July 31, 2014, 10:33:53 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 5 ... 83
31
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.

32
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

33
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.

34
Price....
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)???

35
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.

36
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?

37
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Interested in Hasselblad?
« on: May 12, 2014, 11:47:40 AM »
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.

38
Lenses / Re: Before you buy your next prime...
« on: May 08, 2014, 04:45:53 PM »
I have always just bought lenses as I needed them. No strategy, just common frickin sense!

Even with just 6 FF lenses that I have now it feels like I have too much choice and redundancy. I'm always looking for ways to combine and reduce my gear and I could probably survive with just 2 zooms but then again ..... where's the fun in that? Gotta have a couple of fun lenses in the bag I reckon!

And for those of who are hobbists, it is all about fun.   Yes I want to make great images, but I also want to feel good about myself and my stuff :)

39
PowerShot / Re: New PowerShot & EOS Cameras to Offer DOF Control?
« on: May 05, 2014, 09:29:32 AM »
Think this will only work in wide angles which be set at F16 or 22 and then to the hyper focal distance (or further)

40
Looks to have the features I want. For that price point, who cares about waiting another five years for a crippled 7dmk2.

a body is not a system.  What about lenses, flashes, migration path - what if sony decides that they can not compete in the dSLR market - could happen.  Then what?

41
EOS-M / Re: Canon EOS M3 in Q3 of 2014?
« on: April 26, 2014, 12:07:07 PM »
...mirrorless is the future of Canon's camera business; more to the point, it's the future profit of Canon's camera business.


Is it?  Mirrorless meant the 'death of the dSLR in five years'.  That was seven years ago.


Depends on how you define "mirrorless."  I define it the simple way: no mirror.  The mirror will go away.  When?  I'm willing to speculate, but not predict, and it will be an evolution, not a sudden event.  We've seen some great AF advances lately, and the battery life issue is just a matter of continued incremental progress.

Are you willing to assert that there will still be a large market in reflex cameras in twenty years?

You may have been trying to suggest that, even if mirroless is the future, profit is based on nearish future, not far future, and Canon could afford to delay M- development until it's closer.  That would be a reasonable argument, but you didn't make it.  Instead you argued that "people were wrong before about mirrorless, therefore..."


Depends on how you define "future."   ;)   Canon has told us the future is video camera with a small, ultrahigh resolution sensor, a big zoom lens, phenomenal image stabilization, and frame grabs for still images.  Of course, as a video camera it fits your definition of mirrorless…

Yes, the reflex mirror will go away at some point, some time after the point where performance of EVFs meets or exceeds that of OVFs (that's a ways off), and image sensor AF performance meets or exceeds that of a dedicated phase AF sensor for both static and moving subjects (we're getting closer to that).  But today's common use of term "mirrorless" does not match your definition as simply 'having no mirror'.  "Mirrorless" is generally taken as a shorthand descriptor for the class of cameras known as MILCs, compact system cameras, etc.  If you're going to use a term in a way that differs from convention, it's helpful to provide your definition at the outset. 

Sensor size will remain important, as will ergonomics.  If you want to have a lens with a large aperture to cover a full frame sensor's image circle, you're going to need a physically large lens.  Put a small camera behind that lens, the ergonomics are poor (ask anyone who's mounted an f/2.8 zoom on the EOS M).  Cameras that are similar in size to today's dSLRs, but don't have a reflex mirror, will come along eventually.  We won't be able to call them dSLRs (technically), but they won't fit today's definition of "mirrorless" either.


I can envision the future as high speed, high resolution cameras.  The distinction between video and high burst "still" photography will disappear.  Imagine 24, 30, 60 FPS at 25 MP.  Is that video or still?  does it matter?  Do we need an optical view finder for this camera or EVF or simply a LCD screen at the back of the camera. 

The rules of the game will be changing, just like digital changed the rules for film cameras.

The next 5-10 years will be very interesting and unfortunately expensive if you want to stay on the leading equipment edge.  But you will be rewarded.

Okay, time for me to put away my crystal ball

42
Canon General / Professional Business insurance
« on: April 23, 2014, 11:37:23 PM »
There have been several (at least, perhaps more) on equipment insurance.  What about business insurance (professional liability).  If someone get hurt by your equipment, etc. I don't want to be held personally responsible.

Any suggestions?  I am think of doing a bit of work, not full time, but never the less, what to make sure I am covered.

43
Lenses / Re: New TS-E Lenses for Photokina [CR2]
« on: April 21, 2014, 11:15:55 AM »
Maybe they'll be tilt, shift and swing lenses?

Pardon my ignorance, but what is a swing lens?

44
Canon General / Re: Insurance for Camera gear
« on: April 17, 2014, 11:35:09 PM »
Helpful to get link

Thanks

45
EOS-M / Re: Canon EOS M3 in Q3 of 2014?
« on: April 14, 2014, 12:14:21 PM »
Who cares? Just give us ONE camera

You should care: mirrorless is the future of Canon's camera business; more to the point, it's the future profit of Canon's camera business.  Success of mirrorless mean more ¥¥, which means happy executives; and happy executives means (at least in Japan) more R&D ¥¥ for the full camera line.  Canon cannot succeed financially by producing just the camera equipment you want at a price you are willing to pay.  You should cheer every successful Rebel and PowerShot if you want more R&D for DSRL-type equipment.

marketing 101 - segment your market.  Extra maximum profit from each.

Would you be happy if there was only 1 car, a high priced car for the enthusiasts?

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 83