December 20, 2014, 03:24:24 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 - IronChef

Pages: [1] 2
1
Canon General / Re: The best camera is the one....
« on: April 27, 2013, 08:08:54 AM »
.. the one you have with you.

2
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 100D Detailed Specs Appear
« on: March 22, 2013, 05:04:55 AM »
The 100D still bigger than the OMD. Especially with when you attach a big lens on it.
http://j.mp/Yd9RVG


I don't see the 100d succeeding. DSLR's have their strengths and Canon should focus on that. Things like ergonomics, functionality and autofocus. The 100D isn't good at these things and isn't that compact either. What's the point?

How can you say that? It's small but it can still be very usable for people with small hands. When it comes to functionality, what do you mean? I think creative modes etc will be very functional for its' target market. Autofocus- compared to what?

I'm sure it's useable for people with small hands, but generally it's not as ergonomic as a bigger DSLR. The 700D has better specs and is just $100 more. The 100D it isn't that more compact.  The problem is the thickness http://j.mp/13hzTJb. Thick items will bulge your bag much more than thin and wide items, like books or magazines. Also, the lenses are still big.





3
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 100D Detailed Specs Appear
« on: March 21, 2013, 06:40:51 PM »
The 100D still bigger than the OMD. Especially with when you attach a big lens on it.
http://j.mp/Yd9RVG


I don't see the 100d succeeding. DSLR's have their strengths and Canon should focus on that. Things like ergonomics, functionality and autofocus. The 100D isn't good at these things and isn't that compact either. What's the point?

4
There should be an RX1 variant with 24-105 F4/F2.8 lens.  Add a battery grip like the Fuji XPRO and this would be almost perfect for most usage.  The 35mm even if it's F2 isn't that interesting enough for its price of 3K.

A lens like that would be huge and defeats the whole purpose of the camera.
+1 however, the above comment regarding the 35mm f/2 lens is valid. A similarly sized camera with exchangeable lenses though ...  ::)

But you also have to consider that it's not just a 35mm f/2. It's probably the best 35 mm f/2. The lens crazy sharp. Sharper than the famed Sigma 35 f/1.4.




Also the bokeh is butter smooth. Which is hard to achieve on a wide angle lense. http://neilvn.com/tangents/bokeh-sony-rx1-vs-nikon-35mmm-f1-4g/


5
There should be an RX1 variant with 24-105 F4/F2.8 lens.  Add a battery grip like the Fuji XPRO and this would be almost perfect for most usage.  The 35mm even if it's F2 isn't that interesting enough for its price of 3K.

A lens like that would be huge and defeats the whole purpose of the camera.

7
New review from lensrentals.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/metabones-magic

Seems to do as promised in the whitepaper.

8
EOS-M / Re: To buy M or not to buy M?
« on: January 20, 2013, 11:06:03 AM »
Like all other companies Canon will place the M cameras in their lineup in such a way that they won't cannibalize anything else. This means that - even if they could make it so - the M series will never be as good as a DSLR except possibly at the low end DSLR, high end M. Canon probably decided to do the line because of competitor pressure, and it provides a stepping off point into DSLR's.

So for an existing DSLR owner why would we get a M, other than for the cool factor? As a smaller body complement to our existing system. We can use our existing lenses, but if we do so then it kind of defeats the purpose of having a smaller complement to the system. Anything above the 40mm pancake will be a monster on that body, and you have to use an adaptor.

So ... using it for it's best purpose, as a small side camera for those times you can't bring a DSLR, look at this



Here we have a DSLR with a pancake next to the M. Sure the M is smaller and lighter, but is it that smaller? I see maybe an extra inch vertically and horizontally at maximum. Indeed, when I put the shorty-40 on my 5DmkII I have a really tiny, lightweight camera. I barely notice it, and I have the full power of the existing DSLR (speed, focus, IQ, features, etc). I don't have a hugely quiet body, but if I had a 5DMKIII then I could use quiet shutter mode.

So ... EOS-M isn't for me. The small reduction in size isn't large enough to warrant the price tag and extra equipment. For the cost of an EOS-M you could get a duo of pancakes, the 40mm and Voightlander 20mm.

I got the Fuji x100 as a side camera for those times when a DSLR wouldn't work. There are a few occasions where it's great, so small and unobtrusive (and quiet) that the DSLR would have been too much. Most of the time though it sits unused.

You show a comparison with the 650D, which  has a smaller consumer body already, and than talk about a 5d, but I find the difference between the M and a 5d  pretty big actually.

http://j.mp/Xsbc3j


And the 64mm equivalent you get from a 650D with a 40mm is a bit to much for a standard prime.

9
Actually they are called focal reducers.  They have been around for some time typically used on telescopes and spotting scopes.  While they say they can correct for aberrations you can be sure that wont be the case with anything but one lens.  Further it's highly unlikely that thy would improve the mtf and in all likelihood would make it worse.

It's a cool gimmick but just like extenders you won't get something for nothing.  If it were that easy we would have extenders that would improve resolution as well.

Read the white paper. The analogy with extenders doesn't hold, because it does exact opposite of a extender. Extenders magnify the image and also magnify aberrations, while focal reducers reduces it by compressing the image. There are up and downsides using a focal reducer. Good design is the key here.

10
Here's the white paper
http://www.metabones.com/images/metabones/Speed%20Booster%20White%20Paper.pdf

According to this paper, the Speed Booster can reduce aberration and can therefore increase MTF. Everything seems really good, maybe too good. Can't wait to read some reviews when it's released.

12
I want Canon to make an affordable 23mm f/2 EF-S as a walk around prime. I find the 56 mm equivalent focal length of the 35mm f/2 a bit too much. I know that they just released the 24mm f/2.8, but both the price and f-stop are a bit too high. A crop version might make it easier to design.

13
2008 450D 

 8)

14
Lenses / Re: Help me decide; keep my 35L or get a 50L?
« on: October 24, 2012, 05:58:04 AM »
I would consider the 50 f/1.4. According to photozone and lenstip, the 50L isn't that good. It's nice that it can go to 1.2, but you will give up image quality and it's a lot more expensive. So unless you really need the f/1.2, I would go for to  50 f/1.4.

15
Canon General / Re: Rockwell knocks one out of the park (no kidding)!
« on: October 17, 2012, 05:49:20 AM »
Quote
We all know you just don't read online chat rooms to select the best brands of canvas, oils and brushes, and once obtained, just sit down and fiddle with them for a while and great paintings pop out. You have to know what you want to paint.

You don't research clay and tools, buy them and have sculptures spring forth.

If clay and tools costs thousands of dollars, people will search for the best brands. Silly analogy.

Pages: [1] 2