Messages

31

Canon General / Re: Patents: Canon 55-110 f/2 Optical Formula

« on: January 21, 2012, 01:01:30 AM »

Wow, this would be a fantastic lens to pair with a 7D for dimly-lit indoor sports. Sort of the poor man's crop version of a 1D + 70-200mm f/2.8 combination.

A 2.0 zoom won't be a poor man's anything. This thing will be large and heavy and expensive. If it's an L, it'll surely cost $2k or more. If it's EF-S, it'll easily be the most expensive EF-S available. If it's a Cinema lens I'll stomp and curse and spit.

Obviously it would be quite large and quite pricey, but unless it's a Cinema lens a 7D + 55-110 f/2 would still be considerably cheaper than a 1D + 70-200mm f/2.8.

32

Lens Gallery / Re: Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM

« on: January 20, 2012, 07:36:44 PM »

I'm amazed at how sharp this lens is wide open.

This is a random photo I took handheld at a party.

70-200mm f/2.8L IS II at 200mm on a 7D
f/2.8, 1/60 sec, ISO 400

I'm attaching a 100% crop to demonstrate the detail right down to the pixel level.
If you look closely, you can see a reflection of the room in his eye revealing how I used the flash.

33

Canon General / Re: Patents: Canon 55-110 f/2 Optical Formula

« on: January 20, 2012, 04:45:36 PM »

Wow, this would be a fantastic lens to pair with a 7D for dimly-lit indoor sports. Sort of the poor man's crop version of a 1D + 70-200mm f/2.8 combination.

34

Canon General / Re: Patent - Short Range Wireless Lens Mount & Other Accessories

« on: January 11, 2012, 10:30:39 PM »

Can someone explain what the benefit of a wireless connection between the lens and camera is? Seems pretty silly to me.

35

PowerShot Cameras / Re: Canon PowerShot G1 X Announced

« on: January 10, 2012, 12:20:22 AM »

These people here are crazy comparing the G1X to the Panasonic LX5. Sure it doesn't have an f/2.0 lens at the wide end, but the sensor is more than 5 times larger, so it still collects more than twice as much light even though its lens is only f/2.8. An f/2.0 lens on the G1X would have to be considerably larger, and plenty of people are already complaining about the size.

It's simply not possible to make a camera with a FF sensor and a 15-150mm f/2.0 lens which is still pocket size like some people seem to expect (especially not for under $1000). The engineers can't just rewrite the rules of physics to suit the whims of fickle consumers.

Sure, this camera can be improved, but let's be somewhat realistic in what we are demanding.

36

Canon General / Re: Canon Files a Patent for a Bunch of Lenses.

« on: December 16, 2011, 01:53:40 PM »

Often a patent is announced just as a new product comes to market.

I'm suspecting that the new Canon EF video lenses use this patent.  Canon has not published a lot of detail about the new lenses, I assumed that they were repackaging the existing EF lenses with a 11 blade aperture and geared focus ring, but now I think this is whats inside.

We'll probably see the upgrades this year, starting with the 50mm f/1.2, 85mm f/1.2 and 24mm f/1.4 just as the video lenses did.

The 24mm f/1.4? That got updated in 2008. The 35mm f/1.4 is what really needs a refresh.

37

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon D4 Specs Revealed? 1D X Has Competition.

« on: December 12, 2011, 06:08:01 AM »

If these cameras (like 1DX and D4) are designed for Olympics, I wonder which sports they are planning to shoot at 51K ISO and higher? 

I'd imaging they would only use 51K if absolutely necessary. Clean 12,800 ISO would be useful for shooting gymnastics with a zoom lens. Indoors, the lighting often isn't the best and for events like vault a shutter speed of 1/800 sec. is pretty much a bare minimum to freeze the motion adequately. I've definitely had underexposed vault photos at 1/800 sec, f/2.8, ISO 6400 before.

38

Contests / Re: *UPDATE* First Contest Finalists Up

« on: December 09, 2011, 06:17:01 PM »

The differences in opinion here are interesting. Personally, I find almost all of the astro and underwater top 10 to be excellent, however only one or two of the event and creative lighting finalists are very captivating to me (some of the event photography selections were outright bad images IMO).

I don't have a horse in the race and I also think there were some amazing concert images that were overlooked (heck, probably not in my top 10, but even whiny mister "real memories" U2 IN MIAMI submission was better than half of the posted top 10 finalists, not that that's saying much). Canon Rumors Guy seems to have a strange weakness for monochrome or overprocessed images.

39

EOS Bodies / Re: A Bit About the 5D Mark III? [CR1]

« on: December 07, 2011, 01:10:50 AM »

By your logic the D3s should not even exist then since is no difference from the D700 and the D3s since they have the same MP and same AF system.

We're those the only features I mentioned?  No.  Frame rate and build are others.  More 'sliders' could be viewfinder, number of card slots, and at the time, HD video with a FF sensor, etc.  Also, there was a much smaller relative price difference between the D700 and the D3s than the 5DII and 1DsIII, and smaller than people are certainly hoping for in the differential between the 5DIII and 1D X. As I've stated before, Canon could bring the 5DIII feature set closer to the 1D X, but then they'd have to make up for that by raising the price.  How many people who want 28 MP, 7D-like AF, and better sealing would pay $4K for a 5DIII?

My ideal camera would be something like an updated 7D with a 1DX sensor (AF and frame rate are critical for me), or equivalently a slightly downgraded 1DX in a smaller body. I'd definitely rather pay $4k for the specs you mentioned than $3k for what you are predicting (most likely correctly) for the 5DIII. I'm sure plenty of others would too. This would leave a nice price gap to introduce a 'cheap' $2000-$2500 FF for those who don't need the same speed, AF, and build quality.

I'd like to upgrade my 7D to a FF camera, but not sure if I can afford a 1DX and the 5DIII doesn't sound promising for indoor sports shooting.

40

Lenses / Re: 70-200 2.8 IS II Soft at 70mm?

« on: December 07, 2011, 12:31:12 AM »

Wait... 2.8/300mm? I thought you were talking about a 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II.

41

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III Information [CR1]

« on: December 02, 2011, 01:23:59 AM »

Man, I would love a baby 1DX. Put the 1DX sensor in the body of a 7D (same AF, same FPS, same size and build quality) for less than $4k and I'd buy it in a heartbeat.

42

EOS Bodies / Re: *UPDATE* How to Lose $2400 in 24 Seconds

« on: December 02, 2011, 12:58:13 AM »

Lastly the thing that doesn't feel right is the fact that salt water and electronics don't play well.

Sure the footage from the card would be recoverable to a degree, but still that would have gotten a hell of a beating if it was true, and surely more than a little damage to the card. Unless it was safely in a waterproof case, such as one of these...

You must have missed the recent post about the Canon Rebel lost underwater for over a year (http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/11/canon-rebel-1000d-lost-at-sea/). I'd be surprised if the card wasn't fine, especially if he got to it quickly.

43

EOS Bodies / Re: *UPDATE* How to Lose $2400 in 24 Seconds

« on: December 01, 2011, 04:42:10 PM »

Was the lens salvagable or was it really cheap? $2400 is about what a 5D2 costs.

44

Lenses / Re: Primes to go with a 5D Mark II -- does anyone not use a L prime?

« on: November 29, 2011, 03:37:32 AM »

For the daughter, the 85mm f/1.8 would be a goon non-L choice. Relatively cheap, good IQ, and fast AF. The 50mm f/1.4 is pretty popular, but I'm not terribly impressed with my copy (too soft wide open and inaccurate AF).

For architecture, I would think you would want a shorter focal length. Since super wide aperture isn't usually as important here, a zoom such as the 17-40 f/4 the poster "Canon 14-24" mentioned might be a good choice.

45

Lenses / Re: Packing small with primes. Advice needed please!

« on: November 28, 2011, 05:13:12 PM »

I second branden. For general use, the 35mm and 85mm are a great combo.

If you have a wide angle like the 24mm L, that might be handy instead of the 35mm, especially for shooting buildings.