November 01, 2014, 08:40:45 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 - Bob Howland

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 18
121
I'm taking the perspective that you're trying to sell the house, so here goes.

1. The outdoor colors look too highly saturated for my taste, almost garish.

2. The first image shows far too much driveway.

3. The images have too much of an "extreme wide-angle lens" look to them. In the swimming pool picture, the sub-pool on the left looks severely oblong, not at all natural.

Hope that helps.

122
EOS-M / Re: Eos M my first impressions!
« on: May 01, 2013, 07:19:34 AM »
What viewfinder are you using and what do you do if you want to use fill flash and the optical viewfinder simultaneously?

123
Lenses / Re: EF 100-400 Replacement in 2013? [CR2]
« on: May 01, 2013, 07:17:11 AM »
mine stucks between 300-400mm and needs some force to change the focal length. Tried to repair it, but the 300€ did not change it sufficiently.

My lens sticks too, at the other end, and Canon USA hasn't been able to fix it. After not using the lens for a week, initially zooming the lens from minimum can take considerable force.

124
EOS Bodies / Re: The Future of EOS M [CR1]
« on: April 30, 2013, 12:20:28 PM »
The future of EOS M ... none.

In my opinion Canon should (a) chuck the EF-M system, (b) join the m4/3 consortium, and (c) make a functional EF-to-m43 translation adapter.

Huh?? Doing that makes no sense at all. It would put them at the mercy of Olympus and Panasonic, mostly Olympus. Canon would still have to introduce lenses, although maybe (repeat: maybe!!) not as many as with the EF-M system. Canon 4/3 camera owners might buy other manufacturers' lenses instead and Canon would have to guarantee that Canon bodies work with their lenses and their bodies work with Canon lenses. What a mess!

Better for Canon to introduce (1) better EF-M bodies, (2) some very small native lenses, perhaps eight total, and (3) an extremely high quality EF-to-EF-M Metabones Speed Booster-type adapter, except with a 1-1/3 stop improvement.

I own a G10. I want one part of the EF-M system to evolve into something the same size (or slightly larger) but with much better high ISO image quality.

125
Lenses / Re: EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x Available Mid 2014?
« on: April 23, 2013, 02:46:00 PM »
Perhaps Sigma will be out with their new 120-300mm f/2.8 OS Sport lens before long and throw in a 2x converter with it. 

I personally got tired of waiting and got the 300mm f/2.8L IS II: cheaper and works a charm with both v3 teleconverters.

I have a 300 f/2.8 IS and both V2 converters and the image quality is outstanding. But that's with a 300 prime, one of the sharpest lens that Canon makes. The issue I have is that I often shoot in dusty environments and dislike taking the lens off to change/add/remove TC's.

I'd rather have a 200-500 f/4 and a 1.4X TC than a 120-300 f/2.8 and a 2X TC. I think the image quality and focusing speed would both be much better.

126
Lenses / Re: EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x Available Mid 2014?
« on: April 23, 2013, 02:37:50 PM »
great idea for a lens. too expensive for me.

But Sigma will probably have one out and available for $3500 before this hits the street.

+1 - EXACTLY what I was thinking.

I've been sending Sigma annual e-mails for several years, asking them to make a 200-500 f/4, basically a big brother to their 120-300 f/2.8. It might weigh a bit more than the 200-400 but would almost certainly be cheaper.

127
EOS Bodies / Re: Expect a REALLY Big announcement on Monday
« on: March 31, 2013, 10:20:51 AM »
I ignore rumors appearing between 31 March and 2 April.

128
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Test Camera [CR1]
« on: March 28, 2013, 07:42:57 AM »
21MP APS-C? The 5D3 at ISO 102K is pretty noisy. I can just imagine what this will be like at that ISO.

129
Lenses / Re: New 100-400 to Launch with EOS 7D Mark II [CR2]
« on: March 27, 2013, 09:29:18 AM »
A new 100-400 L is probably the single lens I am most excited about.  I use the current version extensively but would love to see 2 more stops of IS, faster AF, and slightly better optics.

Agree completely but want it to NOT be push-pull. Push-pull zoom lenses were a great idea in the days of manual focus, when push-pull was to zoom and rotate was to focus.

130
EOS Bodies / Re: A New DSLR Line from Canon? [CR1]
« on: March 13, 2013, 03:21:14 PM »
Canon just needs to fix the EOS-M. We don't need another line-up of cameras.

Agree 100%. This camera should be the prosumer/enthusiast M camera with the world-class EVF and greatly improved focusing speed.

131
EOS-M / Re: The Next EOS M? [CR1]
« on: February 24, 2013, 12:31:59 PM »
Why only 5FPS, especially if it has the same sensor as the 7D2, which supposedly will do 10FPS, even with a mirror?

Removable electronic viewfinder? Where will it be mounted, on the flash shoe, so it won't be possible to use an external flash and the external viewfinder simultaneously?

24MP? I'd rather have 18MPS if that buys me better high ISO image quality and much better dynamic range.

Where is Canon's answer to the Metabones Speed Booster? Canon can make one with 1-1/3 stops improvement, given its 1.6X crop factor.

132
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Spec List [CR2]
« on: February 19, 2013, 11:07:59 AM »
I own a 7D (and a 5D3). In a 7D2, I'd rather have the same pixel count and dramatically better high ISO image quality and dynamic range than 24MP and slightly better high ISO image quality and dynamic range. (I almost always shoot raw.) I'd like two CF card slots but can live with 1 CF and 1 SD. 10 FPS is better but 8 FPS is usually good enough. Improved focusing is always welcome but, honestly, 7D focusing is pretty good now.

133
EOS-M / Re: EOS M Autofocus Performance Won't Improve via Firmware [CR2]
« on: February 18, 2013, 03:13:22 PM »
I can't speak for others but slow AF was definitely the reason why I didn't buy the current M body. An absence of lenses can be corrected but I simply wasn't going to be stuck with a deficient body for years to come. What I want is something about the same size (or slightly larger) than my G10 but with dramatically better image quality and overall usability in low light. Also, after seeing the Metabones Speed Booster, I'd be willing to spend $1000 for something like it with professional image quality that lets me use my fast EF WA primes and zooms on an M-mount camera.

Are you listening Canon?

134
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Cinema EOS C50 [CR1]
« on: February 13, 2013, 01:35:00 PM »
The EOS C50 of my dreams has the same sensor as EOS C100  with M mount and few M cine lenses.

With a price around 3000$

I don't think that would work. The C100 sensor is 24.6mm wide x 13.8mm high (Super 35). The M mount only handles 22.5mm wide x 15.0mm high. They're close though. What I find interesting about the M mount is that it has one more contact that EF mount. My guess/wish is that it is for power zoom controlled/monitored by the camera.

The PL mount and Super 35 sensor size seems to be popular partly because there are a large number of high quality, expensive and apparently highly prized legacy PL cine lenses.

I want something incorporating the best features of both the XF100/105/300/305 camcorders and the 5D3 still camera except with an M mount, an assortment of dedicated video lenses and something like the Metabones speed booster/adapter so that I can still use my EF still lenses and gain 1 (or 1-1/3) stops while I'm using them.

135
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Cinema EOS C50 [CR1]
« on: February 13, 2013, 09:37:04 AM »
Paul

What sensor size(s) are used in ENG cameras? Looking at home improvement shows, one striking thing is that there is enormous DOF and there is a lot of movement of both the talent and the camera operator. And, except at night, lighting is natural. I have to think that those cameras use relatively small sensors, automatic focus and automatic exposure.

I sometimes wonder if the M mirrorless lens mount wasn't invented as the foundation for the next generation of XF-class camcorders, except with interchangeable lenses. Is there anything making that impossible?

Any comments?

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 18