thx1138

thx1138

Lives in Australia Sydney, Australia
Works as a Senior Researcher - Canon Australia
Joined on Jul 17, 2004
About me:

Canon 1D X, 5D III, 17-40 f/4L, 45 f/2.8 TS-E, Sigma 50 f/1.4 Sigma 85 f/1.4, 135 f/2L, Canon 100 f/2.8L IS macro, 70-200 f/2.8L IS mk II, 300 f/2.8L IS, 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS, 500 f/4L IS mk II, 1.4x TC III, 2x TC III, 600 EX, Sigma 24 f/1.8 EX, Canon 24-7 f/2.8 mk II, Sigma 150 f/2.8 Macro EX HSM DG

Comments

Total: 1520, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Carl Sanders: Too expensive and the 200 - 500 does a fabulous job without teleconverters.

Yes it's a bargain for the money. However where the the new lens would be better is probably AF speed, well actually it had better be better for nearly 10x the price.

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2018 at 06:51 UTC
In reply to:

thx1138: LOL, even more ridiculous price than Canon’s, that’ll get sales moving said no one ever. Hopefully too, unlike the past two 200-400 f/4 models it can focus at infinity.

What they need is a great 80-400 f/4-5.6, the current one is average and overpriced, smashed by the Canon and Sony offerings.

LOL,

Well the Leica 75 f/1.2 is actually several hundred cheaper.

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2018 at 06:50 UTC

Stupid price, the 14 f/2.4 is not much dearer and is discounted now and then. I paid $299 for the current MF version, won’t be paying 3x as much. Also the Sony version with AF is $300 cheaper and then we have the Youngnuo 14 f/2.8 announced cheaper than this too.

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2018 at 05:40 UTC as 6th comment
In reply to:

rbach44: No one will buy it. Doesn't Nikon know all of the sports pros use A9's now? Who needs a pro lens when you have 20FPS and adapters that work OK under some conditions now...

They will still use 400 f/2.8 and a 70-200 f/2.8. I’ve never seen pros using the Canon 200-400 at rugby games, always 400 f/2.8, even in daylight.

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2018 at 05:37 UTC

LOL, even more ridiculous price than Canon’s, that’ll get sales moving said no one ever. Hopefully too, unlike the past two 200-400 f/4 models it can focus at infinity.

What they need is a great 80-400 f/4-5.6, the current one is average and overpriced, smashed by the Canon and Sony offerings.

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2018 at 05:33 UTC as 86th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

woerd: Beware of LG 4k screens. I owned 2 LG 4k large screens. Both were sudden death after two years. No support from LG because the warranty period was finished. Never again.

I agree, doing plenty of research on TV's I'd avoid Samsung and LG like the plague. Their aftermarket sales and service can be appalling and frankly their QC is often crap.

Wait for monitors from reputable brands.

Link | Posted on Jan 8, 2018 at 00:02 UTC
In reply to:

SmilerGrogan: Interesting, but is 600 nits a lot or a little? I've been reading about nits for the last several months, and the writers make it sound like these new monitors are so bright they can be used to search the night skies for Messerschmitts.
So is 600 nits twice as bright as a typical TV that you might buy at BestBuy? Thirty times brighter? And how does that affect my video editing?

Also, the cliché is “champing at the bit” not chomping.

Don't forget HDR600 is only the mid-grade standard, if you are into serious HDR work, you'll want the highest VESA standard HDR1000 monitors, and none have been announced yet I know of.

Link | Posted on Jan 8, 2018 at 00:00 UTC

When I was working at Canon a few years ago, I was part of a blue sky research team, working on meta materials lenses. We were trying to get Canon interested in this stuff and had a practical application ready to go, a metalens made from wires (similar idea to this) to improve resolution of MRI machines. No prize for guessing what Canon thought of the idea, it died as did our blue sky group within a year.

I’m curious how this lens works, because normally a metalens only works at nanoscale distances, it can improve the resolution of a traditional diffraction limited lens by a factor of 10-20 by capturing the information lost in evanescent waves. Normally when light is collected by a lens it can only capture a part of the fourier spectrum, the lost high frequency wavevectors are what limit the resolution of a lens to a maximum of wavelength/2. Metalenses can achieve wavelength/20 and have been built for different wavelengths, such as radio, terahertz and optical, need to read the paper.

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2018 at 01:22 UTC as 38th comment
In reply to:

GodSpeaks: It will take a while before these metalens can be made large enough for most camera sensors. I can see this turning up in smartphones first. A 1 cm metalens might cover a 1" sensor. Anyway, I will await the first product to incorporate a metalens and wait for the reviews.

Focusing the light to a point is a long way from making a viable photographic lens. What about aberrations and speed.

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2018 at 01:13 UTC
In reply to:

1Dx4me: hey canon, i want to hear about the new 5Dsr II, where is it????? any news, please?

As much as the likes of Rishi and others will bash Canon over it's DR, the 5D4 is only 0.8EV behind at base ISO compared to D850 and matches the D850 and A7RII/III from ISO160 for DR. All measured and verified. There is no hands down anymore, if you can't get a working image with 13.5EV DR at base ISO, you need a new hobby. The 5DsR while not as good as the 5D4 is noticeably better than the 5D3. 5DsII will no doubt get entirely new sensor, already rumored to be 60MP and will be released at Photokina next year

Link | Posted on Dec 21, 2017 at 00:45 UTC

I-I-I-daho
I-I-I-daho
Woah-oh, woah-oh, woah-oh, oh
Ah, ah, ah, ah
Ah, ah, ah, ah
Get out of that state
Get out of that state
You're living in your own Private Idaho
Livin' in your own Private
Idaho

Link | Posted on Dec 20, 2017 at 21:23 UTC as 20th comment

I'm sure Rishi wishes Canon would just go away!

Link | Posted on Dec 20, 2017 at 09:06 UTC as 13th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

jennajenna: such a boring fov. where's the 12mm?

Also there is the Laowa 12 f/2.8 Zero-D, 15 f/2 Zero-D. The E mount has a ton of choice for primes.

Link | Posted on Dec 20, 2017 at 07:32 UTC
On article Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark III review (611 comments in total)

I worked for Canon for several years in an R&D centre in Australia and the one thing that shocked me was the average age of the most senior management in Canon; they were living fossils in their mid 70s or older. I was shocked when we were pitching a new research area to Canon and their global R&D chief, who was 82 at the time, and a former professor of physics didn’t know what “photonics” was. Needless to say the idea was shot down in due course. This is still the case and whilst these dinosaurs run the show Canon will be artificially constrained by ultra-conservatism. Sony’s R&D chief is in his 40s, a product of the tech era and it’s no coincidence Sony’s camera group has been on a role since his appointment. Now too bad they haven’t got a clue about ergonomics

Link | Posted on Dec 19, 2017 at 23:54 UTC as 118th comment | 6 replies
On article Canon patents 400mm F5.6 catadioptric 'mirror' lens (220 comments in total)
In reply to:

thx1138: A better name for these lenses is Catastrophic. Works fine in a telescope where you don't care about bokeh, but for a telephoto, no thanks

If you want to do wildlife on the cheap get the Sigma 100-400 f/6.3, we don’t need mirror lenses

Link | Posted on Dec 16, 2017 at 05:36 UTC
On article Canon patents 400mm F5.6 catadioptric 'mirror' lens (220 comments in total)

A better name for these lenses is Catastrophic. Works fine in a telescope where you don't care about bokeh, but for a telephoto, no thanks

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2017 at 22:28 UTC as 41st comment | 4 replies
On article Olympus 45mm F1.2 Pro sample gallery updated (345 comments in total)
In reply to:

Och Elo: When I used to shoot with M43, the 2 cheaper lenses in this focal length (Panasonic 42.5 and Oly 45mm) were quite excellent imo. Indeed, I found most of the M43 "cheaper" lenses to be quite good values and good optically and I do think small inexpensive lenses is where the strength of this system lies.

Beware beware the Triplet Perar!

Link | Posted on Dec 14, 2017 at 01:17 UTC
On article Our favorite gear, rewarded: DPReview Awards 2017 (526 comments in total)
In reply to:

Daft Punk: I think the zero-black out of the Sony A9 is very special. A game changer. It has to be tried to be believed how liberating it is to shoot with zero VF blackout. Blew me away.

I think this achievement should be recognised.

Gear of the year to camera barely released and an update of an exisiting camera. Nothing ground breaking at all in it. A9 should have gotten the award, this award is farcical.

Link | Posted on Dec 13, 2017 at 04:52 UTC
In reply to:

Will1355: Wow! Lightroom Classic CC is even slower after the update. This is really annoying. It is the slowest application on my imac. I have to start looking for a good alternative, I guess.

It's a total POS. Massive thread at Adobe forums about how crap LR classic runs on high end machines. It's good in a way since I'm now using C1 Pro 11 and DxO Photolab more and more and they are better and faster, much faster. All they need is DAM. Adobe are pitiful and it's good to see the pay to play approach has made things worse not better.

Link | Posted on Dec 12, 2017 at 23:42 UTC
On article Olympus 17mm F1.2 Pro sample gallery (409 comments in total)
In reply to:

Triplet Perar: Let me explain the part people don't really "get" with these premium m4/3 lenses. An FF lens cannot keep look of its bokeh when stopped down to gain more workable DoF: you gain DoF, but kill the bokeh. And if you like bokeh, the DoF is so thin it is impossible to work with; or must move farther away, which, again, changes the composition and needed magnification.
Premium designs for m4/3 solve those problems, and such lenses deliver best of both worlds. (1) More DoF is better to avoid errors when shooting dynamically, with less focusing mistakes especially in portraiture. (2) Bokeh at f/1.2 is made NOT to match f/2.4 bokeh of a conventional aspherical design, which is very messy, but SURPASS it by far. The lens allows optical design (with more elements but with less thickness of glass) to render bokeh as if made with a much faster portrait lens of a classic design with fewer elements.
For those who really understand this, the m4/3 becomes best thing since sliced bread!

Well of course a 17mm lens can focus closer than a 35mm lens, it doesn't matter how small the sensor is behind it. This is a silly comparison, but why don't you check out the Tamron 35 f/1.8 SP

Link | Posted on Dec 11, 2017 at 23:54 UTC
Total: 1520, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »