|
BeastOfExmoor posted:I think the current world situation has people really bored, more than anything. High earners who might normally spend their summers traveling, doing outdoor activities with friends, etc. have mostly been working from home, not going out at night or on distant vacations dreaming of a future where they can travel and do fun camera things. can't spend $20k this year on an african safari or ride elephants in asia, might as well get a nice camera for next year
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2020 02:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 19:44 |
|
|
melon cat posted:Don't forget carefully staged photos of their new camera body "floating" above their hands and golden hour "BTS" shots of their caged out rig in a field somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2020 09:43
|
|
|
This is apparently the road map for 2021 RF lenses. CR2 is typically very accurate, although things can obviously change behind the scenes. https://www.canonrumors.com/well-well-well-could-this-be-canons-lens-roadmap-for-2021-cr2/ quote:These lenses are likely next in the pipeline: edit: 100-400 is supposed to be a lot smaller than the existing 100-500mm. BeastOfExmoor fucked around with this message at 19:20 on Oct 9, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2020 19:16
|
|
|
Those supertele primes are bonkers. I really dig what they're doing with the RF line even though I'm gonna stick to EF for the predictable future.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2020 20:29
|
|
|
quote:Canon RF 1200mm f/8L IS USM
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2020 21:13
|
|
|
I'm going to hold off until Amazon kits it with a Vivitar tripod and a wrist strap.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2020 22:09
|
|
|
xzzy posted:Those supertele primes are bonkers. That 1200 f/8 must be freakin huge.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2020 00:06
|
|
|
President Beep posted:That 1200 f/8 must be freakin huge. I guess it will be smaller than the EF version
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2020 00:12
|
|
|
BetterLekNextTime posted:I guess it will be smaller than the EF version I bet that means way more expensive too. It’s gonna take some kind of technical fuckery to pull that off (unless maybe lens design in general has moved in that direction so it’s a solved problem).
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2020 00:19
|
|
|
BetterLekNextTime posted:I guess it will be smaller than the EF version 1200mm F/8 should be about the same size objective as a 800mm F/5.6, right? Looks like the EF 800mm F/5.6 is ~10lbs? It'll be interesting that the list includes lots of overlap if you include a 1.4x TC. Why would you buy a 800mm F/5.6 or 1200mm F/8 when a 600mm F/4 gets you 840mm F/5.6 with a 1.4x TC and 1200mm F/8 with a 2x TC, assuming sharpness is remotely comparable which it may not be.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2020 00:59
|
|
|
BeastOfExmoor posted:1200mm F/8 should be about the same size objective as a 800mm F/5.6, right? Looks like the EF 800mm F/5.6 is ~10lbs? Good point. Maybe it's more or less a marketing thing, so when you sort camera lenses by Price or Length Canon will always ends up with the first items in the list. Or maybe they think people might add TCs to the super long ones to get that sweet 2400mm f/16.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2020 17:39
|
|
|
1200mm isn't new to them. but only f/8? I'd stick with the classic... https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-1200mm-f-5.6-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2020 19:08
|
|
|
I wonder how expensive that 14mm T/S will be. I'm assuming "very".
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2020 19:45
|
|
|
Dude figures out how to uncap 8k recording on the R5 (sort of, got 48 minutes at 23C ambient), is better at applying thermal tape than Canon: https://blog.yifangu.com/2020/10/09/canon-eos-r5-thermal-mod/
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2020 22:35
|
|
|
xzzy posted:Dude figures out how to uncap 8k recording on the R5 (sort of, got 48 minutes at 23C ambient), is better at applying thermal tape than Canon: As one commenter says this doesn't make much sense given other temperature hacks didn't extend the record time. I thought the battery door hack showed there was a timer which over rode everything.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 08:33
|
|
|
I think the newer firmware changed that, now it actually cuts off based on temperature instead of some ultra conservative timer.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 17:24
|
|
|
Is it crazy to be half-way considering a 5Ds? They're like $1300 right now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 18:33
|
|
|
BetterLekNextTime posted:Is it crazy to be half-way considering a 5Ds? They're like $1300 right now. What are you going to use it for and what other cameras do you have?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 19:54
|
|
|
Pablo Bluth posted:That depends on your use-case. I picked up a 5DsR back in January to pair with my 1DX – I can live with the relatively weak autofocus and ISO performance and it's leagues ahead for when I want to do landscapes. While I can lust after an R5, at ×3.5 the price I don't need to regret picking up the 5DsR. This would be replacing a 6D, mostly for landscapes and probably some macro. I've never sold anything bigger than 24x36 but sometimes I feel like I'm hitting the limit especially if I end up cropping.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 20:13
|
|
|
BetterLekNextTime posted:This would be replacing a 6D, mostly for landscapes and probably some macro. I've never sold anything bigger than 24x36 but sometimes I feel like I'm hitting the limit especially if I end up cropping. At the price, that's a good step up for you, but don't convince yourself on the finances of it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 21:34
|
|
|
When you say replace, does that mean selling/trading-in the 6D?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 22:44
|
|
|
Pablo Bluth posted:When you say replace, does that mean selling/trading-in the 6D? Probably. I have a 7D2 also so I'm not sure I need the 6D as a backup. It's not like I'm an event shooter who would be 100% screwed if my main camera went down.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 23:42
|
|
|
xzzy posted:Those supertele primes are bonkers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2020 23:45
|
|
|
RF L meets or beats EF L for *build* quality.
ilkhan fucked around with this message at 10:32 on Oct 19, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2020 04:51
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:RF L meets or beats EF L for quality. It can beat EF lenses in IQ at around 10~85mm due to the rear element can sit a lot closer to the sensor to have reduced CA without having to bend light at some extreme angle. That is if the lens was properly designed for mirrorless instead of just adding some extra space at the back similar to an adapter. After around 100mm it doesn't matter that much anymore and it's basically the same. But pretty much all of the L lenses are huge and bulky and defeats the purpose of having a mirrorless for sizes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2020 08:01
|
|
|
Encrypted posted:But pretty much all of the L lenses are huge and bulky and defeats the purpose of having a mirrorless for sizes. at worst they're basically the same size as the EF or Sony E-mount equivalents RF 24-70 f2.8 L:
EF 24-70 f2.8 L II:
FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2020 08:32
|
|
|
I've resigned myself to the fact that most of the time, I will have a big and heavy kit. I went mirrorless because it simply offers better features for me — better AF and frame rates, better video, eye AF, focus peaking, etc — and the size was a bonus. It is nice to have the option of creating a compact walkaround kit, but that's more of a fringe benefit than a driving decision factor for me. At times, the size can be a bit of a drawback when using long lenses. Years of using big chunky DSLRs with vertical grips have definitely spoiled me to ergonomics with 70-200s and longer lenses.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2020 15:06
|
|
|
Based on the IQ reviews that the nerdiest of lens reviewers Christopher Frost does, the RF versions of classic EF L lenses really aren't producing a superior image yet. If I remember properly, his claim is most of the improvements have come from lens coatings. I understand he's just one dude with loads of money to burn on lenses but he's tested just about everything in history and his methods are super consistent so I tend to at least kind of trust him. I have seen random internet people saying the RF lenses feel more plasticy than older L lenses but they have metal where it counts (the mount) and the weather sealing is just as good.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2020 15:16
|
|
|
dakana posted:I've resigned myself to the fact that most of the time, I will have a big and heavy kit. I went mirrorless because it simply offers better features for me — better AF and frame rates, better video, eye AF, focus peaking, etc — and the size was a bonus. It is nice to have the option of creating a compact walkaround kit, but that's more of a fringe benefit than a driving decision factor for me. Similar for me. Don’t really care about any perceived size/weight benefits. What drew me was focus peaking, IBIS, and lens adaptability.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2020 22:13
|
|
|
xzzy posted:Based on the IQ reviews that the nerdiest of lens reviewers Christopher Frost does, the RF versions of classic EF L lenses really aren't producing a superior image yet. If I remember properly, his claim is most of the improvements have come from lens coatings. I suspect the 24-70mm and 24-105mm were just hurried attempts to get something out the door to go with the new system and I suspect we'll see them revisited in a few years. Everything else I've seen, besides that crappy kit lens, has been pretty great. Certainly not cheap though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2020 23:11
|
|
|
President Beep posted:Similar for me. Don’t really care about any perceived size/weight benefits. What drew me was focus peaking, IBIS, and lens adaptability. melon cat fucked around with this message at 23:46 on Oct 19, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2020 23:23
|
|
|
melon cat posted:I used to feel this way up until I had to lug around the EF 70-200 F2.8 Mark 2. It's a loving caber. Any benefits it had were immediately outweighed by its unwieldy size. *cries in 150-600mm* At least once a week I contemplate downgrading to a 100-400mm, although increased sharpness might not make it a downgrade.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2020 23:54
|
|
|
I habitually lug a 70-200 f2.8 and Tamron's 150-600 because the instant I leave the 600mm at home it's like I'm Snow White with wildlife, every last fuzzy thing in the forest wants to hang out with me. Which also means the 150-600 is the best bear repellant money can buy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2020 00:53
|
|
|
100-400 + 1.4x. or for RF the 100-500 + 1.4x. plenty of reach and still the weight savings.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2020 04:44
|
|
|
melon cat posted:I used to feel this way up until I had to lug around the EF 70-200 F2.8 Mark 2. It's a loving caber. Any benefits it had were immediately outweighed by its unwieldy size. it's not that bad 
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2020 15:38
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:100-400 + 1.4x. or for RF the 100-500 + 1.4x. plenty of reach and still the weight savings. But my aperture!! I need ALL the photons.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2020 16:14
|
|
|
Just duct tape four of these together and you'll have an unstoppable telephoto solution.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2020 23:59
|
|
|
BetterLekNextTime posted:Just duct tape four of these together and you'll have an unstoppable telephoto solution. I didn't even know these existed but I'm not paying $300 for a phone sensor. If they bump that up to a micro 4/3 or even 1 inch sensor, add more capture options, I'd seriously consider it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2020 00:10
|
|
|
I bought a EF 17-35mm f/2.8 for 350€. Apparently the sharpness is decent at 20-35mm range but garbage at all apertures below 20mm. The price was good enough that I want to give it a shot. Maybe it works in some situations despite the glass having no resolution in borders at wide angle zoom settings. I'm currently loaning a 16-35mm F/2.8 II and it seems to be a very good lens. There seems to be many good reasons for Canon to have made so many ultrawide zooms. They have gotten so much better. It's just that the price of a 16-35mm was over 2x higher. I probably can upgrade to it later.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2020 12:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 19:44 |
|
|
The 350€ 17-35 2.8 arrived. Surprisingly it is not completely terrible. F8-11 are quite good and comparable to 16-35 2.8 II. At 2.8-5.6 the 16II is clearly better when focused to infinity. I will have to test the 17-35 with wider apertures and closer ranges Best thing is that this lens is actually usable, and not complete garbage as I thought it would be! And if I want better wider aperture performance I can always upgrade to 16II or 16III.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2020 16:53
|
|