September 21, 2014, 04:14:45 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 - bvukich

Pages: 1 ... 35 36 [37] 38 39 ... 46
541
EOS Bodies / Re: Estimate the price of the 'expected bodies...
« on: April 08, 2011, 02:09:40 PM »
I think we pretty much agree, but I'll elaborate more, mainly for others.

The choice between the 24-70/2.8 & 24-105/4 is probably one of the most difficult for the serious amateur or higher; generally someone who has the need, desire, and means to have multiple $1k+ lenses.  They are both outstanding, with their own strengths, and weaknesses, and a huge area of overlap.  That's what makes it so incredibly hard to choose, and why some even chose both.

Now look at the target market for a kit.  It's either someone that will only have a single lens near term (probably the majority, even on a higher end body like the 5DII), or someone who would like to add that particular lens to their collection at a significant discount (would really only apply to the 5DII, has anyone anywhere actually longed for the 18-55 or 18-135?  I would guess not.).

For the group that will likely only own one lens, there is little argument against the fact that the 24-105 would be superior in almost every case.  For the group that want to add the lens to their collection (or sell), it would be largely irrelevant unless it was one that they already own.

So I believe the substitution of the 24-70/2.8 would really only benefit those with more specific lens needs (they need that extra stop), to the (arguable) detriment to the rest of kit buyers.

The offering of multiple kits, one for each, would obviously render my argument moot. However I would think it unlikely, and don't see any advantage to Canon to do so.

542
EOS Bodies / Re: 1D & 1Ds Rumors [CR1]
« on: April 08, 2011, 01:46:25 PM »
Nikon has been pulling back the mirror privot befor flipping the mirror up for a long time ( may be since F 4).

Interesting, I didn't know they did that.  From an engineering standpoint, it just seems like a really bad idea if you can avoid it.

543
EOS Bodies / Re: 1D & 1Ds Rumors [CR1]
« on: April 08, 2011, 01:33:44 PM »
If you think it's a gimmick then don't use it. I personally think it's a good idea. It easily combines the 1D and 1Ds lines and allows users to get that little extra reach if they need it for sports and wildlife photography if they want it. But can switch to FF mode to get wide angle shots or start doing portrait work with the same camera.

The perceived increase in reach is just that, perceived.

And I still think Canon could redesign the mirror motion to allow a EF-S lens to be mounted on a FF camera. But that is beside the point.

Not really possible.  The mirror requires X amount of space to flip up.  The specifications for EF-S overlap that space by Y.

X-Y=broken mirror.

The only way to avoid that would be to make the top pivot point of the mirror move in addition to the leading edge flipping up.  Even then, you're probably only buying yourself a couple of mm.  That would result in the mirror being slower, less precise, and induce more vibration; and the more complex the motion of the mirror, the worse each of those attributes gets.

544
EOS Bodies / Re: 1D & 1Ds Rumors [CR1]
« on: April 08, 2011, 12:43:12 PM »
For me, the 1.3X crop on a FF sensor is a gimmick. By switching from FF to 1.3X crop will not by us anything except a smaller file size and a narrower angle of view. We can do the same thing at post process by cropping the FF picture.

Absolutely.  1.3x crop mode is pointless.  1.6x crop mode (assuming to afford EF-S compatibility) is impossible.

For Nikon it makes a little more sense, because their crop lenses vary only in image circle cast; afaik the physical specifications of the mount are identical.  With EF-S, lenses are allowed to intrude into the mirror box by a specified amount, and lenses that do (generally wide angle) will not clear a FF mirror.

545
EOS Bodies / Re: Estimate the price of the 'expected bodies...
« on: April 08, 2011, 12:36:41 PM »
I highly doubt 24-70/2.8 IS or non-IS would ever be a kit lens.  It is too specialized, and too expensive.

546
EOS Bodies / Re: Estimate the price of the 'expected bodies...
« on: April 08, 2011, 11:31:53 AM »
I'm budgeting for $2899/body $3899/kit at release.

That's assuming it's accompanied by the rumored 24-105L II.  If it's not a new version of the 24-105L I'd put the kit at $3699.

547
EOS Bodies / Re: 1D & 1Ds Rumors [CR1]
« on: April 08, 2011, 11:12:17 AM »
I think the rumorer meant the MP count is into "MF territory" at 42 MP, not that there's actually a MF sensor.

Absolutely.  Unless it came with a new mount and lenses, or mirrorless + CD AF that is usable.

Beyond image circle considerations (which apparently you can get around with TS lenses), there is the fact that you can't have a MF sensor on a EF mount body for the same reason you cant have a FF square sensor and retain the mirror.  Assuming the sensor is full 645 format (56 × 41.5mm), that would result in a mirror that is 58.7mm, which significantly larger than EF flange distance of 44mm.  Even a pellix mirror would be to big, but perhaps possible if you sacrifice VF coverage at the top (bottom) of the frame.

548
Canon General / Re: Canon 70-300 is L vs non
« on: April 08, 2011, 10:50:54 AM »
I'm in nearly the same boat.

70-200/2.8+1.4TC Vs. 70-300L Vs. 100-400

70-200/2.8 would be more flexible, but I lose IS.
100-400 has the extra length, but lesser IS.
70-300L looks like a good compromise, but will be too slow indoors.

Given unlimited resources, I'd get the 70-200/2.8IS + 1.4&2TC.  But that's not the case.

549
Lenses / Re: Samyang 8mm Fisheye
« on: April 07, 2011, 04:47:49 PM »
Post some pictures!   :)

550
EOS Bodies / Re: What do you want from the 5D mk III
« on: April 06, 2011, 02:12:56 PM »
Better AF, all points cross, double cross in center + zones.
16bit Raw, and the DR to make them useful (so at least +2 stops or why bother)
High ISO improvements.  ISO 102400 may be silly, but clean ISO 12,800 or even 25,600 would be awesome.
No low ISO banding

551
Software & Accessories / Re: External mic for DSLR
« on: April 05, 2011, 04:02:28 PM »
Hotshoe powered, that's kinda cool.

552
Site Information / Re: What originally brought you to canon rumors?
« on: April 04, 2011, 01:54:52 AM »
I think for me it started with the omnipresent rumors of a 24-70/2.8 IS.

Next it was the 60D, which I anxiously awaited word on, but I was less than thrilled about what was finally released.  I ended up getting one anyways, and it should hold me over until my latest obsession is released, the 5D3.

553
Lenses / Re: Lens Recommendation for Weddings.
« on: April 01, 2011, 04:39:57 PM »

Whatever equipment you choose, watch your step!

http://su.pr/32PLzd

So remember kids, always use underwater housings when shooting weddings.

554
Canon General / Re: Travel case
« on: March 31, 2011, 10:05:31 AM »
Just wondering if Crumpler's C List Celebrity amounts to the same thing? In addition to the backside opening, it seems to have room set aside for a laptop.

Do you have that one?  Does it stick out as far in the back as it looks like it does (pictures on Amazon and B&H)?

After a small incident I had at a winery, involving their display of bottles with ribbons around them (making them top heavy, and unstable), I'm very conscious of the distance things protrude from my back.

555
Canon General / Re: Travel case
« on: March 30, 2011, 02:24:17 PM »
The loaded Flipside 400AW fits inside the Storm im2500 hard case

Just added both to my Amazon wishlist.

I'm in the market for a new backpack, and that sounds like a killer combo.

Pages: 1 ... 35 36 [37] 38 39 ... 46