The usual shenanigans beat the 10 pounds of glass it might take to duplicate the corrections in the lens.My bet is on shenanigans being involved.
Upvote
0
The usual shenanigans beat the 10 pounds of glass it might take to duplicate the corrections in the lens.My bet is on shenanigans being involved.
Vanessa Joy has a copy of the R3. She made a YouTube short vid with it in her hands.I really don't care about the lens. The announcement of the R3 is what caught my attention. I know this is a rumor site and I should at least be a little skeptical. Which I am, however, right now I'll cling to any good news I can get. Here's hoping the announcement is next week for the R3!!
And it’s quite funny too. She loved her 1DX II’s and III’s but has used the R, R5 and R6 a lot too so I am very interested in what she has to say when her opinion comes out. Hope it isn’t too fawning.Vanessa Joy has a copy of the R3. She made a YouTube short vid with it in her hands.
Here is a example in this thread of an other forum:I will likely do what you suggest, buy a fast 28 prime. I have no idea why I own so many 50's. I hardly use them. Anyway...thanks for the 28 advice.
Well, they came in really handy when I was writing reviews of the EF-M lenses, and wanted to show focal length examples at 18-24-35-50-70-100-135-200mm. But for actual photography? I couldn't care less about those markings.Do people actually rely on those markings? I usually just frame my shot. What is accomplished by the markings?
No need to feel bad for me. Nor was I suckered into Nikon. The Nikon Z5 at $899 is such a better deal than the Canon RP at a similar price. If Canon would have put the R's sensor in the RP, then there might be a reason to stick with Canon at that price point, but the Z5's images are superior for anything in low light (and quite frankly better in any light). The Z5 with the 24-200mm f/4 gives me better image quality than the Canon R6 and the RF 24-105, in my opinion. If choosing between Nikon and Sony, well, I have tried Sony and I am never going back there again! With Nikon I have the advantage of the Sony sensor, but don't have the awful Sony ergonomics and all the other Sony manufacturing shortcuts. For wildlife I use an Olympus E-m1 II, so don't need the well respected Sony AF for fast moving subjects. Had a chance to use the Canon R6 for a couple weeks, but for the current price, I was able to get both the Nikon Z5, Z50 and the 24-200mm lens used. If that's being suckered, I will willingly be suckered anytime.Gee, I feel bad for you a bit. I feel bad for anyone that is suckered into Nikon who doesn't already have a large glass commitment to them. They just barely limp in with gear now, playing catch-up with Sony and Canon. If it was anytime before 1987, I would go all in on Nikon, they are legendary, BUT it isn't 1986.....the world has moved on. If I was wealthy and impatient I too may have bought the Z, just to play with for a few months, but I remember reading the specs and not being impressed, as usual, when I compared it to Sony. At that time I just bought a Sony rx1rm2 to tide me over. The last time Nikon impressed me was the 36mp d800E, which was the last Nikon body I ever owned. It was when they moved manufacturing that I realized they were probably done, and would end up the next Ricoh or Pentax, making a few cameras for extreme fans, but making nothing really innovating or industry-changing.
I would love to be wrong on this, but Nikon is going to need to make major changes if they still want that market share they once had in their glory days.
The fact that Nikon does everything backwards is the most annoying part about switching from Canon! And my other camera is an Olympus - which does everything in Canon's direction. So I am really confused now!I was a big fan of Nikon mirrorless after years with Nikon DSLRs (back to the D100). Z6 was a delight. But... Canon was producing great lenses and Nikon's are ho-hum. The deal-breaker was the 70-200, with Canon's amazing compact form compared to Nikon's horse's leg. I did love the Z24-70 f4, except for the irritant that it was non-functional in its normal compact position.
I'm thrilled to be able to screw on and off lenses the right way after decades of Nikon, but am still struggling to get the zoom direction right each time.
The traditional advice for new users to choose between Nikon and Canon: try both, and pick whichever one has things turn in a way that feels right to you.The fact that Nikon does everything backwards is the most annoying part about switching from Canon! And my other camera is an Olympus - which does everything in Canon's direction. So I am really confused now!
That's great until some poor dumb bastard thinks Canon is right about how to insert and lock lenses but wrong about zoom. Or vice versa.The traditional advice for new users to choose between Nikon and Canon: try both, and pick whichever one has things turn in a way that feels right to you.
I have a blender that is also designed to make smoothies directly in dedicated, insulated cups. So the cup lids thread on normally, the blade assembly threads onto the cups (which we don’t use) and thus the standard pitcher (which we do use) in reverse.That's great until some poor dumb bastard thinks Canon is right about how to insert and lock lenses but wrong about zoom. Or vice versa.
Same here All I hoped for has been confirmed so far, I don't even about the weight anymoreCanon makes my dreams come true. 14mm at the wide end, 77mm filter, 0.2m focusing distance, IS, relatively compact size..
Rounding 14.8mm to 14mm would, IMO, be unethical. However, it's important to note that specific lenses are not patented, optical formulae are, and also that most patents contain many such formulae so it may be the one you've seen that looks like a 15-35/4 is not the one on which this 14-35/4 lens is based. Nor is it a requirement that a lens be based on a patent.3) How wide is the 14mm? You may think that's a bit of an odd question, but according to the patent, the actual focal length was 14.8mm, so calling it 14mm is being a little generous.