February 27, 2015, 07:50:32 PM

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 10
51
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L Accepts Rear Gelatin Filter
« Last post by mrzero on Today at 04:33:41 PM »
The 8-15mm fisheye zoom also has one. 
52
If someone show arguments proving that I'm wrong, I'll swallow my words, :-X but ...

Whereas the only variable is the amount of megapixel who jumped from 22 to 50, will not see any improvement on a computer screen without expand the viewing.
The additional resolution would NOT be noticeably in a 4K computer monitor. Only a 8K monitor would show a more sharp image in a 50 megapixel photo, or printing on paper larger than 1 meter.

Obviously, the new Canon 5DS / 5DSr may further improvements in color filter, bit depth, dynamic range, etc.
53
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L Accepts Rear Gelatin Filter
« Last post by Canon Rumors on Today at 04:25:33 PM »
That's a pretty crappy caveat. I'd rather stick to some sort of filter on the front of the lens.

I can only see ND and color correction being used.
54
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L Accepts Rear Gelatin Filter
« Last post by Canon Rumors on Today at 04:24:12 PM »


This is pretty useless for landscapes unless you want to NOT shoot at 11mm?

I really can't see someone taking their lens off when shooting out on the beach to put on a rear filter, thus exposing the lens and body to sea mist and sand.

I don't know anyone who uses the rear filter on the 17-40.

The rear filter only makes sense on fast portrait lenses where you know the filter needs to be on there all day long.

I really feel like Canon should have just made a 14-24 f2.8 lens that was better in every way to the Nikon. They got too ambitious with this lens. :(

I enjoy learning new things, i didn't realize the 17-40 had it. To include it on a new lens, must mean there is a segment of the marketplace that does utilize the filter slot.
55
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L Accepts Rear Gelatin Filter
« Last post by bereninga on Today at 04:23:00 PM »
That's a pretty crappy caveat. I'd rather stick to some sort of filter on the front of the lens.
56
Canon General / Re: RIP Leonard Nimoy
« Last post by JohanCruyff on Today at 04:22:43 PM »
.
57
Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II
« Last post by 20Dave on Today at 04:22:27 PM »
...
I rented the old version a few times... but not sold on it
especially as it didnt do that good with my tamron  sp pro 1.4x TC.
...
my devoted crow from a few days ago 5DmkIII, 560mm f8
...
seems a little soft...maybe off a tad...the 1.4TC isn't perfect...the $220 tamron versus the $100 one.
I HAVE NOT micro adjusted yet..but looks close.....

Question - does AFMA work with the Tamron TC on the 5DIII? It would crash my camera firmware when I tried it on mine, but it's been a year or so since I've tried it and I haven't updated the firmware. I know that there is a newer version than what is on my camera which allows AFMA using the Canon TC, but I didn't want to upgrade for fear that it would turn my Tamron TC into a doorstop. I have the Pro-300 1.4x model.

Thanks,
Dave
58
Lenses / Re: Anyone receive 11-24 yet (or shipping notice)
« Last post by rocksubculture on Today at 04:16:19 PM »
Mine shipped from B&H and I will have mid-next week.  I also pre-ordered from Amazon and it was going to ship today but was able to get it canceled prior to going out (just as an FYI to those who pre-ordered through Amazon - they got some in stock on pre-orders as well).

Soooo excited about this lens. 

Jason
59
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L Accepts Rear Gelatin Filter
« Last post by PhotographyFirst on Today at 04:15:40 PM »


This is pretty useless for landscapes unless you want to NOT shoot at 11mm?

I really can't see someone taking their lens off when shooting out on the beach to put on a rear filter, thus exposing the lens and body to sea mist and sand.

I don't know anyone who uses the rear filter on the 17-40.

The rear filter only makes sense on fast portrait lenses where you know the filter needs to be on there all day long.

I really feel like Canon should have just made a 14-24 f2.8 lens that was better in every way to the Nikon. They got too ambitious with this lens. :(
60
Canon General / Re: Do More Mega Pixels translate in a richer photo?
« Last post by Halfrack on Today at 04:15:25 PM »
Yes, in a few different ways:

-Higher MP allows you to crop in a lot more - turn what would have been a much smaller image, into one with more detail

-Higher MP also allows you to print larger at equal dpi - at 300 pixels per inch, you get ~ 2x the size

-Higher MP in the 33x44mm chip size is actually more helpful, due to the pixel sites being larger than they are in a 35mm FF 24x36mm - bigger pixel sites can equal better light capturing
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 10