September 02, 2014, 04:12:06 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 - CanNotYet

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 11
Lenses / Re: Poll: Most Wanted New Lenses of 2013.
« on: May 16, 2013, 11:08:35 AM »
Hmm, I saw this lens on ebay:

I think this range would be awesome for indoor sports/martial arts (like taekwondo) on a APS-C camera.
Can one hope for an EF-S 35-135 f2.8-4 USM?

I would buy it in an instant.

Lenses / Re: When is the New 100-400 Coming?
« on: May 16, 2013, 10:11:35 AM »
if you have sources to tell you that there are prototypes.

why donĀ“t they tell you at least if it is a push-pull design or not?

or is a push-pull design tested and a "normal" design?
I thought it was certain that it was NOT a push-pull? All rumors I heard point to twist-zoom, but I could ofc be mistaken.

I am however NOT considering this if it IS push-pull. From Canon's pov, they could also keep selling the old one, if the new one has twist-zoom. Some people prefer push-pull. Some don't.

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 70D & EOS 7D Mark II
« on: May 16, 2013, 09:59:43 AM »
Canon announces FF P&S?

EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« on: May 13, 2013, 03:39:57 PM »
Sporgon. One word: SX50 :)

I am also for the SL1.
Two reasons:
  • EOS mount. Gives you sooooooooo much more flexibility, if you want it.
  • OVF. An EVF can not in the foreseeable future compare to the responsiveness, resolution, and flexibility of the combination of the human eye and an optical system.

PowerShot / Re: Canon SX50 Review - Best Superzoom yet.
« on: May 13, 2013, 05:08:33 AM »
Have anyone tried this in a concert-like setting, (i.e. indoors, dark venue, lit stage)?
I am curious how it would perform, as you can basically zoom in so much that the poor lighting around the stage would not matter.

PowerShot / Re: Two New PowerShot Cameras Leaked
« on: May 13, 2013, 03:58:45 AM »
I returned my SX50 because my hands were too big,  I'm curious about the replacement.  I'd like to see touch screen,  wifi and GPS.  Touch screen and GPS might even convince me to try again once the initial price drops.  I think I can operate a touch screen with my big fingers better than the tiny controls.
This looks like the replacement of the SX500, not the SX50 (no viewfinder).

But I think it would be cool if the "bridge cam" turned out to be a "mule" for the EOS-M2. I could live with that form factor. Personally would prefer a viewfinder, but Canon might make one with and one without, like Nikon 1.

EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« on: May 11, 2013, 01:35:57 AM »
But convenience matters...and so gear matters. Or do you dispute that convenience matters?

Everyone's different.
That is also true. But it does not dispute my claim. I still say "convenience matters". For EVERYONE. NO exceptions.

A photographer can choose how conveniently they can take the pictures, depending on the situation and factors such as budget, availability, location, light and so on. But, I still claim that convenience matters to everyone. And usually, given the choice of getting the results with lots of effort, or with less effort, most will choose less effort.

Keep in mind this is to get the SAME results. Sometimes to get the same results the difference in convenience is so large that no one will choose above a certain difficulty level.

We can argue examples all day long, but there is no point. You are correct in that ANY picture taken with ANY gear, COULD also be taken with some other gear, but with a different convenience level.

Your claim is true. Gear is a convenience.

But so is mine. Convenience matters.

And so: Gear matters.

EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« on: May 10, 2013, 06:49:14 PM »
But convenience matters...and so gear matters. Or do you dispute that convenience matters?

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Color Bombs Kill Cameras
« on: May 10, 2013, 06:17:14 AM »
Olympus Tough series? Supposedly dust-proof. And you can rinse them under the tap afterwards. :)

My Tough 610 had no problems whatsoever being dunked in saltwater. Just rinse with fresh water after. Awesome camera.

EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« on: May 10, 2013, 03:24:16 AM »
Jrista, back off a sec. I got this one.

Let us try some elemental semantic logic instead. (this was long ago, so bear with me if I make technical mistakes) :)

Gear is a convenience. Ok, I accept this as true. in semantic logic this would be "X is Y", or "X=Y", where X is "Gear" and Y is "a Convenience".

But then I postulate my own assumption: "A Convenience is something that matters". This I say, as if you have the possibility to get the exact same shot (regardless of gear/skill/posistion etc.), it matters if you can do it easy, or if you can do it with great difficulty. There might be reasons to each, but it matters.

In semantic logic, this would be "Y=Z", where Y is still "a Convenience", and Z is "something that matters".

If these two are true, then you can replace Y in "Y=Z" with X, as "X=Y", and "X=Z".

Ergo, Gear is something that matters. :D

Back off-topic, or rather to other parts of off-topic:

On Canada calling Football Soccer and America being North and Central America too: I knew there was a reason it is called "American football" everywhere else, and not "USA football". :)

On the British coming up with this: Yeah, the British are notorious for meddling in sports, they have written the rules for sports they do not even practice, like "bandy", which is really weird. (I guess they DID practice it earlier?)

And on the testosterone sports: I have played Soccer/Football, Rugby, American Football, and Ice hockey regularly when I grew up. Should I be ashamed now? :)

EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« on: May 08, 2013, 06:26:23 PM »
The sport world is bigger than the U.S. and american football, its called soccer
Ahem. Nowhere else than in the U.S. it is called soccer. The name of the game is "football". Pretty logical, as you play it with your feet... :)

Reviews / Re: Review - Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM
« on: May 08, 2013, 02:15:12 AM »
Ankorwatt: I might be missing something here, but I get the impression that your comparison pictures are made with a 35L on a Canon body, and the Sigma on a Nikon body. Is that correct?

If that is the case, then I think your comparison lacks something, color rendition etc might be affected by other things than the lens... :)

That said, I would get the Sigma if I would choose between them. I would do that even if it was 90% as good as the Canon, as I am one of the price sensitive ones...

But now if it is 105% of what the 35L is (better sharpness, worse AF etc.), then the choice gets even easier.

I also rarely take pictures at 35mm that requires blistering fast AF, I am usually at 70 at above when that occurs. (although I see the point with kids at home)

Lenses / Re: Poll: Most Wanted New Lenses of 2013.
« on: May 07, 2013, 04:21:06 AM »
Joking aside, for me it's the 135L (1.8 or 2, either one, but with IS and even better optics) or the 14-24 2.8 that has little distortion and is very sharp.

Just curious, what's wrong with the current 135L?  ???

Nothing... but modern coatings and possibly f/1.8 would be even better.  I'd like IS in concept, but I don't think I'd like the price tag.  The current one is a bargain at ~$1000; an updated one would lose some of it's charm if it's was twice that.
+1 on this

EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« on: May 06, 2013, 09:50:47 AM »
Somewhere in my mind I have the feeling Canon might not be doing the 0.18 micron process at all, but instead going directly to the next one (0.12, 0.09 or 0.065 maybe?), and that is why they have such problems in getting it to roll.

It makes sense doing something like that when you have your own factories and do not want to upgrade them too often. Going to 0.18, just to do it all over again in 2 years? I don't think so. But, leapfrogging the competition and take them by surprise, and in the same time prolonging the active time of the process platform? Yes, I think I'll vote for that.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 11