Messages

16

Canon General / Re: DxOMark vs. Reality

« on: December 18, 2012, 08:04:38 PM »

This is a straw man. No one has proposed that sensor performance is the only factor a buyer should consider.

You are joking of course. The number of posts and comments on the internet basically saying "I have to jump ship from Canon to Nikon NOW, and so do you, because the Nikon (Sony) sensor has a higher DR" is fast approaching infinity.   

17

Lenses / Re: 2013 - The Year for 400mm Lenses? [CR1]

« on: December 17, 2012, 10:55:08 PM »

<li>EF 400 f/5.6L IS (Highly desired)</li>

<li>EF 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS (Not push-pull & patents exists)</li>

How about some product differentiation, make one of these an EF-S and reward the 90% of Canon DSLR owners with the first ever high quality telephoto Canon lens that is smaller, lighter, and optimized for their sensors.

18

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 7D: 'I need a Must Have's List'

« on: December 17, 2012, 10:11:27 PM »

Great advice all.  I looked while I was upstairs ... its an 18-135mm EFS lens.  That is what came with the 60D.  Honestly, when I read some of the other forums it seemed like everyone was steering people toward the 24-105 lens but those were things people were posting for non-7D's.

Do I need a flash?  It has a flash ... wasn't sure whether or not I should put flashes on the christmas list.

If you want maximum usefulness from minimum purchases, I would pick the recent design EFS 15-85mm zoom (it's a beauty) and the 430 EX II flash unit.

Learn to use the flash for photographing your family and you will appreciate what it can do. Bouncing off walls and ceilings, or using a diffuser, ..... another world from the inbuilt flash,

19

Lenses / Re: APS-C lens mm are correct

« on: December 04, 2012, 08:32:02 PM »

at the borders (well away from the center, but not at the extreme corner), the 17-40 at 17mm f/4 delivers higher resolution than the 10-22mm does anywhere in the frame at any focal length and aperture.

I am probably being simplistic here, but the slrgear tests of those 2 lenses completely refute that claim. But they use 'blur index' which may differ from your strict term 'resolution'. My summary statement would be the 17-40 is a little less blurred in the border and corners than the 10-22's borders and corners at similar equivalent focal lengths and apertures.

They also show the 10-22 having the lower distortion in the 10-17mm range than the 17-40 has in the 17-30 range.

The 10-22 is a good lens, you paint it too shabby IMHO.

20

Lenses / Re: APS-C lens mm are correct

« on: December 03, 2012, 09:01:41 PM »

preppyak, the 17-55 and 10-22 are at least as good and probably better than 24-105 and 17-40 in terms of IQ. EF-S rules!

21

Lenses / Re: APS-C lens mm are correct

« on: December 03, 2012, 08:53:57 PM »

Consider this scenario. The view and angle through the viewfinders for the following two scenarios will be identical:
Canon 7D with the 18-135mm zoomed to 18mm.
Canon 5D with an 18mm Full Frame only lens.
 

Sorry, that is 100% wrong.

22

Lenses / Re: what 5 lenses would you want (exclude factors such as buissiness and body)

« on: December 03, 2012, 08:47:29 PM »

400mm f5.6 L
300mm f4 IS L
100-400mm f5.6 IS L
70-300mm IS L
200-400mm f4 1.4xTC IS L

 
just want to cover my options 

23

EOS Bodies / Re: What will be the issue with the 6D

« on: December 03, 2012, 08:40:57 PM »

I have a feeling the 6D wont need any method to select a focus point other than center. focus/recompose is probably the name of the 6D game

Im using all focus points of my 1100D. I think you are exaggerating the situation a lot.

yes I too am sure he is exaggerating, however, my experience is that the more focusing points the camera has, the more useless (prone to error) is the 'green square' focus mode.

24

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 100 f/2.8L IS Macro

« on: November 28, 2012, 12:06:40 AM »

Anybody here owning 100L and 135L?
Comparison of my copies make clear winner 135 @ F2.8. Do you have any opposite experience?

Does your 100L have IS?

25

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 100 f/2.8L IS Macro

« on: November 27, 2012, 11:57:02 PM »

"As for hybrid IS, Its really only useful at 1:1 or near 1:1 focusing distances. Perfect for macro lenses"

Thank you for educating me on that feature.

That is a very poorly worded comment.

What it should have said is,

"Hybrid is every bit as useful as conventional IS in a myriad of circumstances, possibly even slightly better,  but additionally it is useful at 1:1 or near 1:1 focusing distances, where conventional IS loses about half to 3/4 of its effectiveness".

That's better.

26

EOS Bodies / Re: What will be the issue with the 6D

« on: November 22, 2012, 06:42:55 PM »

This thread is either blatant trolling -- in which case just go away -- or the subtle humour I detect within indicates the threadstarter is actually listing known Nikon problems.    In which case he should have included the option 'It's not a Nikon' which would have got my tongue-in-cheek vote.

A related topic, is there any moderation of the canonrumors forum? There is so much anti-canon stuff that is allowed to proliferate and seems mainly aimed at making canon owners think they make poor decisions and should be filled with regret. Instead, this forum could be a pleasant haven for Canon users where people share, solve and support one another. All it would take is some decent moderation of the anti-Canon crap from either bitter people or blatant trolls.

27

EOS Bodies / Re: Has Canon entered the Graveyard Spiral?

« on: November 12, 2012, 06:34:27 PM »

@iso79

Absolutely correct observation.

Never even been near a shutter release: http://lorettasteyn.blogspot.com/

dear oh me, I can see your problem. The sooner you change to Nikon the better.

28

Lenses / Re: do image stabilisers decrease image quality?

« on: November 07, 2012, 05:49:27 PM »

Yes they do decrease IQ. If you don't believe me start shooting with yours turned off when you are doing hand held shooting and see how much your pictures improve.

That's not what the OP is asking. He is asking about a lens with no IS vs a lens with IS.

The most sensible way to discuss is to compare say Canon lenses where the same optical model is available (at the same time) with or without IS.

Canon probably publish MTF curves for both models and this might be a good starting point.

29

Canon General / Re: Canon's MAP Pricing Goes Into Full Effect Today

« on: November 03, 2012, 06:24:59 AM »

If the price is set and fixed it is not (by definition) competitive.....It's your money, it's up to you. Personally I don't like to be controlled or manipulated.

I agree. Like I posted in the other Canon MAP thread, I don't think it's even legal where I live (in Australia):

http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/322982

They are doing it to you because they can! They can't do it here because we have laws that protect consumers from that sort of asymmetrical abuse of power.

30

Canon General / Re: Canon's Minimum Advertising Price to go into effect Nov 1

« on: November 01, 2012, 09:02:59 PM »

I don't think it's even legal where I live (in Australia):

http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/322982

They are doing it to you because they can! They can't do it here because we have laws that protect consumers from that sort of asymmetrical abuse of power.