December 19, 2014, 01:48:34 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 - moreorless

Pages: 1 ... 32 33 [34] 35 36 ... 45
496
EOS Bodies / Re: Latest Canon disappoints wants me to switch over to Nikon.
« on: February 08, 2012, 10:50:12 AM »
I'd point out that the Nikon 24-70 doesnt have IS and costs $1900, whats more with Nikon you don't have the option of a good quality F/4 normal zoom given the 24-120's shortcomings compaired to the 24-105's.

When your dealing with these monster megapixel counts my guess is that theres going to need to be more of a movement back towards tripods anyway to get the best out of them.

497
As far as EF-S goes my guess would be that part of the reason for the 24mm and 28mm's being revamped is to potentially sell them to crop users as 40-45mm standards.  Add in IS aswell and you have the potental for a very compact and versatile setup on a Rebel.

At f / 2.8? That's so slow: in most circumstances outside of landscapes, I suspect most photographers would rather have the Canon 28mm f / 1.8 or Sigma 30mm f / 1.4, shoot at 2 – 2.4, and, if people are involved, increase the shutter speed.

I posited this elsewhere, but perhaps Canon is using these two lenses as "test run" to see if people really value IS and will pay substantially more for it.

Landscapes are going to be part of most peoples general purpose shooting I'd guess plus with the Sigma your looking at a lens that weighs twice as much.

In todays market with decent high ISO and mirrorless options the worth of primes has I'd say become more about space saving.

If anything else follows I'd guess it will be the 35mm f/2 and 50mm 1.4 rather than any of the long/more specialist lenses.

498
EOS Bodies / Re: How does Canon respond to the D800?
« on: February 08, 2012, 12:58:05 AM »
Obviously, the higher the MP, the more noise you are going to get at high ISO, or at least the more the noise will be magnified.

Your statement make no sense!
The number of MP itself will not affect the amout of noise but the higher MP sensor will give a higher image quality (less noise vs resolution) than a lower MP sensor at high ISO because of the efficiency of nose reduction algorithms.

This is often repeated but to me the comparisons between the new Sony 24 MP crop sensor and the old 16 MP one seems to show that it wasnt the case. When the former was down rezed to the latters size it was clearly still the noiser of the two.

Personally I'd be looking to buy a high MP body if I did upgrade to FF but I do question how much of a market there is for that. The really high end studio/landscape users will go MF, the wedding photographers will I'd guess want more ISO first and will the typical amature user print 30X20 to make use of such resolution? will he be willing to deal with diffraction becoming a big issue?

To me if the the 5D mk3 stats we've seen are correct then it does seem to hint that the D800 has caught Canon a bit on the hop(not now but whenever they discovered its stats) and has convinced them to shift across more of the 1DX features than they were planning to. Ultimately I'd guess losing a few 1DX sales is less important to them than potentially having users switch brands or indeed tempt Nikon users who arent satisifed with a high MP body to do so.

499
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II
« on: February 07, 2012, 12:30:20 PM »
So, why no IS?
- If you are interested in a fast lens - f/2.8, than you are most likely shooting in low light.  Otherwise, you would purchase the 24-105 f/4 IS.
- If you hand-hold, then you need to bump up the shutter speed to compensate, and thereby negate some of the "low light" advantage of the fast aperture.
- This is not a sports lens due to the focal length, (for the most par) - where IS isn't really needed.
- The focal range is in the general purpose/walk-around range.

So, a general purpose, low light lens, not for sports, and used with a tripod?

Without IS, this becomes a very expensive, really sharp, general purpose lens - but not a low-light lens.

Am I missing something?

It depends what your taking pics of I spose, the shutter speed to stop most movement will generally be faster than the shutter speed to prevent camera shake so IS wouldnt improve its low light ability for such subjects.

For landscapes I'd guess Canon's feeling is that less serious users will probabley go with the 24-105 IS while more serious ones will be happy to use a tripod when needed to really exploit the sharpness to the full.

Compaired to the 17-55 the 24-70 isnt as long when you take the crop into account which cuts down the need for IS a bit and its also a good deal heavier/longer. Maybe not so much of a problem on a 1D but this new version looks like it will balance much better on a 5D to me with both being around the same weight.

500
As far as EF-S goes my guess would be that part of the reason for the 24mm and 28mm's being revamped is to potentially sell them to crop users as 40-45mm standards.  Add in IS aswell and you have the potental for a very compact and versatile setup on a Rebel.

501
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II
« on: February 07, 2012, 08:44:16 AM »
I wouldnt get your hopes up for the Tamron given the negative effect IS had on the 17-50's image quality.

Personally I'd definately give up IS for IQ and size with a lens like this.

502
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 28 f/2.8 IS USM
« on: February 07, 2012, 01:58:32 AM »
No EF-S... Good...

But 2.8? Naah. and really both 24 and 28.... somehow strange...

I wouldnt say that stange, the two existing 2.8 primes at those focal lenghts didnt look to be selling well at all compaired to say the 35mm f/2 or the 50mm f/1.4.

Adding IS and potentially focusing on better performance at 2.8 does also allow them to seperate the market from the L's.

503
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II
« on: February 07, 2012, 01:46:31 AM »
Honestly it just looks like someone took a photo of that lens and photoshopped it. In fact that's exactaly what happened.

Oops, I believe its time for you to go away now.

504
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D X or Mark III Specs & Release Date? [CR1]
« on: February 07, 2012, 12:59:34 AM »
Possible Martin. Though, if that is the reason...why wouldn't Canon make all their L-series glass white? :) Canon just announced their new version of the 24-70 f/2.8 (II) and it's.........black!

Supposedly, it's to reflect more light and reduce the internal temperature.  The reason it's used on the tele lenses is that the fluorite elements in those lenses are more sensitive to heat. Or so Canon has said...it could still just be a marketing ploy...

A bit of both I'd guess, probabley some small advanatge and now that Canon has "claimed" the white tele if Nikon were to use it they'd merely be confused as one by most people.

505
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II
« on: February 06, 2012, 04:01:17 PM »
Proof the image is fake:

The lens is set at 24mm and is fully retracted. Canon lenses extend when they get wider, and retract when zoomed.

I don't see why thats "proof", the previous Canon lens retracted at 70mm but other similar designs from Sigma and Tamron havent.

506
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II
« on: February 06, 2012, 11:52:19 AM »
Something about this lens is odd... It just doesn't look right for some reason. I can't exactly put my finger on it but something seems off.

Maybe it's the lack of writing around the red ring. Or, does it look too small to anyone else? (despite the 82mm filter threads (which is also really odd))

I thought something looked wrong too.  The font used for the labeling (24-70 Ultrasonic) is the same as a traditional EF lens, rather than L lenses.  Also missing is the red lettering indicating mm near the focus/distance window.

If you hold your hand over the red ring, this lens looks more like a standard EF than an L.

Compair it to the 100mm L macro released recently rather than L lenses from several years ago and it looks very similar in design to me.


507
Lenses / Re: Three New Lenses~~~
« on: February 06, 2012, 08:00:02 AM »
If they could reduce the weight at the same time, I would be very, very happy, but I guess that is too much to ask.

Its hard to say for sure but as I said the impression I get is that its shorter than the Mk1, given that Nikon reduced the size of there 28-70 2.8 while still adding 4mm to the wide end I'd guess there may well be room for a size reduction.

508
Lenses / Re: Three New Lenses~~~
« on: February 06, 2012, 06:37:56 AM »
Little strange that the 24-70 seems to have a 82mm filter ring  :o

I wouldnt say that strange, the 16-35 2.8 went up from 77mm to 82mm in the mk2 didnt it? might be due to the wider front element but that pic looks a little shorter to me, looks like the lens is retracted at 24mm rather than 70mm aswell.

509
Lenses / Re: Three New Lenses~~~
« on: February 06, 2012, 05:58:03 AM »
It's very strange that 28mm and 24mm wide angel prime lenses have IS, any idea??

I wouldnt say that strange, on FF those are focal lenghts where many people are going to be stopping down for landscapes plus there both good potential general purpose lenses for a crop.

510
My guess would be that if we see anymore Canon maybe viewing the "X brand" as a way of focusing attension away from pure resolution. ISO performance and pixel quality are afterall the main selling points of the 1DX and the G1X over previous models and if rumours are correct the new 5D may have that advanatge over the D800, even the new 7D has often been rumoured to be sticking to 18 megapixels.

Pages: 1 ... 32 33 [34] 35 36 ... 45