September 18, 2014, 01:57:41 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Renzokuken

Pages: [1]
EOS Bodies / Re: Official: Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 15, 2014, 10:04:35 AM »
In the text there are bits like this:

65-point* all cross-type AF system for high-performance, accurate subject tracking with EV -3 sensitivity (center point) for focusing in extreme low-light conditions

I haven't seen anything indicating what the *'s are for?

Me, either.  But I suspect it's a footnote that you don't get 65 points with all lenses.  Similarly, with the 1D X/5DIII's 61 AF points, you get only 47 points with the 800/5.6L and only 33 points with the 180L Macro.

May I ask? What's the science and logic behind this??

If the DSLR have 65 points hardware wise, what physical limitations contributed to the reduction of working AF points?

EOS Bodies / Re: More Images of the Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 14, 2014, 10:21:57 AM »
5 Years for a same generation sensor

I am so trilled
Hurray  ::)
where does it say it's same? in your head? in a rumour? official canon announcement?

we shall see in a few week's time
i'll be happy if canon proves me wrong  ;)

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 14, 2014, 10:09:47 AM »
Your free to do what you want. I also don't doubt the sensor will get a new part number. Concurrently, I don't expect there to be any significant differences, just like the 18mp sensors. I think the downstream parts, the DIGIC 6 processors, have the potential to improve high ISO noise performance. By how much I don't know. It seems to do fairly well on the PowerShots that used it, but they never had really high ISO. Sure, we'll have to wait and see on that front.

As far as any key sensor technology changes, if there are any, I suspect it's primarily DPAF. Canon did file for another patent after the 70D, which described a DPAF sensitivity improvement. Maybe the 7D II sensor gets DPAF pixels right out to the edges of the frame, and are able to still focus despite vignetting. That would improve the video features...but fundamentally, it's still the same sensor.

I'm looking for something specific. I'm looking for a major shift away from 500nm and to 180nm or smaller transistors. I'm looking for the ADC units to be moved out of the DIGIC processor and onto the sensor itself. I'm looking for the ADC's to become column-parallel (I know Canon has a patent for that, a Dual Scale CP-ADC patent). I'm looking for the employment of a couple other Canon patents that aim to reduce noise directly within the sensor hardware.

The fact that the 7D II is going to use DIGIC 6, which has been designed and still includes the ADC, tells me these things haven't happened. If they haven't happened...well, it's not the kind of sensor technology I'm looking for from Canon. I KNOW they have the technology. They have to have had the technology since the 9.5fps 120mp APS-H...they couldn't read such a large sensor out fast enough without hyperparallelism of the ADC, and their press releases even said that they moved "image processing" on-die and made it extremely parallel. Canon has the technology...they just aren't using it. They are staying the course...which is what Canon does.

So, sorry, but for me, the evidence is clear enough. Nothing has really changed.

Quote for truth.

I've been following Camera/Imaging news on sites like PetaPixel, DPreview, Photozone and various other site for years. We all know Canon has the technology and a whole library of patents but they are holding all of it back because they want to milk as much profit as they can while their own technology still sells. It's a brilliant business decision, but from the consumer point of view this is downright disgusting.

I hold the same sentiment as you Jrista
I want Canon to improve on it's sensors. I want real innovation. I want them to go beyond faster FPS. I want better DR, I want lesser banding and noise at low ISO. They can improve all that but YET they chose to milk the old cow as much as they can.

I am a Canon fanboy. But I'm in college and unlike you I've not invested 30~40 grands on Canon lenses.
I like Canon, I prefer Canon over many other camera brands. (if they continue to do this for the next decade, I will definitely jump to other brands, albeit reluctantly. I mean just look at how much detailed can be recovered from D800's shadows vs that of the 5D3)
But like you, I'm highly disappointed.

And to the rest of you:
Yes, Still Image Quality has improved leaps and bounds since the first digital 35mm camera.
Yes. Still Image Quality is Good Enough for daily uses be it for Web or for Prints
Yes. Don't blame the camera for lousy shots.
Yes. Become a better photographer by practicing more.

But why stop there? An improved sensor will magnified and amplify your efforts. A better sensor = Real progress, both on the technological and Imaging front.

Milking the old cow for as much as you can for as long as possible is one of the downside of this capitalism driven world. I guess there's nothing we can really do other than rant about it here.

EOS Bodies / Re: More Images of the Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 14, 2014, 09:35:51 AM »
5 Years for a same generation sensor

I am so trilled
Hurray  ::)

Lenses / Re: Soon to be Launched EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x
« on: January 06, 2013, 08:14:33 AM »
Please allow me to share the photos of the new lens. They are taken in Singapore

Built-in Tele Converter

Lens Hood

Heard from the staff that this lens still remains as a prototype and is not yet launched

Lightroom renders Canon raw files very differently from how DPP does.

I always find myself messing with the Saturation and hue, and vibrance as well

To minimize the different between Lightroom and DPP outputs, they actually created a "Camera Calibration" module. Just got to develop and scroll all the way down, "Camera Standard" tries to emulate the Standard Picture Style Jpeg output of the DPP, so try messing around with that as well.

I always find "adobe standard" making photos slightly pinkish and dull

hope this helps

Lenses / Re: APS-C lens mm are correct
« on: December 05, 2012, 11:44:17 AM »
I am amazed by the community here

questions like these with such a insistent and confident tone which is doomed to be false would initiate a series of "flaming" in other forum.

yet participants of this thread took great lengths to correct the thread-starter again and again politely even though he was not convinced with his mistake

kudos to everyone here

EOS Bodies / Re: A Brief 2013 Canon Roadmap [CR1]
« on: November 13, 2012, 09:09:23 AM »
Hope technology = significant improvements in sensor architecture and design

been seeing a lot of that from competing brands like Sony and Nikon, wait Nikon's using Sony's sensor right? So I guess it's just Sony??

EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon EOS-1S the Name? [CR1]
« on: October 06, 2012, 11:55:20 AM »

<p>There was also another mention of superior low ISO performance from the sensor. New technology will be introduced in this camera and will set the stage for sensor development over the next 2-3 years.</p>

sounds very promising if true.
seen many sensor technology improvements from sony, all baby steps but definitely worth applauding

if canon somehow manage to make a big significant leap forward in terms of sensor technology, it would be fantastic

resolution had nothing to do with it for me

The fact that the D800's dynamic range is almost 2 EVs better than the 5D3 YET at the same time having more than 10 mega-pixels squeeze into it is very very commendable on Nikon's part.

I wouldn't be guilty of thinking that the grass is greener on the other side if the 2 stops Noise improvement on 5DIII's part is more prevalent  in RAW files.

Canon themselves stated that the 2 stop improvement in noise performance that they've mentioned is from jpegs. Which mean that the improvement might come from better in-camera PP rather than a more advance or superior sensor, hence I'm not impressed.

Resolution have nothing to do with this
But it was an added bonus

EOS Bodies / Re: I Talk with James Beltz About the 1D X
« on: October 22, 2011, 02:42:19 PM »
I was hoping they're gonna explain the RBG-focusing thing to me

It sounds like some rocket science if you just read the spec-list

I don't think it's any real surprise that there aren't a bunch of "new" features on the 1D X. This is clearly aimed at the professional market.

It isn't unusual or uncommon in any market for the professional-level tools to be fairly conservative in implementing new features. In any industry, professionals put a premium on the reliability, durability and quality of the tools. Added features don't sell products at this level.
That's just one example, but I think the main point is that this camera was designed for a very specific audience.

That made a lot of sense. Thanks for sharing.
I certainly do hope for more new and significant "innovations" or "features" in their non-flagship model
I desire to see dramatic changes to fundamental sensor architecture, but I know I won't be able to see it within the next 3 years or so at least.

I think the most obvious feature/capability that will be pass down to lesser DSLR cameras is the base ISO (rebel or XXXD series). The autofocus advancement will probably reach the next 7D and no further.

EOS Bodies / Re: Light Field camera - Is this a revolution?
« on: October 20, 2011, 03:11:18 PM »
Yes. This is a revolution.

But it's at it's infant stage now.
It cannot replace a decent DSLR in the near future, but that does not mean it can't let say 10 to 20 years from now.

The ability to focus shots after the image has been taken ensures that nothing is essentially missed.
The great once in the life time moments, first baby steps, first kiss, first day at school can now be safely recorded.

Essentially, a camera is suppose to capture moments.
Some may complain that with such a camera, photographers would become even lazier, and just spam their shots, undermining creativity 
But the way I see it, you still need to compose a shot, you still need to decide what should be included or excluded in the frame.
If you're truly a passionate photographer, the liberty to be lazy (focus after the shot) or not  is entirely up to you and not what the camera decides.

If integrated to security/surveillance  cameras, this technology can provide much more information to investigators and better help them crack a case.

There are much more uses for such a technology. But with it being at infant stage, this technology is still fragile. If the industrial giants feel threaten by it and decides to do something to compete against it, it might become unavailable commercially.

It may not yet be able to replace a full-fledge DSLR yet, but all in all, humanity should welcome such innovation and technological advancement.

Good Day

Pages: [1]