October 24, 2014, 01:03:25 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 - Bob Howland

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 18
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 16, 2014, 01:33:09 PM »
I have both a 7D and a 5D3 and use and like both, but for different things. I use Raw (almost) exclusively. Simply stated, the trade-off is (1) higher pixel density (i.e., smaller pixels), (2) larger sensor and/or (3) high frame rate. At any given price point, choose any two of the above.

The 5D3 gives better image quality, especially in very low light. Its Auto-ISO max is set to 12800 whereas the 7D's is set to 3200. In particular, the 5D3 seems to have more DR. Furthermore, regardless of what Canon says, I don't believe that the 7D2 image quality will match or exceed the 5D3's (or 6D's) image quality.

The 7D uses smaller pixels than the 5D3. Thus, using a given lens focal length at a given distance from the subject, the 7D uses more pixels to make the image, unless the subject is so large that it "overfills" the 7D's field of view. A FF camera with the same pixel density as the 7D would have about 47MP. To maintain the same data frame rate as the 7D through the image processing circuitry would require dropping the FPS from 8 to about 3.2. Raising the frame rate back to 8 would requiring using better, faster and, therefore, more expensive circuitry.

Also, the smaller sensor of the 7D should have cost implications regardless of the number of pixels. The mirror and related components can be smaller and lighter and, in principle, cheaper and easier to produce.

So, what do I use and where? My default camera is the 5D3. The 7D is used almost entirely to photograph racing cars and motorcycles with a 100-400, 70-200 or 300 f/2.8 with or without TCs. When doing that, the 5D3 is usually also at hand, with a shorter lens attached. This is a role which the 5D3 can play but its predecessor, a 5D, couldn't. I suspect a 6D can't either. Anyway, unlike some, I find the extra "reach" to be real and advantageous. I suppose I could buy a 600 f/4 or Sigma 200-500 f/2.8 and a 1Dx , but then I'd have to carry them.

This is an incredibly stupid poll!

Canon General / Re: seeimpossible.usa.canon.com?
« on: October 05, 2014, 05:32:33 PM »
Wild guess: 50MP sensor capable of 4K, 60P video and 4:1 binning resulting in a 12.5MP Lord-of-Darkness mode. Unfortunately, it's only a development announcement.

The good part is that the announcement is happening really soon.

I don't see much advantage in putting a high MP sensor in a 1Dx body instead of a 5D3 body. After all, wouldn't a high MP camera be most useful to landscape and studio photographers? And let's not forget what the 5D2 did to 1DS3 sales. A lot of users must have found the 5D2 to be "good enough".

How about that the old camera no longer works properly? I bought my 7D about 2 years ago because the shutter release on my 40D was getting unreliable. However, my 5D3 replaced a 5D because the new camera had vastly better focusing and I could use it at ISO 12800 for 8X10 size images. I guess my vote would be "none of the above" or "all of the above". Take your pick.

EOS Bodies / Re: Poll: Would you buy a high MP Canon EOS 5DIV?
« on: September 26, 2014, 07:10:03 AM »
I am fine with 20 to 24 MP.
I don't care for more than 30 MP because for me it only costs disk space and makes pixel peepers happy - or even not.
Same MP, better high and low ISO performance, maybe some DR on top and I'm fine.

To say it in other words:
The 5D4 must have a real big improvement in IQ (not pixel resolution) that you can recognize at once in real world usage.
Minor improvements (half an stop ISO here, little less noise there) are not enough.
Otherwise I am not interested at all.

I am doing more and more work that I would rather use the 90TS-E for, but I am going to stick with my 100 L Macro until it gets the MkII rework, not fussed abut the IQ as the current isn't far off, much more concerned about the shift and tilt rotations, I will not buy one until I can control those like the 17 and 24 MkII.

So you would rather have no shifts and tilts than have them but not be able to easily move the shift and tilt access into parallel.

FWIW, it is possible to take apart both the 45 and 90, make the tilt and shift parallel then reassemble them that way. I did it once with each of mine, then put them back into their original configuration after a little while and left them that way.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Looking Into a New Mount System
« on: September 22, 2014, 09:39:17 AM »
According to Neuro, who presumably measured the appropriate cameras, the throat (inner) diameter of the EOS-M mount is 43mm while the EF throat diameter is 51mm. The 58mm figure is apparently for the outside of the mount, which could vary from camera to camera.


EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Looking Into a New Mount System
« on: September 22, 2014, 08:31:17 AM »
According to an interview with Mr Makoto Sakaeta Masaya, the managing director of Canon Image Communication Business Division. Canon is exploring the possibility of a new lens mount. I suspect its application would be for a full frame mirrorless system of some kind.

As somebody who lived through the Canon FD to EF mount transition, I would be very surprised if the new mount was for a FF mirrorless system that was incompatible with tens of millions of EF lenses. I can, however, see them reducing the sensor to flange distance to 22-24mm and introducing a series of compatible lenses as well as an adapter to use existing lenses. However, the interview mentioned new communications protocols. Communications are largely a firmware function although it remains to be seen if existing lenses can be reprogrammed to that extent.

The M-mount, with a 58mm throat diameter, is unfortunately not that much smaller than the EF mount. The MFT mount, on the other hand, has a 38mm throat diameter and the NX system a 42mm throat diameter. If Canon wants to imitate these systems then, yes, they might introduce a smaller lens mount.

I am a photographer and not a videographer. After viewing the Chuck Westhall video I was not really inspired to want to upgrade my 7D. We seem to have waited a long time for the 7D2 and I was expecting more 'must have' features.
+1, although I won't know for sure until I can process 7D2 raw images and compare them to comparable 7D images. I was hoping that the 7D2 would be mirrorless and capable of 24 full resolution images per second. At 18MP, that would require 432MP/Sec. The Samsung does 420MP/Sec.

Lenses / Re: Wildlife lens setup
« on: September 19, 2014, 02:31:33 PM »
Which Sigma lens are you talking about? Both the C and the S are DG OS HSM. Also, if there are no images from either of those lenses, how are we supposed to have a valid opinion about them?

EOS-M / Re: More EF-M lenses in the future
« on: September 18, 2014, 11:56:09 AM »
Another tidbit from this Photokina article regarding EOS M, Canon's third lens ecosystem.

The newest range of Canon lenses is the EF-M series for the company's new "mirrorless" cameras, a line that's more compact than traditional SLRs. Canon only has a handful of EF-M lenses, but during a press conference here, the company committed to adding more.

That's notable, since it indicates that Canon is playing a long game with its mirrorless models, which were late to market compared to many rivals' models and thus far haven't spread widely.


What would Canon announce instead? And did they happen to mention in which century these lenses would be introduced? If Canon had introduced something like the Panasonic GM5 at Photokina, they might have some credibility but, as it stands now, there is no reason to believe them.

EOS Bodies / Re: Official: Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 15, 2014, 09:54:47 AM »
I have a Canon 5D Mark III and I'm wondering besides the "full frame" sensor, just why would anyone spend more money on the 5dm3 and not buy the 7dm2? the 7DM2 seems like a great camera in every way...
I have a 5D3 and 7D and find them a great pairing. The 5D3 is the indoor/winter camera and the 7D is the outdoor/summer camera. As good as the 7D2 is, I can't imagine it being as good as the 5D3 at ISO 6400 or even ISO 1600. I just hope the 7D2 has a proper auto ISO implementation in Manual mode.

I'm actually more excited about the new Sigma 150-600 S lens.

Wow!  Really F6.3 being marketed as a sports lens?  Maybe on the planet Venus.  Rarely is F6.3 enough to stop sports action.
Sports action isn't stopped by aperture, it is stopped by shutter speed. If the shutter speed isn't fast enough, just raise the ISO. I'm pretty sure that is what Canon 1Dx and Nikon D4x users do when using their 200-400 lenses with a 1.4x TC.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: SIGMA 150-600!!
« on: September 05, 2014, 04:38:51 PM »
As for wanting constant f/5.6, I don't see that as important or even useful. Remember, the camera body tells the lens what aperture to use and the lens has to figure out how to do it.

Well every quant of light counts.

It´s not much but it´s still better.
And with that weight plus over the Tamron it would be a nice bonus.

But i guess there are reasons for not doing it. Who knows how much more it would weight than.

600/5.6 results in a 107mm clear aperture, same as 300/2.8. The filter size of both this lens and the 120-300 is 105mm. Therefore, the 120-300 f/2.8 can't reach 300mm or be f/2.8 at that focal length.

Zoom lenses rely on magnification of the aperture. The physical aperture on the 120-300 isn't 107mm, it's probably not even 43mm (I assume there is some magnification at 120mm). However, the entrance pupil (aperture as magnified by the optics) is.

Perhaps you mean that the 120-300 can only actually be f/2.85 (i.e. 105mm) at full zoom? There is quite a bit of rounding in lens marketing. The difference between f/2.8 and f/2.85 is negligible to most anyone.

What you're calling the "entrance pupil" is what I mean by "clear aperture". It's the apparent aperture as viewed from the front of the lens. A long time ago, I was interested in astronomy. "Clear aperture" is the phrase that I heard/read then.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 18