Nemorino said:

The Laowa 15mm 1:1 macro has a working distance of 4.8mm afaik. :-o

Click to expand...

I finally bought one. It's not perfect, but it does what it should.

For this picture I used the larger image circle to recompose the picture while keeping the original resolution of 8192x5464.
Interesting obsevation: this is a close focus distance and the optimized image is larger and suffers less from vingetting

Moved 7.0 to the left, 3.7 up
And the original composing

I went to a few popular tourist destinations over the last few days, and I was the only one using a camera at each place.

In Australia, Covid has pretty much been forgotten about.

Thanks, Neuro.

I solved the problem - it is not a thread but a stud with a C-ring and the C-ring was missing. 10 bucks for a set of rings and it is operational (a bit cheaper than 500 for a new hood). Next problem is how to use the remaining 289 C-rings!

I have a few lenses that take the 48 or 52mm drop in filter. They all came with a clear filter in a holder. I have a 52mm drop in CP filter that I purchased from eBay. The two holders are a little different. The clear filter is not in a screw in mount.

I did notice you can find the clear filters and holders on eBay as well though they come up less often than CP filters.

BTW my drop in CP filter seems to do almost nothing but cost me a stop of light.

Stig Nygaard said:

If Canon was to release a RF-S 15-60/2.8 lens, it would be Canon's first interesting RF-S lens for me.
I don't do video, and don't care about powerzoom option. But definitely sounds like a perfect replacement for my EF-S 17-55/2.8.

I would probably miss something in the long end if making it my standard walk-around lens instead of the EF-S 15-85mm. But it has the important 15mm in the short end, so if weight of an RF-S 15-60mm/2.8 was closer to the EF-S 15-85mm than to the 17-55mm/2.8 (which I hope is realistic with the shorter flange distance of a mirrorless lens?), it might still be considered for that too.

Oh well. I'm thinking to much about it. It is still only a "random" lens-patent coupled with a not so specific rumour

Click to expand...

UPDATE: (Still thinking to much about it...) Just studied the referenced patent. It seems the lens in patent has a fixed length of 14.4cm. So pretty long, and it is of course because it is an internal zoom (probably needed for video and powerzoom compatibility?). So I guess it will be a pretty big lens.
Would still be an interesting lens, but probably not a potential standard-zoom to replace my EF-S 15-85mm...

Thanks for the heads-up, @ronbyram! Any new update on the SX70 price?

neuroanatomist said:

Yep. I really don’t get how someone can do nothing but complain about Canon since the 7D…and continue buying Canon.

From 2012:


His 7D was crap. His 7DII was crap. His R6II was crap. He’s full of…well, I’ll let you fill that one in.

Click to expand...

I've given up on trying to understand most of the negativity posted about Canon. Trying to discuss it reasonablely has been futile.

Here's another for the Bumble's

Richard CR said:

yes but far more compact especially for telescope focals - but 200mm is basically what I would call a wide field telescope really, versus the 1500 to 25000mm normal schmidt cassegrains. My most portable telescope way back when was a Williams optics 80mm FL telescope. I miss that thing. It was still a beast of a lens though. That being said, at 200mm you can get away with a cheaper mount too.

Click to expand...

The challenge for cats in everyday work is the vanishingly thin DOF. They can be decently sharp (in theory even sharper than a refractor) at the exact point of focus, but the lack of central illumination causes a more rapid loss of sharpness as you move away from perfect focus. That feature makes them more challenging to find focus with as well. They also have a pretty severe loss of MTF at medium frequencies (that gets worse at lower f numbers) and that causes loss of contrast that has to be fixed in post. I have 10 different cats and love to experiment with them, but they are not suitable for everyday picture taking other than, as you suggest, possibly Astro, where mid frequencies are not of interest when looking at points of light and there truly is only one point of focus, infinity.

It would be interesting to understand better how 'oversampling'/binning could be made to work with Canon's digital lens corrections to result in more optimal end sharpness.

Our expectation at the moment is that the advertised resolution of a sensor makes its way 1:1 into the final image. However, behind the scenes that isn't what happens - especially considering the intense de-warping that happens on some of Canon's new glass (especially wides). This does result in reduced resolution in these lenses in the corner, due to these gross corrections.

Some people seem to get upset at the 'poor design choice' Canon makes here - but from an engineering perspective it's reasonable to move optical corrections into the digital domain if that produces a better set of compromises around lens size, performance and cost.

Would we be able to get better quality edge resolution though, if we had much higher sensors (and more data) feeding into this pipeline?

Your solo trip around Iceland sounds like quite the adventure, despite the unpredictable weather and those wild Icelandic winds wreaking havoc on your gear! It's a shame you couldn't catch the full glory of the aurora, but hey, that just gives you a perfect reason to plan another trip, right?
Thanks for sharing your favorites from the journey! By the way, if you ever find yourself in need of some relaxation after braving the elements, consider checking out Los Altos Resort. They offer a tranquil retreat amidst stunning natural beauty – the perfect place to unwind and recharge after your Icelandic escapades.

Hi,

I have the flash triggers YN622C II. Using the trigger on an older Canon camera (550D) the flash function settings work perfectly. However when trying to use these triggers with the Canon R7 the flash function settings don't work. Has anyone figured out how to make this work?

scyrene said:

Same, although it's taken me a long time to reprogramme myself as it was never an issue with DSLRs (aka I got lazy). Even where there is a bit of dirt, it's rarely fatal to an image - on busier backgrounds it's less visible, and on plain ones where it stands out it's often easy to remove with the clone tool.

Click to expand...

And LR allows you to copy/paste the clone locations between images, I had to do that for a rental 1dx3, the smooth background behind the dragonflies showed the dozens of spots quite clearly.

Jethro said:

Great stuff Sanjay - excellent from start to finish. The slow motion effects (and the bulk wind machines!) work very well.

Click to expand...

Thank you so so much! When at 120 fps, the camera does not shoot on RAW and the eye focus does not work. I hope that this gets fixed in the future...! I created the flickering light effect by bouncing an HMI on a silver sheet.

I like the idea of the 10-24mm f2.8

You can record past the 30 minute record limit if you use an external recorder like the Ninja V+. You just haver to make sure and start recording from the recorder and not the camera as documented here.

Spring

Today CIPA forecast that 5.89 million interchangeable-lens cameras would be shipped in 2024.
In their financial documents, Canon forecast that they will sell 2.88 million ILCs in 2024.

That puts Canon's forecast 2024 market share at about (2.88/5.89) 49%.

kirbic said:

Holy cats, three pounds! That is one big chunk of glass! And I thought the RF 85/1.2 I just bought was a honker...
Seriously, this is one interesting lens for astro. I've been very impressed with the image quality of some of the other Art lenses, namely the 20/1.4 and 50/1.4. If this one delivers on the optical performance, and if it becomes available for RF mount, it just may find a place in my astro kit.

Click to expand...

Yes, but "IF"! Sigma has really several highly interesting (astro) lenses, but there is still nothing known when or if they will ever be build with an RF mount.
Beside of that: The RF 85/1.2 is also a very good lens for astro (you pay for it), but the native selection of RF lenses is so incredible small that I still depend on 'old' Sigma Art and Samyang lenses plus one EF lense with the 'blue spectrum refractive element' for my night activities. To be honest: I don't think that will improve soon. Sony? Yes, but they have other problems ...

I see one of the lenses is a a 24-50 mm f2.8. An interesting choice, but I wonder how much smaller / lighter this is than the 24-70 mm f2.8 lens. Personally, I like the Canon approach which is a 24-105 mm f2.8, but that is just my opinion and what makes sense to me.

Impressive details. Very nice shots. Well done, Sir!

A very impressive sight. Well done!

jam05 said:

A "Patent Application" does not imply that a patent was issued.

Click to expand...

The sky is blue. Gravity exists. Did you have a point, other than stating the obvious? I don’t see that Richard implied anything different, he went so far as to put ‘application’ in the title of the post.

I have a business trip to Seattle mid-August and will take the opportunity for a birding holiday for both of us afterwards. Any advice on places to visit for birds and nature would be much appreciated.