Search results

Have you tried just having more money?

How much better is actual tilt than perspective correction in Photoshop? Obviously you will lose some quality from stretching and squashing pixels, but how much does it really matter?

I'm a little bit surprised, but I guess the pricing on full-frame cameras isn't quite going down fast enough to make them affordable to the same people buying Rebels now. It will be interesting to see if Canon can still make the value proposition make sense without cheaper RF-s lenses. They...

Hurrrrrrrrr, this is going to be really hard to resist. I've been looking for the right point to enter RF, but mainly been waiting for the right higher-end body to pair with the 24-70 f/2.8. The R5 looks amazing, but I can't justify the price for my needs right now. I was a bit disappointed...

Easily the worst EF lens, and they must have made WAY too many because they're still trying to give them away to this day... It shows up as a free throwaway in a bunch of kits. There's also the 70-300, the latest IS II is one of my favorite lenses (a lot of that has to do with the fact that I...

That's not aliasing, that's the extra sharpness you get from throwing away the completely useless AA filter! Canon only adds it to cripple their cameras so that they can re-sell you a version without it later.

There's a difference between what the display may support and what the camera can actually drive... It's not enough that the display can refresh at 240fps, you have to be able to sample the sensor that often and process/push pixels to the display

If there was any venting, the camera would get eviscerated for its lack of weather-proofing...

I just wanted to buy the R5 and brag about owning it... It would have been nice to set it out on my mantle and point out to my visitors, while explaining that it has larger numbers than Sony's cameras do. But now that people have said mean things about it on the internet, my dream is ruined!

For some reason my first reply went into another thread, but speedboosters work by shrinking the image circle and effectively concentrating light. It works like a reverse teleconverter. If you take an 800mm f/11 lens and shrink it from full frame, you'll end up with something close to an 800mm...

No, the speedbooster works like a reversed teleconverter so the effective focal length doesn't much change from the original lens. The 800mm f/11 would be closer to 800mm f/8. The only way you get the extra stop is by focusing extra light onto the APS-C sensor (shrinking the image circle)...

The new Nikon TCs work with their Z 70-200 f2.8 lens, while Canon RF TCs bizarrely only even work with the 100-500mm at >300mm... I wonder what design decision Canon made that limited the TCs so much, and why they decided the tradeoff was worth it. Everything else about the RF system seems to...

The flat-earthers just don't realize that they have lens correction turned on.

CanonRumors is announcing that Canon has announced their announcement.

You can definitely use APDs as "geiger counters" for photons and count them up over time. Typically, you need to divide the count by some ginormous number, since even your average 60W light bulb emits 1.8 x 10^20 photos/second. However, you could use different factors to accommodate different...

I never care about the cases, but Canon's pricing on lens hoods is becoming ridiculous. I just about choked when I saw that the ET-74B (70-300mm IS II USM) is a $45 piece of plastic. No felt flocking, no nothing. I'm usually one to just fork out the little bit extra for OEM equipment, but...

For UWA zoom, the RF 15-35mm f/2.8 is already out, what's wrong with that one?

And, it will be cheap enough to sell in convenience stores.

I'm waiting for the Canon 16-1600mm f/8-800

She screws the wrong way?