Thanks all for the responses. Had my wires crossed and assumed that a MFT lens would sit on a full frame but obviously it's the other way around. Nice to hear that the original Sigma 50 is well regarded so I may try and look out for a decent copy of that one before my next important shoot. Thanks!

GMCPhotographics said:

rs said:

surapon said:

Antono Refa said:

surapon said:

Antono Refa said:

surapon said:

Dear Friends.
Sorry, I do not want to spend $ 2800 US Dollars for this new Great/ Super Sharp , Canon EF 11-24 L 2.8, Because I already have Good Rokinon 12 MM F/ 2.0, <snip>

Click to expand...

1. We're not offended by your choice of lenses, you don't need to apologize.

2. It seems you have a crop camera, so it's expected you would be uninterested in an expensive FF UWA zoom.

Click to expand...

Thanks, Dear Friend Mr. Antono Refa.

Click to expand...

You're welcome, dear buddy.

surapon said:

Well, I have Both FF and Crop Frame Canon Cameras

Click to expand...

Then, as you probably know, there are hardly any rectilinear lenses wider than 16mm. If you're not willing to spend $2,800 on one of those few, that's your choice, no need to say you're sorry.

[I wouldn't spend $2,800 on this lens, if released, but I will wait patiently for a price drop.]

Click to expand...

THANKSSS, Dear friend Mr.
I am lower level in Technical Know How of Photography , The Stupid question is " there are hardly any rectilinear lenses wider than 16mm. "= What is rectilinear Lens ? = The Distortion at the edges of the photos ?
I am fast learner, and Want to learn the new thing in every days.
Have a great Sunday, Sir.
Surapon

Click to expand...

Rectilinear = a wide angle lens which is not a fish eye. They aim to render straight lines perfectly straight, even at the edge of the frame. If you were to fill the frame with a flat subject (eg a test chart) it would be capable of taking a distortion free image of it if lined up perfectly.

Rectilinear lenses do suffer from other forms of distortion which fisheyes (especially stereographic fisheyes) are less susceptible to - any subject which is three dimensional really. Take a group photo for example - people near the edges of the frame are stretched. Anything in the corners looks even more extreme. Even photos of innocent stuff like grass filing the bottom half of the frame and sky in the top - the details in the grass blades will take on the characteristic stretch into the corners, as will any clouds.

The wider the rectilinear lens, the more pronounced this effect will be. In certain scenarios it can be something to be embraced (although not group shots!)

Click to expand...

Yes you are correct, a fully rectilinear corrected lens is one where straight lines stay straight in the frame. Two good examples of this are the 14L and Sigma 12-24 HSM (mkI). Circles become more egg shaped as the approach the corners of the frame. All wide lenses show distortion somewhere, either lines or circles.

Most rectilinear wide lenses are corrected to some degree but not fully. This is to allow a compromise and versatility. A fully corrected lens distorts circles (faces) so a design compromises is employed to keep straight lines fairly straight (a slight curve is usually not too noticeable and quite acceptable) but keeps the circles fairly circular (unless you shoot up close). The 16-35IIL is a great example of this. Most lens designers assume the user will correct in Lightroom / Photoshop if they need a more extreme correction. I find the look I get out of the 16-35IIL looks quite natural and is kind on the eye. A 14L, TS-e 17L or Siggi 12-24 tend to look very angular and isn't how the human eye sees the scene.

Where as fish-eye lenses are the complete opposite. Circles stay circular but straight lines curve as they approach the edges of the frame.

This is why I have more than one wide lens in my collection and why I am REALLY looking forwards to this new lens from Canon. It could be a game changer.

Click to expand...

Well explained.

Sporgon said:

Aglet said:

sagittariansrock said:

..Let's think for a second: who will buy the D610 if they can pay a few hundred more for a D750?
I am more envious of the 20/1.8. I wish Canon made something like that...

Click to expand...

As for the 20/1.8... I'm salivating just thinking about it.
I use an old AIS MF 20/2.8 and an AI 20/3.5 and they're both very good, the 3.5 being very compact and light.
it there's slightly better corner sharpness with lower CA in this new lens, it will be very welcome

Click to expand...

I'll be interested to see if this lens is anything other than a blurry mess at 1.8, and how deep an aperture it takes to sharpen up the mid frame.

I'm unclear on the real application of these very fast ultra wides. I can appreciate that at f2.8 they have much less vignetting than a f2.8 lens yet they are inevitably worse across the frame in resolution.

An ultra wide that is very good at 2.8 would be interesting because of the high dof produced by that focal length at that aperture.

I'll be interested to see if Nikon have been able to do this but I doubt it.

Click to expand...

1. 20mm is a range not covered by my 24-70 II (which is excellent at f/2.8- obviating the use of f/2.8 primes between 24mm and 70mm).
2. If it opens as wide as f/1.8 then it is more likely it will be very sharp at f/2.8, which will make it an excellent fast lens for landscape and street.
3. If I need to take shots in very low light, f/1.8 at 20mm still provides sufficient depth of field.

I've got the Canon MR-14EX Ringflash and I can tell you that you can vary the power output from the left and right tubes.
There's a learning curve with a macro flash but it has its benefits.
My biggest issued with the Ringflash over the MR-24EX is that due to it's build, it is very difficult to diffuse the tubes.

Some of my pics taken over the last 3 weekends or so. All with my ringflash. (resized to have the long edge at 1024px)

Jim Saunders said:

Imagine how many photos you can lose at once with one of these!

Jim

Click to expand...

That's the risk associated with large capacity cards.

dilbert said:

You don't suppose that DIGIC is just a fancy name that Canon uses "DIGIC" as a brand-specific term for its own combination of CPU/GPU package, do you?

Click to expand...

Indeed it is, looking at how Magic Lantern works on DIGIC4->DIGIC5->DIGIC6 not much has changes in the way the (same!) ARM core or DryOS works. The core is just there to control other functions like the separate audio chip or af/vf parts, the latter hasn't been reverse-engineered by ML yet.

The real imaging work is done in Canon's own "gpu" part which keeps evolving, so I doubt a overclocked multi-core x64 arm core would improve anything in terms of iq or speed. The digic version numbers also don't mean anything in the way how much has really changed, it's just a fancy marketing label.

Here is my attempt to change the setting to make this a sharper picture. I don't think this is the best I could do to get it more sharp with the available lighting but I wanted to try it again - this is f5.6, 3200 ISO and 1/30th

I chose 3200 and f5.6 because it started getting too dark if I changed these and I chose 1/30 because I wanted a faster shutter even if it made it a little too dark to try to keep it sharp.

Thanks for the suggestions from all.

It seems my main camera is officially dead.
After researching the "Error 20" message it turns out this usually means that I now have a camera shaped brick.

tss68nl said:

Even so, the ability to focus -3EV will surely add to the ease the camera will focus at -2EV as well.

Click to expand...

Are you sure? Afaik nobody did an actual "real life" 5d3 (-2lv) vs. 6d (-3lv) comparison @-2lv, so the theory that extreme low light capability is beneficial even at higher light levels is conjecture. Will it be faster? Or more precise?

I'm with dylan here, my guess is that dual cross-points on a -2lv rated camera will be "better" than a non-cross on a -3lv rated camera like the 6d. But again, I'd really like to see this tested because any "rating" is just a number and the 5d3 doesn't stop af'ing at -2.00000001lv.

RGomezPhotos said:

dgatwood said:

RGomezPhotos said:

Did you folks see the new Apple Watch? http://www.apple.com/watch/

So riddle me this.... How is it that Apple can fit WiFi AND Bluetooth 4.0 on a circuit the size of a postage stamp and we can't get this built into our newer DSLRs?

Click to expand...

AFAIK, it has no Wi-Fi, just Bluetooth. But yeah, it is kind of sad how little Canon is doing in that space.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the correction. I read the spec incorrectly "It uses the WiFi and GPS on your iPhone...."

WiFi would be so useful. How about a wireless hard drive in pack while shooting on location and downloading images while shooting? Auto backup. If I'm doing a shoot somewhere, I would definitely do that. Or if you're shooting in a studio that has WiFi access, have the images upload directly to your computer at home or to the Cloud. So many applications for WiFi in a camera.

GPS would be nice not only for landscape and wildlife photographers. But how about those of us who scout for locations to shoot? How about tourists who want to remember where exactly a photo was taken on a trip?

These items take up extra juice. But considering there are battery powered WiFi hubs and hard drives, it can't be that much. Simply take an extra camera battery if you think you'll need it. But really, I can shoot about 6 hours almost constantly with one battery...

Click to expand...

Blue tooth has a new extreme low power mode, but Wi-Fi is a high power system (relatively speaking). Its controlled by a industry standsrd, so if you modify it to be something else, its not Wi-Fi. Bluetooth LE is targeted at applications like this, ultra low power.

I purchased a Kenko 1.4X Teleplus PRO 300 DGX from Amazon thru their Amazon Prime, and received the obsolete model. It does not work with some common professional lenses on my 5D Mark III. Newer versions that have a fix were released at least two years ago and are marked with a blue paint dot, but no model change.

Since Amazon may be co-mingling stock, there is no way for me to know for certain who actually supplied it, but I am returning it, and have reported the issue to Amazon.

Amazon has started putting stock for many items in a common bin. When a supplier slips in old or obsolete stock that has the same box and part number as in this case, customers don't know which they will get.

Counterfeit batteries and memory have already hit buyers, but I did not consider the issue before buying the Teleconverter.

At this point, I recommend Not buying Kenko TC's from Amazon, since you can't be certain as to what you will get.

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/5122056775/blackmagic-design-introduces-pl-mount-options-for-production-camera-4k-and-cinema-camera

With the wife's 70d and lexar pro 600x it's about 17 in raw and with the sandisk extreme pro it's 18 not worth the extra cash

Act444 said:

Yeah, the f4 24-70, or at least the one I tried at the local store, is DEFINITELY weakest at 50mm. Dare I say that one was worse than my 24-105 is at 24, its weakest point (w/o the distortion)...there was NO sharp area of the image at 50mm f4. Anyway, I'd like to try another copy - maybe that was just a mediocre one.

Between the 24-105 and the 2.8 24-70 - unless you shoot a lot of indoor social events (and thus need the 2.8 / IS mattering less in those situations), or you have a big budget, then the 24-105 is still a good lens with decent sharpness and great value for price. Plus IS makes it more versatile, too.

Click to expand...

My 24-70 f4 was definitely poor at 50mm, and weak at 35mm, when I first got it. I sent it back to Canon though, and it came back greatly improved. I'm pretty happy with it now, throughout the whole zoom range.

If you're interested in knowing more, see http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=21846.0

In case anyone stumbles over this old thread at some point and is interested to know how the story ended ...

Having done some more testing, I'm pretty happy with my 24-70 4 IS now. The IQ is pretty consistent all the way through the zoom range now. It's possible its weak spot is now at 35mm (f/4), and I think it might not be quite as good at 24mm (f/4) as before I sent it to Canon (but it's marginal - I might be imagining that), but really its consistent - and very good - throughout. It's a vast improvement over its performance before I sent it back to Canon, that's for sure.

It's interesting reading around the internet that some people report the 24-70 4 IS being great throughout the zoom range (eg see PhotoNet http://photo.net/equipment/canon-ef24-70f4/, and see SLRlounge's "lens wars" series including their 50mm "wars"), while many others report it being weak in the middle of the zoom range, especially at 50mm. Sporgon mentioned in an earlier post that Roger Cicala had found the 24-70 4 IS has an unusually high number of adjustable elements. Maybe Canon bit off a little bit more than they can chew with the 24-70 4 IS, in the sense the QC required to make it consistently good out of the box would mean it would have to be priced at a level which isn't going to fly from a commercial point of view?

Anyway, the story has ended well for me, so I'm happy!

PS - It seems pretty clear it's not going to be what you're looking for if you're serious about macro photography, but as someone who isn't that much into macro, I'm definitely having some fun with the (semi) macro mode on the 24-70 4 IS.

joejohnbear said:

Go check out what people are saying on Nikonrumors. Split half and half between love and hate (hate from the D700 users).

Joe M said:

I suppose it's the first one named "750". In any case, the Nikon loyal seem to be mostly loving this camera from the glance I've seen elsewhere. I'm not sure why. Seems like just another camera.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I only had a chance to do a quick glance at dpreview's announcement. Looked like mostly positive comments and I don't read Nikon forums so I suppose what you say is representative of the situation there. I would suppose the current 700 users would not like it because it's not a giant leap forward? I'm sure it'll sell well in any case.

surapon said:

DominoDude said:

I might have a gene or two dedicated to sadism, but this was both educational, and fun. There are explaining videos, as well as photo and video from the project.

The Stun Gun Photoshoot - by Patrick Hall --> https://fstoppers.com/originals/stun-gun-photoshoot-portraits-peoples-faces-when-hit-stun-gun-33449

Click to expand...

Thousand Thanks, Dear friend Mr. DominoDude.
That are the great Face expression in real lifes, BUT, Not for me, I might get the heart attack-----Ha, Ha, Ha.
Thanks again.
Surapon

Click to expand...

I almost had the heart-attack just watching it!
I am a big fun of these two guys but that was a bit too much.

Anyway, I find the slow-mo to deliver more than the photos. The photos look somehow "fake" to me, but the videos are not at all.

distant.star said:

.
I'm guessing that 2000mm is with digital. I'd be surprised if optical zoom went beyond 1200mm.

Either way, I'm probably going to get one. Looks like lots of fun, and the images I've seen are more than adequate for what it is. What will my old S95 say?

Click to expand...

The SX-50 already has a 4X digital zoom for "4800mm"....

AcutancePhotography said:

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:

The bulbous front element is definitely the buzzkill here.

Click to expand...

I am the type of tog that likes to keep a protective filter on. Kinda wish this lens enabled that.

But I look forward to reading the tests and reviews of this lens.

Click to expand...

Me, to and a ND or C-PL when needed.

The article seems to do a pretty good job identifying what is different between the lenses.

Well, it cannot compete against the LX100 as the sensor in the G7X is too small.

Please Canon, DON'T pull another G1X II with a horrific sensor nor a S120 with a slow lens.

For it to be competitive, it needs to have a 1.8-2.8 lens or faster.

tayassu said:

I'm really looking forward to that G7X. Let's see how it competes with RX100III and LX100... :

Click to expand...

JohanCruyff said:

After 76,643,917,265 topics and 54,781,245,232,107,412 posts (and counting) in this forum about the better performance of SoNikon's sensor at base ISO, I was wondering if even SoNikonians sometimes complain, for example,
- about their Lenses price / range
- because they don't have STM lenses or Dual Pixel Autofocus
- etc.

and, in general, if SoNikonians spend more time taking pictures or complaining about their brands.

Any thoughts?

Click to expand...

They do, read the comments here: http://nikonrumors.com/2014/09/12/nikon-d750-full-frame-dslr-camera-announced.aspx/#more-80280

Different brand, same story.

ahsanford said:

FEBS said:

2 years behind? who behind who?

This seems much more a 5D3 variant to me, 2 years after the 5D3 is released on the market, then only this spec? The Nikon reactions are not that positive. This is not a worthy successor of the marvelous D700. Think about water sealant, fps, 1/4000 max shutterspeed, missing AF-On, max 1/200 x-sync.

As mentioned by the OP, a lot of this camera is a mix of pro but also of entry level. Thought this Nikon would really push Canon to look at further development. However, it only seems a spec that's close to the 5D3. Never the less a nice specification, but not a D700 version 2.

Click to expand...

Features-wise, I understand your point, but I price would imply pros will value this camera less. 5D3 is a D8-something competitor (regardless of the MP count). The 5D3 is a $3399 camera vs. the D750 at $2300.

So I'm assuming the build quality, pop-up flash, etc. imply the D750 is for enthusiasts more than pros. It may not be built for dyed-in-the-wool pros with tougher needs and higher expectations.

- A

Click to expand...

The price and build may imply prosumer but Nikon wedding shooters will be looking past that and snapping up the D750. The D750 is basically a 5DM3 for Nikon shooters, albeit a few years late It solves the primary shortcoming of the D600/D610, which was the AF system, while giving them the lower MP they want vs the D800/D810.

mackguyver said:

ahsanford said:

I can't help but think some megapretentious industrial design fan of an executive at Sigma has protected X% of Sigma's money on "Project: The Future", and he/she just knows that this project, by the 35th or 36th version, will change photography forever.

I design things for a living, so I LOVE out of the box ideas. So please understand that I am -- at the same time -- mocking the madness and tipping my cap for Sigma's bravery with fielding these cameras.

- A

Click to expand...

That sounds like a pretty cool job - do you mind if I what kind of things you design? Also, Sigma's courage sometimes produces pretty cool things like their f/1.8 zoom!

Click to expand...

As a lens company, I love what they do: high quality, disruptive tech that shakes the bigger players at times.

As a camera company... Yikes.

I design medical implants and instruments, so its a different animal completely. But I do know a few things about grip, something both photography and instruments have in common. But I do not ride a Segway to work or live in a Bizzaro orthogonal world like the Sigma dudes do.

- A

After reading the reviews, all I can say is wow.