October 25, 2014, 12:57:32 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 - AJ

Pages: 1 ... 24 25 [26] 27 28
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Doesn't Need a Compact Camera System
« on: March 19, 2011, 06:30:13 PM »
IMO the most sensible thing to do would be to have an EF-S compatible system, similar to Sony NEX.

Canon would sell more EF-S lenses, and folks with DSLR bodies might be tempted to pick up a mirror-less body as an addition to the kit.

A mirror-less body coupled with plastic lenses like 18-55 would be pretty compact and light.

Now, Canon, let's please see some light EF-S primes!

Lenses / Re: More Sigma Primes Coming? [CR1]
« on: March 15, 2011, 03:04:31 PM »
... and I think Sigma would do well to spec a 135 mm prime at f/1.8

that would require filter size in the 8xmm size

Wouldn't 75mm suffice ?

Yes.  In practice you'll end up with a 77 mm filter.

Canon's 135/2 has a filter size of 72 mm.  Same as the 200/2.8

Canada / Re: Questions about crossing the border with your gear
« on: March 15, 2011, 11:24:53 AM »
Canadian here.  I've never had any issues over the years.

However that doesn't guarantee that you won't have a problem.  To put your mind at ease, you could bring photocopies of your original receipts with you.  Or scan them and put them on the net.  The dates and sales locations will prove your case.

Lenses / Re: More Sigma Primes Coming? [CR1]
« on: March 14, 2011, 06:16:07 PM »
... and I think Sigma would do well to spec a 135 mm prime at f/1.8

EOS Bodies / Re: 1Ds4 & 5D3 Timetable [CR1]
« on: March 14, 2011, 10:52:16 AM »
... FF cameras produce better images/video and have more/better glass options.

Actually you have more lens options with crop because crop cameras fit both EF and EF-S. 

As for better images, it depends how large you print.  My largest prints are 13"x19" and crop works well for that.

EOS Bodies / Re: 1Ds4 & 5D3 Timetable [CR1]
« on: March 12, 2011, 01:13:43 PM »
The EF-S line of lenses are not high on the list of priorities at Canon.
“L” lenses and the development of them are whats needed to get the most out of the 18mp crop sensors.

Hehehe...  Sounds like a line from a full-frame enthusiast and L-snob  Someone who obviously doesn't understand business.  Canon makes good money on their crop gear.  Furthermore, if you want to get the most out of your 18 mpix crop sensor then EF-S lenses like 17-55 and 15-85 are the way to go.  Why struggle with full-frame ultrawides thast have limited focal length range and/or aperture.

This is CR -10, folks.

EOS Bodies / Re: 1Ds Replacement Soon?
« on: March 10, 2011, 07:05:05 PM »
i'm not entirely sure if there's any strategic value in releasing the 1ds4 before the 5d3.

Anyone in the market who would drop 10k on a camera would most likely wait the extra month or two to see what the 5d3 offers.

Em, no.

If a pro needs a camera, he or she will buy it now.  They are not technology-speculating geeks.

A pro will buy the camera for its build, dual card slots, etc.  Stuff that the 5D series doesn't offer.  5D = consumer, 1Ds = pro.  Completely different markets.

Lenses / Re: Lens Recommendation for Weddings.
« on: March 10, 2011, 04:57:18 PM »
Use your 7D.  Buy a Canon 17-55/2.8 IS and an 85/1.8 or 100/2.  These are sharp wide open, focus without hesitation, and focus with great accuracy.  This is all you really need.  I know, because I own the set and I've worked assisting a wedding pro.

Be sure to have backup: another body, standard zoom (maybe the 18-135 that you hate) and a second hotshoe flash.

Lenses / Re: Canon 16-35 2.8L II ir Tokina 16-28 2.8 FXPRO or What
« on: March 10, 2011, 04:44:05 PM »
How about Canon 15-85/3.5-5.6 IS

Lenses / Re: Sigma 8-16 or Canon 10-22
« on: March 10, 2011, 04:41:44 PM »
thx the comparison.

Only one thing. I have read several articles about the Sigma 8-16 and some links mentioned that there are "big" differences between Sigma 8-16 due to manufacturing tolerances or quality check.
Is it serious (or basic Sigma issues)?

True, but be aware that Canon isn't immune to decentering and other defects.  Buy local and exercise your warranty if you get a lousy lens.

Lenses / Re: Which +/- 30mm lens to buy?
« on: March 10, 2011, 04:39:00 PM »
Canon 17-55/2.8 IS.  It's stabilized, which helps a lot with video.  I've used this lens for indoor video shooting and it works great.  f/2.8 helps in low light yet has forgiving dof.

Lenses / Re: EF-S 15-60 f/2.8 IS [CR1]
« on: February 18, 2011, 11:16:39 PM »
Since making lenses for smaller sensors is supposed to be 1. cheaper and 2. easier than making lenses for large sensors

Actually it's the other way around.  Making lenses for large format cameras is easier.  Case in point: lenses for large view cameras.  If you've ever looked at an Ansel Adam print, you're bound to be amazed at the resolution and detail.  Yet the lenses he shot with are primitive compared to today's SLR lenses.

Lenses / Re: EF-S 15-60 f/2.8 IS [CR1]
« on: February 17, 2011, 01:43:33 PM »
Given Canon's obsession for pixel count over sensitivity, the potential stop gained by f/2.8 compared to f/4 zooms would seem to be countered by the extra ISO step needed for the same noise level compared to a FF unit.

Exactly.  Few people get this - especially those who make statements like, "I'm not upgrading to FF until they make a FF equivalent of the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS," in reference to the magical unicorn also known as a 24-70mm f/2.8L IS.  In fact, the 24-105mm f/4L IS when used on FF specs out better than the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS on a crop body.  The FF-equivalent of the latter is 27-88mm f/4.5 IS, meaning the 24-105mm is wider, longer, and faster.  It's true that f/2.8 still yields a faster shutter speed than f/4, since the crop factor doesn't affect exposure (apparent effect is on DoF only), but as you point out - FF has a 1.3-stop advantage in ISO noise, meaning you can bump the shutter speed up a stop by using a higher ISO on FF to match the shutter speed you'd get with f/2.8 on a crop body.


But here's another way to look at this.  Suppose we want to emulate 17-55/2.8 IS on a FF body.  We'll need a 27-88/4.5 IS lens to emulate field-of-view and dof, and we'll crank up the iso by one stop to emulate shutter speed.

So: the 17-55/2.8 IS can do almost the same as a 24-105/4 IS on full-frame.  Not quite the same focal length range, just a tad shallower dof, and even with iso up one stop there's still a slight noise advantage.  But it's close.

And that's pretty impressive if you think about it, for a sensor that's 2.5x smaller.

Lenses / Re: EF-S 15-60 f/2.8 IS [CR1]
« on: February 14, 2011, 11:35:42 AM »
One thing about the current 17-55/2.8 IS is that it's not particularly wide.  Although I haven't measured the field-of-view, it feels more like an 18-55.  My Tamron 17-50/2.8 goes noticeably wider.

I wonder if a new 15-50 would have a true 28 mm equivalent.  I have my doubts about 24 mm

Lenses / Re: Your lenses wishlist for 2011.
« on: February 08, 2011, 11:57:00 PM »
EF-S 50-135/2.8 IS ring-USM

If it's an equivalent build and optical quality to the 17-55/2.8, and a retail price of under $1800, it would sell like crazy.

I just realized I've been desensitized by recent "L" pricing.  $1400 would be much more appropriate pricing.
Looks like Sigma is first out of the gate

Pages: 1 ... 24 25 [26] 27 28