September 15, 2014, 11:11:35 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 - Zv

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 82
166
Lenses / Re: What about those lens weights?
« on: May 13, 2014, 10:51:04 AM »
It depends what I'm doing and where I'm going. On vacation I take most of my gear but for small trips and just day to day stuff I'm finding the EOS M is handier. There is something refreshing about being at a party and shooting casually with the EOS M and 22/2 lens. It leaves space in a small bag for other things like a flash and some radio triggers!

I have no issues with the weight of my FF lenses though, I actually like them to be a bit sturdy and meaty! All my L lenses seem to be a good size and fit comfortably in the hand. I wouldn't want anything heavier than about 800g though as the combined weight of all the lenses would be annoying when traveling. So yeah I'd say there is a balance between getting good image quality and how big and heavy I'm willing to go.

167
Wow... I really don't get Canon's pricing, especially at today's exchange rates.

The EF 16-35L F4 is $1550 USD here in Japan
and the EF-S is $460

America will remain the cheapest place to get lenses.

Don't worry that price should come down after the initial pre-orders are fulfilled. The 16-35 is on amazon.jp for ¥149,688 right now with the 10-18 for ¥42,228.

Though I agree that it's total BS that it's frickin made here and it costs more than it does to buy it in the U.S!

168
MTF looks nice but when will they update these older L lenses?

1998 - EF 35mm f/1.4L USM
2004 - EF28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM
1996 - EF 135mm f/2L USM
1998 - EF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM
1995 - EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM   
1996 - EF180mm f/3.5L Macro USM
1997 - EF300mm f/4L IS USM
1993 - EF 400mm f/5.6L USM
1993 - EF 1200mm f/5.6L USM   
1996 - EF200mm f/2.8L II USM
1999 - EF 70-200mm f/4L USM

The EF 16-35 f/4L IS supplants the 2003 - EF17-40mm f/4L USM.

Where is the EF 14-24mm f/2.8L USM that rivals Nikons or an L version of  TS-E45mm f/2.8 & TS-E90mm f/2.8?

In one way they already updated the 70-200s on this list when they added IS to them  ;)

The 1200mm was a one off, highly specialized, rare and expensive beast, you can't really put that one on the list since no one is expecting it to be updated. (Are they??)

The 200mm f/2.8 is rarely talked about, I guess they could stick IS in there and improve the optics but then you might as well just buy the excellent 70-200LII.

I agree with the rest though. That updated 100-400 was promised to us "after the 200-400 starts shipping in decent numbers." So that was just BS?   :o

I think the 28-300L isn't going to be replaced.
Why do you think the 300 f4IS needs replacing?

I also don't see the 35L being replaced soon. Later it will have amazing IQ, nine curved blades, weather sealing, and cost north of $ 2k.

I don't think the 300 f/4 needs replaced right now I was just eliminating the ones that probably won't ever be replaced. Maybe at some point in the future we'll see a refresh to the 35 1.4 too. I don't know much about the 28-300L but you're probably right about that one.

So that long list is really just down to the 100-400, 180 macro and 400 5.6 replacements that are overdue then.

169
I agree with the rest though. That updated 100-400 was promised to us "after the 200-400 starts shipping in decent numbers." So that was just BS?   :o
I'm angling on a revised 135 & 100-400 or 400/5.6.

Gave up on a 35/1.4 as I love my 40/2.8 pancake and and I just do much macro much.
but the 135 will be f2.8 an have IS added... sooooo not much point really since the 70-200 f2.8L IS II exists and you already have one don't you?

If it was f/2 with IS I would consider it but yeah I don't think it would go down too well if it was f/2.8 and IS. What would even be the point of that unless it was a non L dirt cheap STM plastic mount version.

170
You do realize that was a 38lb lens that cost around $120,000 ... right?

I'm sure the list of people that would welcome it would be close to nil.
20+ years of R&D can significantly lessen the weight and what people can and cannot afford really isnt any of our business.

So what? Let's say they shave 5 or even 10lbs from it. My guess is you still wont be handholding it and it will still have a front element the same diameter. That size of front element alone requires huge crystals that take about a year to grow!

Also it would be more economical to stick a 1.4x tele-convertor onto an 800mm super tele instead to give you 1120mm if that's the reach you need.

171
MTF looks nice but when will they update these older L lenses?

1998 - EF 35mm f/1.4L USM
2004 - EF28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM
1996 - EF 135mm f/2L USM
1998 - EF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM
1995 - EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM   
1996 - EF180mm f/3.5L Macro USM
1997 - EF300mm f/4L IS USM
1993 - EF 400mm f/5.6L USM
1993 - EF 1200mm f/5.6L USM   
1996 - EF200mm f/2.8L II USM
1999 - EF 70-200mm f/4L USM

The EF 16-35 f/4L IS supplants the 2003 - EF17-40mm f/4L USM.

Where is the EF 14-24mm f/2.8L USM that rivals Nikons or an L version of  TS-E45mm f/2.8 & TS-E90mm f/2.8?

In one way they already updated the 70-200s on this list when they added IS to them  ;)

The 1200mm was a one off, highly specialized, rare and expensive beast, you can't really put that one on the list since no one is expecting it to be updated. (Are they??)

The 200mm f/2.8 is rarely talked about, I guess they could stick IS in there and improve the optics but then you might as well just buy the excellent 70-200LII.

I agree with the rest though. That updated 100-400 was promised to us "after the 200-400 starts shipping in decent numbers." So that was just BS?   :o


172
I welcome IS in a UWA. There are loads of advantages that aren't as obvious right away like when you start using filters that eat up one or two stops of light such as a CPL. We've all been there where you go from outdoors to indoors, go to take a shot and realize the polarizer is still on!

Also, I dunno about you guys but I'm shaky even at 1/50s which if we are to rely on the 1/focal length rule should be OK for 35mm shots handheld (using last decades low res camera??). I've found myself shooting at 1/10s @ 17mm and still having to bump up the ISO to get a decent amount of DOF for sunsets and blue hour shots. IS sure woulda been nice there!

There might be some who like to shoot HDR handheld or exposure blending in which case this could be just the ticket?

Second curtain sync flash also comes to mind ...


173
Lenses / Re: Before you buy your next prime...
« on: May 08, 2014, 12:03:34 PM »
It was a close call for me yesterday, but I got the TS-E 17 in the house.  I threw it on the camera and told my wife I wanted to take some pictures of the house because she had it decorated so pretty :).  She looked at the lens oddly for a second but I told her that I rarely use this one because, "It's not exactly a portrait lens" and that's why it looked a little strange.  She's not stupid, though, and she probably knows I'm up to something...

I'm sure it's not the first bulbous end she's seen!  :P

174
I like the sound of the 16-35 f/4 with IS. A lot of my wide angle stuff is done while on vacation and without a tripod I'm usually cranking up the ISO quite high to maintain a decent amount of dof. I wouldn't be too bothered by the loss of 5mm on the long end if I did trade up my 17-40L for this anyway. The 24-105 has that covered.

I feel like there have been quite a few wide angle zoom rumors that something is finally going to emerge from it.  :D

The EF-S one doesn't seem all that great an idea, so it has less range than the current 10-22mm plus it's slower with a varying aperture through 8mm of zoom range? That seems stupid. What's the plus here? Just Image stabilization?

APS-C users already have one stabilized lens with a 24mm equivalent fov in the form of the 15-85mm f/3.5 - 5.6 IS USM.

If I really needed an APS-C wide angle with stabilization wider than 24mm, I'd go with the EF-M 11-22 f/4-5.6 because if you don't have a tripod then chances are it's because you're moving around a lot or saving space.

175
Lenses / Re: Before you buy your next prime...
« on: May 07, 2014, 02:31:21 AM »
I have always just bought lenses as I needed them. No strategy, just common frickin sense!

Even with just 6 FF lenses that I have now it feels like I have too much choice and redundancy. I'm always looking for ways to combine and reduce my gear and I could probably survive with just 2 zooms but then again ..... where's the fun in that? Gotta have a couple of fun lenses in the bag I reckon!


176
What's to prevent other companies from patenting their lighting secrets? Pretty soon we'll have no way to legally light a subject!

I mean, does the DMV have a patent for ugly and harsh lighting? If not I'm taking that one. Think of all those on camera pop up flash shots that are taken every day! I could make a fortune!  ;)

What about the sun?  :o

177
Thousand Thanks to all of my dear friends.
Yes, I just get the new/ Awesome/ Cheap Rokinon FE 14 M-C 14 mm. , F/ 2.8 Yesterday, And I Start to use this Baby, and fell in love with her Sharpness at F= 2.8, to F = 11, And just set  Manual focus at 6 Feet( Put the Electrical tape to not let the focus ring move) and get the most awesome Photos for super wide angle.
Yes, I will post and share the photos with you to see with in 2-3 days, Because This week, I am so busy at my work in my office.
Yes, Dear Friend, I will have DIY for filter holder , for this Lens for you to see and laugh at , too.---Yes, It work for me, And I only use the Part/ Equipment that I already have---You will love this DIY.
Have a great work week.
Surapon

Yes! I can't wait, I love this little lens and all it needs is some filters to make it even more awesome (yeah I know Samyang make their own ones but I want a Surapon DIY one!).  :)


178
Software & Accessories / Re: Microfibre Cloths for Lens Cleaning
« on: May 05, 2014, 12:56:01 PM »
Thanks for all the feedback and terrific suggestions. I had no idea this was going to turn into such an interesting topic. I have always just used a microfiber cloth to clean my lenses but am now considering some of the suggestions above.

Btw - what's wrong with putting the microfibre cloth in the washing machine? What happens to it?

When I was collecting crystal whisky glasses I was advised not to dry them with a cloth that had been washed with softener as it, and other chemicals we tend to put in washing machines, can cloud the glass. How this correlates to the glass found on camera lenses I do not know, but I tend to just get new cloths rather than wash them. That said, the guy I was chatting to has never had a problem washing his, in fact he wishes the company were still producing them.

I don't think it's a huge issue but I can see the potential for problems depending on what the cloth is exposed to in the laundry process.  I agree that cloth can retain various chemicals or compounds from a wash process.  If I were to wash an important item like a lens cloth, I would probably just hand wash it so I can control what is introduced to the cloth in the form of dirt or other contaminants from other dirty items, soaps, grit, etc.  All you are trying to do is remove some light oils, dust and light dirt from the cloth anyway.  Woolite or some other delicate detergent would probably work great, then simply hang dry the cloth.  If you've ever held a dryer softener sheet, you will get an idea what is left on clean clothes in the dryer.  Nice for skin maybe but not for leaving smudges on lens glass.

Yeah that's a good point I don't want left over detergent / softner or lint on it plus our washing machine isn't the best at completely removing all that junk! I think I'll just hand wash them from now on. Thanks for the tip!

179
EOS-M / Re: Where is the M-3 with the dual pixel sensor!!!!
« on: May 05, 2014, 12:47:44 PM »
Take your pick of currently available systems from Fujifilm, Sony, Olympus, Canon or Nikon. Loads of MILCs to choose from. Why wait for some mythical M3 that will prob never see a US or Europe release?

The current gear available today is more than good enough. The only limitation is the photographer.

In my opinion your last sentences are mostly true.

I love my EOS M because it has two real advantages:
  - small and lightweight
  - standard zoom is much better than the equivalent standard zoom for DSLRs

O.k., manual mode is awkward in terms of control, an EVF would be very helpful.

But: Give that camera
  - a control wheel near the shutter release button (e.g. for exp time) and
  - a second control wheel concentrically to the lens mount (e.g. for aperture) (like S95 etc.) and
  - an ISO wheel +
  - a tiny LCD which shows just aperture, exp time, ISO and remaining shots/minutes.
  - a larger battery (with it's compartment acting as substantial hand grip)
and that camera is a winner for a lot of people - for these who enjoy photographic tools and are willing to pay e.g. 1000 $/€ for such a body. And it might be a winner for Canon: Advertising for a series of feature oriented EOS M like bodies (larger display, Wifi, 2nd display for selfies, etc.)

For me EOS M has replaced the S95 successfully as "always with me"-camera with extended capabilities and much better image quality especially at ISO bigger/equal than 400 ASA.

Me too. I take it places I wouldn't normally take my DSLR. Even with just the 22mm f/2 it's very versatile but the fact that you can stick all kinds of lenses on it via an adaptor makes it even more fun!

I kind of see it's shortcomings as a challenge. I say to myself "hey I wonder if I can do such and such with only my EOS M". I've tried off camera flash with it, a bit of macro, long exposures, events, holidays ... the list goes on. Each time it performs better than I expected it would. As a second camera for Canon shooters it rocks!

Regarding ISO - you can change the trash can button (down press) to bring up the ISO menu and use the wheel to change it.

I wish you could remap the movie rec. button though, that one seems like it should have had a dual purpose. I'm thinking back button focus would have been sweet!

180
EOS-M / Re: Where is the M-3 with the dual pixel sensor!!!!
« on: May 05, 2014, 12:32:58 PM »
Take your pick of currently available systems from Fujifilm, Sony, Olympus, Canon or Nikon. Loads of MILCs to choose from. Why wait for some mythical M3 that will prob never see a US or Europe release?

The current gear available today is more than good enough. The only limitation is the photographer.

wrong. dead wrong.
The current MIRRORLESS gear is nowhere near "good enough". Most definitely not the Canon EOS-M and M2.

Not good enough in terms of AF speed and performance. Only 2 MILCs are currently equipped with a remotely tracking-capable AF system - Fuji XT-1 and Nikon 1, but the latter has way too small a sensor.
Not good enough in terms EVF - resolution, color, lag ... while better than before, still suck, even in the best MILCs (Fuji XT-1).   
Not good enough in terms of shutter - not one MILC with a fully electronic global shutter yet. 100% silent. 100% free of vibrations. And X-Sync all the way to 1/8000s.
Not one MILC good enough in terms of battery charge ... 500 shots plus.

I also want a compact Canon EOS M3 with a better sensor, fully tracking-capable AF [@ 5+ fps], state of the art Retina-EVF and decent battery charge for 500+ shots.  At a reasonable price - meaning 100 USD€ less than the cheapest comparable mirrorslapper.

Nothing will ever be good enough for you! We've heard this rant a million times.  ::)

If you can't take a decent picture with current technology you are doing something terribly wrong with it. I didn't say the current MILCs were ideal for things like the Olympic games or chasing down wild animals on a safari but for the average use it is more than capable.

Heck even an iPhone is good enough for some really skillful photographers (I am not one of them and I need DSLR, I'm not afraid to admit that even then I kinda suck sometimes  :P )

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 82