Messages

481

Canon General / Re: remote control your DSLR with your smartphone

« on: August 05, 2011, 09:06:00 AM »

Well, a iPod-to-remote cable would be a pretty slick accessory if it were done well. 

Hell, once iOS/OS X merge, the USB-control via app wouldn't be that far fetched.

482

Canon General / Re: Canon 16-35 f/2.8 DO Patent

« on: August 05, 2011, 08:59:55 AM »

IS is not mentioned in the patent.  The patent is all about using DO elements in a wide angle zoom to reduce CA.  I doubt if we will see the exact lenses covered in the patent, but we may see a IS version.

That's (potentially good news), I know a lot of people really rag on IS, but, in lieu of time to set up/use a tripod, it's been pretty helpful to me.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do not think there are any EF lenses with IS (not EF-S!) that do not reach at least 100mm.  Therefore, I doubt this (or even the oft-rumored 24-70mm f/2.8L II) will have IS.

Wow, I just checked and that (currently) appears to be the case . . .

483

Canon General / Re: Canon 16-35 f/2.8 DO Patent

« on: August 04, 2011, 04:32:51 PM »

I didn't see it anywhere . . . how likely is it to show up without IS?

http://www.canonrumors.com/

FUNNY.

I meant, I don't see that it says it's image stabilized anywhere.

I remember from another patent that some feature was supposedly added later but not on the original patent.

To that ends, I was wondering what the possibility of a replacement 16-35 showing up without IS was.

484

Canon General / Re: Canon 16-35 f/2.8 DO Patent

« on: August 04, 2011, 03:42:19 PM »

I didn't see it anywhere . . . how likely is it to show up without IS?

485

Site Information / Re: Signature Creation

« on: August 04, 2011, 03:38:41 PM »

Kinda like the holga thread?

You don't get it!  The spammers adding those advertising signatures by the thousands turn CR into a link farm.  this creates a risk that Google and other search engines would ban CR, since the purpose is to fool the search engines into believing a particular site is popular and raising its rank in the searches. 

Unpaid volunteer CR moderators have to search thru thousands of posts to find and remove the signatures that are bogus.

   I was referring to the fact that the "member" base tripled overnight, probably from a single script source.  I get spam, and I GET spam . . .   I'm not sure how you got that I was advocating making it easy for spammers or that mods have life easy.

BTW, what are these 'other' search engines besides Google of which you speak? (That was another joke . . .)


Edit: Looks good!:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,1442.0.html

486

Site Information / Re: Signature Creation

« on: August 04, 2011, 01:32:17 PM »

I think there is a good reason why they decide on a case by case basis when to lift the restriction, having a automatic change after x posts will just let spammers modify their posting software to make that many posts.

Kinda like the holga thread?

487

Canon General / Re: Canon 16-35 f/2.8 DO Patent

« on: August 04, 2011, 12:32:25 PM »

I hate to ask this, but what is the point DO? I just read some reviews of the 70-300, and they aren't good, so why do another one?

I have the 16-35mm, and while it is pretty sharp it isn't super sharp. I've been thinking about swapping to Zeiss as none of the Canon wides test that well, except the 24TS which seems to be the one absolute stand out in quality.

DO just means it's going to be more compact if I understand correctly.

I don't know how the 70-300mm performs, but I have it's non-DO cousin and I'm not enamored with it.

488

Canon General / Re: Canon 16-35 f/2.8 DO Patent

« on: August 04, 2011, 08:02:04 AM »

Anyone else thinking a $1800-$2500 price tag here?

489

Canon General / Re: 15% off sale...

« on: August 03, 2011, 01:22:27 PM »

Try the using one of the following two coupon codes:
 
JR0HWC17
JRQVUM0N
 
Note that the coupon codes have not been working for everyone.

Someone on another forum reported getting a broken one to work after switching browser . . . so it could be cache or cookies dependent.  Not sure if that's true though.

Some guys were able to score refurbed 24-105mm L

490

Lenses / Re: EF 70-200 F4 L IS or 70-200 F2.8 L

« on: August 02, 2011, 10:11:27 PM »

Whilst everyone jumps in with the biggest most costly options, a lower cost option is the 70-300mm non L, which although isn't great in low light, works fine for me in terms of getting the occasional long shots - it has IS which helps, but for less than the price of the 70-200mm f4 and half the 70-200mm f4 IS, it's a good bargain and the picture quality is pretty good...   Plus you get the extra reach to 300mm, I've paired mine up with a 15-85mm which is on my camera most of the time.

Wait, are you talking about the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM? 

I've been sorely disappointed time after time by this lens; grainy and low-res compared to pretty much every other lens in my collection  

We went up to Alex Bay last weekend and I have to say that the 70-300 shots were so grainy even on a 13" notebook that recomposing the shot and using the 24-105L seemed much more professional . . .

I'm definitely in the market for a higher quality telephoto.

491

United States / Re: I have to rethink my camera decision (7D vs 5d Mark II)

« on: July 28, 2011, 08:26:50 AM »

They said the 7D is allowed, but that we'll do so much landscape and architecture and portrait shooting that I'll be desperate for a full frame within the first year and that I should probably save up for one now. It's a very competitive school, though. Any person I've met who came out of it was phenomenal. It's a rigorous and unforgiving program and I think they're trying to deter the people who are just "trying out photography for fun" by requiring that you get top notch gear first.

Full frame is required for the 4th quarter (it's a 6 quarter program) because they start some very ultra wide angle stuff. A crop frame would not function. However, by then I would hope that I have a full frame camera. I absolutely LOVE the 5d mk ii. Love. I played with it some more today. The local camera shop is happy that I shopped there.

  I'm confused about that first part.  Landscape, maybe, but desperate for FF on portraits? 

492

Lenses / Re: The EF 8-15 f/4L Fisheye Has Landed

« on: July 28, 2011, 08:13:39 AM »

You can find the lens in eBay UK

You can also find an iPhone 5 . . . but they don't exist

I wonder how soon before lensrentals gets a few of these in (and can keep them in stock). 

So . . . since this finally happened, I'm now expecting to see the Cubs in the world series . . . I guess anything can happen.

493

United States / Re: I have to rethink my camera decision (7D vs 5d Mark II)

« on: July 27, 2011, 10:24:32 AM »

This whole debate is moot if the OP comes back and says the school wants her to shoot 35mm film for the first year or so...  Please get clarification on that... then once you got that figured out, see if your school have a free rental dept and can rent both digitals as your classes get to digital.  Heck by that time the 5d mark III may be out and you can purchase that, case closed.

If it's a 4-year school . . . the EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM could actually be in the wild before she finishes.

Maybe . . . 

494

Site Information / Re: CR0, CR1, CR2?

« on: July 27, 2011, 09:01:48 AM »

Exactly what I was looking for.

Now I see it on the page, it's position and design makes it looks like an advert which I think is why I skipped over it    oopps

Thank you
 

Yes, these days our minds just skips whatever seems to be an advert !

Exactly.  People go through GREAT lengths to block this stuff (thus, the website you're reading doesn't get paid for it) with software when it's just as easy to mentally screen it out.

495

United States / Re: What's your favorite area of the US to shoot?

« on: July 26, 2011, 11:52:40 AM »

New England; Fall Foliage --- excellent time to build your self-esteem as a photographer