|
Just going to leave this here
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 04:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 19:48 |
|
|
That isn't the sport version, is it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 05:28
|
|
|
Drunk Badger posted:That isn't the sport version, is it? There's only one version of the Tamron. Signs has two versions of that focal length. Someone who's not on a tablet should post that to the bird thread.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 05:35
|
|
|
BeastOfExmoor posted:There's only one version of the Tamron. Signs has two versions of that focal length. Someone who's not on a tablet should post that to the bird thread. Yeah, I just realized that's not the Sigma version. That would have been too good of a price for the Sigma sport version.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 06:50
|
|
|
Drunk Badger posted:Yeah, I just realized that's not the Sigma version. That would have been too good of a price for the Sigma sport version. Yea, way too good of price. Still a really good deal for the Tamron, which was already priced competitively at $1050.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 16:04
|
|
|
There is also a rebate that you can use from tamron on it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 17:30
|
|
|
My 5D3 with its BG-E11 attached fell out of my slightly-open Lowe Pro bag from a low stool to the floor. Yes I'm stupid and the curvaceous design of the Lowe bag didn't help ... it was one of those sad, slow-motion slumpings of a bag that broke into a fall with the zipper only half way closed, that I couldn't stop from the distance of where I was sitting at my desk developing photos on the computer.  The battery grip doesn't work now (no power to camera). It's built like a tank and there's no evidence of anything that moved, was bent or was tweaked that I can see. The fall wasn't far and really nothing happened to the lens or the body (everything working fine with regular battery in camera). Any idea from experience out there what happened to it from the fall? The thing itself is super expensive, I can only imagine that 'work done on it' is going to be big bucks and probably not involve a lot of work, unless it's some transistor or capacitor that inside blew on impact. Haven't found any similar threads on the net about this. I'm hopeful I could do something without having to send it in. I've blown it out in the camera shaft on the contacts that receives the grip and inspected the BG-E11 as thoroughly as I know how, and everything seems OK visually and checking for anything loose on the grip is solid.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 02:00
|
|
|
Kind of surprised that of all the pieces the battery grip is the part that crapped out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
Yeah that does seem strange / lucky(?) ... I don't know anything about battery grips, but I'd be checking to make sure that everything was working with my camera body first, and then thinking about the grip. I'd think that service on the grip might be comparable to buying a new one, especially a third-party brand. I (stupidly) packed my backpack with both my 5Dmkii and 400mm L lens and took them with my on a bicycle commute to work the other day. On my way, I hit some kind of debris on the road and blew my front tube, causing me and my backpack to go tumbling over to the side. I tried to land on my feet but ended up rolling into the curb. The gear definitely took a good whacking. I can't tell what damage, if any, I did to the precious cargo. Everything seems to be in working order. This poo poo is pretty tough. I'm sure you'll still get years of service from your camera. Too bad about the grip though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2015 00:15
|
|
|
Funny enough my 6D + 50 1.8 fell off my lap onto the car floor today when I was trying to find my seat belt buckle and as far as I can tell it seems to be fine. My t2i has taken multiple hits that were much harder than that and still works great. Unrelated note: I put the 24-105 back on the 6D and I swear to god every time I take a lens off I introduce more and more dust to the focusing screen. Despite my precautions to avoid it. iSheep fucked around with this message at 00:24 on Sep 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2015 00:21
|
|
|
That's still the big advance to DSLR's in a lot of my use cases. Dust and grit on a focusing screen or mirror is a mild annoyance compared to getting (and removing) stuff stuck to your sensor's AA filter. Also even the consumer grade stuff being rugged enough to take a few good falls and resist moisture.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
TheAngryDrunk posted:Kind of surprised that of all the pieces the battery grip is the part that crapped out. SMERSH Mouth posted:Yeah that does seem strange / lucky(?) ... I don't know anything about battery grips, but I'd be checking to make sure that everything was working with my camera body first, and then thinking about the grip. I'll try to see if there's anything I can do without messing up the grip to ascertain what it might be. Then, I'll call or write the repair center. Mainly it's great for having extra power if I'm doing video and for the portrait shots (trigger). If the estimate is too expensive though and the the cost of repairing is prohibitive, I'll look into a third party alternative. Thanks all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2015 04:04
|
|
|
5D IV rumour spotted  http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/09/canon-unveils-250-megapixel-prototype-dslr-camera-sensor/ rolleyes fucked around with this message at 08:55 on Sep 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2015 08:50
|
|
|
There's literally zero chance that sensor ends up in their next DSLR rollout.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2015 14:25
|
|
|
Thoogsby posted:There's literally zero chance that sensor ends up in their next DSLR rollout. yeah, usually the is meant to label something as tongue-in-cheekhowever, they are working on a 120MP DSLR! http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=15738
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2015 14:55
|
|
|
TheQat posted:yeah, usually the Indeed it was! Didn't know about the 120MP thing though. At what point does sensor resolution become limited by the optical resolution of the lens you're using? Seems like we must be getting close to that point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
Never? I thought optical limitations only meant you'd only ever get a percentage of possible resolution out of a lens.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
Seamonster posted:Never? I thought optical limitations only meant you'd only ever get a percentage of possible resolution out of a lens. No lens is perfectly sharp. Even if it were, if you pack your pixels close enough together you run into issues with the wavelength of light itself. This is related to (but kinda inverse of) why you can't see transistors on a modern computer chip with an optical microscope, no matter the magnification - they're literally unresolvable with visible light. In short, lenses have a resolution limit and this is what you see in sharpness tests against the ISO 12233 charts. There'll be a point where it's no longer useful to add megapixels to a sensor of a given size because the lens won't resolve details that small. What I've got no idea about is what number of megapixels that equates to for standard sensor sizes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
At that point you start making bigger and bigger sensors and wind up with Digital medium format cameras, an even deeper money sink.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
rolleyes posted:There'll be a point where it's no longer useful to add megapixels to a sensor of a given size because the lens won't resolve details that small. What I've got no idea about is what number of megapixels that equates to for standard sensor sizes. Assuming your lens is optically perfect, the diffraction limit depends on your aperture. You have to stop down a bit to get to that point (~f8 for APS-C and ~f11 for FF), so your pixel sizes still have plenty of margin for normal usage. Then you get a macro lens and have an effective aperture of f/96, so everything is crap all the time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
Bubbacub posted:Assuming your lens is optically perfect, the diffraction limit depends on your aperture. You have to stop down a bit to get to that point (~f8 for APS-C and ~f11 for FF), so your pixel sizes still have plenty of margin for normal usage. Oh come on now, even the MP-E 65 has an open aperture of f/16-ish at 5x magnification and is reasonably sharp till f/32
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 14:05
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
I forgot that you could even get a sharp image with the MP-E until I used it at 1x for some frogs and moths.  I gotta start focus stacking.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
Bubbacub posted:I forgot that you could even get a sharp image with the MP-E until I used it at 1x for some frogs and moths. Amazingly, it often gives you suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 13:41 on Sep 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 13:38
|
|
|
https://instagram.com/p/7dEKUdoomn/?taken-by=popphotomag That looks like it's the same size as a 300/2.8. Wowza
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
is the 70d good, is it worth selling an old t2i and upgrading, i shoot sports and video (of sports) for fun
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:https://instagram.com/p/7dEKUdoomn/?taken-by=popphotomag It's also going to cost $texas. I want one. toxicsunset posted:is the 70d good, is it worth selling an old t2i and upgrading, i shoot sports and video (of sports) for fun It has better autofocus. If the t2i's autofocus is not sufficient, upgrading may be worth it. However, it would help to know which lenses you have because it may or may not be more important to upgrade those.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 23:01
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:https://instagram.com/p/7dEKUdoomn/?taken-by=popphotomag Saw this on canonrumors earlier and was all  I figured something like this was in the pipe since the release of the 400 f4 DO II but didn't expect to see anything this soon. I kind of expected them to do the 800mm f5.6 since its due for an update. Its also weird that they are showing off a prototype - Canon never announces anything until its almost ready to ship. I'd be willing to bet its because Nikon just passed them up with their newest super-teles + just generally killing it with camera bodies lately. Hopefully this DO poo poo is baller as gently caress if only so that all the rich people trade up and ditch their 600 f4L IS II's at bargain prices that I can eventually afford
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
Nikon's 200-500 5.6 is going sell by the loving boatloads. I wish we had something like that. I love my Tamzooka but have no need for 50mm on the wide end and 600mm is mediocre at best.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2015 04:50
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:https://instagram.com/p/7dEKUdoomn/?taken-by=popphotomag It looks like a loving war horn.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2015 14:17
|
|
|
Seamonster posted:Nikon's 200-500 5.6 is going sell by the loving boatloads. It's like half the price of the Canon 100-400. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
Bubbacub posted:It's like half the price of the Canon 100-400.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
Pablo Bluth posted:It's also two-thirds the price of their own 80-400. Unless as a company they've decided to cut their margins, I reckon it's going to be the story that it's lens that has sacrificed a lot for price. I think it's impact will be felt more on the sales of the Tamron and Sigma budget 500s than either the 80-400 or 100-400. They certainly sacrificed minimum focus distance. I await the optical performance to see if I should be jelly or not though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
toxicsunset posted:is the 70d good, is it worth selling an old t2i and upgrading, i shoot sports and video (of sports) for fun If you're looking for a good crop and already have canon lenses, yes. We still own one as our crop camera, the step up from the 60D in autofocus and general quality is significant if you are shooting fast moving things, but depending on your budget and planned use the 60D is perfectly fine too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2015 01:46
|
|
|
How well do you think a 70-200 f/2.8 L with a 2x TC would hold up to the 400mm f/5.6, in terms of sharpness at 400mm?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 00:59
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:How well do you think a 70-200 f/2.8 L with a 2x TC would hold up to the 400mm f/5.6, in terms of sharpness at 400mm? http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...omp=5&APIComp=0
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 01:04
|
|
|
Note that that's the IS II and the 2x III. That's pretty much the best-available combination if you're going the 70-200 w/ 2x TC route. The 70-200 2.8 (non-IS) and the 2x II teleconverter is significantly worse, and the AF will be slower. Canon touts a big improvement with the IS II lenses and III teleconverters. I have the 70-200 2.8 IS II and the 2x III teleconverter, and can tell you it's OK, image quality wise. AF is pretty snappy on my 5D Mark III -- fast enough for high school sports. If you just want as much reach as you can get for a decent price, 100% buy the 400 5.6. It's like half the cost of the 70-200 2.8 IS II and 2x III. The only reason I have that combo is because I use the hell out of the 70-200 alone, found a good deal on the 2x III, and had a use for it for sports.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 01:16
|
|
|
Thanks. I have the 400 already but am tempted to get some kind of faster, stabilized 70-200ish zoom for sports and general outdoor use. Just wondering if I could conceivably lose the 400 in favor of a TC if I did so. (Love the 400 though.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 02:43
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:Thanks. I have the 400 already but am tempted to get some kind of faster, stabilized 70-200ish zoom for sports and general outdoor use. Just wondering if I could conceivably lose the 400 in favor of a TC if I did so. (Love the 400 though.) Having tried the 70-200 2.8 IS II with the 2x III (borrowed, since I didn't have my 400/5.6L with me), it's a workable (though much heavier, and more expensive) combo - however, the caveats are that you get less contrast, and slight "auras" around bright objects. AF is OK (but nothing like the 400).   
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
Cool, thanks for sharing. Those don't look bad at all in terms of detail reproduction. They do look a little washed-out though, as you say. Good to know about the AF. Right now on my 5D2 the 400mm's performance is barely tolerable as it is (which is down to the body, not the lens) so maybe I'll just go for the 70-200 f/4 instead, and not worry about teleconvertibility.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 01:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 19:48 |
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:Cool, thanks for sharing. Look at the sigma 120-300 f2.8. It's sharp, good AF performance, and good IS. The second version is very good, and not too expensive used. the third version is fantastic, but costs what it's worth.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 03:21
|
|
