December 22, 2014, 02:25:09 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 - AprilForever

Pages: 1 ... 45 46 [47] 48 49 50
691
Lenses / Re: Cinema lens versus non-cinema lens
« on: November 07, 2011, 02:06:01 AM »
And how many botched takes can you afford before the cine lens becomes the overall cheaper solution?

42

42 is the answer. Now what was the question? Sorry, have read Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy...

Probably much of the cost difference has to do with the exact light transmission calibration, permitting guess-free utterly predictable exposure. Also, it looks solidly built. Just like my old 50 1.4 super takumar! (I've used that thing on my 7D, and it is great!)

692
Lenses / Re: 400mm 2.8 L (non- IS)
« on: November 07, 2011, 02:01:54 AM »
Sounds like a great price!

693
Lenses / Re: What lenses are you missing in the line up
« on: November 07, 2011, 02:00:35 AM »
50mm F 0.75

100mm F 1.4 IS

300mm F 2.8 with built in 1.4x TC, still compatible with 2x TC

8mm F 2.8 EF-S

50-300mm F 4 IS


694


At the level of development we have reached today a small increase of pixel pitch (effective sampling rate -> sharpness and resolution boost) in the sensor will induce a much higher (square growth law) megapixel count, thus requiring much larger in-camera buffer memory, faster data saving channels, more powerful computers etc.

At the same time noise control becomes increasingly difficult (square growth law) due to higher amplification of the signal needed to achieve the same ISO rating; on the other side smaller pitch sensors seem to produce a much more even and defined noise, partly counterbalancing the degradation in quality (think about the terrible "pepper" grain in Canon EOS 5D compared to the smoother Canon EOS 7D).


Solution: We must use round pixels on a round sensor! The square problems will be a thing of the past!!! (actually I have seen something about hexagonal pixels...)

I love more megapixels. And we all should. As the technology progresses, things will get better and better!The 7D is hugely better than the 300D. The future cameras will gradually get better than the current ones. And more megapixels is a part of this growth.

695
EOS Bodies / Re: Cinema EOS Development Opinion
« on: November 07, 2011, 01:49:17 AM »
<div id=\"fb_share_1\" style=\"float: right; margin: 0 0px 0 10px;\"><a name=\"fb_share\" type=\"box_count\" share_url=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/11/cinema-eos-development-opinion/\" href=\"http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php\">Share</a></div><div><script src=\"http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share\" type=\"text/javascript\"></script></div><div class=\"tweetmeme_button\" style=\"float: right; margin-left: 10px;\"><a class=\"tm_button\" rel=\"&style=normal&b=2\" href=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/11/cinema-eos-development-opinion/\"></a></div>
<strong>This is an opinion with a mix of speculation

</strong>A lot has been made of the “in development” announcement of a new “Cinema” branded DSLR. Most people seem to think the camera is going to be based on the 1D X.</p>
<p>I agree with <a href=\"http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/Canon_video.html\">Keith at Northlight Images</a>, nothing was said by Canon as to what the form factor would be. I think what they showed was just a 1D X body with a red “C” stuck on it for marketing purposes.</p>
<p>I think the camera they’re speaking of will sit between the 5D Mark III and 1D X. Perhaps an EOS 3C? I do not like the name “3D” for a camera that doesn’t actually shoot 3D.</p>
<p>I also don’t think it would be a full size EOS-1 body. They just spent a few hours touting the small stature of the C300, I don’t think they’d make a cinema DSLR bigger than it needs to be. I’d have to hear from cinematographers & videographers whether or not a camera the size of the 5D Mark II is preferred to the EOS-1 body.</p>
<p><strong>What about photographers?

</strong>I know a good majority of photographers are pretty tired about hearing about video in DSLRs. A lot of the community is looking for a new “photography first” full frame DSLR that doesn’t require remortgaging their homes. I think the 5D Mark III will be that camera. It’ll probably have video features on par with the 1D X, but will be a high resolution, high image quality still photography camera.</p>
<p>I’ve said before that I think Canon plans to monetize the videographers and video DSLRs, so something like the “EOS 3C” makes a lot of sense. Â Looking at the prices of the new cinema lenses, it seems videographers have no problem spending more.</p>
<p>So don’t be worried photographers, Canon hasn’t forgotten about you and I’m sure will deliver the product we all know you want.</p>
<p>It’s going to be a very interesting 2012 to say the least.</p>
<p><em>This was just an opinion post, please don’t be too hard on me.</em></p>
<p><strong><span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">c</span>r</strong></p>


I indeed am tired of hearing about video in my slr. If the 7D mk II had no video, it would not be even slightly bothered. Do I use my 7D video? Occassionaly, but if the lack of video kept price down, I would be happy. Or, if they just left the video the same, and focused on improving the still picture side of things, that would indeed make me much happier.

I'm a photographer, not a videographer!

696
Canon EF Zoom Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM
« on: November 04, 2011, 09:38:22 AM »
This lens has always been my go to for versatility.  I always use it for races and air shows as well just for the versatility it gives me.  Its able to be taken in public without too much attention where as my 600, forget about it! 

A recent one:



I love egrets! Lots of them down here. Am going shooting in the everglades later today... hopefully I'll see a few...

697
Lenses / Re: Realistic wish lens
« on: November 04, 2011, 09:30:23 AM »
My dream lens is a 7-800mm f/1.2 IS that weighs 1/4 pound and has perfect sharpness all over and cost $20 US.  If they can make a little robot that flies to mars and drives around doing science experiments there is NO reason why my dream lens can't happen.

Sooner or later if humans don't extinct themselves first, optics will move into the field of organics and genetic engineering.  Think something like, a cloned eagle eye developed in a laboratory.  So sooner or later you'll likely get your wish, just maybe not in the form you originally had in mind.  Don't laugh, it's probably not even as far away as we might imagine, and it would probably lend itself better to a DIY project than grinding your own glass with a dremil.

Imagine being the first photographer on Mars...

698
Lenses / Re: Realistic wish lens
« on: November 04, 2011, 09:14:04 AM »
But it's only super 35, which NeuroAnatomist just told me is really only ASP-C!!! A 14-60 EF-S would be a wonderful lens! Especially if they slapped some IS in there...

699
Lenses / Re: How much!?
« on: November 04, 2011, 09:12:19 AM »
That 14.5-60 zoom would be a wondrous thing to use on a FF camera

Not really, since the image circle covers only Super35, approximately APS-C.  So, while it would work on your 7D, you'd get terrible vignetting on FF.  Although the new primes will work on FF, the new zooms are effectively EF-S lenses in terms of image circle.

What?!?!? They tricked me!!!! I must cancel my order now!  :D

The glories of only half reading rumors and not paying attention to what is read...

700
Lenses / Re: 24-70 f2.8L Zoom Ring Issue
« on: November 04, 2011, 09:10:27 AM »
 ;D Still happy with my 24-105!

701
Lenses / Re: Will it be a EF 14-24 2,8 L is from Canon
« on: November 04, 2011, 08:55:08 AM »
Why does the 16-35 get so dogged on? I've oft been intrigued by it, but, as I use a 7D, I'm a little hesitant about the resultant focal length.

Therefore, I covet the Tokina 11-16. Any comparisons between the two?

(Moreover, for those who hate the 16-35, just mail that miserable lens to me! I will be glad to help alleviate your suffering!  8))

702
Lenses / Re: How much!?
« on: November 04, 2011, 08:43:22 AM »
That 14.5-60 zoom would be a wondrous thing to use on a FF camera (even on my 7D, twould still be glorious!). Mayhap, in many many years, when I am old and wizened, I can come accross one in a garage sale. Until then, I shall keep on dreaming!

703
EOS Bodies / Re: Does a Digital camera need SLR?
« on: November 02, 2011, 11:17:01 PM »
Probably, there will be SLRs manufactured and used for the next hundred years or more. For example, the rangefinder camera is still well in use in its circle of users...

No matter how good an electric monitor may look, nothing at all beats looking at the real thing as it happens through my OVF. Long live the prism!

704
Lenses / Re: Will it be a EF 14-24 2,8 L is from Canon
« on: November 02, 2011, 02:32:50 PM »
Any chance Canon might make a 7-14  ef-s?  ;D

705
Lenses / Re: 24-105mm and ERR01
« on: November 01, 2011, 05:36:22 PM »
May this ne'er happen to me!!! Although, I did have to have sand cleaned out of the focus ring, but that was because I dropped in on the beach TWICE in about five minutes time. There is no fail like user fail!

Pages: 1 ... 45 46 [47] 48 49 50