September 21, 2014, 02:14:09 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 [2] 3 4 ... 18
16
If the print is being made to be part of a document and the rest of the document is 8-1/2 x 11, then the print should probably be the same size. This probably happens much more than the print being hung on the wall. What does get hung on the wall are completion certificates from professional continuing education courses. My dentist has a whole wall of them, all 8-1/2 by 11.

Remember that 50 years ago, a lot of commercial work was done with 4 x 5 and 8 x 10 view cameras.  There was also a 5 x 7 size that never made sense to me. Now most prints are made with sensors with 4:3 and 3:2 aspect ratios. Unfortunately, all of the European A size paper/prints have the same aspect ratio, 1.414, which is the (SQRT2) x 1 (or 2 x SQRT2). My local craft store carries many more frames in 4 x 6, 8-1/2 x 11 and 8 x 12 than 8 x 10. I order my frames from Frame Destinations. They have some truly strange sizes, such as 8 x 32 inches, 20 x 20 and, my favorite, 20 x 30.

17
EOS-M / Re: Next official EF-M Lens
« on: June 29, 2014, 09:43:25 AM »
a 15-85 EF-M would be a winner

+1, the smaller the better

18
EOS Bodies / Re: What do you hope-for MOST from Canon in 2014
« on: June 22, 2014, 08:53:02 AM »
I am hoping that Canon comes out with a killer mirrorless ... either a Pro EOS-M3 or a full frame, either of which should beat the Sony A7 series. Features: fast AF, awesome IQ, amazing low light, excellent video, Video AF with dual pixel, full sensor readout for video with no artifacts (moire, aliasing), excellent ergonomics, built in wifi with livestream to YouTube capability.

What product do you hope-for the most from Canon this year?

Wouldn't a Pro EOS-M3 be APS-C? If so, I doubt that it would beat the Sony A7 series. I would settle for something similar to the Sony A6000, only better. I would also like a tiny 16-135 or 15-85 native lens.

A FF camera based on the EF mount (with a 22 to 24mm sensor-flange distance) is something else entirely. That conceivably could be a fully professional body. I think people would accept an extremely high quality EVF, instead of an OVF, if it allowed 24 or 30FPS, full resolution? I might even buy one if the price wasn't too absurd.

19
Lenses / Re: EF-M 55-200 4.5-6.3 IS STM Coming Shortly
« on: June 16, 2014, 04:36:28 PM »
Nononono...   I want a EOS-M 15-135mm

+1000

And an M body similar in concept to the Sony A6000, only better.

20
I routinely use the 234RC on a Manfrotto aluminum monopod with a 300 f/2.8 IS, with and without TCs, to photograph races with a gripped 7D at Watkins Glen. It works fine. Unlike Neuro, I like the RC2 attachment system and have it on several tripod heads.

21
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS M Vanishes from Canon USA Web Site
« on: May 27, 2014, 02:19:51 PM »
CR .. you're mixing canon and canon usa up in this post / announcement quite a bit.  canon USA doesn't have plans.  canon as afar as we know are still going ahead with EOS-M.  Huge difference.

OK, yet another wild guess. First, Canon USA does indeed have plans. They control the marketing of Canon products in the USA, which includes product positioning relative to their marketplace and setting prices. Effectively, they sit between Canon corporate and US customers. I've worked for multinationals. It is not a good idea to ignore the local marketing divisiions.

Consider the following possibility: (1) At long last, Canon USA has cleared the stockpiled inventory of M-bodies and kits. (2) Canon is planning their M-system "relaunch", whatever that means, in August, in time for Photokina. (3) To provide an M-system body for the next three months, they would have to import M2 bodies and kits, actions which incur substantial marketing and support costs. And, oh yes, they would have to charge prices that the US market finds unacceptable.

So what does Canon USA do? Exactly what it appear they have done. CR thinks (2) above won't happen. I think it will. We'll know soon enough.

22
Awhile back I might have been more excited.   I have the 7D and 5Dm3 pair - however current needs really have me looking for a second FF.

Most of my work these days is Landscape and Motorsports.   Yes, an odd mix but I enjoy the different work and thought processes. 

For Motorsports - now that I got the 300/2.8 II which works great with the 1.4 and 2.0 TC's, what I really want at the track is one FF with the 300 and one with the 70/200.  Having a Crop Body just doesnt work for me.  But I could really use a 1DX in this case.  If the sensor was a significant jump, maybe I would use a 7DII for the long shots.  But for the next year, I have wondered if just getting a 6D as second body would be the better pairing.

For Landscape, I am almost always 5Dm3.  Only when I need the extra reach, maybe wildlife, do I use the 7D.  At present it comes along primarily as backup.  What I am really looking for is the next FF high MP camera.

In neither case does the 7Dm2 enter the discussion, except as a reason to get an updated crop body.

Why the 300 f/2.8 II and not the 200-400? I have the previous generation 300 f/2.8 IS and really don't like taking the lens off to put on or take off a TC. I also have a 7D and 5D3 but think it's an excellent pairing.

23
EOS-M / Re: Where is the M-3 with the dual pixel sensor!!!!
« on: May 04, 2014, 08:24:20 AM »
For anybody interested in a 35mm equivalent FOV, there is nothing anywhere in the canon lineup that comes close to touching the quality of the M + 22mm f/2 at any kind of reasonable price point.

I assume "reasonable price point" means the current M price point, or does it mean the original price point of the M or the current price point of the M2?

24
In this aspect, Nikon is a little misleading, because it puts the count also your old lenses, manual focus. On the other hand, Canon only makes counting their EF lenses, which started production in 1987. Canon took a bold attitude when he abandoned the compatibility of their previous camears and lenses to exclusively support EF lenses in 1987 to enable faster AF and silent, and compatibility with AF in video, after many years.

As somebody who had a significant MF Canon system in 1987, I'll add this:

First, in 1987, the F1 and T90 were still the premier Canon professional models. It wasn't until the EOS-1 was introduced in 1989 that AF Canon was taken really seriously by professionals. Reportedly, the T90 and EOS-1 development occurred in parallel, with the exception of the EOS-1 AF circuitry.

Second, There was a lag in filling out the professional EF lens lineup, something like Fuji X-mount users are facing now, only Fuji is doing a better job of it than Canon did.

Third, A lot of us expected Canon to introduce focus confirmation capability into its MF line, something like MF is done with current EOS lenses. It never happened. If it had, a lot of us might still be using MF systems.

Fourth, Canon explicitly stated that one goal with the EF mount was to enlarge it. The FD mount was the smallest diameter lens mount used by any major SLR manufacturer. The Canon 50 f/1.2 was offered as an example of a lens that could not be made using an FD mount.

Correction: It was the 50 f/1.0, not f/1.2 that couldn't be done with the FD mount.

Fifth, both Nikon and Minolta (Sony) originally put the focusing motor in the camera body. Canon put their's in the lenses. Suffice it to say, Canon won that argument.

25
EOS Bodies / Re: New Sensor Technology Coming From Canon? [CR1]
« on: April 29, 2014, 04:23:09 PM »
I agree. I've never understood people's fascination with using a FF sensor in an M-mount camera. It always seemed more reasonable to just shorten the flange-sensor distance and use the EF mount. Just getting rid of the mirror box will allow significant size and weight reductions. I don't see how the M-mount would make that much of a difference.

EF (and EF-S) lenses are designed with a 44mm flange focal distance.  If Canon makes a FF mirrorless with that same flange focal distance, they'll use the same mount.  If they make one with a shorter flange focal distance (it's 18mm for EF-M lenses, for example), they'll make a new mount for the same reason they designed the system so EF-S lenses don't mount on FF bodies - to avoid confusion and unexpected results.  They might try squeezing the FF mount into the EF-M size, so that the new FF-mirrorless lenses could be used directly on EOS M or other APS-C mirrorless, in the same way that EF lenses can be used on APS-C dSLRs.  In particular, it the whole ecosystem does shift to mirrorless, longer lenses don't really benefit from a smaller image circle, so having a mount compatible with larger and smaller sensors makes sense.

I thought the reason that EF-S lenses can't mount on FF bodies is because EF-S lenses may extend further into the body, and there was the risk that the mirror in the FF body would hit the rear of the lens. Nikon and third party manufacturers don't seem worried about confusing the customer. Their APS-C lenses fit onto FF bodies just fine. Also, given that the M-mount and EF-mount aren't all that different in size, your last point seems to argue that the M-mount shouldn't have been invented at all. The SL1 would seem to support that argument.

However, for whatever reason, the M-mount was invented. If Canon shortens the flange distance to create a mirrorless EF mount, they could shorten it to something longer than the 18mm used for the M-mount, perhaps 24mm. That way, they could introduce an adapter allowing FF mirrorless lenses to be used on an M-system body. Furthermore, Canon could (and should) introduce their answer to the Metabones Speed Booster, allowing EF lenses to be used on an M-body. Because of the 1.6X crop factor, Canon's speed booster could provide a 1-1/3 stop advantage, although the device would probably have to be very high quality and consequently very expensive to provide good image quality in the corners.

26
EOS Bodies / Re: New Sensor Technology Coming From Canon? [CR1]
« on: April 29, 2014, 12:14:25 PM »
Not sure this can even be answered yet but if Canon came out with a full frame EOS-M version, would they need to change to a new lens mount as well? Could the EF-M still be used?

EF- M mount can't be used for FF unfortunately. Too small. Likely they'd create a mirrorless camera with the regular EF mount instead.

I agree. I've never understood people's fascination with using a FF sensor in an M-mount camera. It always seemed more reasonable to just shorten the flange-sensor distance and use the EF mount. Just getting rid of the mirror box will allow significant size and weight reductions. I don't see how the M-mount would make that much of a difference.

27
Wild guess: Sigma will also introduce the current 85 f/1.4 in ART configuration at Photokina, but is keeping quiet about it to avoid damaging sales of their current lens. The 135 will have to wait a while, since it is a brand new lens.

28
Now if only Canon had these kind of deals on their lenses.  :'(
It isn't a Sigma deal. It's a LensRental deal. They paid $26,000 for the lens, rented it once for about $1000 and are selling it for $15,000. They lost at least $10,000 on the lens. Incidentally, they also sell used Canon equipment.

29
The irony of this lens is that an f/4 lens of the same focal length range would be superbly useful shooting field and motor sports, a worthy competitor to Nikon and Canon's 200-400s.

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