No more than three images or three external links allowed in any post or reply. Please trim quotations and do not include images in quotes unless essential.
Post subject: Re: So ... David ... some new blood being spilled?
Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 5:46 am
Heirophant
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 10:02 am Posts: 65
David Kilpatrick wrote:
Canon are talking about flying to Edinburgh with the camera to meet and brief me, then leaving it with me for a few days only. The days when I had budgets to fly abroad for tests are gone. In 1997 we got the F5, 1Dn, and Dynax 9 to test at the same time in January - I just booked Shirley and me a day trip to Barcelona (not even an overnight stay!) and we lugged all three kits on the flight, arriving as the sun rose and leaving after it set.
There are no more day trips from Scotland to Spain (or any other city - nothing much less than two-night breaks) and sadly no more thousands in working margin per magazine issue to dispose of creating content.
But there is a dry ski slope just near Edinburgh airport and it might have snow on it, with skiers using it 'properly'.
David
There certainly were several days ago. But today things started to thaw a bit. But in a few days it might snow again. Here's what it looked like just past sunset several days ago. They light it up when it gets dark, so its the string of lights on the hillside -- Hillend ski slope on the Pentlands, as viewed from Arthur's Seat in Edinburgh. In fact if there's any snow around, there's plenty of sledging on the lower slopes of Arthur's Seat, with people using everything from proper sledges to tea tray, planks, and bin bags.
Post subject: Re: So ... David ... some new blood being spilled?
Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 5:59 am
Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 7:55 am Posts: 3946 Location: Japan
David, I guess there is no chance you can convince Canon to lend you some more generally useful lenses to use with the body? Even if is just the 3 common L lenses: 16-35mm, 24-70mm, and 70-200mm. If not that then just the 24-70mm would probably be much more useful to you. Oh, I am assuming that it is the body that Canon primarily wants you to check out and not the lenses. Is that right? When you say they are big my image is them giving you things like a 600mm f4, 400mm f2.8, 300mm f2.8, etc. Is that right?
Post subject: Re: So ... David ... some new blood being spilled?
Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 5:23 pm
Site Admin
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:14 pm Posts: 6049 Location: Kelso, Scotland
There was talk of the 400mm. That's what I had to use with the Nikon D3S as well - the huge 400mm. I have a Sigma 24-70mm HSM here, which will fill a gap if they don't bring a 24-70mm. I don't imagine they will bother with a 16-35mm; the 1.3X crop sort of defeats the point, if you are going to use the 16-35mm you use a 1Ds body or a 5D MkII.
My ideal would be the new 70-200mm f2.8 just announced. We have the Sigma, the new Nikon, and the big question is WHY with the Nikon - a lens redesigned for full frame, but with the minimum focus pushed BACK so the best you can get is a 1:8.3 closeup, which means just being able to fit a sheet of A4 paper in the frame. The Canon has improved on close focus, the Nikon has sacrificed it. I'd like to know why.
I find out later today or tomorrow whether Canon will fly up to Edinburgh, or I'll take the train to London. The train is a bit more friendly for doing some work transcribing interview recordings.
Post subject: Re: So ... David ... some new blood being spilled?
Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2010 1:19 am
Grand Caliph
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 4:10 pm Posts: 315
David Kilpatrick wrote:
There was talk of the 400mm. That's what I had to use with the Nikon D3S as well - the huge 400mm. I have a Sigma 24-70mm HSM here, which will fill a gap if they don't bring a 24-70mm. I don't imagine they will bother with a 16-35mm; the 1.3X crop sort of defeats the point, if you are going to use the 16-35mm you use a 1Ds body or a 5D MkII.
My ideal would be the new 70-200mm f2.8 just announced. We have the Sigma, the new Nikon, and the big question is WHY with the Nikon - a lens redesigned for full frame, but with the minimum focus pushed BACK so the best you can get is a 1:8.3 closeup, which means just being able to fit a sheet of A4 paper in the frame. The Canon has improved on close focus, the Nikon has sacrificed it. I'd like to know why.
I find out later today or tomorrow whether Canon will fly up to Edinburgh, or I'll take the train to London. The train is a bit more friendly for doing some work transcribing interview recordings.
David
David: would it be the sacrifice for optical quality? The recent DP review of Sony's 70-200/2.8 SSM is quite good.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
