Mt Spokane Photography said:

Continuing to have issues like this justify the critics

Click to expand...

It does make it hard to understand the unconditional enthusiasm the zealots have for the technology.

and those who paid out big dollars based on a specification sheet are rightfully angry

Click to expand...

Not sure I can find a lot of sympathy for them.

Some of us have been pointing out for years that a camera is not simply the physical manifestation of a spec sheet; and that to base decisions purely on what the specs say (whether when buying*; or - more commonly - in order to beat up on a camera without actually having used it), invariably results in self-inflicted injury.







* Yep - been there. Back in the day I pre-ordered a Nikon D200 before release, purely on the basis of the spec sheet.

the only negative behavior i would expect in low light would be hunting, in which case you can always use the AF assist from a flash (with the flash itself set not to fire, if you don't want it)

the pic here confuses me. i would try one-shot mode, which shouldn't let you take a shot until it gets focus.

timmy_650 said:

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:

P.S. Sigma has asked if they can send me a second copy of the 135 ART to see if it tests as being sharper for me, and I have agreed. I will be following up in a few weeks with those conclusions.

P.S. Tamron is doing the same with the 70-200 G2, as I criticized the performance at 200mm as falling behind the Canon 70-200L II, while some others found the opposite to be true (including Roger at LensRentals).

I guess my point is that sample variation does exist in the real world, but that we are also doing a lot of hairsplitting at this point. These lenses are very, very sharp, and when you compare them to other very, very sharp lenses not everyone gets the same results.

Click to expand...

I was a photo Demo at a zoo last week with most of the major brands. I was borrowing the Tarmon 150-600 g2 and loving it. When I got back and returned it to the Rep and started talking to him. I found out it was his copy of the lens which made me like it less bc I assume if you are a Rep for a company you find the best copy of a lens you can...I know I would for sure.
I don't think it will change if I get the lens or not but just another small thing to thinking about when you are comparing great lens of today.

Click to expand...

I've just cited two recent examples that show that companies are not "cherry-picking" lenses for me to test.

candc said:

if the a7r is like the a7rii then it switches to crop mode when an aps-c lens is mounted. I tried the lens on an a7rii with the metabones adaptor. if you disable auto switching then you see a circular image within a dark frame.

Click to expand...

Thanks, I kinda figured that. Somehow my gut told me this was a long cry from a 10mm FF perspective.

Yeah, too pricey for shooting birds few times a year, but great if you have a chance to play with it )

AlanF said:

neuroanatomist said:

AlanF said:

I have a problem with the 400mm DO II and 5DIV at 1/200-400s. There is a slight mirror slap in the vertical direction. It's worse when the 1.4xTC is on. It doesn't occur with the 100-400mm II.

Click to expand...

Out of curiousity, is this handheld or on a tripod, and if the latter, is IS turned on?

Click to expand...

Good question. On a tripod with IS on. Turn off IS and shake is just random.

Click to expand...

Interesting. I know the red-ring supertele lenses specifically use IS to damp mirror/shutter vibrations at certain shutter speeds. I assume the 400 DO does the same, but perhaps not, or not as effectively.

There are a number of Supreme court cases that directly apply to gray market, and they seem to contradict each other, but really there are very fine points involved.

In the USA, the "First Sale Doctrine" is usually used in defense to gray market lawsuits. Technically, the gray market items have been purchased from a authorized supplier, and now can be resold wherever law allows it (USA). Its not that simple, of course, since lawyers twist things around, and since big companies can drive up your legal expenses to the point where you fold.

As you may know, Canon and Get It Digital settled, and Get It Digital no longer sells gray market Canon cameras.

The simple fact is that Big companies like Canon can decide to spend huge amounts of money on litigation such that smaller companies cannot afford to fight them, and then settle their suit to get over it. Expect the same to happen with other gray market sellers. Only a very few are still selling them on ebay, and once their inventory is sold, they may settle as well.

Here is another suit settled out of court: http://www.equipmentworld.com/yanmar-settles-gray-market-lawsuit-2/

The Fujii suit is still ongoing?

https://www.digitaltrends.com/photography/fujifilm-sues-fro-gray-market-cameras/

Nikon releases three new lenses


https://petapixel.com/2017/05/31/nikon-unveils-3-new-lenses-28mm-f1-4-10-20mm-8-15mm/

- A

A lot of Canon folks would love either an update to the 28 f/1.8 USM or an altogether new 28mm L prime.

It's a stellar walkaround FL for me -- I use my 28mm f/2.8 IS USM for walkabout, street, environmental portraiture, etc.

- A

Dear God, these "Canon hasn't made me my personal perfect camera, so they're stuffed" posts are tedious.

And - in particular, OP - the epitome of self-righteousness...

Oh, and being disinterested in some arbitrary feature that you happen to have a hard-on for, doesn't make stills-shooters self-righteous.

It makes them - what's the word? - Oh yeah...

Disinterested.

Different things, see?

neuroanatomist said:

the 100-400 is too big for a travel zoom, IMO.

Click to expand...

Buy a (slightly) bigger bag..!

Nikon also announced AF-S Nikkor 28mm F1.4E ED
https://www.dpreview.com/news/7860163392/nikon-adds-to-fast-prime-series-with-af-s-nikkor-28mm-f1-4e-ed

Be interesting to see how AF performance compares with the Canon MkII.

AdjustedInCamera said:

coolajami said:

No more GPS? Τhat is my favourite extra

Click to expand...

+1 No idea how people manage without GPS tagging - but then I can't see how people manage without a tilty-flippy screen on a tripod, and most people seem to okay.

I think this thread relates to the radio (other?) testing of the device. My guess would be that it would therefore only detail electrical emission from the camera (i.e. Wi-Fi, Bluetooth). Since GPS is passive (the device listens to the GPS signals it doesn't send them) it wouldn't get mentioned here.

Personally, I'm waiting for the first 'sighting' thread of the 6D mark 2. You know, the thread where we work out its detailed internal specs from an out-of-focus image, of a corner of the case, from a range of 100m

Click to expand...

Correct

A FCC part 15 summary could be: it may only emit what the standard(s) allows.

Receivers still emit energy (i.e. local oscillator leakage), but these days you'd have to do a very poor job to get a receiver to fail an emissions test. A test house will only need to know about intentional emissions, and if they meet the relevant standard. GPS shouldn't emit, so doesn't need explicitly testing, other than to ensure it doesn't radiate, but you don't need to call up a GPS emissions test for that, it's just the same emissions test as any other non-radiating device.

I had a chance to shoot with my new 77D in my new studio yesterday, side by side with my 5D3. I have to say that I am very pleased with the sensor performance. For most purposes, I don't think there will be a significant difference in the images from the two cameras, which was what I was hoping for. The 77D is a nice step up in image quality from my T5i and I do enjoy the top LCD screen and additional control dial.

I will see if I can find some work safe photos to post in the appropriate part of the forum.

neuroanatomist said:

davidcl0nel said:

on the first pictures the 11-24 it seems to be very similar to the TS-E (front element) - I never have compared it next to each other for details...

Click to expand...

I have both. The 11-24 is much bigger and heavier (and it's particularly front-heavy) compared to the TS-E 17.

Click to expand...

the two lenses that smacked down the theory that canon can't do UWA's

NancyP said:

Samyang 14 f/2.8 is pretty decent except for the godawful mustache distortion, which is less of an issue for landscape/astro than for architectural photography. (assuming that you got a centered copy). I would be tempted by the Sigma 14 f/1.8 if it has simpler distortion and low coma.

Click to expand...

The Samyang 14mm f/2.4 actually does well on both counts. Simpler distortion and the best coma performance I've seen from any lens.

I'd be in if I didn't already have the Canon. Don't see any reason to upgrade here.

I've not felt the need to buy a new lens in a while. My last major FF lens purchase was the 16-35 f/4L in Nov 2015. I'm covered from 16-200 now on FF but I want to focus on my M lens collection. Eyeing that 18-150, right now I only have the 11-22 and 22/2, so need some more range.

Are we ever "done"? Nah I don't think so. Maybe we can be satisfied long term but eventually technology moves forward enough that we have to upgrade. Though I'm hoping my current set up will last at least another couple of years!

mazza1967 said:

Okay so tested the V20 today and it will not work with the 6d removes camera control , Works with M5 fine , I have rolled back the driver to V19 and all okay so now running 2 triggers 1 with V19 for 6D and The other V20 for the M5

Click to expand...

Mazza, is there any chance you can mail me the V20 software?

ijohnsson said:

I can see why one would use ND filters to extend exposures, but GNDs? Today? I used a ton of Singh-Ray GNDs in the 80s and 90s when I was still shooting film. These days it is so much easier to just bracket the exposures and blend in post.

Click to expand...

Not only is it easier, the results from luminosity mask blending gives vastly better results than the use of GND's ever could.

What will you be driving?

ERHP said:

It kinda brings back memories of when the goal was make cell phones so small you could barely hold them and now we have people walking around with 7" tablets for their phone.

Click to expand...

The goal was to make cell phones small when they were mainly used for calling or maaaaaaybe light text messaging. For a lot of us, the voice part is about the fifth most important thing a cell phone does these days. At best. And the other things are improved by being larger.

Not having a place to stow the pen kinda sucks.