November 23, 2014, 01:26:14 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 - jebrady03

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 18
Lenses / Re: EF-M 55-200 4.5-6.3 IS STM Coming Shortly
« on: June 16, 2014, 08:45:56 PM »
f/5.6 --> f/6.3 is 1/3 of a stop.  REALLY people?  You're going to ***** and moan about 1/3 of a stop?  Seriously?  OBVIOUSLY, the point of the M is to shrink things down as much as possible.  1/3 of a stop throughout the focal range is a "duh" kind of compromise.  As in... DUH... DO IT!  (when talking about mirrorless)

If I were heading up Canon USA and I KNEW an M with a DPAF sensor was coming, I'd hold off releasing this lens.  Then, when the new M with DPAF hits, I'd release it and I'd also release this lens and the 11-22.

Honestly, this lens, IMO, COMPLETES the M ecosystem (WITH a DPAF M) for the AVERAGE US consumer.

Of course, being able to add the EVF from the G1XII as well as a couple of small primes would help round things out for the rest of us.

This lens is almost EXACTLY what I was saying Canon should shoot for.  A small tele zoom, even with a limited range.  My suggestions were 55-150 or 75-150 and max aperture at f4 or f4.5.  As long as Canon prices this similarly to their other lenses MSRP (not the street price, the MSRP) then I think they have a winner!

Nice job Canon!

Here's a quick comparison to another well known, similarly spec'd lens...

Canon EF-M 55-200 IS STM f/4.5-6.3 vs Sony E-mount 55-210 f/4.5-6.3

Weight: 260 grams vs 345 grams
Length: 87mm vs 108mm
Focal range: 55-200 (88-320 FF equivalent) vs 55-210 (82.5-315 equivalent)
Aperture: f/4.5-6.3 vs f/4.5-6.3
So, the EF-M lens is 25% shorter and 20% lighter!  NICE!  The focal range is a tad longer (even worth mentioning the difference?) on both the wide and tele ends of the lens and the apertures are equal - the only difference may be where the actual max aperture stops are on the focal range - I would assume they're similar but possibly not.

Also, the EOS M is 298 grams and the EOS M2 is 274 grams.  This lens should balance VERY well on the M family!

The EF-S 55-250 STM is actually just a touch longer than the E mount Sony tele lens mentioned above (3 mm longer) and heavier (30 grams heavier).  But, if you're talking about mounting the EF-S 55-250 to the M, you obviously need the adapter as well.  You're adding an additional 28mm and 110 grams.  So, here's the final comparison...

EF-M 55-200 f/4.5-6.3 IS STM vs EF-S 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS STM + EF to EF-M adapter
Weight: 260 grams vs 485 grams
Length: 87mm vs 139mm
Focal range: 55-200 (88-320 FF equivalent) vs 55-250 (88-400 equivalent)
Aperture: f/4.5-6.3 vs f/4-5.6
So, the EF-M lens is 37% shorter and 43% lighter!  Obviously, the EF-M 55-200 is 1/3 of a stop slower at the wide and tele end and is slightly lacking in the "reach" department.  The diagonal angle of view at 320mm is 7.7 degrees and the diagonal angle of view at 400mm is 6.2 degrees.  So, 1.5 degrees.  Significant... but also NOT significant.

Hope this helps to put things into perspective for some who were over reacting...

Software & Accessories / Re: 1-Hour Photo iPhone App - Why?
« on: June 11, 2014, 01:11:54 PM »
Maybe it's to save the rest of us from being inundated with pointless, terrible "in the moment" images on social media. I'd like it if this was standard.

Canon General / Re: 9 Sins of a Newbie Photographer
« on: June 02, 2014, 12:49:06 PM »
Seems to me like the OP is on this site to drive traffic to his own website. Looking at one page of his recent posts shows spammy links like this one as well as 2 or 3 regurgitated compliments from one thread to the next.
I've noticed that, too.  Maybe it's time to respond...
Done :-)  Reported to moderator.  We'll see what happens.

Canon General / Re: Buying refurbished from Canon
« on: June 02, 2014, 10:32:30 AM »
Purchased 3 lenses thus far and won't hesitate to purchase more! I frequently recommend Canon Direct refurbs now, especially during their 15-20% off sales!

Canon General / Re: 9 Sins of a Newbie Photographer
« on: June 02, 2014, 10:25:10 AM »
Seems to me like the OP is on this site to drive traffic to his own website. Looking at one page of his recent posts shows spammy links like this one as well as 2 or 3 regurgitated compliments from one thread to the next.

Lenses / Re: Before you buy your next prime...
« on: May 09, 2014, 04:28:10 PM »
Oh... and... she's HOT.  I'm a pretty lucky husband :)

Some pictures would be nice  ;) and make the thread more interesting than that video of an incredibly boring a*** at the beginning who's special talents appear to be the bleeding obvious.

She had some pictures taken for me and here's one that's been downsized, posted online (compressed), saved from online to my phone and emailed to me (so probably compressed again) so it ain't of the greatest quality but hey... it's better than the dude in the video... right?  :)

Lenses / Re: Before you buy your next prime...
« on: May 09, 2014, 03:43:07 PM »
I fell into my GAS solution (that probably sounds dangerous to an outsider)...

I've been looking for a small camera for my wife for YEARS.  I've purchased her 3 cameras and none have the combination of qualities she wants.  Finally, I asked about the SL1... I told her it's the smallest DSLR in the world.  I got it in her hands and SHE LOVES IT!  Now, we "share" all of my lenses and she's pretty excited about it!

I've also been teaching her all about the basics of knowing your gear (aperture, SS, ISO) and this whole process has actually been really good for our marriage as it's giving us a common hobby to REALLY engage in where we didn't have one before other than favorite TV shows.

Oh... and... she's HOT.  I'm a pretty lucky husband :)

EOS Bodies / Re: When Does the Year of the Lens Start?
« on: May 02, 2014, 10:12:51 AM »
Year of the lens huh? Maybe they were just referencing this...

Or maybe we just shouldn't put too much stock into rumors...

EOS Bodies / Re: New Sensor Technology Coming From Canon? [CR1]
« on: April 29, 2014, 09:23:31 AM »
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href=""></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="">Tweet</a></div>
<p>We’re told by a new source that a new generation of full-frame CMOS sensors slated for both a forthcoming mirrorless camera as well as updated versions of the current range of prosumer DLSR models.</p>
<p>The new full frame sensors are said to have lower production costs. Yields have improved for these sensors when compared to their predecessors, and that has probably lead to the cost reduction in production. There was also a bit of information about the new sensors having Foveon like technology, we’ve asked for clarification on this.</p>
<p>TALK OF NEW SENSORS, so a big grain of salt for this one is required.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>

There, fixed it for you! ;-)

Kidding! I, for one, don't have a problem with Canon sensors.

Lenses / Re: Review: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens
« on: April 22, 2014, 05:03:01 PM »
Several USERS have reported AF inconsistencies with the Sigma 35 Art, I'm one of 'em. In poor lighting I end up with about a 40% hit rate, even using AI Servo and BBF on my 70D. Once the 35mm IS USM hits the refurb store, I'm selling mine. I also won't be purchasing the 50 Art.
Im really disappointed... :-/

Edit: I should note that I never go looking for problems but decided to see if my 35 Art would benefit from MFA 2 nights ago. It needed -5, so that might explain some of the difference between my 60% miss rate and Bryans 40% miss rate.

Edit 2: just checked, it was -3, not -5

EOS-M / Re: Freniac grip ergonomics?
« on: March 15, 2014, 10:11:15 PM »
I didn't really care for it to be honest.  It just wasn't comfortable to me when shooting and I actually preferred the original grip.  Having said that, it did make holding the camera via the grip easier.  But the bigger factor for me was comfort while shooting.

I realize I'm in the SMALL minority with that opinion and if you've used one of his grips before and liked it, I can't see why you wouldn't like the grip for the M.

I don't think the biggest problem is portability, sensor size, in-camera or in-phone effects, connectivity, etc.  I think the biggest problem is "the value of an image".  Most people are so inundated with dozens, hundreds, or even THOUSANDS of pictures a day that at most, a single image is in front of their faces for a fraction of a second.  There's simply no time for the average person to appreciate the uniqueness, subtleties, and nuances of a particular photo - much less the artistic impact it makes (or, could in theory if one were to give it some time).

Sure, top-tier photography will still stand out, even on FB and Instagram, but "the masses" - who in the past may have purchased a dedicated point and shoot or even a low-end DSLR - have a hard time getting out of full-auto mode and capitalizing on the strengths of these cameras to make their images more appealing.  Instead, they'd rather slap an ugly *** filter on top of it to garner the extra fraction of a second it takes from their friends to elicit a "like" before they move on to even more images from others who NEED likes in order to bolster their self-confidence.

PowerShot / Re: PowerShot SX700 HS, PowerShot D30 & Rebel Images
« on: February 11, 2014, 07:36:17 AM »
Safe to say a DPAF sensor ain't in that thing?

I think so!

Moving on along...

PowerShot / Re: More Product Confirmations for CP+
« on: February 10, 2014, 08:02:20 PM »
I'm loving this 'Year of the Lens' so far


24-2000 f/3.7-8.0

A 24-2000 f/3.7-8.0

How can you NOT get excited about THAT?!  lol
 ::) ::) ::) ;D

Photography Technique / Re: Photography fail moments !!!
« on: February 07, 2014, 10:22:47 AM »
Accidentally adjusted the diopter on more than one occasion without realizing it. Can't figure out why the images in the viewfinder look blurry bit AF seems to be working when reviewing the images.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 18