July 25, 2014, 11:27:46 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 - RGF

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 83
EOS Bodies / Re: 1DX2 5D4 to be announced in January/ February 2015
« on: June 23, 2014, 01:59:58 AM »
I'll take one if X II native 52,000ISO = 12800ISO current X

Dylan77: What will this mean for the 5D4 in "native" ISO? In nightphotography tests, the 1Dx was recommended without hesitation for ISOs 8k to 12.8k, while the 5D3 was referred to as an ISO 5k cam due to its pixelcount. Can we expect about 3/4 to one stop improvement in high ISO in RAW with the 5D4? I hope Canon will remain with the +/- 22 MP. As I guess, that real improvement in high ISO IQ happens along with improved sensor tech and same MP count, otherwise we'd endup with an "evolutionary" new body only.

If Canon can implement these into X2:
1. All 61 AF points = double & dual cross
2. Slightly higher MP(20MP)
3. RAW, 25K ISO = 12K ISO current X
4. keep 12-14fps RAW
5. Add little more DR to the "NEW" rumor sensor. I'm going to get nailed for this :P

I might be in the minority here, but these might help current X owners to upgrade. Current X is really solid.

1.  Like to cross points on the power points.  Expand the focus area.
2.  24 MP
3.  Not just 1 stop improvement in S/N, but 3-4 stops.
4.  Agree
5.  More than a little. 4 stops.

Total programmable buttons.  Canon made a major step with the 1Dx but I would like see them take it all the way.

Also either 1D-series body with APS-H (1.3 crop) or APS-C (1.6 crop) sensor with 24 MP.  Realize that S/N would drop but hopefully Canon can keep the ergonomics the same and DR similar. 

EOS Bodies / Re: What do you hope-for MOST from Canon in 2014
« on: June 23, 2014, 01:53:21 AM »
First, high MP 5D body.  I would love it if they came out with 1D-series body that was under $5k but that is not reasonable.

Second is a zero extender that is sharp.  Either 1 - 1.7 or perhaps a flip lens into position extender (similar to the built -in 1.4 on the 200-400).  Ideally would be 1.0 (no extender), 1.4, 1.7, and 2.0

Third would be a 1D series with 24 MP, dual pixel to increase the DR and ISO by 4-6 stops.

Lenses / Re: Any word on new 16-35 F4
« on: June 21, 2014, 01:54:56 AM »
got word from B&H and Canon Direct that lens shipped today.  Expect to arrive early next week.

Lenses / Canon EF 16-35 F4 is shipping today
« on: June 20, 2014, 03:36:06 PM »
got notice from B&H that the lens will ship today.  Tried to cancel my order at Canon Direct and was told it was too late, I would need to return it

At the risk of starting another holy war (the first being Canon vs Nikon), I wonder if Canon will ever see the light and make DPP and EOS Util work on Macs

Never mind - I found the Mac download. My Bad ::)

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Damn you 1DX!!!!!
« on: June 17, 2014, 11:56:08 AM »
I tried it at the store...fell in love.

I imagine it's a lot cheaper than marriage, divorce, children or criminal defense attorneys.    :P

I just broached the subject of the camera with my girlfriend. She gave me a look like I might not have to worry about marriage after all...  :'(

I must always remember: "It's easier to ask for forgiveness than it is to ask for permission."  :P

On a serious note - figure this stuff out first with your GF.  May be a hard discussion, but in the end better to get aligned on financial issues than fight about them for the next 50 years of marriage (and worse lead to a divorce).

Lenses / Re: Any word on new 16-35 F4
« on: June 14, 2014, 06:13:16 PM »
Mine has been on preorder from Canon since the middle of May with a scheduled ship date of 6-27-14. I received a notice from Canon yesterday that the estimated ship date has been moved up to 6-20-14 (this Friday). I don't know how that translates to normal retail release, but there you go.

from the canon website (USA)?  Do you know if they ship sooner to consumers than they do to major accounts such as B&H or Amazon?

Lenses / Any word on new 16-35 F4
« on: June 14, 2014, 05:19:21 PM »
just wondering if this lens has surfaced or is about to surface?

Lenses / Re: Next Lens Canon Should Release?
« on: June 10, 2014, 10:30:53 PM »
all depends upon quality.

I'd gladly accept improved 100-400, though the 70-100 mm would be nice.

Unfortunately I think some are so focused on sharpness and sharpness tests these days, they forget that sharpness is only a piece of the whole pie.  There are other elements, such as max aperture, bokeh rendering, flare, color/contrast, focusing ability, falloff, ca, size/weight that are equally important.

thus, I believe some are feeling the 16-35 f/4 IS is a replacement for the f/2.8 II since the former is sharper than the latter.  But as you note, it is definitely not a replacement as many would never give up f/2.8 for a bit sharper corners.

Lenses all have a tradeoff, and I wish more would look at the big picture rather than honing in on sharpness above all else.  It is important, but many other things are important too.

Sure, but many are using this as a landscape lens, and generally in landscape photography, sharpness is one of the most important things.  Let's go through the things you mentioned:

Max Aperture - in general, not so important, except for non-star-trail astrophotography
Bokeh rendering - not important
Flare - by all reports, this lens is better than the 16-35 2.8
Color/contrast - we will see shortly, but I doubt with current technology that this will be worse than the 2.8, and even if so, color is typically added/changed in post
Focusing ability - not so important
Falloff - should have less than a 2.8 lens, but will see shortly
Ca - judging by the elements, should have less than the 2.8
Size/weight - beats the 2.8 by a tiny bit, and is insignificant in my opinion, so I would say they're evenly matched.

So if you're using this for landscape, then the f4 is the way to go my man.  Now, of course people us this for other genres, but I'm just going by what the most common usage for the UWAs is.  If you're curious how I came to that conclusion, search flickr or any other photo sharing site for photos from the 16-35, 17-40, and 14mm lenses and you'll find that the majority are landscape, followed by architecture.

16-35 II is also hugely popular for weddings and pj work, where f/2.8 is critical as is bokeh quality (especially at 35mm).  So, that is the area the f/4 lens would easily be trumped imo - in these applications the important content is near center of the frame, not the corners.

While many will use this as a landscape lens, I think Canon will come out with something even better for landscapers in the future as this lens still does not quite compete with Nikon's 14-24, moreso with the 16-35 f/4 VR. I would argue that 14-24 is a more useful range for landscape than 16-35, plus the Nikon does f/2.8 while remaining sharp across the frame.  16-35 range is very useful to wedding/pj because it works in very cramped spaces while still being able to do 35mm f/2.8 portraits.

Introduce the 16-35 F4 and then after milking the market (esp landscape photographers) drop the 14-24.  All the landscape photographers will switch and Canon can make extra $ that way.  Good marketing ploy.  Unfortunately I need a good landscape lens soon, so I'll spring for the 16-35 F4 and then again for the 14-24 if / when it is available.

7D M2 would be nice but I hope they offer something like 1Dx with crop sensor.  Same electronics / ergonomics as the 1Dx.  Now that would be VERY NICE.   ;D

Lenses / How to Calculate DOF for a 180 Macro Lens (in macro mode)
« on: May 12, 2014, 10:57:40 PM »
I am interested in how to calculated DOF with a 180 macro lens so I can determine how much to move a focusing rail.  If the focal length was truly 180, then it would be simple.  But I have heard when a macro lens is focusing close, the focal length is actually much shorter than when the lens is focusing at infinity.

Expecting the 10-18mm to be twice the price of the 18-55mm - due to a smaller market, than the kit lens
Expecting the 16-35mm f4 IS to start just a tad more costly than the 16-35mm f2.8 II, dropping to about 4/5th's of the price, then a new 16-35mm f2.8 III coming in at nearly twice the price of the f4.0 in about 12 months...  Both as sharp as current primes

if that is the case, they introduced them in the wrong order.  Introduce the more expensive one first, get people who need sharpness, not F2.8, to buy the $3,000 lens  Then offer the cheaper alternative.

Based upon this lens being introduced I don't think there will be 16-35III, rather some other lens that is compelling for people to upgrade (perhaps a 14-24)???

erggg what is with all the underwhelming slow aperture lenses! why not a 16-35 f2.8 IS? really c'mon canon
f4 wow awesome... NOT

room to fit in IS, $1300 instead of $2300 perhaps, potential to make it perform a touch better stopped down to landscape DOF where this focal range is most often (although yes not always) used when used on FF, makes it smaller and lighter by a lot, also nice, since you might want to hike around with it paired with one or two other lenses.

One of the main reasons i use the 16-35 f2.8 II is to shoot it wide open. Although I do understand the reason for cheaper slower lenses but cmon how about giving the top end some love canon lets have a 16-35 f2.8 IS L that sharp corner to corner like the 24-70 II.

It would nice if canon would swallow it pride and license Nikons incredible 14-24 lens.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Interested in Hasselblad?
« on: May 12, 2014, 01:53:32 PM »
What?  You need a larger sensor for higher resolution?  The Nokia smartphone has 40MP...come on.  What needs to happen is make the denser res sensors better and less leaking from pixel to pixel. Also better technology like Foveon sensor (I think Canon was looking into that possibility).

There also becomes a point where the resolution game gets to a stasis level...don't know if that is 45MP, 55PM, 100MP...

Just getting to the Nikon 800 MP level would be a win and they'd grow their market share for sure. 

not sure if Canon should buy Hassey, but perhaps they should buy a portion and allow Hassey access to their sensor and digital body technology.

If we look 5-10 years out, 35 mm format bodies will be maxed out with resolution and FPS.  25-100,000 ISO will become nearly noiseless.  Where does Canon (or Nikon) go from there?

An increase in resolution will require a larger sensor.  Challenge for Canon to get consumers (pros) to switch to MF is that the current lenses will not (most likely) work on MF bodies.  So even if Canon came up with a $10,000 MF body, another $25,000 (or more) would be required for a new set of lenses.

Do you think you can get the same detail from a Nokia 40 MP smart phone and a 40 MP Hassey?

With 35mm, beyond 35-50 MP (pick your number) lens and diffraction limit resolving power.  What is next?

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 83