Messages

1

PowerShot / Re: Two New PowerShot Cameras Leaked

« on: May 13, 2013, 01:17:34 AM »

So the thing Canon needed to upgrade, the lens, is no different then the S100.  The camera also looks much more slippery then my S100.  I'm guessing the sensor is the same and the only upgrade will be the digic 6 processor which will be of no help because you'll shot in raw.

Yeah but it will have WiFi and facebook and GPS and other gizmos that people crave - who cares about the lens? I mean seriously?

ME! 
I really like my S95 for its reasonable IQ ... if it has plentiful of light. The lens of the S95 is at least o.k. if not good. The S9x-S1xx cameras are the best option Canon has in terms of IQ vs. pocketability with RAW capabilities in DPP (= I want only one SW for RAW processing).

2

Lenses / Re: Canon Tele lenses vs Nikon tele lenses ( both with converters )

« on: May 12, 2013, 08:41:41 AM »

There is a superstition that Canon, Nikon, etc. have patented solutions that make it one of the brand by far better, fluorite is one such example. All big companies has their own solution as Nikon, Pentax, Leits,Zeiss etc
I spoke with Per Nordlund Hasselblad lens designers for the new wide angels to Hasselblad down at Photokina some years ago  , Per had 21 different types of glass to choose from and analyze to the wide angle  lenses (if I recall it correctly). And the glass is made of Hoya,Fuji  etc etc

Shure? There are a lot of things that can be patented within lenses: Glass isn't the point I see - there are a lot of design features which affect lens combinations e.g. Patent texts are designed to protect a very wide area of design solutions to protect the own claim. Something like "front element with concave front surface to correct blabla" might exclude others from using a lens shape and there is no chance to circumvent such a design restriction by using other glass ... and just solve some glass issue isn't as simple as "going into the lab and creating a new mixture". Optical glasses are a product from something like alchemy ...

ADD: Just to avoid that I would like to see Canon in front of Nikon ... I am shure that a good photographer can take good photographs with Super tele lenses of both companies. But I have seen some emanations of patent wars in different fields and I have seen very often that there is only one way to solve a problem for decades. Think about rechargeable batteries for cars: Lithium since two decades and no other technically and economically feasible solution in reach ...

3

Lenses / Re: Canon Tele lenses vs Nikon tele lenses ( both with converters )

« on: May 11, 2013, 07:16:20 PM »

Perhaps differences between brands' technologies have much simpler reasons: Patents.
Canon holds patents which make their teles outstanding, Nikon holds patents which make their wides outstanding (at least the 14-24). Sony holds patents which make their sensors outstanding (at least in DR/dark noise).

Another thing I observed: Different companies' products have different tendencies. I observed 20 years ago that Nikon lenses made sharper images, but Canon lenses had a more 3Dish look with much better micro contrast and texture fidelity. Now I have no comparison because I know only one person who has a Nikon but uses Zeiss glass - the rest uses Canon.

This is a total myth, and why keep on  spreading it?
Nikon tele lenses are good as Canon, Canon can if they want make better wide lenses, they have also the physical conditions (larger bayonete)  that make  it easier to produce a wide angle better than Nikon can do with the smaller bayonet diameter.

And I repeat, the FOTO magazine in Sweden tested supertelen  300, 400,500,600 from both Nikon and Canon in mars  and let Hasselblads MTF Lab  measure this lenses by real MTF test (lenses only) , and  they where equal good, they have also tested Nikon 200-400/4 who is optimized in a range of 30-50m as a sport lens.

Myth? At least with a 2xTC:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=739&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=2&LensComp=650&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0

Bayonet diameter doesn*t help for wide angles if the rectangular tube between bayonet and shutter shades parts of the lens' back element.

Do you have a link of that swedish foto magazin test? Would be very interesting how they measured the data!

4

Lenses / Re: Canon Tele lenses vs Nikon tele lenses ( both with converters )

« on: May 11, 2013, 05:11:59 AM »

Perhaps differences between brands' technologies have much simpler reasons: Patents.
Canon holds patents which make their teles outstanding, Nikon holds patents which make their wides outstanding (at least the 14-24). Sony holds patents which make their sensors outstanding (at least in DR/dark noise).

Another thing I observed: Different companies' products have different tendencies. I observed 20 years ago that Nikon lenses made sharper images, but Canon lenses had a more 3Dish look with much better micro contrast and texture fidelity. Now I have no comparison because I know only one person who has a Nikon but uses Zeiss glass - the rest uses Canon.

5

Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?

« on: May 11, 2013, 04:46:28 AM »

Just my 2 ct.

• Adjusting an image before exposure by using the right focal lenth, position, composition, exposure values, film/sensor, LIGHT is photography.
  Adjusting what the negative/RAW contains to adapt it to what you have seen in a wet/digital darkroom is photography.
  HDR and focus stacking is sth. that recreates what we perceive - by our highly dynamic biological sensors (retina + brain) and adjusting focus by our eyes. So it is too photography.
• Everything else is no longer photography - in german language I would say "Montage" or composite. And I think it should be referenced as "Composite: Photogs Name" instead of "Photo: Photgs Name"

.
I would count each removal and addition of components to the category "Composite".
[/list]

Both are valuable contributions to art (at least in some cases - I produce a lot of non-art photos for the trash).

To sanj: Thanks for the thread, it was a good starting point to think about what photography is ... or might be.

6

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: dissapointed 6d 100mm f2 and 24mm 2.8 (non l)

« on: May 06, 2013, 01:41:36 PM »

Not enough info so far to give much useful advice beyond what Mt. Spokane offered. but one thing I've learned is never to take off on an important vacation with a brand  new camera.   I have sometimes needed a thousand or more exposures to figure out how to use a new camera body, even with my old lenses.

+1 !

I am just learning to use my 40D right and get the most out of it - I bought it in 2008 ! O.k., I am no professional shooter but I do reflect what I am doing deeply and have some extended knowledge about technical details of photography, electronics, etc. (as every physicist).
For me it is a joy to use an instrument over half a decade or a decade because I learn to master the tool - instead of being masterd by the tool ...

7

EOS Bodies / Re: The Future of EOS M [CR1]

« on: April 27, 2013, 03:16:18 AM »

I think that a compact EOS M with a FF sensor and EF mount would be a very interesting camera. Perhaps the cube shaped design of ancient medium format cameras will help to make it even more compact (not smaller in terms of volume) and help to stow away that  camera easily. I think about a cube of roughly 80 x 80 x 80mm³ which too is compact with the 2.8 40 attached and fits in lens compartments with e.g. a 2.8 16-35 lens.

An EF-M-mount system EOS M with the 2.0 22 might find a way into my hands if it has a EVF and a RAW mode with 10 or 12 MPix.

8

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Dynamic range, high lights information D800 vs 5dmk2

« on: April 22, 2013, 04:33:09 PM »

The shots are similar enough to be valid for the comparisons being made.
maybe a more rigorous approach and f/5.6-8 would have been better for overall IQ, but it would make little difference to the actual point of comparing shadow noise and hilite recovery.

What shadows and highlights? His slipshod technique utterly destroyed them before the sensor even had a theoretical chance of recording them -- along with the midtones as well. Of course there's no shadow nor highlight detail to recover because there's no detail to recover in the first place.

If ever there was a perfect example of GIGO, this is it.

Cheers,

b&

now you are talking a lot of BS, why remark on CA and colorfinging,  when the question is signal/noise, but wait, that is how you discuss and not only with me, you have a hard time to separate things.

Your remarks shows that you do not know the basic how a sensor works, here Im showing everything from high lights to clipping and down in shadows. Thats DR, thats less noise. With Canon you must make a active  choice, either clip the high lights with longer exposure or expose so the high lights can be reproduced with more noise in the shadows, plain and simple S/N question at base iso.

As far as I know it would have been at least good practice to show comparable shots in terms of lens quality to compare the sensors. I am not interested in "comparisons" where two or three parameters have been changed - I have seen a lot in science and I have seen that these comparisons were always misleading.

Shurely Nikon has the better sensor IN TERMS of DR but today I enjoyed my 40D which produces great output despite of its age and, what I always feel:I have to improve my skills not replace my camera! So the discussion of bare sensor properties and comparisons between them is getting more and more academic (or fanatic?).

Best - Michael

9

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Waiting for a Sigma 50 "A" like their 35 to appear?

« on: April 21, 2013, 04:05:54 AM »

I'd rather see Sigma do a 19mm or 20mm or 21mm wide angle "A" lens. There's nothing available for Canon that's a prime, wide and auto-focus.

Canon's widest is 24mm and if Sigma did a 24mm, they'd just be copying Canon. They should man up and do something new.

Sigma have had a 20mm f/1.8, I guess it wasn't worthy?  Didn't look like it was.

@CarlTN
I took a look at "The Digital Picture" and compared the Sigma 1.8 20 to the Canon 16-35 2.8 ii (at 20mm), both at f/2.8 and with EOS 1Ds mk ii:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=375&Camera=9&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=412&CameraComp=9&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=0
Comparing ISO Charts isn't everything but in this case I think it is a good hint about the IQ of the Sigma. It just doesn't improve too much if you close it furthermore.

@dilbert: That's right, for me a 16 or 17mm f/4.0 with great IQ, small footprint and reasonable price would be very welcome (if it's from Canon or Sigma or ... doesn't matter).

10

EOS Bodies / Re: 21mp Sensor in the 7D Mark II? [CR1]

« on: April 20, 2013, 02:39:50 PM »

[...]

I see several reasons:
  * Programming a firmware which uses two or more CPUs needs a lot of development to parallelize "jobs" on different CPUs
  * PC board layout and thermal management has to be codeveloped/improved
  * If there is a need for a 2nd CPU the hardware is more powerful (120point AF system, 40 MPix sensor) and this will increase the system cost.

A specialized camera will see a lower count of bodies produced so the development cost will be higher on a per-body-perspective.

My 2ct.

You do realize the current 7D Mark I already uses dual DIGIC 4 chips, right? It never cost $2000, let alone $3000. Making use of dual processors in a 7D II would be a no brainer, and would NOT require the creation of DIGIC 6. The 1D X already uses dual DIGIC 5+ chips, and repurposing that design in a cheaper body would be a hell of a lot cheaper for Canon than designing something completely new from scratch. It also proves that the firmware ALREADY supports parallel processing, so there really isn't any extra work there, either.

You are essentially right. There exist four (?) models which use 2 CPUs and the EOS 1D X which uses 3 DIGICs -  some basic development will be there. But never underestimate adaption of existing code for new CPUs with new (totally new?) additional components. And it depends on how you use the CPUs: Sharing load for different tasks is easy, but parallelizing one task is hard to do (except it is sth. like calculating noise reduction for different regions of the sensor).

My third point was perhaps the most important: If there is a need for a 2nd high power CPU the hardware will drive cost - extraordinary fps, a very advanced AF chip, etc. So the additional CPU will only add 100 or 200 EUR/USD but the things that made it necessary are really expensive (high speed mirror mechanism, shutter system, complex and specialized AF chip, ultra fast  FADCs, etc,).

11

EOS Bodies / Re: 21mp Sensor in the 7D Mark II? [CR1]

« on: April 20, 2013, 04:40:55 AM »

I hope for the best about 7D2: new dual DIGIC 6 and new CMOS (NEW Technolgy, NOT the same CMOS as on 1DX, 5D3 edition customized for 7D2).


10x!

No need to be "furious with Canon".  And where did you read a rumor that the 7D2 would get "dual digic 6"?  I must have missed that.  Seems very unlikely to me, unless the price is more in the $3k+ range.  Which would be absurd...a 1.6x crop sensor is a silly compromise in the first place (at least now in 2013).  To attempt to sell one at such a high price, would be a disaster.  1.6x crop, is so very 2002...it's time to move on to something else, something bigger.  I mean, if "reach" is all they care about, they might as well go smaller and make a micro 4/3 size, 3:2 sensor for the 7D2.  But they won't.

Why would "dual digic 6" = $3k+ range? Doesn't the new SX280 with digic 6 come in at $320?

I see several reasons:
  * Programming a firmware which uses two or more CPUs needs a lot of development to parallelize "jobs" on different CPUs
  * PC board layout and thermal management has to be codeveloped/improved
  * If there is a need for a 2nd CPU the hardware is more powerful (120point AF system, 40 MPix sensor) and this will increase the system cost.

A specialized camera will see a lower count of bodies produced so the development cost will be higher on a per-body-perspective.

My 2ct.

12

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: What's that accessory in the picture?

« on: April 12, 2013, 10:27:34 AM »

My guess: An external monitor with a "tube like extension" to increase the contrast. The boat is too narrow to use the external monitor so the videographer has choosen the camera TFT for framing ... perhaps it's painful for him to find a way to view the camera TFT with the external monitor attached and the baseball cap.

13

Lenses / Re: 2 filters jammed together

« on: April 12, 2013, 08:14:58 AM »

Some mentioned thermal expansion as a solution before, here my experiences of a similar problem I solved last week. I have separated an M42-EOS adaptor from the lens by the following procedure with a CONVENTIONAL cooking plate

                                    WARNING: USE THAT PROCEDURE AT YOUR OWN RISK

1 Heated up A CONVENTIONAL (never with other techniques) cooking plate to roughly 50 degree centigrade and switch it off.
2 Put my combination with the less sensible/smaller part (in your case the UV filter) on the cooking
plate. A sheet of aluminum foil between cooking plate and the filters might help to handle the filters!
3 Waited 30 or 60 seconds - you need the temperature difference, so don't wait too long - until I separated both parts.
4 Perhaps it is necessary to repeat the procedure after waiting long enough to be sure that both parts have room temperature again.

With an INDUCTION, GAS OR RADIATIVE (glass ceramics) cooking plate a cooking pot's base can be heated up to roughly 50 degree centigrade and used instead of a plate itself!

This procedure heats up the aluminum (or brass?) part of the filter selectively and is gentle to the filter glass!

Best - Michael

14

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Announcements on April 23, 2013? [CR2]

« on: April 08, 2013, 09:44:35 AM »

[...]

Correction: Canon's IQ hasn't changed or improved over the last years for anything besides those moving from the 1D series to the 1DX. Nikon, Sony, Pentax, are all delivering new sensors with better performance.

What is Canon doing?

Nothing. What a joke of a company.

For the last years you are basically right.

In 2005 I testet a Nikon D70 vs. a Canon 350D. Both with a standard lens. 350D produced photos, D70 produced "digitallish image like results". I decided for a 20D which was far superior just to the D200.
These days Canon was way ahead because these digital cameras produced non-digital looking images.

Now the products of both companies show the capability to produce fine images - quality-wise. Nikon has some advantages.

Oh, I forgotten about the topic of this thread ...

Just let us wait what comes and if a product isn't interesting, skip it. My two 40Ds substituted the defect 20D (repaired it now with 1ml Isopropanole to clean the trigger switch), my 600D was added to allow for flexible video (need macro, strong tele for educational short videos (non-art, just functional!)). And I will replace my 40Ds if sensors have 10 to 15MPix real true color capability (meaning 40-60MPixels in bayer patterns).

15

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Announcements on April 23, 2013? [CR2]

« on: April 08, 2013, 09:32:15 AM »

I likely would never consider getting another high mp body unless it actually delivers enough more when coupled with a lens..

Canon's lenses are already being used to resolve image detail that is higher than the current FF DSLRs: all of the crop sensor DSLRs currently require higher spatial resolution of light from lenses than of the FF DSLRs.

That's not what I observe. With the 2.8 40 or 2.8 24 or the 2.0 100 I have some lenses which are very good in my own experience, several serious reviews (photozone, the-digital-picture, dxomark) and user reports (fred miranda, others).

Using the 40D and the 600D shows no dramatic difference in terms of useful resolutions. Lens flaws are better visible with higher resolution but the sheer IQ isn't much increased.

We all know (or believe?) that the D800 from Nikon (and other newer products with same sensor base tech) have the DR advantage compared to Canon. This is a real advantage. But if you look at DxOmark you will find that the useful resolution between 5D mkii and D800 is comparable despite the fact that there is a 22 : 36 MPixel difference. The same applies to the comparison between 40D and 600D:

2.8 40 & 2.0 100: 40D:    7 from 10 Mpixel    compared to      7D:     9 from 18 MPixel

I think there is no essential difference in IQ (resolution-wise) between 7 or 9 MPixel, a linear scale difference of  roughly 15%.