AM »
Sounds good to me...   I'll believe the "noticeably lower noise than the current 18MP," when I see the RAW files, and not a moment sooner.   ::)

I'd believe it without seeing the RAW files. I can't stand the noise levels of the 18MP sensor. I've mentioned that before on CR, and the 7D fanboy brigade got sand in their crevices and claimed that the 7D was the equal of the 5D Mark II, and really the noise was due to my lack of photo taking abilities and understanding of the gear, irrespective of the fact that I was talking about base ISO in ideal conditions for the 7D (lots of light, high quality glass, tripod, perfectly sharp aperture). I pity the fools.

29
Lenses / Re: New Tilt-Shifts in 2013? [CR1]
« on: July 29, 2012, 09:59:13 PM »
A new 24-70mm f/2.8 II USM would be nice. I saw on this professional-looking rumour site: http://www.canon.com.au/Professional/Pro-Lenses/EF24-70mmf2-8L-II-USM that they might actually be releasing one!

30
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon EOS M System Announced
« on: July 23, 2012, 04:49:27 AM »
God I watched that promo video and it was so awkward. The argument of "people focus like that on an iphone so it's fine". what?   Um no. Putting it up to your head via VF stabilises the camera greatly.

I don't know who this is aimed at? I see it aimed at pretty sad people - they can't be "confused by all those buttons" on a rebel, but want to be seen as being cool and hip with interchangeable lenses.  Sorry but holding the camera out in front of you with all auto settings like a total idiot just doesn't cut it. Putting a big lens on the end - you've just lost pocket ability, and any possible reason for this camera being in existence.

The pic of this camera hanging off the back of the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II USM is sad. Very sad.

If this is the reason for my 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM being delayed, then I'll be well pissed!!

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 8