Search results

Why do we need a Sigma 24/1.4 when there's a Canon 24/1.4 coming? Why a Sigma 30/1.4 when there's a Canon 35/1.4? Why a Sigma 56/1.4 when there's a 50/1.4? The lenses I'd have liked to see are the ones COMPLIMENTARY to Canon (e.g., 28/1.4) not those that are kind of me-toos.

I don't know why you're so invested in the idea that a halo product would pay for itself, to the point you'll just insult a long-standing fellow member of the group. 1) what was the development budget 2) what was the unit cost 3) how many did they expect to sell 4) how many did they actually...

off-topic but what are the color codes in your equipment list?

I'm excited by "Filter Type: RGBIR" as a kind of filter... is that RGB+infrared? Many have been saying "we don't need more than 20-25MP" and yet the 45MP sensors have absolutely acceptable sensitivity, noise and dynamic range for many shooters and most shooting. Back in the 90s, I had the idea...

150mm aperture, so it will have the DOF of 800/5.6, 600/4, or 400/2.8 basically. Or Nikon's 300/2--I have an old coworker who owns one of those.

So the entire R&D for the lens, designing every single part, testing, redesign, retesting, regulatory testing e.g. for electronics interference and so on, was amortized over how many units? What do you believe that fixed cost was in total and what's the marginal cost per lens? If they've...

I don't think you really understand the concept of halo product. Many manufacturers make a small number of high-end products as a form of advertising, to get their brand covered by the media and create a buzz among the customer base. You see this a lot with car companies a lot, whether it's a...

1) If there was a cost they could sell them at to at least break even, it'd be in the catalog and available for order at any time. 2) If they could break even on something like that, they could break even on a 35/1.0, 50/0.7, 135/1.0DS and so on, but aren't offering such things either. It's...

So it the rumor mill at least solid that it is an f/1.4 not f/1.2? The only good thing about f/1.4 is that it leaves room for an f/1.0 halo lens at some point...

They're "halo" products, meant to increase the attraction of the product line as a whole. Canon likely lost money on the 1200mm f/5.6 but people still talk about it. Ditto, Nikon's ultra-huge fisheye that could see wider than 180 degrees. Ditto the Zeiss (or was it Schneider) 50/0.7 lenses.

I keep asking people to show me an example of how in-camera correction of distortion hurts a photo or is even detectable. No-one EVER supplies an example. If you have an example I'd be very thankful. "Properly designed optics" are ones that make enough customers happy that the firm benefits...

OK over 30 years that'd be once every couple months. Maybe I'm just dreaming and it wasn't that often? It's usually when changing lenses. I know I've had to send the M6, the 35/1.4ASPH twice, and the 75/1.4 once. The second time the 35/1.4 was dropped the front ring was bend very notably but...

I've dropped Leica M lenses and bodies about 6 times and needed to send for service 6 times. I've dropped Canon EF gear about 200 times and needed to send for service 3 times. I feel the RF stuff is probably stronger than EF, BUT, is easier to mark. As I sold off my EF gear and replaced with...

For sure. Maybe six months on a charge? And I didn't even turn it off except when I was putting it in luggage. It was just always on. Now I swear I have to charge it even after two weeks of being OFF! To be fair I had the 8-AA grip on the EOS-1N and V.

I get nearly all my gear used-mint near when it comes out. I may only save 10% or so, but buying at 90% of cost and selling at 80% of cost makes it literally half the price of ownership of buying new. And sometimes you get lucky: my R5 had a shutter count of zero...

I shot the EOS-1N, 1V, 1Ds Mk I II III. I had the EOS-3 as a second body and liked the eye-selected focus sensor which worked quite well for me. I never understood why others were always excited about the smaller cameras. Well, the R5 is enough camera for me now. I don't need the stronger...

I got into Canon in '95 and I think from the introduction of EF they were leading from the front. They ALWAYS had a bit more zoom range or an extra 1/3 stop or whatever compared to the Nikon. I feel like the QL17's were the best camera of that era if you take price into account, too. I...

Thanks for hearing me out on this subject. I think the people clamouring for 50/1.4 are ACTUALLY asking for one of the two lenses we ALREADY have. Either they want something like the EF50/1.4, a double Gaussian design, cheap, compact, good not great IQ, and so basically what the RF50/1.8 is...

That's certainly a good idea. While the Leica lenses were good, the film wasn't (compared to today's sensors), so cropping away 1/2-2/3 of your MP won't leave you with a technically worse photo than the M, perhaps. I do most of my shooting with the 16/2.8 and 50/2.8 and expressly carry them...

no AF is a Leica plus/no AF would be a Canon minus--sorry, but like you're trying to have your cake and eat it there :-D Are you a lawyer by any chance? :-D no IBIS--I've never thought that as a plus. Indeed the only mistakes Canon's made since acquiring me as a major customer in 1995 was...