June 30, 2015, 01:40:53 AM

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 ... 10
Lenses / Re: Did Sigma Beat Canon to an f/2 Zoom? [CR1]
« Last post by dilbert on Today at 01:24:44 AM »
While its certainly possible to make a f/2 zoom for FF cameras, making one with a 3X range is not easy to do, and a 2X range is not really very useful for general photography.  Making one with less than a 2X range is just a lets make something to brag about and see if it sells.

Are you calling the Leica Tri-Elmar 16-18-21 just something for Leica to brag about?
Or is that "not a zoom lens"?

The page at BHP says it's not a zoom lens.  That's really beside the point, though - I think the meaning of the statement was "making [an f/2 zoom lens for FF cameras] with less than 2X range is..."

I could be wrong, though.

So the Leica 28-35-50/f4 for full frame Leica cameras would also just be for bragging rights?
The s has always been added to a advanced version of the basic model numers.


Thus, the Canon 1Ds was a upgrade from the 1D and used FF for the first time in a DSLR.  Then, there was the 1D MK II and the 1Ds MK II which was FF, the 1DMK III and the FF 1Ds MK III, so at that time, it indicated a FF model.

The 5Ds is a 5D with a higher resolution FF sensor.

So why a T6s??  Does not fit into the previous naming scheme very well.  Its the first non FF non pro model with a "s" suffix.

Lenses / Re: Opinion on 70-200 Options
« Last post by Halfrack on Today at 01:11:25 AM »
The 70-200 non-IS has a few qualities few are aware of.  For starters, it's a beast, and if you're shooting sports or such, you can't go wrong as IS is only for slow shots.  The lens is parafocal - as in you can focus, then zoom in/out and the focus is still sharp - no true in most lenses.  At $700 I'd jump all over it and if you don't like it, the damage to flip it is minimal.  I loved mine, sold it when funding other gear I couldn't use it with.
Well, most of us carry a device in our pocket that's smaller than a cigarette box, battery powered and would have been considered super computer some 30 years ago, capable of accessing all the information in the world.

The character, Virgil, in the 1974 movie "The Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz" said it best...

"That's a falsehood."

I used to use the UNB mainframe.... at one time it was the third most powerful computer in Canada.... It processed 32 bit instructions at one million instructions per second and had 200 Megabytes of online disk and tape storage.... that's not enough computing power to play an mpeg song....

The most powerful computer in Canada was a Cray 1 supercomputer.... 64 bit processor and capable of executing 80 MILLION instructions per second.... and it had 8 Megabytes of memory! It only weighed in at 11,000 pounds and sucked back 120 amps 3-phase at 600 volts/phase..... now THAT was a computer!

My ipad has a 3 core 64 bit processor that runs at 1.5Ghz, 6 Megabytes of on-chip cache.... and an 8 core GPU thrown in as well.... and 128Gbytes of storage.... over 100 times the computing power of that Cray 1 super-computer.... 16,000 times as much memory.... and it's a phone.... and it's a camera.... and it runs all day on battery..... and yes, you have access to all the info in the world.....

And yet, the cray might still run circles around it doing the job it was intended for.  Iiphone and the like is fast because its ultra specialized, the cray could do math at crazy speeds.  I remember when we got ours for aerodynamic computations and simulations.

I tool programming lessons on a pdp 8, throwing switches to set the program into the memory, and then learning to do a bootstrap loader to load the program via punched tape from a teletype machine. My first computer was a Atari 400 that I bought for my son, but used it myself too.  When the IBM PC's came out, I bought a clone and learned that Dos was basically a Unix clone.  Then next PC I built myself, and did that for many more years.  At one early point, our not so computer savy boss bought a hundred or so HP150 pc's, intending to run them from a HP mini computer that he also bought.  It was a disaster, but he did not have money left to buy software for the individual machines.  Eventually, we talked him into buying Macs and PC's.  We managed to get a Lisa which was a beautiful machine and precursor to the Macintosh.
Photography Technique / Re: Shooting the Moon...how to focus?
« Last post by jrista on Today at 01:03:23 AM »
Get the longest lens you can possibly get your hands on. A 600mm would be the bare minimum IMO...go longer if you can! The 24-105 will just render the moon barely more than a dot in the field.
Lenses / Re: Why can't I see the shallow DOF through the viewfinder?
« Last post by JumboShrimp on Today at 12:41:47 AM »
Thanks, PbyD, but how does this hold up to the old saying that "Faster lenses are easier to (manually) focus?" Or are we talking about two different animals here?
Photography Technique / Re: Shooting the Moon...how to focus?
« Last post by dcm on Today at 12:35:44 AM »
Live view, 10x, manual
i wanna see some copystand work using a Coastal Optics on a metabones or similar adapter.

I have no idea what any of that means  :-\

If your are serious, let me decode a bit. 

1) Coastal Optics makes a specialty macro lens (understatement). Here's Roger at LensRentals take, http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/nikon/lenses/specialty/coastal-optics-uv-vis-ir-60mm-macro-for-nikon.  You could probably stop now after visiting the link.
2) the lens is only available in Nikon F mount so you need some kind of adapter to mount on a Canon body
3) to get the most out of this lens you might want to use a copy stand rather than tripod or handheld.
Photography Technique / Shooting the Moon...how to focus?
« Last post by Leadfingers on Today at 12:11:50 AM »
I'll be on vacation this week, and with a full moon looming, I'd love to get some good shots.

However, my T3i has a hard time focusing on the moon.  I assume it's because of the high contrast.  Are there any tips to get that right?

(or, whatever I can rent before going...any suggestions?)
Lenses / Re: Are ALL brand new Canon lenses defective?
« Last post by CanonFanBoy on Today at 12:09:36 AM »
What I am saying is that I will send a lens to Canon and just ask for "clean and check". Then Canon identifies a problem. I am not telling Canon that I am having a problem with the lens. They are finding it, or so they say. Some lenses just come back saying cleaned, everything is within spec.

Wait, first you said EVERY lens had a problem. Now you say, "Some lenses just come back saying cleaned, everything is within spec." Guess you answered your own question. No, all brand new Canon lenses are NOT defective... according to you.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 ... 10