February 01, 2015, 01:36:26 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 - mb66energy

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 31

Do they really think people will buy 3 or 4 cameras just to have all the features.
This company is obviously staffed by complete idiots, they were out of the Press end of cameras 5 years ago, only die hard fools use Canon gear on Press work.


If you need ONE camera to do it all -- 50 MPix, 4k @ 60Hz and 6k @ 24 Hz with 12 fps and 100 AF points -- you will end up with a 12000 €/$ camera which is out of reach for mortals. There live a lot of people in this world who like photography. Some like birding and sports - others like landscape or macro. If you can fullfill the needs of those "specialists" at 3000 €/$ - why not?
Having two or three bodies has a lot more bang for the bucks sometimes: Think about a 5Ds with a wide angle and an 1Dx with 70-200 ... without changing lenses you are prepared for nearly anything

Idiots? Because they deliver very good tools at reasonable prices for those who like to shoot photos (and not so comparing specs or peeping for pixel quality)?

EOS Bodies / Re: POLL: Price of 5Ds
« on: Today at 05:29:42 AM »
I guess 3499 € / $ to be competitive with Nikons mid end flag ships price wise.

I think DR will be around 12 with cleaner shadows but resolution is 50% higher so Canon compensates lower DR with higher res.

Using a camera SYSTEM means making decisions for 5-10 years - good lenses will last perhaps 20 years in customers bags. Perhaps Canon has decided to give us more opions to use our lens collecions ... avoiding to switch to other camera system manufacturers! A 5Ds is just for me a good reason not to try e.g. a Sony A7 for higher res and DR.


I would think the biggest differences/advantages of medium format are:

1. Shallower depth of field.

MF lenses rarely are what one would consider fast in 35mm, f/4 or f/5.6 are quite normal, f/2.8 takes the place of f/1.4. They're rather designed to avoid the flaws lots of small frame lenses have wide open. And you've got the leaf shutter to avoid mortons fork of ND filters or f/16.

So the 100mm 2.2 for Hasselblad and the manual focus 85 or 90mm 1.9 from Mamiya transform roughly into f/1.0 :)

EOS Bodies / Re: Bingo! New Canon 5Ds has 50.6 MP new rumored specs
« on: January 31, 2015, 04:24:32 PM »
The number of morons attacking this camera for not having higher frame rates, 4K, or higher ISO is pretty amusing.

This is the camera for the rest of us who have felt ignored by Canon in its rush to Video. Studio and Landscape artist have been staring at the Nikon 8xx and the Sony A7r with sad eyes as they went out to shoot with their Canons. My concern is price. I might consider this but Weight and size is impacting my older arms. For this reason I am likley to go to the A7II and the soon to be announced A7rII or A9.

For those of you complaining wait for the 5DmIV -- that will have higher frame rates, really high ISO, 4K, at around 24mp (my guess). I think that one will have a SONY/Canon sensor that Nikon will not get.

I am guessing around 3 ... 3.5 k$/k€ - Canon surprised us with 7d ii price and has strong competitors. For me 50 MPix is good enough for 5...8 years, sth. like a natural (physical) limit. An OTUS would be more helpful than upgrading to a 100 MPix body.
If it's a landscape cam weight is a concern and it will be around 950 grams (below 1000g for spec lists).

EOS Bodies / Re: Bingo! New Canon 5Ds has 50.6 MP new rumored specs
« on: January 31, 2015, 01:43:42 PM »
The only advantage at all is cropping. Having more resolution to still yield a decent image after a severe crop. But that opens a whole other discussion. Cropping is generally inferior to using a proper focal length.

You forget to imagine the possible needs of others.

I have lenses to shoot anything. However, I do a lot of targeted street photography where I cannot control any of the surrounding circumstances. Cars and people get in my way. Disturbing backgrounds popping up from nowhere. Unruly pedestrians wanting to pass me during a shot. Good scenes appearing and disappearing in an instant.

Cropping is an essential way to help me focus those shots on what I want to show and get rid of all the urban "noise". A ruined full body shot can thus often be saved by cropping the picture into a close portrait shot in stead.

I am sure others also have their reasons to crop a lot regardless of arming themselves with the "right" tool for the right job. Not all of us have the luxury of having control over our subject and surroundings.

Well spoken - there is a lack of "open mindedness" in our world ...

I see a lot of applications for 50MPix:
  • "One shot" panoramic photos without stitching -- let's think about a scene with moving objects (or subjects)
  • Possibility for downsampling to get cleaner images e.g. for monochromatic light sources
  • Use "THE IMAGE" for a really large wall mounted image (2x3m or so) if it occurs to you ...
  • Creating overview + detail shots in ONE image (landscapes, macro, ...)

The only thing I would really like: If you decide an image is cropped to e.g. 10 MPix or downsampled to e.g. 18 MPix it would be nice to save the result as raw image with reduced image size (and file size)!

I am not shure I will buy such a 50 MPix beast but I am at least very interested -- it too depends on estimates of future development of displays. As a fresh owner of an Ultra HD display (500 Euro/$ TV-Set [900Euro MSRP]) I am really excited to view my 10 year old images shot with EOS 20D near native resolution -- and I think they will go 8k in the next decade (at least to have reasons to sell new products ...). So I would like to be prepared.

EOS Bodies / Re: High Megapixel Camera Coming in 2015 [CR3]
« on: January 29, 2015, 12:49:47 PM »
I'd go for a high megapixel Canon only if:

1. It had a M-Raw or S-Raw setting, that when used produces a lower mega-pixel image that has equivalent image quality to a sensor that is native to that megapixel size. Example, if it is a 52mp sensor, on M-Raw it produces say a 26mp image, that 26mp should be the equivalent IQ as say a 5D3 or slightly better.

2. Using the smaller Raw settings does not slow down the camera in FPS.

If it can't do that, I'm not interested in higher megapixels. Already with 20+ megapixel cameras, I can produce razor sharp albums over 14". In fact, can make high detailed, razor sharp posters.

If it can do the above, I'd purchase one and use it on M-Raw for most of my shooting, and use the full megapixels for the occasional landscape or architecture shot. I don't even want more than 24mp for portraits. Most of the time skin is being softened anyway. What is the sense in having resolution that can see INSIDE of a pore, only to then soften it down in post?

There is also the work flow issue. Last weekend I shot an event and my partner and I shot just under 2,000 photos. It was over 45 GB of files. I wouldn't want to double that or more with a high megapixel camera.

Most of this megapixel stuff doesn't translate to print or internet. It is great though for the personal satisfaction of pixel peeping. That is about it.

I agree 99% with you but I would like to use another procedure:

Taking all pictures at max resolution &
using DPP (or whatever) to downsample the RAW files into e.g. 1/2 native or 1/4 native resolution
and store them as mRAW or sRAW (or DNG or ....)

I really don't like to change image quality/format settings after one bad experience: sRAW with the 10 MPix EOS 40D resulted in 3 MPix files and that translates into print! - I had some luck because the landscape and weather were the same 2 days later and I had to drive just 10 km for the shot!

EOS Bodies / Re: A Sony & Canon Sensor Partnership Mentioned Again [CR1]
« on: January 28, 2015, 06:05:06 PM »
If, IF Sony had a 50mp sensor, why haven't they put it in any of their own cameras yet?

I find it incredibly unlikely that Canon would use an outside firm to design such an important sensor for such an important camera. On a point and shoot? Sure, nobody is really going to care. But people that buy those high end Canon cameras are going to want Canon tech.

For me it doesn't matter if they use a Sony sensor - if the final image delivers the technical qualiry I want. Most important to me is compatibility with my lenses and good ergonomics of the camera ...

Lenses / Re: Prime vs zoom for landscape?
« on: January 25, 2015, 08:30:42 AM »
What do you guys prefer? The IQ of a prime is hard to beat, but the flexibility of a zoom seems more practical, especially since it's harder to zoom in and out w/ just your feet in the wilderness. Is the IQ of a wideangle prime worth it vs the flexibility of a wideangle zoom?

Primes educate to have a vision of a photograph before you look through the viewfinder / change lenses.
Primes deliver - if well engineered - superior quality in contralight situations. The smaller number of lens groups helps here.
Zooms help to take photographs if your stuck on a small path and using your feet is dangerous/impossible.

Primes and zooms coexist peacefully
in my drawer and backpack and a good combination is the best solution for ME   (Info: I use APS-C bodies only):
A very flexible setup FOR MY STYLE is
EF-S 10-22 / EF-S 60 Macro / EF 70-200 with 2 or 3 bodies, lenses mounted on bodies
Add the excellent EF-M 22 mounted on EOS M and you have your moderate wide angle high aperture prime ... for optimum (contralight) qualities.

Usually I just use zooms as a multi-focal-length-lens: From my vision I try to estimate which focal length I need. Then I set the zoom to the selected value and try to compose. If my position is fixed I use the zoom ring, otherwise I use my feet. I would like to have selectable "click stops" on my zooms - let's say 10-14-17-22 for the ultrawide and 70-85-100-135-200 for the tele zoom!

EOS Bodies / Re: 2015 wishlist
« on: January 25, 2015, 07:08:37 AM »
5D MK IV would be nice....
Despite not being a big 50mm fan, my 50mm 1.8 is starting to be a weak link! so Maybe an upgrade...  not fussed!

Zeiss OTUS might give you a little bit of improvement ... :)

EOS Bodies / Re: 50mp Cameras Coming in March [CR1]
« on: January 25, 2015, 07:07:19 AM »
How hard can it possibly be to use a non -Bayer pixel pattern like Fuji does?  My understanding is Fuji just made the pixel pattern less simple than the little repeating 4-pixel blocks in a Bayer pattern that give us this problem with screen doors/fabric/etc., and this makes the low pass filter unnecessary. 

It seems fairly straightforward and not subject to any patent issues vs. Fuji. How could anyone patent "any pattern in the world other than Bayer"?

Note that as a result of using a non-Bayer array, Fuji's cameras have more limited 3rd party support for raw image development than do Bayer array sensors.

That is a good point. I had not thought of it. 

HOWEVER, Fuji is Fuji.  Canon is Canon. Adobe always does the quickest updates for Canon cameras.

Probably because each Canon camera is so much like the previous one in terms of IQ, there is very little for Adobe to tune!

Maybe but the Fuji-specific pattern is on the market for years, as far as I know. If you have the basic programming for the pattern the rest might be minor adaptions.

I think it doesn't matter if you have 18 (magic number) or 24 or 36 MPix / 11 or 14 bit of DR for the basic conversion from bayer pattern -> rgb pixel. Changes in spectral sensitivity distribution for R, G and B pixels might be much more complicated to adapt!

If Adobe has lens distortion correction algorithms/data for sensor-lens combinations Canon has much more to do than others to supply the data for a new sensor - something like 120 datasets to measure and evaluate ...

EOS Bodies / Re: 50mp Cameras Coming in March [CR1]
« on: January 25, 2015, 03:56:10 AM »
How hard can it possibly be to use a non -Bayer pixel pattern like Fuji does?  My understanding is Fuji just made the pixel pattern less simple than the little repeating 4-pixel blocks in a Bayer pattern that give us this problem with screen doors/fabric/etc., and this makes the low pass filter unnecessary. 

It seems fairly straightforward and not subject to any patent issues vs. Fuji. How could anyone patent "any pattern in the world other than Bayer"?

Yes, I am bumping my own question.  I don't oftrn do that but I really wonder what others think of the question.  If they omit the filter, there are compromises.  Why not go the Fuji  x-trans route and use a less simple pixel pattern?

If it is a question of patents it depends what Fuji has stated in its patent.

If they patented a "non-rectangular and non-aligned sensor pattern" you have no freedom to move from the standard pattern of current Bayer sensors. If you write down a patent it is always a good idea to block as much alternatives for others as you can. Large companies are experts on that - I think.

EOS Bodies / Re: 2015 wishlist
« on: January 25, 2015, 03:47:37 AM »
  * EF-M 2.0 50 IS macro with ultimate IQ (would be my standard lens)
  * EOS M-P(rofessional) with larger batterie in hand grip, much better direct controls (two wheels incl. one wheel around mount base), EVF
  * EOS M-A(rt) with FF sensor, tiltable/shiftable EF-Mount and EF-X-lenses (like EF-S for better wide angles by lens elements deeply behind flange distance)

EOS Bodies / Re: 50mp Cameras Coming in March [CR1]
« on: January 24, 2015, 10:37:39 AM »
So I should wait before I buy a 5D classic until I know the prices and the specs ...

After owning a 4k TV (to view EOS 20D images near their original resolution) I am interested in more pixels and waiting for a 10k Display ...

Lenses / Re: Would you buy this lens? Small, lightweight, 17mm/2.8
« on: January 19, 2015, 01:20:40 PM »
I am interested in something like 17mm, compact, not too expensive.

I think f2.8@17mm for full frame is not possible to produce for 500$ but f4.0 might be possible - I just think about the FD 4.0 17 I own: A little bit soft, roughly 700 german mark 20 years ago might transform into a 500 EUR high quality lens with plastic housing but (more or less) current lens technology (like e.g. 10-22 EF-S).

I like high quality in the corners so I wouldn't be satisfied with the IQ of the 17-40mm - but with f4.0 a better correction is possible IMO.

I had the same decision to make 2 or 3 years ago:

IS would have been nice but the L grade macro lens
was at least 2x the price (420 vs. 899 Euro at the time).
The wonderful EF 2.0 100 was in my bag before. This
lens has some advantages compared to both 100mm macros: very compact,
high max aperture, very fast and reliable AF, and last but not least:
great image quality.

The center sharpness of the L lens is better,
but corner sharpness isn't after different tests,
at full aperture and f/4 - I very often use near open
aperture and place objects far from center/need the
full frame sharp (landscape etc.).

CAs are better for non-IS lens ...

Less flares for non-IS lens with similar contrast in contralight situations ... perhaps the less
complicated design without IS system/elements.

non-IS has some distortion - IS-version has practically none but has not mattered to me
(landscape, macro, - in case of architecture might be managed in PP)

Vignetting is less visible in the non-IS version ...

I skimmed the following tests/pages:
Lens qualtity at the digital pic:   http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/458-canon_100_28is_5d?start=2
Flares at the digital pic: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Flare.aspx?Lens=107&Camera=453&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3&LensComp=674&CameraComp=453&FLI=0&API=3

Review of photozone (24 x 36):
non-IS: http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/489-canon_100_28_5d?start=1
IS / L: http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/458-canon_100_28is_5d?start=1

If I hadn't had the EF 2.0 100 before I might have bought the L version (with IS compensating
some aspects of larger aperture) and welcomed the weather sealing.
But for my situation it was (up to now) a good choice.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 31