July 31, 2014, 05:28:20 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 - Edwin Herdman

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 37
Nikon including all compatible lenses isn't that misleading at all since those lenses are mostly still compatible (depending on the body), and also people tend to forget that SLRs actually cost money back at the start - so there were less of those lenses than there are today, as Woody's post recaps (30 million total by 2001).  Even Canon's 1987 launch lenses are likely to have worn out today, so if anything, it would be misleading to say that no-longer-serviced lenses could be counted.  In practice, there will be working samples of nearly any lens type for both systems.  (I've got an Ed Mika adapter for one of my lenses too.)

EOS Bodies / Re: Is This the EOS 3D?
« on: June 22, 2013, 07:51:00 PM »
By the way: When I was on the F1 race in Monaco some weeks ago, I saw an photographer with the 200-400 4.0, using an unknown camera, as old fashioned as these pictures, without an extra eye-finder.  A quadratic camera with no esthetic forms. Like self-built. But it was definitively not self built.
I wonder, if another company uses the Canon mount? But wich one?
Aside from a video camera, it could've been a sound blimp.

Lenses / Re: New 100-400 to Launch with EOS 7D Mark II [CR2]
« on: April 25, 2013, 05:07:03 AM »
I'll be interested to see how this works out, but it doesn't strike me as much of a savings when I've had, for roughly the same price, the ol' 120-300mm + 2X TC combo for a long time.  Fills the niche better for my purposes, although of course that won't be true for everyone.

Lenses / Re: EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x Available Mid 2014?
« on: April 25, 2013, 05:04:33 AM »
Perhaps Sigma will be out with their new 120-300mm f/2.8 OS Sport lens before long and throw in a 2x converter with it.
What's this mean?  I've had that lens combination since it came out.  Do miss the focus limiter switch of the new model but don't miss the price.  Only thing I don't like is the inherent clumsiness of detaching a 2X TC, and the rather offputting OOF blur performance in some shots.

Other than that, though, sure 400mm f/2.8 would be a grand improvement but I actually do often find the zoom useful at times in wildlife shooting (usually going from extreme close - i.e. roughly 240mm before factoring in crop factor - to extreme long, roughly 560mm again before the crop), and the weight of the 120-300mm + EF 2X Extender III is already close enough to unmanageable handheld that I would think twice about going to a 400mm.  Of course I don't spend hours sitting in blinds; I just walk all over the place and try to get closeups of critters.  Works surprisingly well on many things.

ha, Canon.  :D

EOS Bodies / Re: *UPDATE* A Bit of EOS 70D Info [CR1-CR2]
« on: April 18, 2013, 02:30:56 AM »
Looks like a 7D for SD card users.

It'll be interesting to find out the weight and dimensions on this.  It won't replace my 7D but it surely could be a great upgrade to people who want a smaller SLR.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma Launches the Sigma USB DOCK
« on: January 10, 2013, 01:34:31 PM »
120-300mm's AF performance has been pretty consistent for me on a 7D.  When it hunts, that's generally due to very low lighting or me hitting the AF-ON button when peering through tangles of branches.

I'm actually interested in this thing - I hope it is compatible with the "original" 120-300mm OS, although I would not be too hopeful that it will get firmware updates from the "new" 120-300mm OS (with the focus limiter switch).

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon D5200 Sensor is made by Toshiba
« on: January 10, 2013, 01:28:52 PM »
I hope that was a topic merge...I'm not sure which is more surprising, the news, or somebody duplicating the first post entirely :)

It was annoying that they did not include a focus limiter switch, and it's painful to see that they've now changed the design (and at such a price) to include what should've been there.  However, I feel that when I'm careful I can usually work around this problem.
Based on my experience and observations, the resulting images would not be acceptable.
That's not been my experience.  Did you look at the teleconverter-attached images at POTN forums?  With the EF Extender III I rarely have any problem with the 2011 version.

If you are shooting with a camera with smaller pixel pitch than the 7D and need critical resolution then there may be a problem.  Occasionally the images seem somewhat less than critically sharp - but only at 1:1 magnification (discounting focus errors of course).  I've got a good number of shots that are more than acceptably sharp in my view.  The weakness of the lens and TC combination comes when shooting at somewhat longer ranges against a busy background - occasionally (such as an image across a swamp / small lake) I have gotten an unacceptably busy rendition of OOF backgrounds.  No doubt the 200-400 will excel in this area, hopefully even with the TC active.

The 200-400 will be the single-lens option for wildlife if you cannot afford to remove the lens in the field (I admit this is somewhat burdensome to change), but 120-200mm has been useful surprisingly often and f/2.8 even more so.

After all these considerations, I would be reluctant to toss out the 120-300 entirely in favor of the 200-400 TC 1.4 - especially as it seems to excel in relatively close-up to medium range photography (although you have to work around the minimum focus distance - 1.5m at the wide end, and 2.5m at the far end - it is able to focus closer than many other lenses in this range).  The price on  the original model couldn't be beaten, either - maybe one of the better lens deals in recent times, and I hope the price increase doesn't reflect Sigma's belief they sold the original too cheaply.  I was definitely limited by funds to that lens, however, and for that reason the 120-300 + TC combination will still be tempting compared to the 200-400mm.  It seems to handily beat consumer-oriented lenses in the 1X0-400mm and 1X0-5X0 (etc.) ranges.

Lenses / Re: "Native" ISO... is it real and does it make a difference
« on: November 22, 2012, 11:49:34 PM »
Thanks Marsu42 and Mark, too.  I guess I'd better have a look at Magic Lantern then!

Lenses / Re: Hand held wildlife shoot 500 f4mk2
« on: November 22, 2012, 11:47:51 PM »
I would rather have to sacrifice some noise to keep the pixel density of the 7D image.  A bird photo that doesn't resolve any details isn't much good even if it's free of noise.

I think the 7D replacement should help these concerns to a large extent.

EOS Bodies / Re: !!!FIRST!!! - Full Frame Mirrorless Camera
« on: November 21, 2012, 06:34:32 PM »
Remember Canon's SedTVs?  Yeah, somebody carried the first (real) SedTV to an event for Canon, too.  It won't arrive on store shelves soon, if ever, of course, since they essentially dropped the technology.
Bodies come and go, but good glass should last for 20 years or more.
+100000  :)
I guess most of my glass is ready for an update then (and I wouldn't complain - especially with the 50mm)...

EOS Bodies / Re: Next year's APS-C vs. this year's FF
« on: November 21, 2012, 06:31:20 PM »
Yeah, less noise than the 5D Mark III is definitely wishful thinking.  The 6D appears to be improving significantly on the 5D, and it's notable in some situations, but for a better idea what a 7D to a Mark II improvement would look like, it'd probably be better to compare 5D Mark II images with the 5D III.  More time has lapsed since the 6D release but if the 7D releases in early quarters of next year it should be a roughly similar timeframe.

What I'm curious to know is whether there will be another APS-H system.  I'm not especially well set-up for one, lens-wise, but I would be able to get used to it, I'm sure.  If the sensor exceeded the 7D's resolution (or at least met it) taking into account sensor size differences, it'd be a worthwhile all-around upgrade, with the benefit of more light capturing ability and wider perspectives when needed, and by a fair margin.

APS-H reintroduction would also account for a new series name.

Lenses / Re: New EF-S Lenses Are Coming [CR2]
« on: November 21, 2012, 06:25:51 PM »
...a new “pro” APS-C camera, currently expected to be the EOS 7D Mark II.

I'm interested in this.  I wonder what 'pro' means?  I'd love a redesigned APS-C sensor with significantly lower high ISO noise, in a 1-series style body with the 1D X's AF system.  That's what 'pro' means to me...  :)
Given the pretty outstanding prices on the 5D III we're seeing, and the likely even lower price of the 6D, I wouldn't mind seeing a high-resolution APS-H sensor - so long as it still represents a per-area resolution increase over the 7D.  It would be awkward to work with, though, so I'm sure that's not a terribly popular opinion.  I'm assuming it'll just be an APS-C sensor and I'm already thinking seriously about going for whatever is released, if they can get anywhere close to the gains the 6D is showing (I'm hoping the quality increase will be at least as good as from the 5D III to the 6D, as we have every right to expect).

It'll be interesting to see what happens with the AF system - I don't think they could use the 5D's AF system because its AF points already cover over 50% of the viewfinder horizontally.  It would be great though.  I personally don't think they need to go all the way to 41 cross-type points, but any bump in the number of cross-type points would be welcome.  I think that just adopting some of the new controls (acceleration/deceleration adjustments for tracking, for example) out of the 5D, as well as the other general type improvements, would make it a worthwhile upgrade already, though they'll work much better with a dense AF grid, of course.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: T2i vs T4i for sports
« on: November 20, 2012, 07:28:46 PM »
My T1i along with its 135 f2 lens is remarkable for indoor sports regardless of conditions.  Getting world-class results.  If I could only figure out which zoom to get for outdoor sports.
Try the 120-300mm f/2.8 OS.  It is expensive though, and if you can afford that you probably would do well to look into a 7D as well.  A cheaper zoom in that range is more likely; Canon 100-400mm could work, as could a 70-300mm.

Did a quick and dirty comparison using shots from dpreview. Canon 6D against the 5D mkIII at ISO 102400. I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

http://i.stack.imgur.com/VVoQ6.jpg - or attachment

This in a nutshell.  I was astounded at how that little guy looks now.

I looked at some of their leaf photos around 3200 and 6400 - amazing detail, although not at the full res, but definitely enough to make me blink.

I am tamping down my expectations, though, for a 7D successor simply because of the APS-C size sensor.  But this is certainly encouraging that things might get even better for that camera.  Better autofocus capabilities yet - including f/8 - will be the main draw, though.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 37