December 09, 2016, 04:52:41 PM

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10
42
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Review: Sigma 12-24mm f/4 DG HSM Art
« Last post by Alex_M on Today at 12:10:21 PM »
Sorry, I meant to say:
Sigma lens design standards are higher than of the lenses you have mentioned. new design vs old design.
my point is: Sigma Art lenses are designed to be revolutionary on many levels. Sigma would not consider releasing an Art lens with such a substantial optical design flaw. Not their phylosophy. They compete against the best of the glass and the old Sigma 12-24 non-Art lens is hardly their competitor:)
Canon 50/1.2L is a unique lens on many levels.That makes this lens so desirable that we are happy to forget it's design shortcomings. As I said, not likely this focus shift issue is by design. I am waiting for the Sigma Australian distributor's response to my request to clarify this issue.



1. how old is the Canon 50/1.2L ? just roughly.. obviously very old design, pre digital era.. pre historic... Same arguement is valid for the old Sigma 12-24.(old, cheaply designed, pre Art product line.
2. UWA ZOOM vs. standard prime?  no comments.

It would be fair to compare Sigma 12-24 Art vs Canon 11-24 F4L or Tamron 15-35 V2.8 VC USD lens - in my opinion at least.

1. How is age relevant? A photographer has to choose between whatever lenses are on the shelves, and his expectations should be set - as you claim - by it's price.

2. Primes are supposed to perform better then zooms, and the shallower the DOF (in this case due to longer focal length and wider aperture) the more focus shift is a problem. I can see why you'd rather not comment.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, you & me included.
43
EOS Bodies / Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap
« Last post by Azathoth on Today at 12:06:43 PM »
If that roadmap would be true, it would be very disappointing and only contain 1 out of approx 50 cameras and lenses I have on a personal wish list and would buy (products which all wouldn't be unrealistic looking at the competition and the market in the year 2017):

1DX2 Mirrorless 5Axis
5D4 Mirrorless 5Axis
5D 120MP 5Axis
5D 12MP Low Light 5Axis
5D Astro Camera
Medium Format 100MP Camera
C500III 4K 60fps

14-24/2.8 IS
16-35/2.8 IS
24-70/2.8 IS
70-200/2.8 IS III
200-600/5.6 IS
24-200/3.5-5.6 IS
28-300/3.5-5.6 IS II

16-300/3.5-5.6 IS
17-55/2.8 IS II
18-35/1.8 IS
50-100/1.8 IS
50-150/2.8 IS

12/2.8 IS
14/2.8 IS
18/2 IS
20/1.4 IS
20/1.8 IS
24/1.4 IS
24/1.8 IS
28/1.4 IS
28/1.8 IS
35/1.4 IS
35/1.8 IS
45/2.8 II Tiltshift
50/0.95
50/1.2 IS
50/1.8 IS
60/2 IS Macro
85/1.2 IS
85/1.8 IS
90/2.8 II Tiltshift
100/2 IS Macro
135/2 IS
180/2.8 IS Macro
200/2.8 IS

Please, no. Canon, please don't ruin amazingly good and simple primes by putting IS. It makes sense on a zoom lens because the aim is to get something versatile. But not on a prime. Primes have that amazing good image quality because they have a simple construction. Don't transform primes into zooms, pleeease.
44
Adobe Defense League in full swing.  :)

NO, we have PAID for our Adobe products. We don't have to LEAVE, we have every RIGHT to DEMAND proper and decent products and service from our software supplier Adobe. Unfortunately they seem neither able nor willing to get their act together with LR.

Yep..once they lock you into the "rental" mode...they don't need to care.

They have your money and have your work hostage....so, you just keep paying and live with it.

Welcome to the world of rental software.

cayenne

Not really, you choose to take advantage of the rental model or you buy other software, or in the case of LR you buy the stand alone perpetual license for $149 (at most).

True, you have that option...yet! I doubt it will be around for much longer...
I really don't see why I  should pay more PER YEAR for the rental license, than I paid for the upgrade of the standalone version.
Point is, the rather incremental upgrades they have done so far, are really not worth the perpetual costs (at least to me), so there is no "advantage" of the rental model to me....

But, each to his own. :)

The only reason to upgrade was that LR5 did not support my new camera body.
45
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Canon 1DXmkII 4K Video jello.
« Last post by lic4 on Today at 12:05:24 PM »
**edited with an additional explanation of results.

This is a test using a opening and closing door with cameras positioned one over the other at the same vertical angle. Please forgive me for doing this so crudely; it isn't pretty, but it's good enough for me.

The six images show the results I found. The first four are images at 23.976fps, 4K MJPG on the 1DX Mark II next to 23.976 1080 All-I on the Canon 5D Mark III. I included a red line from the 5D III next to the 1DX to show the difference.

The final two images are comparisons with the 1DX Mark II at 60p. The relative difference and improvement in rolling shutter to the 5D Mark III appears to be the same either at 24p or 60p. I was surprised to see that the difference to the 5D is not that much.

**the difference in slope is more pronounced at times because I was not opening and closing the door each time at the same speed, and I tended to swing it faster in one direction due to my positioning. --thanks for understanding!
46
Adobe Defense League in full swing.  :)

NO, we have PAID for our Adobe products. We don't have to LEAVE, we have every RIGHT to DEMAND proper and decent products and service from our software supplier Adobe. Unfortunately they seem neither able nor willing to get their act together with LR.

Yep..once they lock you into the "rental" mode...they don't need to care.

They have your money and have your work hostage....so, you just keep paying and live with it.

Welcome to the world of rental software.

cayenne

Not really, you choose to take advantage of the rental model or you buy other software, or in the case of LR you buy the stand alone perpetual license for $149 (at most).
47
Adobe Defense League in full swing.  :)

NO, we have PAID for our Adobe products. We don't have to LEAVE, we have every RIGHT to DEMAND proper and decent products and service from our software supplier Adobe. Unfortunately they seem neither able nor willing to get their act together with LR.

Yep..once they lock you into the "rental" mode...they don't need to care.

They have your money and have your work hostage....so, you just keep paying and live with it.

Welcome to the world of rental software.

cayenne
48
Lenses / Re: Lens dilemma- 300mm f2.8 with tc or 500mm f4L MkI
« Last post by Mikehit on Today at 11:48:59 AM »
...... or don't even look at them for a year or shoot in summer, process in Alberta winter!

Jack

Ah, the rolls of film with Christmas at both ends and a wedding in the middle.
49
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Canon 1DXmkII 4K Video jello.
« Last post by Jack Douglas on Today at 11:41:20 AM »
Please excuse my lack of experience in this but does a camera that has IS built in function similarly to having a steadicam type device?

Jack

No, it's more like shooting video with an IS lens on a body without in-body stabilisation.  I use a Sony A7SII which has IBIS with a Metabones adapter and my Canon glass for work and from my limited experience of hand held shooting (I shoot video for work almost exclusively on a tripod or slider), I've found it to basically be like adding IS to my non-IS lenses.  I also have a mechanical glidecam clone for personal use, though I have barely had a chance to use it since I got it as I have been so busy shooting for work.  The times I have managed to briefly get out with it have shown that IBIS and gimbal stabilisation are not even comparable. Steadicam/gimbal stuff is just that much better *as long as the operator is skilled,* which I am not!

Saying that, the recent leaps in combining IBIS and lens stabilisation seems to be yielding good results in certain situations.  I can't find it now (I just spent about 30 mins looking through my internet history for it!), but a fairly recent video I watched of what I believe was an Olympus E-M1 mkII matched with an Olympus stabilised lens showed impressive results for casual use.  If I'm able to find the video again I will update my post, though it may have been a different camera which might be why I can't find it.

@OP - sorry for the thread hijack!  I am weighing up a 1DXII purchase with some video use in mind so am watching related threads quite closely at the moment.

Thanks very much for this.  I'm learning more each day.  I'm guessing the OP is stuck with trying to get answers from Canon and I'll be watching for more on that.

Jack
50
Ah... refurbished models. didn't see that in your original post.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10