Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
xzzy
Mar 5, 2009

They announced a 10-20 f/4 less than a month ago.. they are making better lenses.

They're also filling out the lens lineup with options for different situations. And they're removing the third party AF restriction in the next few months. RF is in a good spot now and the floodgates are gonna open.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

xzzy
Mar 5, 2009

There's more to a lens than aperture and price though.

Yeah there's a canon tax on buying anything with their name on it (gently caress off with the batteries already) but every RF lens they've made has fit well into a niche and reviewed extremely well.

xzzy
Mar 5, 2009

Get the 24-105 f/4. Save a lot of money, save a lot of weight, 2.8 is just bragging rights anyways. We all shoot at f/8 all the time, right?

:angel:

xzzy
Mar 5, 2009

Pretty much all dedicated camera bags have fatal flaws. Well, all backpacks eventually get annoying for one reason or another, but camera ones seem to take it a step further by being bad at everything.

Scouring B&H's ICU selection for one that fits a normal backpack has given me much better results. At least I'm not feeling the need to replace my backpack every year to fix an annoyance.

xzzy
Mar 5, 2009

Anyone had any good/bad experiences with the 'raw burst mode'? It's clearly a feature aimed straight at doing action where you can pre-capture and get the perfect moment after the fact. But it's weird in the way it saves a single CR3 for the whole burst and you later extract the best frame to a new CR3. It also limits you to electronic shutter.

Just curious of people's experiences before I go out and try it on wild fuzzy things. Does it work better than traditional spray and pray?

xzzy
Mar 5, 2009

It better take amazing pictures if they're gonna ask you to lug around 2 pounds of glass.

xzzy
Mar 5, 2009

That sounds like a rad update but I'd really like them to shave some weight off it and make an f4 version. I get that everyone loves them big apertures but I almost never go bigger than f8 so it's kinda wasted on me.

But perhaps it's better they didn't so I don't feel tempted to buy more gear.

xzzy
Mar 5, 2009

Yeah sorry, internal zoom. I guess they'll do it someday assuming this 2.8 happens but I wanna get stuff now!

xzzy
Mar 5, 2009

I discovered recently that EF rear caps fit on RF lenses in two of three possible positions. It's not perfect, it snags a little bit too much trying to get it off, but it's very close to being perfect. Which says to me canon could have made a lens cap that works from any position, they just chose not to because they're jerks. RF caps work just fine on EF lenses too.

I have considered designing a better cap and 3d printing it I just haven't gotten around to it. The mounting lobes aren't symmetrical like EF was but maybe if I made smaller lobes it would work just the same. It's not like the cap has to have a death grip to be useful.

xzzy
Mar 5, 2009

Just sat through a video about that new f/2.8 100-300 and dang what a bazooka.. just about double the weight of the 100-500.

Expensive as gently caress but apparently it's even great with the 2x converter and if one were to sink their retirement fund on that setup they'd be set for life.

xzzy
Mar 5, 2009

Doesn't seem worth it to me unless you really want that f/2.. it only gives 10 extra degrees of view compared to the 16mm pancake. It's only 20 degrees angle of view difference from widest to narrowest.

I'd probably aim at the 10-20 f/4.

I guess the f/2 makes it attractive for milky way shots, assuming the corners are nice and sharp.

xzzy
Mar 5, 2009

I know huge apertures are all the rage these days but I really hope third parties put out cheaper primes with a maximum of f/2.8 or f/4. A big bag of tiny primes is really attractive to me.


Granted ~400 grams isn't catastrophically heavy but their 16mm 1.4 is still more than twice as heavy as the Canon 16mm.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

xzzy
Mar 5, 2009

Sell some organs and get that 100-300 2.8.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply