April 23, 2014, 10:42:31 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 - wjm

Pages: [1] 2
Canon General / Re: Canon Hong Kong Announcement April 24, 2014
« on: April 22, 2014, 02:37:07 PM »
Probably their own 50 1.4 as they are about to lose out on a ton of money if they don't announce something before the Sigma is released.

The Sigma is indeed a amazing lens but there is a big price difference (about 950 versus about 399). Futhermore you also want to get the USB dock tot callibrate the Sigma. I expect Canon will suffer a drop in 50 1.2L sales ...

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Patent: Tamron 10mm f/2.8 Fisheye
« on: March 26, 2014, 04:43:46 AM »
"Vibration control" ?
A stabilised fisheye ? That's funny.

Maybe for video?

EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: EF 16-35 f/4L, 17-40 f/4L and Others
« on: March 10, 2014, 04:14:40 PM »
I'd really hoped for the 16-50/4 IS ...  :(

I will love to have a 16-50 f/4 IS too. But I don't think that's coming. It is probably a figment of someone's imagination. Sigh

While I can understand the desire on a 1.6x crop. I really can'y see any benefit of an IS unit on a full frame 16mm lens. If you need stability....then use a tripod. Should anyone really be hand holding less than 1/15th sec? If the shot is that important....put it on a pod, end of story.

Not everyone wants to hike with a tripod. I do a lot of forest hikes where I go minimalistic on the equipment. Forest environments were tailored for UWA lenses. Having IS would be great.

Yes, and even if you can bring a tripod: if IS can do the job why not use it? It is both technology to help the photographer. I don't always know what position I get in and I don't want to carry a tripod all the time (IS is a lot easier).

Futhermore: IS is handy for (quick) 'creative' stills and video in general. Not all people want it but to say: "put it on a pod, end of story" ... no ...

EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: EF 16-35 f/4L, 17-40 f/4L and Others
« on: March 10, 2014, 04:01:39 PM »
I'd really hoped for the 16-50/4 IS ...  :(

I will love to have a 16-50 f/4 IS too. But I don't think that's coming. It is probably a figment of someone's imagination. Sigh

How about this source of imagination:


But that is a f5.6. I want a f4 :)

There were rumors before of a 16-50:http://www.canonrumors.com/?s=16-50+is] [url]http://www.canonrumors.com/?s=16-50+is[/url]

EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: EF 16-35 f/4L, 17-40 f/4L and Others
« on: March 10, 2014, 10:06:33 AM »
I like the idea of having a 17-40 f/2.8-4 as long as it's sharp from corner to corner and maintains the current lens weight. :)

And half the price?  ;)

EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: EF 16-35 f/4L, 17-40 f/4L and Others
« on: March 10, 2014, 09:58:08 AM »
I'd really hoped for the 16-50/4 IS ...  :(

Would be nice on my APS-C (=25-80 (eqv) 'standard' lens) and my full frame (=wide angle). Would probably be an instant buy ...

Most wildlife filming is fake.... if you want real, be prepared to stare at the screen for 5 days to get that 30 seconds of interesting footage...

It's like my moose pictures.... go on a canoe trip and see no moose... another trip and no moose, another trip, no moose...(repeat a few dozen times).... go on a canoe trip, see a moose, take lots of pictures.... and then a few dozen trips with no moose... someone looks at my pictures, sees moose, and assumes that I see them all the time.
Good one!
For me fake is only when someone does a CG to recreate the whole scene ... but when someone has gone through countless hours of preparation and hardship to recreate a scene which we could otherwise not see on our own, that is not fake ... that is skill ... it is not necessary for the maker to tell everyone that he has done it in the zoo, because the important thing is the story, not how he got that story ... calling it fake takes away the person's skill and dedication to his/her craft.

And also: How would you e.g. ever get shots of a newborn polar bear (like in the article)? Better build a artificial den/nest with cameras in place then intrude an exicting one with te possibility of scaring the mother away (and let the new born die ...).

I think you can better make a 'set' and invite nature in, then intrude their own habitat. Animals only come in when they want to, if not ... bad luck for the film maker but nature stays undisturbed.

Lenses / Re: "General purpose" lens advice
« on: June 22, 2013, 02:43:22 PM »
The Sigma 1.4 is optimized for crop bodies, but has issues at the edges on FF.

Can you give a source? Because all I've read and heard about this less is good. Also from FF users.

IS is indeed a plus for video.

Lenses / Re: 70-200 Choices
« on: June 12, 2013, 10:30:10 AM »
You are forgetting the brand new Tamron 2.8 vc which is exactly at your budget MSRP ($1500).  It supposedly is as sharp or even a bit sharper than the canon vII.

If just bought this lens. I'm very satisfied with it up till now. AF is good (needed some micro adjustment), IQ seems good (no extensive testing yet).

PowerShot / Re: A New Large Sensor PowerShot Coming [CR1]
« on: May 08, 2013, 04:00:10 PM »
Same old 18GB sensor?

You clearly didn't read the first post ...

Lenses / Re: I have just lost confidence with Canon Rumors & B&H
« on: April 17, 2013, 08:06:35 AM »
I saw the headline "new bigger savings from B&H". The lens I purchased yesterday, the 24-70 f2.8 ii is now $2099 vs $2049 I paid yesterday. How is this better??? My attempt at posting this earlier was blocked.

And your previous attempt was probably blocked because some words you used in a very specific way. It happens automatically (the forum moderator doesn't and cannot read all posts). This is to prevent spam and offensive posts. If such post slips through this automatic detection forum members have to report it manually to the moderator (with the link: "report to moderator" which is under each post).

If you used words like "Bigger saving", "B&H" and named various prices in the 'wrong way' it might be flaged as spam. Try make a post with words like "onisac" of "nrop" (but then backwards of course: it will probably blocked right away).

EOS Bodies / Re: A Bit of EOS 70D Info [CR1-CR2]
« on: April 16, 2013, 03:35:18 AM »
Has anyone tested out the SL1's sensor yet? How is it performing? My bet is that the image quality remains the same. Canon would probably want to announce the 70D before the SL1 is released to the public because once they realize the IQ is not better than the old 18MP sensor, nobody is going to buy it.

There is a preview of the camera on dpreview (http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon-eos-100d-rebel-sl1/7). There are also test pictures. The high ISO ones (=6400) look quite fine to me. Noise seems well controlles (although it is hard to judge with limited pictures).

I think Canon should have made the 'new' sensor 19mp or so. This way people stop (intentionally) mixing up the new and the old one ...  :-\

Sorry, but I really don't see the point of your post. 

And on top of that: the OP is factual untrue. The 7d (2009) was released before the 550d (2010). Therefore the 7d can hardly be a repacked 550d ...

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Announcements on April 23, 2013? [CR2]
« on: April 08, 2013, 03:56:47 PM »
To pick one gallery, that exhibiting the work of the principal behind www.luminous-landscape.com, I imagine that the work being displayed has changed over time from being dominated by Canon sourced material to Sony/Nikon material if what he displays on the web is anything to go buy (and the fact that he no longer owns any Canon DSLRs.) Information about his gallery is at:

If you read enough of the essays from professional photographers that write for the above mentioned website then you start to realise that Canon no longer features like it used to as a tool used by artists, never mind photojournalists, etc.

But please tell me why, if I look at the workshop section at "Luminous-landscape.com", I only see people with Canon cameras ...

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 100D Coming? [CR1]
« on: March 16, 2013, 09:22:12 AM »
It was also mentioned that the price of the EOS 100D was “a bit expensive”.

Compaired to what? and EOS M or a Powershot or a 1DX  :o  ;D

Probably "a bit expensive" for what you get ...

Pages: [1] 2