No, I don't remember him.
I tend to forget people who indulge in perverse activities with pure and innocent lenses.
I think the account was active for only two days last summer.
Upvote
0
No, I don't remember him.
I tend to forget people who indulge in perverse activities with pure and innocent lenses.
I believe it's so you can open the aperture for documents, for example, slide/negative reproduction.That's interesting. Why do they do that? At least as many macro subjects are three dimensional as flat; is it inherent in being able to focus that close? The EF 100L has seen a fair amount of use for portraiture but I'm not expert enough in that genre to judge the quality.
I believe the main issue with macro lenses I've owned and tested is that they often fail to satisfy fully at longer distances.I believe that's more design theory than the reality of every person's usage. Consider two points:
if you have a macro subject that is not flat, it doesn't matter as much - it also doesn't matter that much if you're tightening the aperture or using focus stacking.
Not everyone is so particular about boke - if it saves them from carrying (AND BUYING!) one more lens, I expect it's not a few people willing to use a macro for portraits.
£780 rebate in the UK = 10600 SEK.Here in Sweden there is a 4500 SEK / US $ 410 / 390 € summer rebate if you buy the EOS R6 Mark II.
I wonder why...
I think the account was active for only two days last summer.
You don't think...*dramatic music* He was a troll?I wonder why...
Thank you for the feedback on the RF 100 macro.I believe the main issue with macro lenses I've owned and tested is that they often fail to satisfy fully at longer distances.
I quote: Zeiss 50mm Makro Planar, EF 100L F2,8, EF 180L F3,5, Leica Visoflex 3,5/65.
My own testing revealed three "infinity excellent" macro lenses: Leica R 2,8/60, Leica R Apo 2,8/100 and Canon RF 100L F 2,8.
I found these 3 lenses can be used from macro to infinity without any compromise on quality or bokeh.
I cannot strongly enough recommend the RF 100 macro!
Conversely I found non-macro lenses disappointing around MFD; for instance the EF 70-200 IS II, which I had hoped would replace a faulty Sigma 180 macro.I believe the main issue with macro lenses I've owned and tested is that they often fail to satisfy fully at longer distances.
Macro underwater subjects aren’t 2D but also not possible to focus stack. Generally considered ‘portraits’ of critters but also textures. The only real option is ~f18 for acceptable DOF accepting diffraction. Need mountains of strobe power at close to sync speed. I’ve also tried f2.8 with ambient light but low keeper rate for sharp subject focus.I believe that's more design theory than the reality of every person's usage. Consider two points:
if you have a macro subject that is not flat, it doesn't matter as much - it also doesn't matter that much if you're tightening the aperture or using focus stacking.
Not everyone is so particular about boke - if it saves them from carrying (AND BUYING!) one more lens, I expect it's not a few people willing to use a macro for portraits.
Can we hope for dual CFe slots instead of CFe+SD?Today Digital Camera World (link) posted the following specs for the R5 mk II:
- 45MP stacked sensor
- Fully electronic shutter
- 60fps continuous shooting
- 8-stops in-body image stabilization system
- Dual Pixel AF II with AI-powered autofocus
- New Digic X family processor
- 8K 60p / 4K 120p video
- 400MP IBIS Hi-res shot
No eye-control AF?Today Digital Camera World (link) posted the following specs for the R5 mk II:
- 45MP stacked sensor
- Fully electronic shutter
- 60fps continuous shooting
- 8-stops in-body image stabilization system
- Dual Pixel AF II with AI-powered autofocus
- New Digic X family processor
- 8K 60p / 4K 120p video
- 400MP IBIS Hi-res shot
I agree with you, but hope = Deferred disappointment (or, in Dutch, uitgestelde teleurstelling) .Can we hope for dual CFe slots instead of CFe+SD?
Both are good points.Conversely I found non-macro lenses disappointing around MFD; for instance the EF 70-200 IS II, which I had hoped would replace a faulty Sigma 180 macro.
Lately, I'm lusting after the TS-E 50mm 2.8 macro. I'm trying to think of some unique projects to utilize it for a week and then I'll rent it for a week. I know the tilt effect is less helpful at macro distances, so I want to think carefully...I believe the main issue with macro lenses I've owned and tested is that they often fail to satisfy fully at longer distances.
I quote: Zeiss 50mm Makro Planar, EF 100L F2,8, EF 180L F3,5, Leica Visoflex 3,5/65.
My own testing revealed three "infinity excellent" macro lenses: Leica R 2,8/60, Leica R Apo 2,8/100 and Canon RF 100L F 2,8.
I found these 3 lenses can be used from macro to infinity without any compromise on quality or bokeh.
I cannot strongly enough recommend the RF 100 macro!
Thanks for sharing.Today Digital Camera World (link) posted the following specs for the R5 mk II:
- 45MP stacked sensor
- Fully electronic shutter
- 60fps continuous shooting
- 8-stops in-body image stabilization system
- Dual Pixel AF II with AI-powered autofocus
- New Digic X family processor
- 8K 60p / 4K 120p video
- 400MP IBIS Hi-res shot
That's essentially the same specs that were posted on Canonrumors.Today Digital Camera World (link) posted the following specs for the R5 mk II:
- 45MP stacked sensor
- Fully electronic shutter
- 60fps continuous shooting
- 8-stops in-body image stabilization system
- Dual Pixel AF II with AI-powered autofocus
- New Digic X family processor
- 8K 60p / 4K 120p video
- 400MP IBIS Hi-res shot
That means Canon is very angry the rumors.But what happened to the Xwitter account of Canonrumors?? It doesn't exist anymore.