I'd like to see a built-in espresso maker.
To fill that lens mug, of course!
To fill that lens mug, of course!
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.
Actually, the moon and the sun are two subjects that are great for mirror lenses. They don't move very fast (manual focus, live-view), they're bright, and you won't see any bad bokeh.
As for 300/4, sure, that would be nice. But it's an expensive lens, and you won't need aperture; you'll be stopping down! So 70-300/4-5.6 gets you the same thing. That said, you could mount a 1.4x TC on a 300/4.
That may be true, but not for $119.00 price, and 500-800 mm focal range. When you go in to some really large focal lengths, size and amount of heavy glass simply makes physically impossible to build classic telescopes.
This is a shot taken with the basic Meade ETX125 mirror lens which is 1900mm and f15, taken of the flimsy tracking mechanism and mounted on old and pretty heavy Benbo tripod. The moon do not fit in the frame so this is composite of two shots, at manual exposure of 1/500s, some adjustments for sharpness and noise reduction.
I'm generally a defender of Canon, but I am really having some doubts about their lens division. I'm just not sure it shares the same vision as the rest of the SLR unit. Seriously, look at the lenses they've chosen to introduce over the past few years: updates of massive supertelephotos that fill a tiny niche market, a nice quality 70-300 mm L zoom that the jury is still out on whether there is any market for it; a specialty fisheye zoom that also fits a narrow niche audience and which they can't even seem to bring to market anyway.
In the meantime the SLR division brought out the 7D and 60D, two higher-end APS-C bodies, and aside from the 15-85 mm zoom, there have been no corresponding lenses released.
Imagine the sales jump they'd have if they introduced an EF-S 100-400mm f4? Lighter, faster and about the same price as the current full frame 100-400. Sports and wildlife photographers would be lining up to buy that lens and 7D combination. (Now before all the nitpickers start picking away, this is only an example of the creative options that the lens division could be following if they were to get with the EF-S program like their SLR brethren have gotten with the crop sensor program.)
I have to wonder if the lens division needs more forward-thinking management.
What's the attraction of using EF-S lenses on FF bodies ?
There is no focal length gain
Canon were to start making FF sensors with two pixel densities: one very dense (perhaps 32 or 36 mpix) for those 3-4 fps 5D and 1Ds series cameras, and a lower density (maybe 24 or 18) mpix sensor for a 1D series camera.
The lower pixel density FF sensor would give unprecedented high-iso performance and allow huge fps. It'd be great for sports, journalism, things like that. It'd be great for video too!
Question then is of cost. Right now APS-H sensors are only put into 1D cameras. Would it be cheaper for Canon to produce two formats only? Would a low-density FF sensor cost significantly more than a APS-H sensor with similar pixel count?
Cost of a sensor is relative to the size, pixel count is not important. Canon has a good white paper explaining this.
Production costs for a full-frame sensor can exceed twenty times the costs for an APS-C sensor. Only 20 full-frame sensors will fit on an 8-inch (200 mm) silicon wafer, and yield is comparatively low because the sensor's large area makes it very vulnerable to contaminantsâ€”20 evenly distributed defects could theoretically ruin an entire wafer. Additionally, the full-frame sensor requires three separate exposures during the photolithography stage, tripling the number of masks and exposure processes.[