December 28, 2014, 06:35:09 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 ... 19
This is an incredibly stupid poll!

Canon General / Re:
« on: October 05, 2014, 05:32:33 PM »
Wild guess: 50MP sensor capable of 4K, 60P video and 4:1 binning resulting in a 12.5MP Lord-of-Darkness mode. Unfortunately, it's only a development announcement.

The good part is that the announcement is happening really soon.

I don't see much advantage in putting a high MP sensor in a 1Dx body instead of a 5D3 body. After all, wouldn't a high MP camera be most useful to landscape and studio photographers? And let's not forget what the 5D2 did to 1DS3 sales. A lot of users must have found the 5D2 to be "good enough".

How about that the old camera no longer works properly? I bought my 7D about 2 years ago because the shutter release on my 40D was getting unreliable. However, my 5D3 replaced a 5D because the new camera had vastly better focusing and I could use it at ISO 12800 for 8X10 size images. I guess my vote would be "none of the above" or "all of the above". Take your pick.

EOS Bodies / Re: Poll: Would you buy a high MP Canon EOS 5DIV?
« on: September 26, 2014, 07:10:03 AM »
I am fine with 20 to 24 MP.
I don't care for more than 30 MP because for me it only costs disk space and makes pixel peepers happy - or even not.
Same MP, better high and low ISO performance, maybe some DR on top and I'm fine.

To say it in other words:
The 5D4 must have a real big improvement in IQ (not pixel resolution) that you can recognize at once in real world usage.
Minor improvements (half an stop ISO here, little less noise there) are not enough.
Otherwise I am not interested at all.

I am doing more and more work that I would rather use the 90TS-E for, but I am going to stick with my 100 L Macro until it gets the MkII rework, not fussed abut the IQ as the current isn't far off, much more concerned about the shift and tilt rotations, I will not buy one until I can control those like the 17 and 24 MkII.

So you would rather have no shifts and tilts than have them but not be able to easily move the shift and tilt access into parallel.

FWIW, it is possible to take apart both the 45 and 90, make the tilt and shift parallel then reassemble them that way. I did it once with each of mine, then put them back into their original configuration after a little while and left them that way.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Looking Into a New Mount System
« on: September 22, 2014, 09:39:17 AM »
According to Neuro, who presumably measured the appropriate cameras, the throat (inner) diameter of the EOS-M mount is 43mm while the EF throat diameter is 51mm. The 58mm figure is apparently for the outside of the mount, which could vary from camera to camera.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Looking Into a New Mount System
« on: September 22, 2014, 08:31:17 AM »
According to an interview with Mr Makoto Sakaeta Masaya, the managing director of Canon Image Communication Business Division. Canon is exploring the possibility of a new lens mount. I suspect its application would be for a full frame mirrorless system of some kind.

As somebody who lived through the Canon FD to EF mount transition, I would be very surprised if the new mount was for a FF mirrorless system that was incompatible with tens of millions of EF lenses. I can, however, see them reducing the sensor to flange distance to 22-24mm and introducing a series of compatible lenses as well as an adapter to use existing lenses. However, the interview mentioned new communications protocols. Communications are largely a firmware function although it remains to be seen if existing lenses can be reprogrammed to that extent.

The M-mount, with a 58mm throat diameter, is unfortunately not that much smaller than the EF mount. The MFT mount, on the other hand, has a 38mm throat diameter and the NX system a 42mm throat diameter. If Canon wants to imitate these systems then, yes, they might introduce a smaller lens mount.

I am a photographer and not a videographer. After viewing the Chuck Westhall video I was not really inspired to want to upgrade my 7D. We seem to have waited a long time for the 7D2 and I was expecting more 'must have' features.
+1, although I won't know for sure until I can process 7D2 raw images and compare them to comparable 7D images. I was hoping that the 7D2 would be mirrorless and capable of 24 full resolution images per second. At 18MP, that would require 432MP/Sec. The Samsung does 420MP/Sec.

Lenses / Re: Wildlife lens setup
« on: September 19, 2014, 02:31:33 PM »
Which Sigma lens are you talking about? Both the C and the S are DG OS HSM. Also, if there are no images from either of those lenses, how are we supposed to have a valid opinion about them?

EOS-M / Re: More EF-M lenses in the future
« on: September 18, 2014, 11:56:09 AM »
Another tidbit from this Photokina article regarding EOS M, Canon's third lens ecosystem.

The newest range of Canon lenses is the EF-M series for the company's new "mirrorless" cameras, a line that's more compact than traditional SLRs. Canon only has a handful of EF-M lenses, but during a press conference here, the company committed to adding more.

That's notable, since it indicates that Canon is playing a long game with its mirrorless models, which were late to market compared to many rivals' models and thus far haven't spread widely.

What would Canon announce instead? And did they happen to mention in which century these lenses would be introduced? If Canon had introduced something like the Panasonic GM5 at Photokina, they might have some credibility but, as it stands now, there is no reason to believe them.

EOS Bodies / Re: Official: Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 15, 2014, 09:54:47 AM »
I have a Canon 5D Mark III and I'm wondering besides the "full frame" sensor, just why would anyone spend more money on the 5dm3 and not buy the 7dm2? the 7DM2 seems like a great camera in every way...
I have a 5D3 and 7D and find them a great pairing. The 5D3 is the indoor/winter camera and the 7D is the outdoor/summer camera. As good as the 7D2 is, I can't imagine it being as good as the 5D3 at ISO 6400 or even ISO 1600. I just hope the 7D2 has a proper auto ISO implementation in Manual mode.

I'm actually more excited about the new Sigma 150-600 S lens.

Wow!  Really F6.3 being marketed as a sports lens?  Maybe on the planet Venus.  Rarely is F6.3 enough to stop sports action.
Sports action isn't stopped by aperture, it is stopped by shutter speed. If the shutter speed isn't fast enough, just raise the ISO. I'm pretty sure that is what Canon 1Dx and Nikon D4x users do when using their 200-400 lenses with a 1.4x TC.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: SIGMA 150-600!!
« on: September 05, 2014, 04:38:51 PM »
As for wanting constant f/5.6, I don't see that as important or even useful. Remember, the camera body tells the lens what aperture to use and the lens has to figure out how to do it.

Well every quant of light counts.

It´s not much but it´s still better.
And with that weight plus over the Tamron it would be a nice bonus.

But i guess there are reasons for not doing it. Who knows how much more it would weight than.

600/5.6 results in a 107mm clear aperture, same as 300/2.8. The filter size of both this lens and the 120-300 is 105mm. Therefore, the 120-300 f/2.8 can't reach 300mm or be f/2.8 at that focal length.

Zoom lenses rely on magnification of the aperture. The physical aperture on the 120-300 isn't 107mm, it's probably not even 43mm (I assume there is some magnification at 120mm). However, the entrance pupil (aperture as magnified by the optics) is.

Perhaps you mean that the 120-300 can only actually be f/2.85 (i.e. 105mm) at full zoom? There is quite a bit of rounding in lens marketing. The difference between f/2.8 and f/2.85 is negligible to most anyone.

What you're calling the "entrance pupil" is what I mean by "clear aperture". It's the apparent aperture as viewed from the front of the lens. A long time ago, I was interested in astronomy. "Clear aperture" is the phrase that I heard/read then.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: SIGMA 150-600!!
« on: September 05, 2014, 04:21:34 PM »
As for wanting constant f/5.6, I don't see that as important or even useful. Remember, the camera body tells the lens what aperture to use and the lens has to figure out how to do it.

Actually, it is a big deal, isn't it?  Wouldn't a constant F/5.6 max aperture still allow autofocusing with a 1.4x teleconverter on the right Canon bodies?

(Forgive me if I'm off here -- I never shoot with long lenses like these.)

- A

There are two issues here: (1) the maximum aperture being constant throughout the zoom range and (2) that maximum aperture anywhere in the zoom range being wider (i.e., numerically smaller) than f/5.6.

Regarding (1), the Canon 100-400 L, which I own and use extensively, has a maximum aperture which varies from f/4.5 at 100mm to f/5.6 at 400mm. When I use the camera to set the aperture to any value between f/5.6 and f/32, that value is held regardless of the focal length that I zoom to. If I set the aperture to f/4.5 at 100mm, then zoom to 400mm, the aperture automatically changes to f/5.6. Making that lens a constant maximum aperture means that maximum aperture would have to be f/5.6. Why should I give up 2/3 of a stop at 100?

The effect is even more pronounced with the 28-200 Canon lens. At 28mm, the maximum aperture is f/3.5, at 200mm, it is f/5.6. Who wants to use a 28 f/5.6 lens?

Regarding (2), somehow third party lens manufacturers get their lenses to lie to the camera body. The actual maximum aperture at 600 is f/6.3 but the lens tells the body that it is f/5.6. Since the difference is only 1/3 stop, I suppose the image is underexposed by that amount, although I've never tested it. So why don't Sigma and Tamron make 150-600 f/5.6 lenses?? My guess is cost and market positioning. To maintain the same 95mm aperture diameter, the maximum focal length of these lenses would only be 532mm. I suppose both manufacturers thought fewer people would buy, for example, a 130-520 f/4.5-5.6 or a 150-500 f/5-5.6 that weighed and cost 50% more due to its 107mm front element.

Hope that helps.

Correction: "... or a 150-500 f/5-5.6 that weighed and cost..." should be "...or a 150-600 f/4.5-5.6 that weighed and cost... "

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 19