Posts

sanj · Jul 31, 2014

Shootitalready said:
sanj said:

Neuro: Brilliant!!

Click to expand...

Zeiss Traitor!

hahahaha

tolusina · Jul 31, 2014

Don Haines said:
......I should post the video of it on a stunt kite.......

Yeah, sure.
Pics or it never happened.

Seriously, I think stunt kite footage just might be entertaining, I would love to see some. Probably not a whole lot too much you know though.

Eagle Eye · Jul 31, 2014

I've used it. No problems at all. They set me up with their guy at a store that I buy from all the time anyway. It was a smooth transaction. Same guarantee and return policy as with any purchase, they just don't include the "$150 of free extras" advertised on the website, like the cheap tripod and undersized camera bag. I will use CPW every lens and camera purchase from now on. I had no concerns about return policies, and they told me exactly what is was getting before I handed over payment. In my case, completely new in box, US warranty, no lens removed or anything.

infared · Jul 31, 2014

tapanit said:
aleshaloginov said:

I wish I had some ultrawide angle lens, say 16-35, but I don't have enough money because I recently bought 35mm 1.4L which makes me incredibly happy.

So the question is whether there is something really close to 16-35L. Don't say 17-40, this lens sucks because of its apperture, I need something faster, wider, lighter and sharper.

Click to expand...

Do you need an autofocus zoom or would a manual focus prime do? If so, consider Samyang 14mm f/2.8. It is faster, wider, lighter and sharper than the 17-40/4L, and indeed wider, lighter and sharper although not faster than the 16-35/2.8.

...and much less expensive!

scottkinfw · Jul 30, 2014

Safari vest to offload weight- they don't count that as carry on.

300 2.8 when the image matters.

sek

Skulker · Jul 30, 2014

FEBS said:
Skulker said:

In a slightly more sensible vein than the last post.

About 50% of my images. Checking with LR I find that the 300 with the converters is by far my most used lens.

But I do wild life so its not much of a surprise. A bit of motor sport. Even the odd still life. And the occasional Macro.

All in all its a pretty special lens, for me anyway.

Click to expand...

I didn't try a macro yet with that lens. Did you use an extension tube or extender for the second and third photo? I presume that those are made on tripod

both those shots were hand held with a 2x extender. The flower was processed to have grain, originally it was very smooth.

it's very easy to hand hold and compact for the 600 mm length. I often use it with a tripod, but that's mainly for ease of use as the IS is very effective.

dpc · Jul 30, 2014

Stephen Melvin said:
Received it about a week ago. Really difficult to work with. The focus knob only goes 1/4 turn to go from 1M to infinity. And it's in a really awkward position; especially if you try to take a vertical. Which is why I've pretty much only taken horizontals with it.

Focusing with the Mk III's screen is about hopeless. I use Live View with my Zacuto finder and zoom in. This can be quite successful. The depth of field is very shallow. Surprisingly so, considering that I shoot my 85 f/1.2 wide open most of the time, so I know what to expect, normally.

The lens is very, very sharp dead center. Even at f/2.8. But you don't buy such a lens for sharpness. You buy it for its character, and it has character in spades. What's so interesting is how quickly the image starts to diffuse once you start to get away from the center. Look at the hands in some of the pictures.

I wish they'd built this lens more conventionally. Helical focusing and an AF-confirm chip would be such a huge boon. If they wanted more authenticity, I think it would have been neat if the lens elements were uncoated.

Anyway, I love the images. So I'll be using this lens a lot. It makes me slow down and compose, and I wind up shooting just a few images, generally. I realize this seems rather contradictory. This lens is definitely
not for everybody. It's slow to use and a bit frustrating at times. But the images...

Love these pictures. The out of focus areas produce a halo-like effect that works very well. There is an ethereal quality to these images. Good stuff, but this lens is definitely in a niche of its own.

Phenix205 · Jul 30, 2014

I've been waiting for Roger's testing for a few weeks. It's finally here.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/07/canon-wide-angle-zoom-comparison

Quote: "I set a high bar for new Canon lenses. I expect them to be excellent and generally their recent releases have been. Since this was a wide-angle zoom, though, my expectations were lowered a bit. Canon has always struggled with wide-angle zooms. The 17-40 is a good, not great lens. The 16-35 f/2.8 II is better than the Mk I replaced, but I’d consider it, at best, adequate considering its price.

The 16-35 f/4 IS changes that. It’s a superb optic — as good as anything else available. Of course, a lot of people want an f/2.8 zoom. But for many, like me, f/4 with IS is just fine for wide-angle shooting."

CanNotYet · Jul 30, 2014

Re: Canon to Leave the Entry Level Point & Shoot Market?

Bumping this. I think the final move to erase the market for budget P&S has been made: http://samsungcamera.com/samsung-introduces-the-galaxy-k-zoom/

Lee Jay · Jul 30, 2014

Even if such a thing were available, I would not be interested.

crashpc · Jul 30, 2014

Haydn1971 said:
crashpc said:

Lol Canon 18Mpx sensor made it to most rubbish bottom model 1200D. Why do you expect they repeat this and put the same sensor into 750D and M3?

Click to expand...

Rolls eyes, how many times... Repeat after me, "there's more to a camera performance than just the megapixel count !" Now say it over 500 times

As dgatwood wrote - there is demand. One should make his product better, and it is not done trough already 6 or 7 years old sensor. sorry, doesn´t gonna work. There are not only megapixels to it. They can make 18Mpx full color non bayer sensor, they can add in DR,SNR and many other parameters. Af and metering method means nothing to ordinary customer of cheap XXXD line, and also to me, because I rely on manual hugely.

Snodge · Jul 30, 2014

It's perhaps worth pointing out that the review Kai did was with a Nikon body - I don't know if they are supposed to have the same sort of autofocus issues as the Canon bodies with the Sigma lens...

RGF · Jul 29, 2014

mackguyver said:
I've been hoping for a 180 II, but was hoping for f/2.8, 9 bladed diaphragm, and the like, not DO. Let's hope this is just a defensive patent.

Happy with F4, 9 bladed diaphragm and Tilt functionality to increase DOF a bit

Menace · Jul 29, 2014

If weight and size is something you can cope with then I'd recommend the 70-200 2.8L IS II.

IMG_0001 · Jul 29, 2014

entlassen said:
IMG_0001 said:

2^F = (GN2/GN1)^2

Then from 24mm to 70mm, F=1.67 stops (+1 2/3)
70mm to 200mm, F=0.52 stop (+1/2)
So of course 24mm to 200mm, F=2.19 stops.

Click to expand...

OK, so you're taking the log base 2 of both sides of that formula to solve for F.
But can you tell me where that formula comes from? All I know is the GN = f * d formula and the Inverse Square Law formula (Intensity = 1 / distance^2). Would like to know how you derived it.

First, to clear things off, I advise to just stick to the basic GN = F*d which gives the right results and is much more tractable on the field.

As for my formula, I just went on from basic physics.

Intensity I is Power over Area --> P/A

A, the area lit, increases to the square of the distance from the source -->A proportional to d^2

Therefore, I is proportional to P/d^2 (not equal to)

Then, given that power remains the same --> P1 = P2 entails that I1*d1^2 = I2*d2^2 or, I1/I2 = (d2/d1)^2

Now, that is for the flash in a fixed zoom setting.

Now considering that the subject distance is fixed and posing that Case1 is for 24mm and GN28m and Case2 is for 70mm and GN50m. Zooming from 24mm to 70mm is like moving the subject from a distance of 50m to a distance of 28m. Then d2/d1 = GN2/GN1 and :

I1/I2 = (GN2/GN1)^2

Finally, in photography the aperture F goes up one stop every time the light intensity doubles so I is proportional to 2^F. It ensues that:

2^F = (GN2/GN1)^2

I hope this helps.

playaz · Jul 29, 2014

So I just bought a brand new 6D + 24.70 2.8 II and after doing some quick tests I'm not sure if this is it or I was expecting too much. I definitely haven't seen the WOW factor from the 24-70 II that I was expecting after reading several reviews and observing others pictures.

I have purchased Reikan Focal to test and set the lens and it suggested +3 AFMA on both wide and tele. I am attaching my results here and can someone comment if this is good enough or not ? I saw others posting over 2,000 quality of focus results with this lens but I'm not sure what exactly this means?

http://s18.postimg.org/7ljmkrf6x/24_bef.jpg

http://s23.postimg.org/qby7k22cb/24_aft.jpg

http://s7.postimg.org/5ay8x16yj/70_bef.jpg

http://s15.postimg.org/uleu445p7/70_aft.jpg

I definitely haven't tested this lens enough to come to any conclusions but I did notice it seems a bit too soft at 2.8 and 24mm - 35mm. Will post some real life images as soon as possible.

felipy2k · Jul 29, 2014

after read billions of users around the world, complaining about the same thing, i'm 100% sure that is a hardware fault and i have no hope of a salvation firmware. I've been testing with 50mm 1.8 and 17-55 2.8 since a got the first soft shot and i notice that even from liveview, if you using quick mode you got even worse results than from the viewfinder. I'm about to sell the body and the 17-55 and buy a 6D with 24-105. Some rumors says, that 7D MK II was delayed to fix this issue!

Click · Jul 29, 2014

You're welcome Sir. I'm sorry, I cannot do any better, I do not have the Bird Identification Guide for the West Coast.

Click · Jul 29, 2014

Very nice shots Glenn. I especially like the first picture.

slclick · Jul 29, 2014

You mean Canon's year of the lens. (And fwiw, many here will state Canon never said it was TYOTL yet it was a CR thing)

No one has missed Sigma's, it's still going!

alexanderferdinand · Jul 29, 2014

+1 for the Epson 3880.

If you print larger numbers of A3 it will help you saving money because of the bigger cartridges.

privatebydesign · Jul 28, 2014

powershot2012 said:
I find it helpful to get feedback from reviews for those that review camera regularly and can compare them among others in their class instead of biased comments from those that don't even own the camera.

privatebydesign said:

As I said, I am not looking to get either.

I was merely pointing out that comments like "it has stunning low-light-capabilities" and "The G1X II would be a no brainer had Canon given the G1X II a modern sensor, as it stands the RX100 III still out performs it" are either bullshit, or don't actually stand up to image comparisons.

But why should we let actual images sway us when we have internet printed reviews that support our preconceived ideas? Enjoy your RX100III.

Click to expand...

I find it helpful to compare the images they create, it puts their words into perspective and gives a strong indication as to who is paying the piper, and who is not.

I am not biased for or against either an RX100III or a G1X, I am against unqualified and inaccurate comments like "it has stunning low-light-capabilities" and "The G1X II would be a no brainer had Canon given the G1X II a modern sensor, as it stands the RX100 III still out performs it" . It's funny, you don't even try to walk that utter nonsense back, you just change the direction of your vitriol to me.

Dude, just buy an RX100III and be happy.

Ruined · Jul 28, 2014

Bill said:
I just purchased this Canon 50mm 1.2 lens and just one little thing I'm not too sure on. The lens hood has just a little play in it after i've locked it on the lens. My other Canon lenses lock in with no play whatsoever. Is this normal for this lens hood to have play? If so, I wonder why. :-\

Mine has no play.

ewg963 · Jul 28, 2014

neuroanatomist said:
You've demonstrated that Nikon's 85/1.4, which is among Nikon's very best performing lenses even wide open, is sharper than Canon's 50/1.4, which is not a particularly sharp lens, particularly wide open. You make no mention of performing an AF microadjustment/fine tune, which can be critical for sharpness with fast primes shot wide open.

You've demonstrated that Canon's AWB is poor...something most of us know already (although it's better on the 1D X than any other Canon camera I've used).

I'm not convinced you've learned anything beyond the obvious...

+1

Valvebounce · Jul 28, 2014

Hi Philshoz.
I guess you know which camera you prefer the images from, or the handling of, if you don't have a preference, then I would suggest that you use each alongside the 7D and see if you prefer the similar controls of the 40D or the flip out display and other differences of the 600D. If you can manage without the 600D it will net you more than the 40D to put towards more gear, and you will probably not use the second camera that much anyway.

Cheers Graham.

Philshoz said:
Thanks for the replies.

I have the 40D up for sale, maybe I should sell the 600D instead ???

Thanks again guys...

Posts

Posts

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics