July 25, 2014, 05:10:17 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 - Random Orbits

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 86
16
Alas, I lost money on the f/2.8 II because I bought it at one of its highest prices in years - no rebates or anything at the time.  I needed the lens for a shoot when I bought it so technically it paid for itself, but I have sold every other Canon lens for the price I paid or more.  Yes I have plenty left over to cover the f/4 IS, but I don't like to lose money, even if it's just in principle vs. reality.  A 3 year rental would have cost me how much?

On the sunstars - I have been shooting with the 24-70 f/2.8 II for a while now and don't find the 9-bladed aperture to be an issue even at 70mm.  I'm not sure I have a strong preference either way - sometimes the spiky 9-bladed sunstars are a nice effect - like for nightime cityscapes, and sometimes they are odd and distracting, but sometimes the softer 8-bladed sunstars just look odd and smeared.  Obviously the aperture makes a big difference, too, so there is some control.  And if you think about it, at the 16-35mm focal length, the sun is never going to be very big in the frame so I don't think it will be much of an issue.

Also, regarding Tom's point about astrophotography, the f/2.8 II like all older Canon zooms and most primes has terrible coma in the corners.  The 24-70 f/2.8 II does not and it's possible that the f/4 IS won't either.  Combine that with the 5DIII or 1DX and the ISO can make up for the aperture, at least in good conditions.

ejenner, thanks for sharing your thoughts on the lens and how it compares to the TS-E 17. I looked at the distortion charts on TDP and the 17mm seems much less distorted, at least in the neutral position.  If the f/4 IS is as sharp as the 17mm, I'll be a very happy man :)

I've lost money on the 3 lenses I've bought and sold:  about 200 on the 17-55, about 50 on the 10-22 and about 150 on the 16-35 II.  The one that really surprised me was how soft the market the 16-35 II had become.  When I bought it, it sold used for 1300, but I got mine for about 1200.  I sold it for close to that, but the loss is mainly from fees.  The only auctions that I saw go for much more than 1200 were usually scammers with no feedback scores.

The one stop difference compared to the 16-35 II won't matter as much to me or those that have faster primes.  With f/1.4 options at 24 and 35, you lose on focal length versatility, but the two stops is more signifcant than the 1 stop difference compared to the 16-35II.

It's true that IS is not as effective at shorter FLs, but I'd still rather have it than not.  It helps when the shutter speed gets as slow as 1/2 second, which is handy for travel (i.e. museums, blurring water flow minimally).  It looks like it'll be an ideal travel lens.  I love the idea of a 16-35 III that is as good if not better optically than the 16-35 f/4 IS, but that is not a option now.

17
$850?  Tamron, who do you think you are?  Canon???

Nope, Canon charges you 2500+.   ;D

18
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 F4 is shipping today
« on: June 20, 2014, 07:44:22 PM »
Mine is/was supposed to ship from Canon today. So far all I've gotten is an invoice (with an unscanned FedEx tracking number) for my free "100 Million EF Lens Gift Set" T-shirt along with a message that my order is "ready to ship". I am underwhelmed.

Patience.  For some reason Canon is shipping the gift set and lens separately.  I got the shipping number for the lens a few hours after the gift set.

19
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 f/4L IS Hitting Retailers
« on: June 20, 2014, 12:36:42 PM »
$125 off is better paying full price. Wonder what inside "100 Million EF Lens Gift Set"?

It's supposed to be a t-shirt, lens cloth and pin.  I'll find out when the lens ships any day now.  Buying the 16-35 f/4 IS was funded by selling the 16-35 f/2.8 II, and this is the first lens that I've ever pre-ordered.
Same here, sold the 16-35 II and first time pre-order. Waiting hopeful that it will arrive soon.

They charged my credit card yesterday, and the status has changed to warehoused.  I'll have to FedEx divert it to a FedEx store, so I can pick it up after vacation.  Have fun with yours!

20
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 f/4L IS Hitting Retailers
« on: June 20, 2014, 11:02:25 AM »
An early CONGRATS

Feel like a kid in the candy shop?  ;D

MTF charts look very nice when compared to 16-35 f2.8 II. Plus that 4stop IS will be a huge benefit for night time shooting.

Post some pics when you ready.

Just wish I had it in hand now.  Heading up to Maine for a family gathering tomorrow, and I would have loved to try it out up there.  I'll be using primes to cover the range instead.

What I really wanted was a 16-35 f/2.8 III with optics that matches or surpasses the 16-35L f/4 IS.  That would help me reduce my lens count from MANY to MANY - 1.   ;D

21
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 f/4L IS Hitting Retailers
« on: June 20, 2014, 09:46:21 AM »
$125 off is better paying full price. Wonder what inside "100 Million EF Lens Gift Set"?

It's supposed to be a t-shirt, lens cloth and pin.  I'll find out when the lens ships any day now.  Buying the 16-35 f/4 IS was funded by selling the 16-35 f/2.8 II, and this is the first lens that I've ever pre-ordered.

22
I just hope that the acquiring Tamrac doesn't ruin Gura Gear.  My first two bags were Tamrac and my next two were Gura Gear, and I still use all four.  My Tamracs are smaller and used for day trips while the Guras are larger and used for longer trips.  Merging supply chains and workforces with two different cost structures is not easy, and I'm hoping that Gura can continue to expand its product line while dealing with the acquisition.  I'd be more disappointed losing Gura than losing Tamrac.

23
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 f/4L IS Hitting Retailers
« on: June 20, 2014, 07:14:45 AM »
One of missing pieces in my puzzle.

Since I'm no hurry for UWA, willing to wait for X-mas rebate.

I was going to wait for a rebate too, but then pre-ordered one when the Canon site glitched and was selling at a discount.

What was the discount rate?

$125 off 1200 for the lens, and because it was through Canon, they threw in a "100 Million EF Lens Gift Set" valued at 50 for free.

24
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 f/4L IS Hitting Retailers
« on: June 19, 2014, 07:34:09 PM »
One of missing pieces in my puzzle.

Since I'm no hurry for UWA, willing to wait for X-mas rebate.

I was going to wait for a rebate too, but then pre-ordered one when the Canon site glitched and was selling at a discount.

25
EOS-M / Re: Where is the M-3 with the dual pixel sensor!!!!
« on: June 18, 2014, 11:52:41 PM »
I think with the recent 55-200 EF-M announcement the M has some legs. Hopefully they release a nice M3 for Photokina and open up the floodgates for your US market.

+1.  I bought into the M system, and I agree that the 55-200 shows that Canon thinks the M system has long-term viability.  I got it originally to replace a P&S, and have added the 18-55 and the 11-22 (a Canadian order placed from the US).  I don't think I'll get the 55-200 for 420.  If it goes on sale, then maybe...  The M has replaced our old HD camcorder.  Better AF would be nice, but it's OK for my family's uses for now.

26
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Speculation [CR1]
« on: June 18, 2014, 11:37:15 PM »
I don't disagree that Canon's strategy was wrong with the 5DIII vs. D800/E...

...to which I was responding?

Oh, I know – nothing.  But you lost the original argument, won't acknowledge that you were wrong, and are instead moving the goalposts.

Sorry, not going to play that game.

That was an error on my part.  What I meant to write was that I agreed with you that Canon probably did the right thing by making what the 5DIII what it is.  However, we don't know for sure because the alternative was never produced.  Who can say whether or not a Canon-like D800 would have sold as well.  After all, Canon sells a lot more lower tier APS-C cameras than Nikon does even with some of the advantages that Nikon has (i.e. wider selection of crop lenses).

My original post on this topic was this:
Quote
I think most companies do not hold back because it's unprofitable.  Why would you delay the release of something that will get you more profit?  100-400L II rumors have been around for years.  Has it been held back all this time waiting for a 7DII or is it more likely that worthy successor to the 100-400L had yet to be developed?

I remember when the 5DIII/D800 came out, and Chuck Westfall stated that Canon had high MP technologies and implied that Canon could respond quickly if the market demanded more MP.  Well, it's been 2 years and still nothing.  Maybe the response will come this year, but it won't be cheap and it won't be across the Canon product line (70D didn't have it, 7D won't have it [according to rumors]).  People that work in PR or deal with media are there to tell the outside world what the company wants them to hear.  It's in Canon's interest that we think Canon can respond to the threats of other companies (so that people don't switch away from the Canon ecosystem), but they don't tell you when.

My main two points were

1.  I don't think Canon holds back ready-to-produce products because it is less profitable in the long run.

2.  I don't think Canon could have responded to a high MP challenge as quickly as people thought.  Perhaps people thought Canon could have responded in a year; I think it's closer to a full product cycle (as clarified in my latter posts).

27
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Speculation [CR1]
« on: June 18, 2014, 10:51:17 PM »
Oh, ok.  When did it become wrong?  When Nikon decided not to maintain two D800 models, both of which are outsold by the 5DIII, and instead are refreshing the line with a D800s, hoping that will prove more competitive?  When Sony released a 12 MP version of the a7 because the 36 MP a7R was such a smashing success? 

Or maybe you're saying it hasn't become wrong yet, but will at some point in the future.  If so, let me know who'll win the next Super Bowl, so I can place a bet on your 'sure thing'.  ::)

Whatever.

Yeah, because market research is always right.  ::)  Because the EOS-M was such a hit in the US based on their original market analysis that the USA was part of part of M1's product launch.  Because the SL1 "met" their expectations too.  Whatever indeed.




28
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Speculation [CR1]
« on: June 18, 2014, 10:18:18 PM »
You don't disagree that Canon's strategy was wrong?  That double negative means you think Canon's strategy was wrong.  Given that the 5DIII has sold better than the D800/E, please explain the flaws in Canon's strategy...

Canon is developing a high MP body?  They produced a 120 MP APS-H sensor, clearly they have the capability.  But if your 'evidence' for an imminent high MP body is rumor posts, we'd have seen a new 100-400L over five years ago.

I think you miss the point.  Westfall said Canon could respond quickly if the market demanded it.  The fact that the 22 MP 5DIII has outsold the 36 MP D800/E and a7R supports the idea that the market has not demanded high MP...therefore, Canon sees no need to respond, quickly or otherwise.

Please note that 'the market' does not comprise a few complainers on Internet forums.

I don't think Canon's strategy was wrong at the time.  Canon produced a 120 MP APS-H sensor, but at what price?  I don't think they could have done it two years ago when the 5DIII came out at the D800 price.  I don't think Canon could have produced the D800 two years ago at the D800 price period, which has nothing to do with whether or not the 5DIII was the right product for Canon to make.

I don't believe that Canon could have responded "quickly" if "quickly" meant a year.  Now if "quickly" means 3-4 years, then yes it can respond "quickly."  We'll have to see when/if a large MP body comes.  If it arrives around 3-4 years after the D800, which is similar to Canon's pro product cycle length, then I would think Canon is reacting to the D800.  If a high MP comes 5 or more years later (or never), then Canon decided that the high MP market was not worth its while.

29
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Speculation [CR1]
« on: June 18, 2014, 08:13:56 PM »
I remember when the 5DIII/D800 came out, and Chuck Westfall stated that Canon had high MP technologies and implied that Canon could respond quickly if the market demanded more MP.  Well, it's been 2 years and still nothing.

The 5DIII has outsold the D800/E.  Maybe it has 'been 2 years and still nothing' because the market HAS NOT demanded more MP.

I don't disagree that Canon's strategy was wrong with the 5DIII vs. D800/E, but then why is Canon developing a high MP body now if it doesn't think it is profitable?  Unless the high MP rumor is smoke in the wind and there won't be a 35MP+ Canon body at all.  I take exception to what Westfall implied that Canon could respond "quickly."  At 2 years and counting, it's getting close to a full product cycle.

30
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Speculation [CR1]
« on: June 18, 2014, 07:40:15 PM »
The DIGIC6 is supposed to have 20 percent more computing power than the dual DIGIC5+, so yes I agree that it is more powerful... but computing power and I/O bandwidth are two different things. I am sure that there are many instances where the extra pins of two chips are better than the faster pins of a single chip.

Computing-wise, if a 60D can handle 5.3fps at 18M, then a single DIGIC6 should be able to handle 100fps at 36Mpixels.... but there is no way the I/O of the DIGIC6 will support that so the comparison is meaningless.

about the only safe statement is that if they use dual DIGIC6 it will be faster than dual DIGIC5+.

Agreed.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 86