August 30, 2014, 06:18:33 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 - Plainsman

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6
1
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: Today at 10:03:33 AM »
How much is Canon paying you to suffer and defend the brand?  If the threads bug you, don't read them.  Better yet, go out and take some shots.  As far as I can tell, the D810 is a Nikon-version of the 5D3, but with a substantially better sensor.  It's natural that people want more oomph out of their cameras and its natural for them to look at competing brands for validation of their choices.  Seriously, go out and take shots.

How about you don't wade in, missing the point by a country mile with worn-out, rote, flamebait clich├ęs?

The folk here who "defend" (which, incidentally, is an immature, immotive characterisation of what's really going on here) Canon, do so:

Because they don't appreciate lies, half-truths and irrelevances presented as "facts" - much less as show-stopping, catastrophic failures by Canon.

Because they know, from their own use of Canon equipment, that it can achieve anything they need a camera to do - which is, images (not pixels) of the most sublime image quality anyone might possibly wish for.

Because the whining about Canon's "sub-standard" sensors says more about the whiners (and their own failings) than it does about the sensors.

Simply put, they "defend" because that's the proper reaction to the bullsh*t. Other people who (God help them) might choose to visit Canonrumors to get some useful information about the capabilities of Canon cameras deserve a balanced view that pushes back against the interminable DR crap.

And it'll continue to happen for as long as the DR whiners continue to push their DR agenda, and as long as that agenda continues to mean sweet FA for the vast majoiity of photographers out there in the Real World.


"...bullsh*t"

"...sweet FA..."

Your words.....just about describe your rather aggressive over the top rant apparently in "defence" of Canon!
I bet Canon have never heard of you.
Just try and be a bit more open minded and less fanatical in your next post.

2
Lenses / Re: New Lens Information for Photokina
« on: August 29, 2014, 01:58:21 PM »
It's been 13 years, do you have any evidence to say DO isn't ready for prime time?  It'll take a lens release to show it...

Canon have stuck with DO because they want to, they want to make that square peg fit in out round lenses, and they will spend countless man hours on keeping it going for no other reason than they want to and they patented the heck out of it so they can. Sure in ten years (weren't we saying that thirteen years ago when the 400 came out) when DPP can "adjust" for the aberrations in post it might work, but seriously, who cares? When DO is ready  for prime time then bring it to market, I am all for it, in the mean time keep the people who pay the bills happy (us customers) with lenses we want, we need, and we can afford.

I think it is a pretty safe bet that it won't be dramatically different, why? Well the issues it has are at the core of what it is, so it will take a completely different approach, not a Canon strong point, to overcome it, or a different technology like re sampling or a different demosaic algorithm to work around. Something like AA filters and moire, we know what causes it, we know how to have sensors that don't have AA filters and don't cause moire, but we are just not there for a few generations yet.

At this point in time and tech DO is DOA.

Besides I don't want Canon focusing on a lens they make a loss on, and there is no way they have ever made a cent from any DO lens, I want them to make lenses they make profits on then they will have more R&D money and will make even better stuff.



"...DO is DOA"

How do you actually know that!!

If Canon do bring about an improved 400DO it maybe a signal that they have reached the end of the line with weight reductions on the big whites with current designs.
I am sure there would be a big market for a sharp 3kg 500/4DO or a 2kg 300/2.8DO.

3
Lenses / Re: New Lens Information for Photokina
« on: August 29, 2014, 09:39:25 AM »
Wow! a new 400/4 with ISII and improved optics surely.

Light in weight so tough competition for the heavier 500/4 and the possibility of a good 560/5.6 - probably much better than the 300/2.8 with 2xTc.

4
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 29, 2014, 09:24:43 AM »
It has better dynamic range (if you don't know how to maximise DR in Canon files), but that does not equate to "better image quality", and the 5D Mk III lacks for nothing in terms of overall IQ compared to the Nikon at the image level.

Agreed.

How many of these "Is Nikon better?" threads does this forum have to endure? I mean really...is Nikon paying people for this?


You are a sad person - is Canon paying you?

5
If we ever get this mythical lens it will quite likely not be 100-400....more likely 70 or 80-400 i.e. very similar in design to the Nikon/Sony equivalents with droopy optics at the long end!

The current optic is a fine example of engineering so let us be thankful.

6
Lenses / Re: Safari 300 2.8 Mkii or 200-400 1.4x
« on: July 17, 2014, 08:54:24 AM »
This year in October, I will visit the first time South-Africa, Botswana, Zimbabwe and the Victoria Falls. We will do several safari trips during that period. I did already read a lot of gear to use for capturing wildlife. However I stay with the problem of the big white lens I want to take with me on the 1Dx. The 70-200 2.8 mkii will be placed on my 5Diii. Also the 17-40 and probably the 24 1.4ii will go along.

I own a 300 2.8 Mkii, however I see that the 200-400 1.4 is a very versatile lens. Point is of cause the 4.0 max. aperture of the 200-400 against the 2.8 of the 300. On 400mm and 600mm reach they perform almost the same (400/4.0 or 420/4.0 and 560 5.6 or 600 5.6). The extra reach for the 300mm asks for using a 1.4 or 2.0 extender, but changing that is not that quick and I don't like to change a lot because of the dust. For that reason I think about buying/renting the 200-400 1.4 for that trip. Do I need the 2.8 for capturing early or late pictures together with the 1Dx? Or would you use the 200-400 1.4 on the 1Dx for the versatility of this zoom-lens.

What would you do 300 or 200-400 1.4 ? I can't take both because of the weight limit on the airplane.

Any other thoughts or remarks for the gear for this trip are also welcome.


You have ruled out the 400/4 DO IS. Just wondering why - given the low weight advantage of this little prime.

7
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II [CR1]
« on: July 13, 2014, 04:14:37 PM »
Also, just to point out...there are steep discounts on the 7D as Canon seems to be dumping inventory prior to the imminent release of the 7D II.  That does not appear to be the case with the 100-400L.  There are several possible reasons for that, and one is that the mystical white unicorn will elude us for longer...

That's a very good point - rather than rumours we should be looking for stock levels indicators when older lenses are getting difficult to get hold of.

Accepting what you say then the current 100-400L rumour might be just another myth to tease the faithful - at least for the time being.

8
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II [CR1]
« on: July 12, 2014, 05:00:42 PM »
Rotating zoom ring

Bummer.  :(

You'd prefer one that wouldn't rotate?   :P


Despite the controversy, I rather like my push pull 100-400.  Never had a dust problem...  I would welcome faster AF.  That's the only downside I have experienced with mine.  I would be (pleasantly) surprised if the price is $2400.

I agree - push pull is a very robust design and it is a retrograde step to give us a telephoto like the 70-300L although admittedly that is a good lens optically but is not as tough as the current 100-400 where the front optical assembly slides along a rigid tube.

9
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: A Summary of Sigma Lens Rumors
« on: July 10, 2014, 01:00:16 PM »
Surely 300-600/5.6 ie same front lens size as their 120-300.

With very moderate 600/300 ratio it should in theory mean consistent performance across the zoom range.

Best of luck to Sigma if they pull it off and actually make this one.

Unfortunately, the 120-300 weighs 3.39 kg, just over a kilo more than the Canon 300mm f/2.8 II. That is too heavy for me without a tripod or monopod.


...when you add a Canon 2x TC to the 300/2.8II then the weight difference is not very much.

The Canon 300/28 II with 2xTC III weighs 2.675 kg, which is 0.715 kg or 1lb 9 oz lighter than the Sigma 120-300mm, which some of would find to be quite significant held at the end of a camera.


....but actually to get the flexibility of a 300-600 you would need to carry the extra 1.4xTC in your kitbag so the weight difference is actually pretty negligible...

10
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: A Summary of Sigma Lens Rumors
« on: July 09, 2014, 08:53:38 AM »
Surely 300-600/5.6 ie same front lens size as their 120-300.

With very moderate 600/300 ratio it should in theory mean consistent performance across the zoom range.

Best of luck to Sigma if they pull it off and actually make this one.

Unfortunately, the 120-300 weighs 3.39 kg, just over a kilo more than the Canon 300mm f/2.8 II. That is too heavy for me without a tripod or monopod.


...when you add a Canon 2x TC to the 300/2.8II then the weight difference is not very much.

If you include the Canon 2x and 1.4x TCs the cost difference in favour of the Sigma could be considerable.

Canon's answer to this lens is the 200-400 which will reach 560 with built in TC. But this is an elite lens aimed at people with very deep pockets.

This Sigma could replace a lot of lenses in one package : 300/4, 400/5.6, 100-400, 400/4DO ....etc.

11
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: A Summary of Sigma Lens Rumors
« on: July 08, 2014, 04:54:17 PM »
Surely 300-600/5.6 ie same front lens size as their 120-300.

With very moderate 600/300 ratio it should in theory mean consistent performance across the zoom range.

Best of luck to Sigma if they pull it off and actually make this one.

12
Lenses / World Cup started - no sign of 100-400L Mk2
« on: June 14, 2014, 10:14:25 AM »
Never had much credence in the views held by some that this mythical lens might appear in Rio - but still early days etc. Miracles could happen.

Ultra secretive Canon treat their loyal expectant customers with contempt.

The least that the Canon hermit kingdom people could say is no replacement planned at all or replacement planned for 2015, 2016....2020 or whatever.



13
Canon General / Re: Canon Australia Laying off 10% of Workforce
« on: May 22, 2014, 10:42:28 AM »
This is probably all to do with the strong AUS$ or is it?

You would think that a strong local currency would result in increased Canon sales needing at least the same number of Canon support staff.


14
Lenses / Re: The Next \
« on: May 21, 2014, 07:50:15 AM »
With the announcement of the Tamron 150-600 and generally positive reviews, I wonder how much interest there really is in a Canon 100-400 if it came with a serious price jump?  Ok, sure it avoids long term compatibility concerns, will likely focus faster, be better built and hopefully will offer better image quality.  All of that definitely demands a premium over a third party lens.  But how much?  I know  my main use would be at the longer end and apparently the Tamron does ok up to around 500mm.  I'm not sure if the Canon lens would be on many people's radar if it stayed at 400mm and was priced at $2500+ as some are hypothesising.

Compared to the Tamron 150-600, the 100-400L is over 1 lb. lighter, close to 3" shorter, and delivers similar IQ through the overlapping range.  An updated 100-400L would be similar in size, deliver much better IQ, and that would put it on many people's radar, even at $2500+.


.....and Canon quality control must be a lot better than the made in China Tamron.
With the T you might be lucky to get a good one but then you might not...

15
Lenses / Re: The Next \
« on: May 21, 2014, 03:50:12 AM »
My 400 f/5.6 is plenty sharp - did well on safari last year - but would consider upgrading if the new lense has the measure of improvement optically that you would be entitled to expect after all these years. Pleased to hear they are reverting to a conventional zoom. 100-400 and 7Dii should make a great pairing - but that's about the price of a 1DX :-\
The 400F5.6 is definitely sharper than the 100-400. I did a side-side test between them a couple of years ago and the 400F5.6 was noticeably sharper.... My suspicion is that a new 100-400 would be sharper than the 400F5.6, but if they come out with a new 400F5.6 I'll be on it like a fat boy on a wedding cake! For my needs, that would be ultimate combination of reach/portability/quality.


I have to disagree with you there. I've done several tests recently between a new 400/5.6 and my old 100-400 on the 50D with AFMA checks on both and the 100-400 beats the prime on axis every time. The 400/5.6 - the second I have had - will be put up for sale shortly! Maybe your 100-400 was a below par version.

BTW on distant objects say 200m and beyond the image sizes are the same ie the 100-400 gives a true 400 assuming the 400/5.6 does the same.

Get on with it Mr Canon and gives us a new 100-400 with IS2.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6