Is this one of your guys by any chance? It seems he would have passed your requirements with flying colours. oh, schweppes.. this lens Weight ONLY: 34.6 pounds (15.7 kg). Oh, come on, Sigma... Should have built 200-600 F2.8 lens instead and still satisfy your 50 pound requirement.That happens to be a very common provision for employment for many firms. If you can lift 50lbs how can you lift and unpack stage cases, pelicans and grip cases? A messenger working for a law firm has the same requirement. Why don't you tell me what you don't understand? The camera and lens used to shoot don't weigh 50lbs. You just need to show you can lift 59lbs if needed to do every part of you job. Ignorance may have you laughing.... but it really shows how little you know.
To think that we Poms used to admire you Aussies for being tough all round sportsmen (and women).Is this one of your guys by any chance? It seems he would have passed your requirements with flying colours. oh, schweppes.. this lens Weight ONLY: 34.6 pounds (15.7 kg). Oh, come on, Sigma... Should have built 200-600 F2.8 lens instead and still satisfy your 50 pound requirement.
but seriously: to make someone to lift over 24kg in Australia at work is illegal.
Sounds like a conspiracy theory. What does Canon stand to benefit from such leaks?Surely you're not naive enough to think that absolutely no rumors about upcoming Canon products are "leaks" that are internally approved and sanctioned by senior management at Canon?
Most users of the really big whites have no problem using an EF 1.4X III or even EF 2X III. The adapter is simpler and carries no optical elements like the extenders do.I don't think this will be a thing.
But I do think there is a possibility of a 1 series R camera that has a beefier more integrated EF adapter that people with the really big whites would be more comfortable trusting. Maybe something that screws onto the body like the current adapter but then also has a secondary secure mechanical connection to really bolt it to the body.
I just got the R for my birthday yesterday and I don't understand why there would be an issue with the current adapters. I have the one with the control ring and I didn't have any issues with it in my first tests.
Does everything work correctly if you change lenses without disconnecting the adapter from the body?
In the country in which I live, marketing is taught in the relevant academic degrees, but not in high school.Have you ever studied marketing, even at the high school level?
Like Canon suffers from a lack of buzz.It's called "buzz".
Lots of R user must be insane, then, because many have learned to use it in a way that offers something they did not have with Canon DSLRs. Is it a smashing success? No. But there are those who have figured out how to get the most from the tool in their hand instead of loudly yelling,"Who moved my cheese."New times, new measures. When it came out it already was said to have features missing and bugs. also some of the concepts seem experimental like the touch bar no one sane likes.
Yeah, I know, and I'm sure you're right. Everything seems super secure with my adapter too, though I haven't mounted anything longer than the 70-300L on it.Most users of the really big whites have no problem using an EF 1.4X III or even EF 2X III. The adapter is simpler and carries no optical elements like the extenders do.
Yeah, because when one needs to focus really close, the sensor is going to be able to back up 40-50-100mm from the position needed for infinity focus?There wont be problems on EOS-1 combatibiliness with different ef and R pins cause there isnt pins on that body.
In body aperture leafs.
Autofocusing works only with moving sensor more close and far from lenses. No lens focus. Hybrid mount is just side effect.
Ibis is good enough to replace lens IS.
That is true mirrorless revolution .freely moving sensor.
No image quality weakening extra lenses for focus and IS.
This hybrid camera rumour may be just on drawing board still.
One extra benefit not having electronic connection between lens and mount ,mount can do auto shift operations with medium format lens
BINGO!I'm still betting on a relabeled adapter, it will look different, but in essence still be same thing as the current EF-RF adapter. But it won't be called that to appease all the people with knee-jerk reactions to the word 'adapter'.
I still do see a few PJs with three bodies hanging and occasionally even four when "walking in" or out of a scene. Back in the film days even more was not uncommon when a lot of PJs had a different body or two (one each for a "short" and "long" lens) for each type of film they shot.Ah, that’s cheating event shooters are usually maxed out at Having two camera bodies per person. However @GoldWing may disagree as at his firm condition of employment is being able to lift at least 50 Lbs. . Oh, dear. Where is the mega LOL icon here. Let’s just have a laugh, shall we
Michael,Thank you for this post. What a wonderful story!I still do see a few PJs with three bodies hanging and occasionally even four when "walking in" or out of a scene. Back in the film days even more was not uncommon when a lot of PJs had a different body or two (one each for a "short" and "long" lens) for each type of film they shot.
Here's one of Robert Frank way back in the day with three, two of which are medium format.
View attachment 187763
I haven't yet ran into this lady.
Nor this one.
View attachment 187765
100mm sounds lot ,maybe old extension tubes would be more clever stillYeah, because when one needs to focus really close, the sensor is going to be able to back up 40-50-100mm from the position needed for infinity focus?
There have been quiet periods here, explained by longer update cycles. Now there's a lot of buzz, I doubt most of the rumored cameras (and possibly lenses) would actually appear, at least in the rumored schedule.Precisely. Because they make sure there's always a story circulating, even when there isn't a story at the moment.
That's not what I'm talking about at all - What I mean is simply a single unit as if you combined the RF adapter and converter together but having the switch move the optical elements just like it does on the 200-400. Having the extra 1.4 at the flick of a switch is much nicer then putting off and on extenders especially in crappy conditions.How does a built in switch change the length of the back of the lens (or the front of the camera)?
The EF 200-400mm f/4 L IS 1.4X has a switch that moves optical elements sideways in or out of the optical path of the light going through the lens. It does not change the physical length of the lens at all.
For a 100mm Macro lens, the difference between infinity focus (100mm in front of the image plane) and 1:1 unity focus (200mm in front of the image plane) is exactly 100mm.100mm sounds lot ,maybe old extension tubes would be more clever still
yeah maybe it would be too big camera ,but on future when cameras hover on air