April 16, 2014, 07:47:41 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 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 76
61
EOS-M / Re: Is the canon eos-m a dead end system?
« on: February 15, 2014, 02:56:03 PM »
I agree with surapon and privatebydesign.

With an 18-55, 22 and 11-22 what lenses you really need for a portable system?  If you want to extend the capabilities, then the adapter lets you use the wide range EF lenses available.  I bought it to replace a Canon P&S, and it works well.  I got the camera during the firesale, and for that price, it couldn't be beat.  I have the 18-55 and 22, and I might get the 11-22 in the future (via Canada).  It also backs up my 5D III.

62
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sony FE 70-200 f/4 G OSS lens
« on: February 13, 2014, 11:31:36 AM »
Doesn't make sense... unless servo AF is dramatically improved.  And given that it's not much cheaper than the 70-200 II, then you're relying on Sony to remain with this mount/technology for how long?  It weighs as much as the 70-200L f/4 IS.  I can see the advantage of the A7R for landscape applications; for this... not so much.

63
Lenses / Re: Advice on Primes
« on: February 13, 2014, 12:10:54 AM »
Start with what you know you'll use and save the rest of the money for later.  Is there a penalty for waiting?  The more you shoot, the more you'll know where you want to spend more on equipment.

For TCs, go with the IIIs.  The 2x III is visibly better than the II.

64
Especially because I bet the photogs get pretty far from wireless access points at times....

Well, I'd think they would have the place covered, especially since all current professional cameras are WiFi enabled.

The linked article states that the photogs covering the ski races (i.e. cross country) don't have access because they set up along the course to get the shots of the athletes along the route, and that they try to dump the images at access points a few times a day.

65
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon EF 24-85 f/3.5-5.6 IS
« on: February 09, 2014, 09:27:38 PM »
Agree on the need of a consumer zoom.  FF prices will fall, and as it does, there will be a market for consumer FF zooms. 

66
Lenses / Re: question about 600mm lenses
« on: February 09, 2014, 09:18:54 PM »
I was shooting at a birthday party last night and pulled out the 600EX. That prompted the following conversation...
Party-goer: Is that an old camera?
Me: It's out of date, I'm going to replace it soon....
Party-goer: The new cameras all have flashes. The good ones pop up and are real good.
Me: Good to know, I'll have to check that out.

Classic!  The first time I used brought the 70-200 to a large gathering, a friend commented that it was so large and that I must be able to see very far with it.  Well, not exactly....

67
Lenses / Re: question about 600mm lenses
« on: February 09, 2014, 07:43:16 PM »
So if the real number is about 1.5 lenses per body.... that would mean half the bodies with 1 lens and half with two.... or 25 percent with 3 lenses and 75 percent with 1.... However you slice it, there are a lot of cameras out there with only 1 lens, and this goes to prove one of the things I have been saying all along... we are not normal and do not represent the typical camera user.

Yes, there are many forum members that are well outside the norm, which is why it's not useful to extrapolate the priorities of forums to those of the general EOS owner or overall EF market.  Claiming that I'd like a 600 f/5.6 prime or a mirrorless camera with specific attributes and claiming that they'd sell like hotcakes if they made one to satisfy my feature list is not realistic.  Would I look into a 600 f/5.6 for 2k?  Absolutely!  Would I buy one?  Yes, if it proves to have no compatibility issues, is handholdable and has better IQ than the 100-400.

68
Lenses / Re: question about 600mm lenses
« on: February 09, 2014, 06:46:19 PM »
Most people with SLRs don't get another lens to complement/replace the kit lens. 


sorry but if this argumentation would hold it´s water then any lens beside a kit lens makes no sense for canon. ;)
and canon would not have sold... how many... 90 million EF lenses?


Yeah, 90 million EF lenses for 70 million EF cameras.  How many lenses, on average, is that?   ::)

Or, perhaps Canon has done the research and found that there isn't a market to make it profitable for Canon.  Buy of course, you know more than Canon, so Canon should do your bidding, eh?   ::)

Canon makes a 300 f/2.8 for close to 7k.  And you think Canon will make a 600 f/5.6 for 2k?  My guess would be that it'll be closer to 7k, like the 300 f/2.8 IS II.
The original poster was speculating on why NOBODY makes such a lens, not why Canon doesn't...

The 90 million EF lenses for EF cameras are Canon numbers... Since we are talking about "anyone", you have to add in the Sigmas and Tamrons of the world to the total.... Even if we were insanely optimistic and said that Sigma and Tamron sold 50 million EF lenses (I doubt it was half of that), you get 140 million lenses to 70 million cameras, or one extra lens per camera.

And six months ago, If you told me that there would be a $1500 600mm zoom lens on the market with good quality images I would have laughed at you..... and six months and $1100 later I was wrong.

I believe that it is possible to make a 600F5.6 lens for $2000. What I don't believe is that there would be a good market for it... Those who must have the very best will go for the $12000 Canon, and those on a budget will go for the $1100 Tamron zoom. This really pinches the market... but there is no way I would place bets on this... Who knows what Tamron and Sigma have up their sleeves....

Yes, thanks for the correction; he did mention EF so that does include 3rd party manufacturers.  I got a little peeved when he called me out when I said that most DSLR users tend to have 1 lens/body.

69
Canon General / Re: So much redundancy...
« on: February 09, 2014, 05:38:00 PM »
Different lenses suit different purposes differently; it's not just a focal length difference.

The 135 is the one that I can do most easily without because I carry the 70-200 so much more often, but it will be different for you.  As long as you have a different use for each lens, then there is no redundancy.

70
Lenses / Re: question about 600mm lenses
« on: February 09, 2014, 05:13:55 PM »
Most people with SLRs don't get another lens to complement/replace the kit lens. 


sorry but if this argumentation would hold it´s water then any lens beside a kit lens makes no sense for canon. ;)
and canon would not have sold... how many... 90 million EF lenses?


Yeah, 90 million EF lenses for 70 million EF cameras.  How many lenses, on average, is that?   ::)

Or, perhaps Canon has done the research and found that there isn't a market to make it profitable for Canon.  Buy of course, you know more than Canon, so Canon should do your bidding, eh?   ::)

Canon makes a 300 f/2.8 for close to 7k.  And you think Canon will make a 600 f/5.6 for 2k?  My guess would be that it'll be closer to 7k, like the 300 f/2.8 IS II.

71
Lenses / Re: question about 600mm lenses
« on: February 09, 2014, 01:44:39 PM »
Quote
the overall complexity of the lens design would have to increase

so the question remains... why is nobody doing it?  :)

My guess is that the market isn't big enough.  Most people with SLRs don't get another lens to complement/replace the kit lens.  In some ways, these smaller markets might be filled easier by the 3rd party manufacturers.  They can sell similar designs in multiple mounts and have a potentially larger market than Canon or Nikon.

72
It looks like you've got the lenses to cover your low light/non flash needs, so if you think the 24-70 f/4 IS will be a good fit, then go for it!

It will require a change in how you use the lenses, but your primes will be used more.  I'm assuming that you'd be selling your existing 240-70, but how about your 15-85?  Perhaps a 10-22 would be a better complement for your WA/UWA needs.

73
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
« on: February 07, 2014, 09:27:36 PM »
Except for the time that the lenses are bricked while Sigma creates the updated firmware.

You should apply to Canon as an independent fud agent :-)

I understand the necessity of pro shooting are different than for the rest of us, but 3rd party items don't just brick by looking at them, but only after camera fw updates. But *esp* as a pro you don't just update your fw on first day of the release and just before a shooting. You will evaluate what the changes are, and if necessary wait some, for example until 3rd party vendors updating their fw.

Yeah, because people love losing functionality of their gear... not so much.  In my industry it takes months to release new software because of safety and certification issues.  Consumer electronics is different but it will still take time to reverse engineer and test the changes.  And it doesn't have to come with a fw update; it could come with a new camera release.  Of course, they never list incompatibility with extant 3rd party gear as features of a new camera.  ::)

74
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
« on: February 07, 2014, 02:43:11 PM »
but I am pretty sure Canon will see to it that their lenses work with their cameras.

You're lucky here: Latest Sigma lenses (and Yongnuo flashes/controllers) have usb ports so they can update the firmware if Canon changes something- so I'd say these are as future-proof as Canon originals.

Except for the time that the lenses are bricked while Sigma creates the updated firmware.  Not so bad if you have multiple options, but not worth it if you rely on it for a living.

75
Lenses / Re: zooms vs primes for landscape
« on: February 06, 2014, 01:09:14 PM »
I have the Zeiss 21mm too and I quite like it, especially for astrophotography (not much coma and hard stop at infinity). Now even "modern" Canon lenses exhibit coma like: 24mm 1.4L II 35mm 1.4L 16-35mm f/2.8L
[/quote]

I guessing that Canon's coma performance will be improved during the next round of release.  The 24-70 II is much better coma-wise.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 76