chauncey said:

There was a time, long time ago, that my personal library encompassed three walls in my den
and the local library was one of my favorite places.

Those times are passed...no personal library and visits to the library haven't taken place in eight years.
Magazines...not bought any of them in quite a while.

All that replaced by a box thingy, sitting on my desk, that connects me to all the knowledge in the world.
Where's the downside?

Click to expand...

I still have my library of books and it's always part of my research. Granted I rarely by them new, normally second hand where the pricing is sensible (digital books never seem to have that). In fact I have some of the Nat Geo books and a lot of the pictures in there are inspirational. I do the whole internet research as well, it would be silly not to, but I still value the books for the quickest way to home in on the areas I want to visit when travelling.

But hey, I still buy CDs and Blu Rays - streaming is not my thing, except for radio, lol.

It is sad, but like many companies they have found that surviving in the digital age is not so easy and whereas Murdock does have a rep for being ruthless, as mentioned if that means Nat Geo survives then alas it is the price to pay. Plus I would suspect the sellers knew the fate of staff and the list was probably compiled during negotiations. Murdock is no different in that respect to anyone else buying them.

I think many traditional magazines face the same challenges, just like newspapers. Many have moved to tablets in addition to traditional print. I use the former as it just saves so much space ;D

Page One: Inside the New York Times was a documentary in 2011 on how the NYT was having to adapt, and of course all the photog companies are still adjusting to the smartphone userbase / needs.

Hopefully they are adapting and levering the Murdoch news empire means there will be a greater reach and the ability to move into markets which they could not before.

AvTvM said:

The lenses I've already listed would work nicely on a small FF MILC. And new native short flange distance lenses could be even smaller. And it would still offer the option to work with any EF lens, no matter how small or large it is. I want both options in 1 system: A) small & light kit when thats all I need AND B) use of any EF lens [and possibly all sorts of other lenses] when there is a need for them. That's why I will never ever buy a camera with built-in lens. For thoses tasks I use a smartphone.

Click to expand...

If you mean adapted EF lenses I think only the 40mm pancake would, if you mean non adapted potential lenses I would say probably only fairly slow 28mm and 35mm lenses would. You could obviously mount larger lenses but then why go for an ultra compact body at all?

Again I think you could get an EF mount mirrorless camera/lens package pretty close to the size of the Sony A7's for all but the above handful of very small lenses, What you can't do is make an APSC mirrorless with an EF mount as smaller as the EOS M or even slightly larger models.

I wish there was more explanation. And the whole 'sees 25 colours'... well what does that mean? The Bayer filter was designed to mimic the response of the human eye to colour - we don't have 25 types of colour-sensitive cell, we have three.

From what I've read, tweaking/replacing the filter is likely to happen as it's the place in the system that most light is wasted, but who knows what its replacement will be.

Hello all,

Just some simple questions:

-Each filter thread diameter has its own specific standard pitch, is that correct?

This table shows the various pitches for different sizes: https://www.schneideroptics.com/info/faq/bw.htm#q31
The table lists a pitch of 1.0mm for the 86mm filter size. I am trying to obtain filter adapters from 86mm lens thread to 82mm and to 77mm filter thread for my new Otus 85. I bought one in China (Ebay# 320884651388), but the pitch appeared to be 0.75mm so obviously it doesn't fit and thins will damage. So I asked some other Ebay sellers about the pitch (Ebay# 281809595376 and 251637364064), but they all respond with a pitch of 0.75mm

-How is it possible that they sell 86x0.75mm adapter ring? How and where would they fit?

-If I do a stepdown from 86 to 77 on the otus85, would it vignette? Is there somebody on the forum that would be willing to do a small test? I have a bunch of filters in 77mm size and would like to use these on my Otus85 instead of purchasing for a lot of $$$ new filters in 86mm.

EF-M 11-22 reviewed by Klaus on photozone.de

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/963-canon_m1122_456

he's quite happy about it, except for heavy vignetting. And speculates as to why it is so:

Vignetting
Unfortunately there's a skeleton in the closet ... vignetting. It's shockingly high and in fact it's the worst that we have ever seen in an APS-C format review. A light falloff of 2.9EV (f-stops) at 11mm f/4 is immediately obvious in most scenes. Stopping down to f/8 is advisable to reduce the issue to a more manageable degree of ~1EV. The falloff is still pretty bad 15mm @ f/4.5 but, again, quite Ok from f/8 onward. The situation has eased a bit at the 22mm setting.
Given these findings and similar tendencies from the EF-M 22mm f/2, we are beginning to wonder whether we are really facing lens issues here. The 24mp sensor of the camera may have a substantial share in all this. It is likely that Canon simply took the unmodified sensor used in some of their DSLRs and this may not have been the best idea after all. Mirrorless lenses tend to be a more picky due to their difficult light transmission characteristics (=non-perpendicular light rays unless you are using a so-called tele-centric design). We'll see whether this behavior is confirmed once more in our next EF-M review.

Click to expand...

The long-term average from SLRs to DSLRs is still higher than the peak SLR period.

Did this ever get fixed?

I think I still want the G7 X as second camera for making vlogs and clips for YouTUbe of my photo shoots.

Was thinking upon the 24 105 non L for construction and performance comparison... my 500 to 800 may well be optimistic...

borner said:

My 2 cents:

* The PCB Einsteins and modifiers are great values in the studio. Portability is ok but not great in my experience. I find the Einsteins to be heavy, clunky, and fragile enough to be left at home most of time.

Click to expand...

I bought Einsteins precisely FOR their almost unrivaled light weight (for the 640ws output), my six have passed the three year "tough-test" almost entirely on location. By comparison, previous Elincrom and Profoto kits both spent far too much time at the repair shop. So far so good with the Einsteins.

borner said:

* Einstein reliability hasn't been as good for me as others. I had to send one back because after about 4 months of use, it blew out. The bulb and diffuser bulb cover is highly exposed making it easy to break while putting on modifiers (which I've done twice).

Click to expand...

Agree the front glass dome is exposed somewhat, but never had a breakage, changing mods all the time including a heavy, adapted 30 inch beauty dish 30 inch and a couple of the 86 inch PLM's.

borner said:

* The PCB modifier speedring mechanical connection is a terrible design, and just plain doesn't work with a big octabox without extra help. In semi-windy conditions outside, even medium sized sofboxes blow off the speedring.

Click to expand...

Yes this is a weak link but they're kind of locked in with this design. Later Einsteins function far better in this respect than the very earliest ones.

borner said:

* PCB customer service, however, is awesome. They are really really fantastic. Unfortunately, I know this because I've had to work with them more than I'd like.

Click to expand...

The service reputation is close to being unrivaled. You hear stories all the time praising the legendary PCB service. Fortunately this is still an experience that may or may not occur at some time in the future.

borner said:

* Wireless: PCB commander is reliable, works pretty well, but I find the commander display tedious to work with and hard to read. Pocket wizard flex and recievers with the Einsteins are totally unreliable w.r.t. triggering. I bought the commander gear because of this. The pocket wizard recievers for the Einsteins are on recally/don't use because they apparently can overheat (I don't use the anymore so I don't have any experience with this).

Click to expand...

The Cyber Commander is handy but has close to the worst GUI I've ever worked with. Apple's Jonny Ive would be appalled. I've got the PCB Cyber Sync setup with a receiver for each Einstein and never had a moment's trouble. The battery in the trigger seems to last for ages, and lets you know it's low with weird multiple firing. I can get HSS on full power (longest flash duration) using the Phottix Odin triggers. Don't have a lot of call for HSS but it's handy for those odd occasions. I'll be rolling this function out for a project later this week.

-pw

Corrosion happens due to either a porous coating or breaks there is no practical fix rub the corrosion away with a soft cloth whenever it happens

FramerMCB said:

Well...and let's not forget there's a significant price point difference between the Sigma and the Tamron and with the Tamron you're getting VC as well as weather sealing. Just sayin'

Click to expand...

Very true. However (and I admit I'm a bit biased) there is something pretty sexy about that f/1.4. I've been pretty ecstatic with some of the shots I've gotten with the 35mm Art. It surpassed my expectations.

I have a large collection of old Pentax manual focus lenses, if this thing has interchangeable focus screens so I can put a decent focus screen in for manual focusing, you might as well take my money now.

For me to get back to using Canon again:

- EVF.
- Wi-Fi.
- 30-40 mpix.
- DR around 14 stops.
- No banding/less noise.
- Dual card slots of the *same* type.
- Sensor IS

Though given Canons track record that is not going to happen anytime soon

A friend asked me to shoot some photos for his restaurant's menu, its a first time for me, and I know that its not easy, but he just wanted shots of the items as is, so no fake components or makeup, the items were cooked as usual, here are some of the results.

BobVu said:

My friend had 24-70 f4 IS and he liked its sharpness and IS. According to him F4 was a very good lens but not the best. He upgraded to 24-70 f2.8 II version and since the upgrade he's so impressed with the f2.8 version he sold all his primes: Sigma ART 35 f1.4, Sigma ART 50 f1.4, and Canon 135 f2. The reason he sold Canon 135 is because he also bought 70-200 f2.8 II. Both Canon f2.8 zoom lenses are excellent that you can forget changing it to prime lenses. I'm going to upgrade my 24-70 f2.8 I to the II version.

Click to expand...

It's a great zoom, don't get me wrong, but the 24-70 II's reputations of 'it lets me leave the primes at home' is only clearly true when you are looking at ordinary L primes from a sharpness perspective, like the older 35L (I) or clearly-not-built-primarily-around-sharpness 50L.

But stack up a modern prime against that 24-70 L II and it comes back down to earth: the Sigma 35 Art at f/1.4 outresolves the 24-70 II at f/2.8. I'd imagine the same would be true of the 35L II.

Also, it's modestly challenging to shoot that 24-70 II at f/1.4. :

Don't get me wrong, the 24-70 II is a stellar piece of gear, but an equally well designed/toleranced/built prime can do things that the zoom can't.

- A

This is what my current lighting setup looks like on a Bumblebee's eye (dark and reflective, so difficult to expose without blowing out the detail). Tech Specs: Canon 70D (F11, 1/125, ISO 200) + a Canon EF-S 60mm macro lens with 25mm of extension (1.7x) + a diffused MT-24EX (flash head "A" set as the key and "B" as the fill, both on the Canon flash mount). This is a single, uncropped, frame taken hand held. I am the finger model.

Finger Fed Bumblebee II by John Kimbler, on Flickr

I'm still experimenting with the materials that I'm using on the inside of my diffuser.

IMHO, the best review and test of lenses, http://www.objektivtest.se, have earlier listed ten of the sharpest lenses (https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=sv&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.objektivtest.se%2Fnyheter%2Ftio-av-varldens-skarpaste-objektiv%2F), they have now listed ten great bargains for full-frame, https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=sv&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.objektivtest.se%2Ftester%2Fobjektivtest-tio-fantastiska-fynd-for-fullformat%2F

clicstudio said:

Can't wait! My 1DX has 351,000 actuations already, the grip needs glue, it has sand and glitter on it... :
Need a new one asap!

Please Canon! Better DR and even faster AF with a wider grid that can focus on a face when shooting a full body portrait!

Click to expand...

yes!!!

Am I remembering incorrectly, or was there substantial talk about a lot of L glass coming out this year at the end of last year and beginning of this year?

privatebydesign said:

infared said:

These break so often that there is a repair video readily available for your use.
...and why did Canon wait 22 years???? :-X

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTu00wgJgRE

Click to expand...

I've had mine for over ten years and it works fine, meanwhile I have broken three different L lenses. I always have the hood on it especially when it is loose in my bag.

Click to expand...

You just gave me one more reason to get excited about a future 50 f/nooneknows IS USM -- a proper hood. I can't stand the current 50 f/1.4 USM hood.

My 50 f/1.4 is still going strong at five years. Soft as a pillow at f/1.4, I tend not to use it wider than f/1.8. But stopped down to f/2.8 or narrower it's sharp as the dickens.

- A

privatebydesign said:

CanonFanBoy said:

privatebydesign said:

CanonFanBoy said:

I've noticed, though, that the closer walls are, the more distortion there is.

Click to expand...

That isn't true. Distortion is entirely consistent with distance.

Also, you can use the free Adobe Lens Profile Creator http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=5489 to make profiles for any lens at any zoom length and any aperture. These custom made profiles are not difficult to make, the program even gives you a target to print to help the process, and can then be loaded into PS and LR and will appear in your normal lens profile panels.

Click to expand...

Actually, the magnitude is more noticeable in narrow spaces. So it is true for this lens.

Click to expand...

Can you post some test shots to prove that because it would be very unusual?

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=26729.msg530143#msg530143

Click to expand...

Actually, I have two shots here. The problem is I am pretty sure I was not square with the building in each shot. I believe we are talking about two different things. You are speaking about things in the same part of the frame at different distances. I am not.

You see, when I owned Canon's EFS 10-22mm and I went to the Las Vegas Strip (90 miles SW of me) everything, and I mean everything, leaned in towards the center top of the frame very harshly even if the subject was near the center of the frame (not at the left or right edge... but maybe half the way towards the center at the bottom and coming closer at the top. It was bad. I am not getting that type of barreling here. If anything, this lens seems to go the opposite way, but not nearly as extreme as my old 10-22.

In these two photos I got while waiting on an oil change (just trying out my new lens right after getting it), I do not have that problem. In fact, while I am not exactly square with the truck bed I have a hard time seeing any distortion at all in the truck bed, but I do in the building (I'm even less square with the building. However, things further from me (moving towards the center) are straighter.

I've got a few more photos taken inside some RVs where the keystoning is quite noticeable on the walls next to me, but not at the end of the small room. BUT, I may have no idea whatsoever what I am talking about either. My perceptions and reality may be quite different. Also, since I was not really testing for that, the problem may be that I was pointing the camera at a slight down angle.

These photos are not cropped. In the truck photo the camera is nearly resting on the tailgate. In the shop photo the camera is extremely close to the red post on the right. I really do not see any "stretching". If it is there it is very well controlled.

EDIT: There was correction provided by the profile in Lightroom. No cropping, though, was done. Sorry. Like I said... having some cognitive issues. I did not correct what the profile did. There could be some fine tuning done.

geekpower said:

i'm using the Hoya HD and haven't had any complaints. they have remained scratch free, even when i absent mindedly clean them with my t-shirt instead of digging through my bag for a lens pen.

Click to expand...

Ditto for me. I have several of the Hoya HD+ Low Profile Threaded Super Cool CYB (Cook Your Breakfast) filters. They have held up great and don't seem to cause any issues with the image.

I use them indoor/outdoor all the time. I don't use lens caps much. I clean them with my breath and my shirt all the time. In general, I abuse the hell out of them and they keep working fine.

Edited to Remove Fake Article

The 16-35mm F2.8 MKII, isn't the best, but it isn't awful either just a little soft in the corners. But at current cost is most certainly overpriced. I bought it about 2 years ago pre owned and have used it extensively for a few years and been fairly happy with it does the job, been round the world with it as well as covering events and weddings. Also shot a fair amount of astro and been happy with it

The Tamron is a better lens and I think you made the correct choose. I prefer the canon glass. When the new version comes out I will certainly upgrade to it.