Messages

1

Lenses / Re: near future lens size and resolution

« on: April 13, 2013, 08:59:16 PM »

Yes and no.

In terms of sharpness, resolution, enlargement size, contrast, that sort of thing, there's still a fair (but not huge) amount of room before we start hitting hard physical limits. There's probably not much point in much more than 80-100 megapickles in a 135 format ("full frame") camera. Much past that and you're just rendering diffraction that much more faithfully. Few, if any, lenses can match that resolution, but there's no reason other than money and R&D why they couldn't.

Translate that into a smaller format, and I could imagine an hypothetical future micro 4/3 camera with a 200 mm f/4 "supertelephoto" the same size as the 85 f/1.8 that would have comparable (or even better) image quality to a 5DIII / 1DX with a 400 f/2.8 today.

But.

With one huge caveat.

The depth of field / background blur (not the same thing, but close enough for this discussion) from such a combination shot wide open is going to be comparable to a 400 f/2.8...shot at f/16 or so. Which rather renders moot one of the two reasons for a lens that fast that long. (The other is its ability to gather lots of light, enabling fast shutter speeds at low ISOs in dim conditions, but we'll assume that high ISO performance in the future eliminates this as a practical differentiator.)

Over here:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=13837.msg250058#msg250058

I posted a comparison of a 400 f/2.8 and a 70-200 f/2.8 @ 200 cropped to the same field of view as the 400. That would basically be the shot you'd get with a 200 f/2.8 on m4/3. Now, imagine stopping down to f/4, how much more depth of field you'd have, and there you go.

You'll also notice that the crop, though noticeably inferior, still holds up remarkably well. It's not hard to imagine future smaller and lighter cameras doing even better.

But none of them will ever completely blow out the background the way a Great White can; that's just physics (and mostly simple geometry).

A 400 f/2.8 will always need a 143mm physical / virtual aperture, which means it's always going to have at least a 5 5/8" front element. You can use exotic materials to lighten the weight. You can probably use some other exotic materials and fancy design to shorten it somewhat. Diffractive optics, for example, holds real (as-yet-unrealized) promise for both. But you're always going to have that 6" lens cap to deal with, no matter what.

Cheers,

b&

Thanks TP - that was clearly written and exactly the kind of explanation I was looking for, kudos for taking the time to spell it out.  Understanding the limitations of the technology currently available (along with quenching curiosity) makes it a little easier to draft a probable roadmap for my future gear investments.  The 400 2.8ii is on my radar and 10K for an entusiast on a biologist salary is a substantial investment - knowing that its dimensions and some of the key advantages are constrained by simple physics helps.

2

Lenses / Re: near future lens size and resolution

« on: April 13, 2013, 01:52:55 PM »

my thoughts for this matter:

1) the sensor-flange distance is only a problem for UWA's, not teles. To get smaller lenses, only DO helps significantly, where advanced tech might reduce the flaws.

2) If you get 100MP, then on rather large sensors (fullframe and maybe crop) due to physical limitations. But as FF sensors, or even bigger sensor will always exist because of DOF, the size of the big whites will not change, but as we've seen before, the next round might be again a bit ligther. If a lens is built for a smaller sensor, then it is of course smaller or faster.
Although, higher megapixels also have some draw backs: diffraction, noise, filesize and others, where the first can only be countered with better (and therefore bigger&heavier) lenses with build tolerances so small that they cost again a fortune.

My prediction goes only as far as the next (real) generation, where i hope to see a clumsy big megapixel studio body with superb IQ at native ISO but nothing much beyond, and the 1DXII 5DV, 6DIII will have a slight increase in MP count, but some 2 stops more DR&ISO.

Thanks SB, your thoughts are pretty close to what I have suspected - the physical size of super-tele's isn't going to change anytime in the foreseeable future.  Are you aware of any articles that explore the physics of these limitations in a little more detail?  Just want to wrap my head around how and why megapixels and sensor size affect the amount of glass required to achieve optimal image quality.

3

Lenses / near future lens size and resolution

« on: April 13, 2013, 01:56:43 AM »

My interest is primarily with wildlife photography and in this thread I want to explore the near future (the next decade - if you can consider that near) of telephoto lens inovation.  Over the past 2 or 3 decades telephoto lens size appears to have changed little - is this going to change over the next 10 to 20 years?

1. What specifically restricts lens size with existing DSLR technology?  Does the distance from the sensor to the lens make enough of a difference that future telephoto lenses on mirrorless systems will be substantially smaller? (forgive me for assuming that mirrorless cameras will replace DSLR)

2. Ten years from now, when you're shooting with a 100mp mirrorless camera body, will it still be an advantage to shoot with a massive 600mm f4 lens, or will cropping to a 20mp image with a significantly smaller lens eliminate the need for a super-telephoto?  There are certainly differences that will be difficult to overcome, such as tracking wildlife from a distance and accurately focusing at that distance with a smaller mm lens.  Do you think these challenges will be met?

In a nutshell, 10 years from now (when I finally have 10k to spend on a lens) will I still want to purchase a 600mm 5kg lens for optimal image quality?

4

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Upgrading from Rebel XT

« on: March 24, 2013, 09:15:33 PM »

good choice!  I made the same jump (from 350D to 7D) a year ago, and it's a massive leap forward in tech.  the 7D (as many others have mentioned) is a brilliant camera - it was well ahead of its time when it was released.  the other part of your choice that is smart: you have made the decision to invest in good glass.  if there is one thing i have learned in the past few years - good glass is worth investing in and will almost certainly make a bigger difference in your results than purchasing the latest camera body.

5

Canon General / Re: Curious Distraction: Explain your username, avatar picture, etc...

« on: March 11, 2013, 09:50:20 PM »

the camera that is currently my avatar was found in the ocean 10m deep.  after removing the SD card with a screw driver and a pair of pliers - it worked (the SD card - not the camera!).  turns out it had been dropped off a boat nearly a year and a half previous to me finding it.  we found the owner and returned the photos.

the user name is just a play on words - i like slugs.

6

Software & Accessories / Re: Which wireless radio control for the 5D3?

« on: March 07, 2013, 05:05:15 PM »

I assume you mean something to trigger the camera, right?  I was in the same boat - I really liked the little Canon RC-1 IR trigger, but while that works with the 5DIII, the 1-series bodies don't have an IR receiver so a radio trigger was the only option.  Canon has an LC-5, it's expensive but for me the real downside was the remote unit is really big.

I picked up a hähnel Giga T Pro II RF remote.  Interval timer, the remote unit is small enough to fit in the palm (for getting in the picture if needed).  I like that the remote unit can actually be plugged directly into the camera if desired (i.e. used as a wired release) for interval timing, etc.

If you do have the Canon -RT system, you can acutally use that to remotely trigger the camera - but using a speedlite or ST-E3 as a handheld remote isn't the most convenient option, IMO.

One more somewhat annoying feature of the hähnel Giga T Pro II RF - and I didn't know this until I bought it.  The 2.4 GHz frequency is also used by most wireless internet routers.  If you are in wireless range the signal to your camera will be cancelled and the radio unit won't work.  Mine works at home only if I switch the router wireless signal off.  Could be a deal breaker for anyone wanting to use a wireless remote in any urban setting.

7

EOS Bodies / Re: 7D Firmware update - any news there?

« on: June 28, 2012, 12:27:51 AM »

7th August - firmware 2.0 will be out.

Source: canon australia FB post

nice work! you're quicker than CR - I have been popping back here everyday hoping to find this information - thanks.

8

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon EOS 7D Firmware Version 2 Coming Soon

« on: June 08, 2012, 04:42:54 PM »

Amen.   5 and 7 AEB is one of the most useable day-to-day improvements I have enjoyed with the 5D Mark III.  With the 7D, I need to take 3, then go into menu, shift it all, and take 3 more.  With the 5D Mark III, I can lay a -1 to +1 range on thirds.  Should not require any technology changes - just firmware.

This was certainly one of the upgrades I was hoping for as well (why wouldn't canon do this - it must be a fairly straight forward change?).  There is a relatively effective go around though: pre-set C2 and C3 to the desired brackets, then it's just one click from C2 after your first three shots, to C3 - not perfect, but better than diving back into the menu.

9

Lenses / Re: sigma 120-300 f2.8 OS (The new one)

« on: May 28, 2012, 01:23:02 AM »

darth mollusk those shots are really great seams like a pretty awesome bang for buck lens
also out of interest what bag do you have that fits that in? i dont think my current bag will hold it
I was going to get a gura gear but they have extortionate shipping charges

thanks - those results are relatively typical for this lens, on the 7D it certainly rivals the canon equivalents (70-200 and 300 2.8 ).  pwp is right - it is a beast, weighing in at nearly 3kg, but consider that you get a sharp f2.8 at 300mm with the ability to zoom back (it's surprising how much you'll use it).  I bought a blackrapid strap for it, screws right into the tripod mount, so the lens sits comfortably at my side.  My arms certainly will burn out relatively quick (I weigh in at a slight 80kg as well) - but the lens is only up for 20-30 seconds at a time.  I find I'm slightly quicker without the tri/mono-pod (depends on the situation of course).  I had it on the tripod today to shoot my wife running an adventure race... a good example where f2.8 was essential for low forest light and the zoom got me twice as many shots.

I bought the f-stop sartori - absolutely brilliant bag, relatively expensive, but you get what you pay for.  geez - sigma and f-stop should be sponsoring me for this.  the Sigma 120-300 fits vertically, attached to the 7D body, inside the large ICU along with my tokina 11-16, 430ex, extension tubes, tele-converters and the 50mm 1.8. 

Not sure about the actual focal length - whether it's less than 300 or not?  keep in mind also that Sigma have (at least historically) a reputation for suspect quality control - so there may be a risk that you'd acquire a bad copy (likely low - but be aware).  for that reason I bought it new and tested it thoroughly - my copy was sharp.

10

Lenses / Re: Recommendation for a sidekick wildlife lens

« on: May 27, 2012, 10:47:46 PM »

Hm, since you're a Sigma guy, what do you think about the 150-500 for wildlife? Not small but certainly flexible and cheap (er)

I briefly considered the Sigma 150-500 - but reviews suggest that IQ doesn't measure up in comparison to the canon telephotos, specifically the 70-200.  I would get the 70-300L before the Sigma - although I will admit that I have run into a number of amateur bird photogs with the 150-500 and they loved it when I asked (I imagine they're likely not as obsessed as I am with IQ).  I went with the 120-300 only because it measures up to the Canon 70-200 IS II.  Also, I find f2.8 on a wildlife lens almost an essential now - for both speed (AF and shutter) and DoF.

11

Lenses / Re: Recommendation for a sidekick wildlife lens

« on: May 27, 2012, 05:39:26 PM »

I know how you feel, having went through the same thought process myself - I finally just went with the 300 2.8, but wildlife is my passion so I can justify the larger lens...

12

Lenses / Re: Recommendation for a sidekick wildlife lens

« on: May 27, 2012, 10:11:38 AM »

the 2.0x results in a fairly steep drop-off in AF speed and IQ (regardless of brand) - I barely use mine to be honest.

13

Lenses / Re: Recommendation for a sidekick wildlife lens

« on: May 27, 2012, 01:09:57 AM »

I used an old rebel (350D) for my first year of photography (last year) - and paired it with the 70-300 is (non L) and was able to get some decent wildlife shots with it - though those certainly didn't come without challenges.  The 350D was pretty damn slow with and certainly didn't have great AF, iso was, to be blunt, pretty brutal - upgrading to the 7D was a massive improvement (understatement).  The 70-300 was great fun, but as I improved the soft IQ at 300mm became a little frustrating - the lens is sharp at 70 and slowly becomes softer towards 300.

I now shoot with the 7D and Sigma 120-300 2.8 OS - the lens is a beast, but tack sharp and pairs well with the 1.4 and 2.0 tele-converters (plenty of range).  It's certainly to big to be a 'sidekick' though.  I would pick up a 70-200 (either the 2.8 or 4 are brilliant) and bring along a 1.4 TC for added range if you need it.

you can likely find a 7D for not much more than a 1000 - considering that the new one will likely be close to 3 times that price (assuming Canon continues with their jump in prices) and you wont get it until 2013, it's worth the investment.  keep the 7D with a wildlife lens on it and use the 5D (when you get it) for your primary passion - landscapes.

14

Lenses / Re: No Optimal Option for 7D Standard Zoom

« on: May 26, 2012, 06:22:43 PM »

awesome! that's one big momma bear.  you'll love the 7d for shots similar to those - perfect.

15

Lenses / Re: No Optimal Option for 7D Standard Zoom

« on: May 26, 2012, 06:14:28 PM »

I lived in Amsterdam for 3 months when I was younger.  we may have the upper hand with nature here - but your cities are some of the most beautiful on earth.

I need to get up to Alaska sometime again soon - not enough grizzlies here in Vancouver