mr bird

Joined on Jan 24, 2015


Total: 6, showing: 1 – 6

Wow, this site is full of negative people.

Link | Posted on Nov 1, 2015 at 19:22 UTC as 56th comment | 6 replies
In reply to:

l_d_allan: I'd like to see a drone with the equivalent of the 1" Sony RX100 camera. Minimal with no flash or EVF for least weight. 24-70mm equivalent lens.

Maybe that already exists?

Why would you want a smaller sensor than this one? And how are you planning g on adjusting a zoom lens? You zoom by flying closer or further away

Link | Posted on Sep 14, 2015 at 14:01 UTC

I got this lens a few days ago for my Canon 5d iii. so far I like it, the distortion isn't that bad for a wide angle. Once there is a lens profile for this in lightroom it won't matter at all. The lens flare is controlled very well and it's very sharp. I took a few pics of the frozen Paterson Falls over the weekend with it. I'll try and post a couple pics later when I'm at my laptop.

Link | Posted on Feb 25, 2015 at 11:12 UTC as 22nd comment
On article Go wide! Hands-on with Canon's 11-24mm F4 L (217 comments in total)
In reply to:

tuomov: If you desire a ultra wide(say below 15mm) rectilinear lens, or rather desire the image it produces, then it's better to buy a sharp Fisheye, say the new FF Samyang 12mm f2.8. With a fisheye you have a possibility to have the absolute widest FF shot(if needed), and additionally you can rectilinearize the fisheye afterwards to your liking, producing either a fully rectilinear 10-15mm equivalent, or even wider semi rectilinear shot. You also get more light with the fisheye and in my experience a sharper image, it's much more difficult to optically remove the barrel distortion thus keeping the distortion in the lens and removing it with software produces a sharper image, the Samyang fisheyes for crop and FF sensors are amazingly sharp and cheap, you don't basically have to focus them in normal shots...

I like the Samyang fisheye but never had a good experience getting the lines straight and everything proportional in post.

Link | Posted on Feb 6, 2015 at 23:16 UTC
On article Go wide! Hands-on with Canon's 11-24mm F4 L (217 comments in total)
In reply to:

Douglas F Watt: How does it get to be so big at just slightly wider (11mm vs the 12mm of the Nikon), while the Nikon is 2.8 and it's f4? Don't get that one . . . .

Nikon is 14 not 12. The canon has to be so big so it doesn't have major vignette issues. Bigger glass is more weight. That's why it's so big and heavy.

Link | Posted on Feb 6, 2015 at 23:13 UTC

If it was able to accept filters I would have one on pre-order now. I don't use them all the time but I would like to be able to if needed. I may just go for a used Canon 16-35 ii for around the same price. I'll wait till it's out, rent both and then decide.

Link | Posted on Jan 24, 2015 at 13:28 UTC as 22nd comment
Total: 6, showing: 1 – 6