J.K.T.

Lives in Finland Finland
Works as a non-photographer
Joined on Feb 14, 2004

J.K.T.'s recent activity

  • I certainly do. I'm completely fed up of the RP battery life.
  • Nope. That version 2.0 for 150-600 G2 is ages old. I suspect that so is the one for the first version. What they advertise is the current situation. They don't tell anything about how old the ...
  • I'm hearing this a bit too frequently. I have to wonder if Canon has made a bit of a design fib with the shutter stock and IBIS. They don't have that much experience with IBIS on cameras with fast ...
  • That's what I was trying to say - don't look at it as EF vs. RF. Just consider what lenses are available, what they cost and how much you need them. I don't need wide angles much, so I got a used ...
  • I had it and now have the G2. It works on R7 ... sort of. It worked somewhat better with RP. Last I checked Tamron has not updated the firmware on G2 since the RP came. Somehow I doubt there is ...
  • If the Tamron is not G2, then that will have to go. As for others ... what improvements do you need?
  • Are you shooting JPG only, RAW + JPG or possibly RAW only? The last could be problematic in this, but that would only affect review in camera. With max ISO the reason for unsharp results could be ...
  • We did get a bit carried away, didn't we? :-) If you want it for astro subjects only, the telescopes are likely the most cost-efficient solution.
  • I've made one for a couple of lenses as well. That would be enough for anything else except the moon. You mean the original one? Wow! I've wondered about that one as it was supposed to be good. ...
  • Yes - Nikon TC:s should indeed work with Nikon and then allow any adapter. Just how did you mate the EF TC to FD lens? The most narrow adapter I have found is 8mm or so and that prevents infinity ...
  • That's a matter of opinion. ;-) Those might indeed work. The distance between flanges is 26.5mm and the RF TC protrusion is d39 cylinder 16.3mm high. So that means there must not be anything in the ...
  • But be aware that with FD lenses and infinity focus the only TC:s that fit directly are FD ones ... and they are pretty bad by current standards. EF TC:s are automatically out and in order to use ...
  • In case of 1.4x the difference is way more than "somewhat".  ;-) EF 1.4x II introduces considerable distortion, some corner softness and a touch of CA. I have not had 2x II for comparison.
  • Then you should have no problem.  RP DOES focus with f/8 (400m DO II & EF 2x III or RF 2x), but the latter TC requires modified RF to EF adapter. OK - it is not as fast with those as it is with ...
  • I presume you were talking about 600mm f/4? If so, which version and mount (EF/RF)? The proposed TC:s were likely for same mount, but those have versions in case of EF as well. Then there is the ...
  • Nice find! I had the same problem and it took two trips to Canon to solve it out. They never told what the problem was. It is good to have something to try if it occurs again.
  • That depends. Using just EF protocol would still allow the lens designs to utilize the short flange distance. In some cases that is a serious advantage.
  • How about using polarizing filter on lens and polarizing film in front of the flash? If you tweak the angles between the polarizers right, the reflection sholuld be gone. On the other hand, so ...
  • As I wrote in the other message in this thread the conclusion was that it was very large difference between EF 1.4x II and EF 1.4x III and a very small between EF 1.4x III and RF 1.4x. In the first ...
  • No. The previous poster stated that the reason for the existence for 1.4x is in the design of RF100-500, where it cannot zoom under 300mm with TC attached and thus 1.4x was needed to fill the gap. ...
Activity older than 12 months is not displayed.
Total messages 492
Threads started 10
Last post 2 days ago
Total comments 61
Total likes 45
Last post 5 months ago
Total reviews 0
Entries 0
Votes cast 0
Photos uploaded 0