December 21, 2014, 02:35:58 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 - Bob Howland

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 19
136
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.

137
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.

138
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.

139
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.

140
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.

141
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.

142
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.

143
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.

144
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?

145
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.

146
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?

147
I own and use both a 7D and 5D3, which replaced a 5D/40D pairing. One thing that needs to be said is that, yes, the 5D3 focusing is better that the 7D's but the 7D focusing is by no means bad. When shooting race cars in daylight, the 7D with a  70-200, a 100-400 or a 300 f/2.8 with or without TCs still works just fine.

148
EOS-M / Re: Why no Sigma DN lenses for Canon M?
« on: January 29, 2013, 04:41:39 PM »
I'm still blown away by the fact that Metabones believes there is a market for $600 EF to NEX/MFT speed booster adapters. The plain ones with AF go for $300. Canon will really need to up its 'M' game to make those choices moot.
I acutally considered going with that route for a 2nd body. Getting a GH2 for video or an NEX-7 for portability and using a Metabones adapter rather than amassing a new collection of glass. It's actually quite smart because neither company has a collection of lenses that even comes close to competing with the EF-mount system (both Canon and 3rd party options). Yet they had bodies that can do things their Canon counterparts can't.

I actually think that's a market that will continue to exist even if Canon steps up their M game, because they are now several years behind, and they certainly aren't making aggressive moves to match what Sony and Olympus just put out

I fully expect to replace my 7D with an M-mount camera, something even better than the Panasonic GH3. What I want is an "M1", a fully professional model, which I don't expect to see for at least 3 years. Conceivably, Canon could outdo Metabones by introducing a speed booster with a magnification of 0.62996 and a 1-1/3 stop improvement in aperture.  However, the degradation in edge and corner image quality might be excessive.

149
EOS-M / Why no Sigma DN lenses for Canon M?
« on: January 29, 2013, 01:52:47 PM »
Sigma makes 19 f/2.8 and 30 f/2.8 lenses for Micro-4/3 and Sony E-mount lenses and just announced a 60 f/2.8 lens. The Canon M-mount uses the same 18mm flange distance as the E-mount and a sensor size between M43 and E-mount. The lens protocol is almost certainly very similar to the protocol used for EF and EF-S lenses. So why haven't they introduced these lenses for Canon?

Any guesses? Oh, by the way, I just e-mailed Sigma with the same question. I'll let you know if/when they reply.

150
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon's Roadmap for 2013 [CR2]
« on: January 27, 2013, 12:57:30 PM »

I don't have a 7D. But what I've heard and read from those who have both it and a 5DIII, even using the same lenses for little birdies when they're distance-limited with both bodies, the 5DIII still beats the 7D.


What you have heard and read is absolutely correct. The 5D3 puts the 7D to shame ... 1.6 crop factor notwithstanding!



Not correct.
Same lens, same distance, decent light, and a large print - the 7D print will be better.


That would be a fair assessment if the AF demands were not too stringent.

The AF demands would have to be very stringent indeed. I've yet to find a situation where my 5D3 would focus but my 7D wouldn't, at least with a "reasonable" amount of light. Mostly I use the 7D as a 1.6X teleconverter when shooting outdoor sports, a role for which it is admirably suited. I think that 7D images are better than  cropped images from a 5D3 or using a teleconverter and a 5D3, except maybe with my 300 f/2.8. I have noticed that 7D images have more contrast and less dynamic range than 5D3 images.

I'm waiting for the Canon M1, the professional model in the M series. With no mirror to move, 24FPS might be possible.

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 19