April 17, 2014, 05:59:48 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 - Chosenbydestiny

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 16
EOS Bodies / Re: 70D and Dxomark....
« on: August 29, 2013, 02:10:22 PM »
I love how people keep arguing over the sensors and how much more DR they actually need. These people aren't photographers, they're editors with cameras. Tons of DR is like a crutch for them. Wow, they screwed up their shots,, shouldn't that mean they have to live and learn from loss? Lazy. Such a worthless excuse for a petty argument.

This really doesn't make any sense.  Every good songwriter, author, or photographer is also a good editor. It's always been that way.

Also it's odd (IMHO) to excuse away technological advancement for the sake of technique. Why can't one attain both? Should we have puffed our chest at the implementation of auto-focus? Should we have held our noses at IS? After all, good technique can nullify those as well....

Right, but you're supposed to be a photographer first and an editor second. DR doesn't help you when you're actually taking your shot, though it might give you peace of mind knowing the very basics of exposing an image is no longer relevant. At least for however many stops you can recover =P No one has to hold their noses with IS btw, apparently you no longer need the breathing technique to prevent motion blur.

Lenses / Re: Err 1 on 100mm f/2.8
« on: August 29, 2013, 01:27:54 PM »
Happy birthday ^^ But yeah, like said above you can try looking for an alternative to Canon's repair department. You might even find someone who fixes lenses on Craigslist or get a recommendation from a local shop.

EOS Bodies / Re: 70D and Dxomark....
« on: August 29, 2013, 01:21:36 PM »
I love how people keep arguing over the sensors and how much more DR they actually need. These people aren't photographers, they're editors with cameras. Tons of DR is like a crutch for them. Wow, they screwed up their shots,, shouldn't that mean they have to live and learn from loss? Lazy. Such a worthless excuse for a petty argument.

Lenses / Re: A Big Lens Announcement in September? [CR1]
« on: August 29, 2013, 01:36:58 AM »
Whatever does come out.... It's gonna be expensive.

EOS-M / Re: Returning M today...
« on: August 27, 2013, 03:30:42 AM »
What is this, a facebook status?  :P


Yes, I agree that focus breathing is acceptable in a lens, for that price, however I also agree with XVNM that this is dissapointing regardless.

Again, I disagree. While the motor may be good for video because of its sound, or lack thereof, it's a $199 lens! Even lenses that cost thousands of dollars exhibit focus breathing.

The Kia Rio starts at $13,600.

The Ferrrari 458 Speciale probably costs 20x that.

You might be disappointed that the Kia can't take a corner at 60 mph or go 0-60 in a couple of seconds, but you should be just as disappointed that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny don't really come and bring toys and candy to little boys and girls. None of these expectations are realistic.

And the issue of focus breathing is relevant particularly so for video users

I didn't say that it wasn't. I said/meant/implied that being surprised/disappointed by it in a sub $200 lens was ridiculous.

Back when I shot film, Canon made a piece of crap plastic 28-70 3.5-5.6 lens (the so-called "plastic fantastic" that was literally a throw in/throw out lens) and a 28-70 2.8 L lens. If you got a good copy of the latter (which I did) you could make some really nice images. If you had the former and compared them, even at f/5.6 it was Ford Pinto vs Mercedes SL class convertible (I guess I'm in a car mood today). Maybe even a bicycle vs the Mercedes. You shouldn't expect to be able to extract gold from a pile of manure and be disappointed when you can't. That's like, well, being disappointed after staying up all night and seeing that Santa did not shimmy down your chimney.

And, btw, focus breathing can be observed in the 24-70 2.8 II at all focal lengths, as well as in the 70-200 2.8 II.

Just because a relatively cheap lens has an STM does not mean it's not going to be a relatively cheap lens designed primarily for still cameras, STM or not.

Canon's Description:
A unique and indispensable addition to Canon's series of EF lenses, the new EF 40mm f/2.8 STM offers an ultra-slim and lightweight design. Incredibly compact in size, the EF 40mm f/2.8 STM delivers high image quality from the center to the periphery thanks to its advanced lens configuration including an aspherical element, a bright 2.8 aperture, and optimized coatings that minimize ghosting and flare while providing exceptional color balance. The EF 40mm f/2.8 STM's unobtrusive design helps the photographer avoid overwhelming their subjects with a large lens and to remain discreet in sensitive shooting situations with no compromise in performance. Its diminutive design is complemented by features such as a newly developed stepping motor for smooth and quiet continuous AF while capturing video with the Canon EOS Rebel T4i DSLR, a circular aperture (7 blades) for beautiful soft-focus backgrounds, and a short minimum focusing distance of only 0.98 ft./0.30 m.

It delivers the "smooth and quiet continuous AF while capturing video...". I don't see it promising more than that. In fact, it seems to me that it delivers well on its promises.

I disagree, my particular copy of the 40mm pancake performs more like a skateboard.  ;D  ;D

Anyways, you're right about having ridiculous expectations for such a cheap lens, despite the incredible value it actually is. Many people in these forums tend to have ridiculous expectations :)

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: I killed a Samyang!
« on: August 12, 2013, 09:25:10 AM »
Never drop a Samyang while mounted onto a pile of soft stuff, noted.  8)

Almost got excited. Almost.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: T2i upgrade to 6D?
« on: August 05, 2013, 06:55:10 AM »
Both of those lenses, in my opinion, are better on full frame. The 24-105 will distort more but the range will be more useful. The 40mm is a perfect normal lens on full frame. I didn't like my pancake on crop.

Canon General / Re: Canon Press Event on August 21, 2013
« on: July 30, 2013, 09:45:44 AM »
Or, a thought bubble like in comic books...

Canon General / Re: Canon Press Event on August 21, 2013
« on: July 30, 2013, 09:44:39 AM »
Oh snap. Well, it could just be an irrelevant yet fancy design on the invitation.

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 70D a New Benchmark in ISO Performance?
« on: July 30, 2013, 04:44:24 AM »
What I don't get is why it would need a dedicated processor when the digic 5+ is said to be 17x faster than digic 4. Still very much noticeably faster than dual digic 4. I know it's more megapixels, but wouldn't that at least shoulder the performance loss from lacking a dedicated processor?

Lenses / Re: Sigma 24-70 f/2 OS HSM Coming? [CR1]
« on: July 30, 2013, 04:26:17 AM »
We’re told this could be a Photokina 2014 lens

Boys and girls(any?), this is a [CR1] wild guess and be explicit: This lens would only be announced in end of September, 2014, more than a year from now...

... and by then it won't be in mass production but available in limited quantities, after all they're producing it not only for the Canon mount and new lenses always take time to be available everywhere.

And here I am, just having bought the Tamron 24-70 VC not a year ago...

The date and a high demand make very suspicious if the price could really be less than Canon's mk2, after all the Canon's price will have dropped in the meantime and even more facing real competition if the Sigma's af is better than Tamron.

Plus of course this will be large and heavy, it's not like Canon wouldn't be able to build something like this, they just gave in to pro photographers' demand with their mk2 to *reduce* weight rather than to build an impractical dream lens for moving about and handholding a long time: [CR1] doesn't change the laws of physics...

But isn't that the purpose of having a rumors forum? To make redundant yet professional sounding statements about related products in speculation? :)

Lenses / Re: Patent: Canon EF 50 f/1.8 IS
« on: July 24, 2013, 09:34:32 PM »
The argument for IS being used mostly for video is ridiculous. Like said previously, serious video use requires a support system just like some types of serious photography require a tripod. IS was introduced to lenses far before the video feature was introduced to DSLR. People used to argue often about NOT having IS in the body, which was also ridiculous since optical IS is better than electronic IS. They have IS on wide angle lenses like 24mm and 28mm now, why would it be impractical at 50mm? Just turn it off if you don't like it, or buy the old version. Or troll on out of here to another brand =P

Lenses / Re: Patent: Canon EF 50 f/1.8 IS
« on: July 24, 2013, 03:37:39 AM »
Jeez, all I want is a 50 1.4 that don't break by no reason, has typical ring type USM (read: more predictable/precise), doesn't extend when focusing and less hazy wide open.

Why is it so hard to get? I think Canon enjoys screwing with it's customers.

I'm currently having both Sigma and Canon 1.4 in hand. Shooting them side by side, it is pretty much clear than the Sigma is a far superior lens.

The front focus in near/back focus in far problem is the only issue I have with Sigma, but at least it is PREDICTABLE unlike the Canon.

If that 50 1.8 IS becomes the actual product, I will have to either pay to get my Sigma calibrated, or buy a new one and have it calibrated.

+1 not sure about the sigma 50mm but the non L canon 50mm lenses are lacking plenty of practical features. Sharp shots wide open would be so nice on the 1.4. Less distortion and CA on both and more rounded aperture blades is also nice. IS is okay but I wouldn't prioritize it over improved distortion, CA, build, AF accuracy, speed, and better bokeh quality.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 16