December 22, 2014, 03:19:52 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 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 19
46
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.

47
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.

48
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.

49
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.

50
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.

51
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.

53
It should be mirrorless with an APS-H-sized sensor.

54
Animal Kingdom / Re: Grizzly Bears
« on: March 28, 2014, 03:37:47 PM »
How do you tell one Grizzly from another? They all look pretty much the same to me.

55
EOS-M / Re: EOS M Lens survey - your favorites, and your most wanted?
« on: March 26, 2014, 11:58:23 AM »
Buy an EF adapter and you have all the lenses you need

And most of those lenses are so big that the advantage of a small camera body is lost. If I'm going to put an EF lens on an M body, I want that lens attached to something like a Metabones Speed Booster. As luck would have it, the Canon APS-C sensor is exactly the right size to make it a 1-1/3 stop device, not a 1 stop device like the Metabones.

56
Photography Technique / Re: photographing motorsport particularly F1
« on: March 26, 2014, 08:12:21 AM »
You might want to look at these for input on shutter speeds:

http://www.pbase.com/rhowland/2005_06_12_watkins_glen

The cars were about 200 yards away, moving across my field of view at 80-100 mph. The lens was my 70-200 Sigma EX. The longest lens I've ever used for panning was a 100-400.

I've never been able to use a tripod or monopod when panning. When you're panning, you have to rotate your body not a tripod or monopod. I have found that I want my body in its most comfortable resting position at the end of the pan. Then twist your body, with your feed stationary, to where you expect the pan to begin, wait for the car to enter the viewfinder and unwind your body while following the car. If you're most comfortable at the start of the pan, you'll tend to lag behind the car.  With my 40D, I was shooting at 6.5 FPS, which mostly was adequate. The 10D used for these shots was a bit slow. I wanted the car to be directly perpendicular to me or with just a little of the front showing, so timing was extremely tight. I'm waiting for Canon to introduce a mirrorless FF camera that can take 20 FPS, full resolution.


57
EOS-M / Re: EOS M Lens survey - your favorites, and your most wanted?
« on: March 24, 2014, 04:11:27 PM »
I want a tiny 15-85 f/3.5-5.6

I don't own an M and I won't buy one until they introduce something like this. If the only body available is the current M or M2, I won't be buying one anyway.

58
perhaps the new lens will have a built-in 1.4

This should be mandatory design for all new superteles industry wide.  There's really no reason not to at this point.

Mandatory?!?!

59
EOS-M / Re: Is the canon eos-m a dead end system?
« on: March 11, 2014, 05:48:36 PM »
dead end is a generous description.  this system was still born - Canon shoved it out the door ...  Now you're in
a "pasting feathers on a turkey" mode and you might be better off kissing it off and starting from scratch.

The EOS M was the second best-selling MILC in Japan last year.  One country's meat is another one's spoiled turkey...   ;)

I just wonder how many Japanese buyers buy it with only one lens and will never even put another lens on it. Of course, as I recall, the average number of lenses owned by Canon DSLR buyers is less than two.

There are many people who would buy it without any EF-M lenses. They only care about adapters for lenses they already have, like Canon EF. That makes a lot of sense for telephoto, because there are no small CSC tele lenses without huge compromises in IQ. EF-S 55-250mm IS STM can be considered "near native" lens for EOS-M (via the adapter) - fast AF, nice optics, stabilized, compact (for 88-400mm equivalent :) ) and affordable. Many are using old manual lenses and they love it.

That might be true in North America and Europe. (It certainly is part of the reason that Neuro bought his.) But is it true in Japan? I thought a lot of buyers there were young women looking for a fashion accessory.

60
Lenses / Re: Sigma ART Series: 70-200mm f2.8 possible?
« on: March 11, 2014, 11:54:04 AM »
It would be a "sport" lens but probably won't come soon since that market is already very saturated.

+1, although I voted "Yes"

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 19