September 19, 2014, 05:51:19 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 - wtlloyd

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
Lenses / Re: The New Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II
« on: September 11, 2014, 08:32:59 AM »
Show me the money!

How much?

Edit: Oh, is this another spec rumor?

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: How's the RX-100 Miii? Should I?
« on: September 10, 2014, 11:04:40 AM »
Thank you for trying - perhaps something is wrong with my exif viewer, but I tried to save image as and view in Breezebrowser, no shooting data comes up...

Was just curious about the ISO in the museum interior shot.

I quite like these...wish the exif wasn't stripped out of the images.

What ISO was the camera shooting at with the museum interior? The noise level is quite acceptable.

My wife has RX100, shoots in raw+jpeg...
Some more pictures with EXIF data avalable.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: How's the RX-100 Miii? Should I?
« on: September 10, 2014, 08:09:32 AM »
I quite like these...wish the exif wasn't stripped out of the images.

What ISO was the camera shooting at with the museum interior? The noise level is quite acceptable.

My wife has RX100, shoots in raw+jpeg...

Photography Technique / Re: Is RAW worth it?
« on: September 10, 2014, 08:02:29 AM »
Maybe this will help:

jpeg = frozen pizza, limited pre-determined choices

raw = local, fresh, artisan pizza with toppings to your liking

Mmmmmm, pizza!

Lenses / Re: When will we see a replacement for the 100-400?
« on: September 10, 2014, 07:46:41 AM »
Ah, really, the two lenses are completely different.
That's like saying the 200 f/2.8 L II steals sales from the 200 f/2.0 L IS.

There may be a trivial change in focal length, but the 100-400 is in a price and function range that will always be useful and in demand. It won't have a built in extender, and it will be below $2800.

Someday our prince will come, and the slipper will fit!

There have been lots of talk of a 100-400 replacement and yet nothing has materialized.  When might we see this lens?

I have all but given up hope that it will be replaced.  After all, it is Canon's top selling lens and if they made it too good it would hurt 200-400F4 sales  :o

After introducing the very expensive 200-400mmm+1.4X lens, I see difficult that Canon will canibalize their own sales introducing a new (and better) 100-400mm lens.

EOS Bodies / Re: Used vs. Refurbished Canon 7d?
« on: September 09, 2014, 09:03:36 AM »
Everything I and friends have purchased from Canon USA refurb store have appeared as new.

Shutter count on two 6d cameras were below 20
lenses unmarked and as close to dust free as I've ever seen

I believe the bulk of camera bodies sold refurb are in fact overproduction. When Canon watch reports that suddenly there are 1500 6D bodies or 500 16-35 f/2.8 v2 lens available "refurb" you'd have to be very naive to think different.

Software & Accessories / Re: Reikan FoCal Testing Distance and Accuracy
« on: September 08, 2014, 10:21:21 AM »
I haven't focus checked my lenses in a while, but I recall not having problems with any focal length at recommended distance.

Here is Reikan's two page advisory on correct target setup distance

Reikan expects to release Focal version 2 sometime this month. Changes may not be relevant to this thread.

Canon General / Re: How do you cull your photo's?
« on: September 07, 2014, 11:19:54 PM »
Breezebrowser Pro. Free two week trial, quick download. Affordable. I've been using it at least 10 years now (well, I mostly use Lightroom but this is my backup file browser in case I have doubts about what Lightroom is showing me, or just to handle images I don't want in my catalog).

There is a great compare feature (grid mode, select two files, right click, choose compare. Vary the zoom amount with another right click. Choose to view side by side or top/bottom)

Super fast, it builds views based on the embedded jpeg. I highly recommend it.

Photography Technique / Re: Ballhead or Gimbal?
« on: September 05, 2014, 08:38:00 PM »

Photography Technique / Re: Night Shot- Brooklyn Bridge
« on: September 05, 2014, 03:01:49 PM »
I believe you used a 5D3 and a 24-70 lens. That high f/stop is not necessary, and would have allowed a shorter shutter speed, minimizing accumulated vibration movement. Your subject, the bridge, is already at infinity focus, depth of field is only really going to affect the foreground which is water already blurred by the slow shutter speed.
The 5D3 becomes affected by diffraction after f/10:
Stopping down a couple times from wide open gets you into the sweet spot of most lenses for sharpness, as does framing to allow for future cropping of the typical "soft" perimeter. You probably would have had a better result shooting at f/8. Those tiny apertures are more appropriate in landscape for large format cameras, not 35mm.

Lenses / Re: Canon Price Drops on L Lenses
« on: August 31, 2014, 02:15:26 PM »
Yes, there'll be winners and losers.
When the ver2 superteles were announced, excellent ver1 copies immediately jumped up $1k in selling price.

Well, if you own a 400, 500, 600 supertele, your lens just lost up to $1K in resale value.

That would be a bummer if I intended to sell my 600 II.  But I don't.   ;)

Another way to look at it, for me, is that the next two lenses I plan to buy are the TS-E 17mm and the 300/2.8 II...a $950 'savings'.   :)

Lenses / Re: Canon Price Drops on L Lenses
« on: August 31, 2014, 11:16:13 AM »
Well, if you own a 400, 500, 600 supertele, your lens just lost up to $1K in resale value.
Same for all the other lenses to a lesser degree.
This will affect refurb and used prices in just a short while.

Lenses / Re: New Lens Information for Photokina
« on: August 30, 2014, 02:32:30 PM »
Wow, good catch.
Upvote for you!
For folks who don't know, in Windows a right click on image, and "Search Google for this image" is about as easy as can be.

One question, when did I ever say the 400 DO wasn't sharp or took TC's well? Because it reads to me like he is calling people that say those things idiots, and his images prove they are.

Nope, you said "horrible bokeh".  There are several pictures in that post (and elsewhere on the internet) showing the bokeh of the lens.  It is not, in any way, "horrible".

What he doesn't show you is stuff like this that demonstrates what DO do to bokeh and how they handle specular highlights, you might have noticed not one of Mr Morris' images has any specular highlights, did you wonder why? No, of course you didn't, you are too obtuse to do that.

No, its probably because it isn't actually a problem in real world shooting situations and you are blowing it way out of proportion.  Bryan from The Digital Picture had this to say about it:

"The Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO IS USM Lens has been criticized for its poor specular highlight bokeh (OOF blur quality), but I have seldom encountered this problem. Specular highlights can have a target-appearance at worst - concentric circles instead of a smooth blur. I can't say I like the bokeh of this lens more than Canon's other 400mm Lenses, but the 400mm focal length combined with a relatively wide aperture can very nicely separate a subject from its background."

If you are happy to pay $6,500 for a lens that does that then I suspect you are the idiot, after buying them for that much many owners are happy to sell them for $3,500 to get rid of them, maybe they are the idiots.

One thing I will agree with you on is that I think the lens is too expensive and a new version isn't likely to be cheaper.  It would be stellar if it was priced at about 2/3 or 1/2 of the 300 f2.8 IS II.  One of the promises of DO technology is that it is easier to eliminate chromatic aberration (a huge problem with traditional optical designs lens manufacturers have struggled with for decades that, curiously, doesn't completely invalidate the entire technology...) so fluorite lens elements aren't needed for high end telephotos which should make them cheaper to manufacture but, well, Canon. *shrug*

One last thing - that photo you posted is pretty disingenuous.  Were you just not going to mention that it was taken with the very different 70-300 f4-5.6 DO?  Just going to allow that to be inferred by people who didn't bother to do a reverse GIS? The 70-300 DO exhibits far more problems than the 400 f4 DO and is reviewed a lot more harshly for a number of reasons related to its IQ.  If you've got a sample that demonstrates the absolutely horrendous disaster that is the 400 f4  DO, I'm all eyes, but make sure its the 400 f4 DO and not that other lens.

Lenses / Re: New Lens Information for Photokina
« on: August 29, 2014, 10:55:55 AM »
It's been 10 years since Canon brought out a lens with DO technology.

The 400 DO II would be a intriguing surprise.

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D3 No Longer in Production
« on: August 23, 2014, 01:05:00 PM »
Oh, brother! ::) ::) ::)

2) When red ship cameras on time that work reliably consistently I'll pay more attention to what they do. for now they are not on my radar.  sorry.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10