On 13 Dec 2004 at 8:18, Keith Davison wrote:
> > What triggered my interest instantly is the fact that it has a user-
> > removable anti-alias filterby this the camera could then simply
> > be converted to a 'clean' IR-sensitive camera (not requiring the
> > silly long exposures as most DSLR
--- Bob Talbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > And in that case, a Minolta with camera-side IS
> might be more
> > attractive;))
> For sure: having IS built in to the body sounds a
> clear advantage (if
> it works as well). It would make all your old
> lenses IS too.
Not a total advantage.
On 12 Dec 2004 at 7:06, Bob Talbot wrote:
> > But at the same time they risk a total-system switch
> Good Point WJ.
> I guess that's why with the "new" format they had to keep backward
> compatability (body to lens).
>
>
> > And in that case, a Minolta with camera-side IS might be more
> > a
will "Re: EOS Upgrading Extension Tubes" be the last topic name,
never to be changed regardless of the content of the message?
*
***
***
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
*http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/e
> But at the same time they risk a total-system switch
Good Point WJ.
I guess that's why with the "new" format they had to keep backward
compatability (body to lens).
> And in that case, a Minolta with camera-side IS might be more
> attractive;))
For sure: having IS built in to the body s
On 11 Dec 2004 at 10:15, Bob Talbot wrote:
> > If photographers continue to
> > pay a premium for 1.3x and FF digital bodies, Canon
> > will continue to make them.
> I suspect that today the old arguments (justifying the size of the
> premium) have weakened a bit. I suspect there are other reason
> If photographers continue to
> pay a premium for 1.3x and FF digital bodies, Canon
> will continue to make them.
I suspect that today the old arguments (justifying the size of the
premium) have weakened a bit. I suspect there are other reasons for
not wanting to supply bigger sensors (yet) to th
Tom P.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob Meyer
> Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 7:44 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: EOS Upgradng Extension Tubes
>
>
> --- Bill Gillooly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Bill Gillooly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Standardizing on the smaller sensor size obsoletes a
> lot of expensive
> wide-angle glass! But, maybe Canon doesn't mind
> that.
>
As the transition from 4x5 press cameras to 2 1/4 x 3
1/4 did a few generations ago, followed by the
transition fr
L PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob Meyer
> Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2004 11:35 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: EOS Upgradng Extension Tubes
>
>
> --- Tom Pfeiffer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > There are plenty of alternatives
&
> Standardizing on the smaller sensor size obsoletes a lot of expensive
> wide-angle glass! But, maybe Canon doesn't mind that.
Why would they? As long as they
can sell more stuff, that is ...
Lars
--
.~. Lars Michael
/V\ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
/(_)\ http://www.larsmichael.com/
^^ ^^
*
***
Standardizing on the smaller sensor size obsoletes a lot of expensive
wide-angle glass! But, maybe Canon doesn't mind that.
Mr. Bill
Brian Berryhill wrote:
I've thought about this too... in a way, hoping that Canon would introduce
some EF-S L lenses... because the way I see it, you could make a
> > In 5 years time, the EF-S lenses
> > will be novelties like the
> > AF lenses Canon made for it's T90 body. So why waste
> > money on them?
>
> OTOH, as sensor performance continues to improve,
> perhaps it will be FF sensors that become novelties.
> Nikon seems to have made that decision. The
--- Tom Pfeiffer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There are plenty of alternatives
> from Canon and other
> makers that are.
There is no alternative from Canon for true wide angle
coverage on a 20D. Not the 17-40, not the 16-35. Not
even the 14mm, really.
3rd party vendors? Sort of. The Sigma 1
> Extension tubes are not lenses, and the 1200mm lens is not a production
> lens, it's built to order. I"ll stick to my original comment - you can put
> EVERY production lens on any body and it will work. Notice the words
> extension tubes and flash aren't in there anywhere. I don't put my lenses i
fine on non-TTL
bodies like the D30, D60, 10D, 1D, and 1Ds.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Julian Loke
> Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 6:30 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: EOS Upgradng Extension T
> There are most assuredly accessories unique to specific bodies, but every
> production EF lens is compatible across the board with every EOS body made.
> My point is that there isn't any reason to buy lenses that aren't part of
> that compatibitly. There are plenty of alternatives from Canon and
esday, December 07, 2004 10:05 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: EOS Upgradng Extension Tubes
>
> >> In particular, EF-S lenses will not fit my Kenko set.
>
> > For me, that's another reason to not buy EF-S lenses. They
> only work
> > on tw
>> In particular, EF-S lenses will not fit my Kenko set.
> For me, that's another reason to not buy EF-S lenses. They only
> work on two camera models, and now it seems they're incompatible
> with other accessories as well. I'll stick with normal EF lenses.
This is hardly a fatal flaw.
The mirro
OTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Julian Loke
> Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2004 7:32 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: EOS Upgradng Extension Tubes
>
> In
> particular, EF-S lenses will not fit my Kenko set.
>
> Cheers
> Julian Loke
>
*
***
> I agree there's no reason to spend the money for the Canon tube, it's
> not an optical device. But if you really want a 25mm tube (which I did,
> too), the sets aren't much help because they have 12mm, 20mm and 36mm
> tubes. Kenko does make a 25mm tube which is sold separately.
1) Canon does not
Rod Hefford wrote:
I have just been to my camera shop looking to purchase
a 25mm extension tube. I was told that there are none
around because Canon are to release an updated version
and shops have been de-stocking.
Does anyone know anything about this?
Rod,
It is a change to suit the EF-S lenses.
On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 23:41:38 -0600, "Tom Pfeiffer"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote/replied to:
>I agree there's no reason to spend the money for the Canon tube, it's not an
>optical device. But if you really want a 25mm tube (which I did, too), the
>sets aren't much help because they have 12mm, 20mm and
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: EOS Upgradng Extension Tubes
>
>
>
> Buy the Kenko Auto tubes. About half the price of the Canon
> and work just as well. I own the three tube set.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAI
Buy the Kenko Auto tubes. About half the price of the Canon and work just
as well. I own the three tube set.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rod Hefford
Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 5:50 PM
To: EOSList
Subject: EOS Upgradng
I have just been to my camera shop looking to purchase
a 25mm extension tube. I was told that there are none
around because Canon are to release an updated version
and shops have been de-stocking.
Does anyone know anything about this?
Cheers,
Rod
_
26 matches
Mail list logo
