South of the Artic circle, Viggo, where it is always sunnyWhere do you all live with enough light for this?
Upvote
0
South of the Artic circle, Viggo, where it is always sunnyWhere do you all live with enough light for this?
Whoa! I've done an 1800 second exposure for brushed emulsion on paper in sunlight but 3 hours?I have done a 10,800 second exposure on film!
Macro lenses always bit dimmer,maybe compromises for quality or focus breathIm assuming we're looking at similar prices to Sony's 28-70; hopefully not similar optical performance.
Its weird that the 24-240 is brighter while not being wildly heavier despite containing more than double the range.
Question, when they will make extention tubes for R lenses? I use extention tubes with my EF lenses to create marco photogrpahy.
Star trails...... and it was a total failureWhoa! I've done an 1800 second exposure for brushed emulsion on paper in sunlight but 3 hours?
There is such a thing as faster than tripod-needed shutter speedsI was trying to find a polite way to tell Viggo that not all of us are unlit subterranean bunker photographers, but you beat me to it.
- A
Tell me what? Google iPhone X/11 Pro specs.
Is someone going to tell him/her?
- A
Tell me what? Google iPhone X/11 Pro specs.
You guys are living in the past if you think smartphones aren't a threat to cameras. Canon and Sony certainly believe they are.
Or if you want to win an Oscar for a motion picture shot mostly on an iPhone (Searching for Sugar Man). Or make photos like these or like these. To paraphrase TMACIOSZEK, you're living in the past if you think that the iPhone camera is suitable only for snapshots of the kids....Now if you're just taking pictures of your kids, sure, that cell camera is awesomesauce.
You can always get a lens extender. Many macro lenses only go to :5 mag, but extend that to 1:1 with an extender. Otherwise the mechanics get complicated, and more expensive. It’s cheaper to buy an extender if you really need 1:1.
Canon already has the RF 24-240mm f4-6.3 IS USM so why make a RF 24-105mm f4-7.1 IS USM?
Yeah, though with only .4x macro at 105mm, Im not sure you can excuse f/7.1 in any way.Macro lenses always bit dimmer,maybe compromises for quality or focus breath
I'm not talking about myself. I'm talking about the potential customer base for this lens.Are you using your phone to shoot a wedding? Perhaps a sporting event? If so, I pity your customers. Now if you're just taking pictures of your kids, sure, that cell camera is awesomesauce.
There's a massive difference between "mostly shot" and "a few pickup shoots"...you'd make a stronger argument running with something like Tangerine which was shot entirely on an iPhoneOr if you want to win an Oscar for a motion picture shot mostly on an iPhone (Searching for Sugar Man). Or make photos like these or like these. To paraphrase TMACIOSZEK, you're living in the past if you think that the iPhone camera is suitable only for snapshots of the kids.
As far as exposure is concerned f2.8 on an APS-C lens is the same as f2.8 on a FF lens and 4.0 on a FF lens is the same as 4.0 on an aps-c lens. So, for exposure, f7.1 on the 24-105 will be 2/3 of a stop slower than F5.6 on an aps-c.
Or if you want to win an Oscar for a motion picture shot mostly on an iPhone (Searching for Sugar Man). Or make photos like these or like these. To paraphrase TMACIOSZEK, you're living in the past if you think that the iPhone camera is suitable only for snapshots of the kids.
I'm not talking about myself. I'm talking about the potential customer base for this lens.
It just doesn't seem logical for Canon. They saw complaints online "there are no affordable lenses for RF!" so they went "Okay, here we go $300 24-105 f7.1!" Nobody is going to want it. It seems like an ill-advised reactionary move that I would expect more from Sony than Canon. A 28-70mm f3.5-5.6 for $300 would've made much more sense.
Tell me what? Google iPhone X/11 Pro specs.
You guys are living in the past if you think smartphones aren't a threat to cameras. Canon and Sony certainly believe they are.