Messages

1

Canon General / Re: Desired fantasy gear

« on: May 22, 2013, 05:02:35 PM »

*Higher viewfinder magnification combined with larger "apparent field of view" via the finder...for all Canon bodies (except maybe the Rebel line).  An image through the viewfinder, with a 50mm lens mounted, focused at or near infinity, should show objects exactly the same size as the naked eye sees them...AND NOT SMALLER than the eye sees them.

get a 7D

The 7D suffers from it too...

The 7D does not.  It is a 1.0x magnification viewfinder and has 100% accurate field of view (50mm lens focused at infinity).  However, it is a crop sensor so the apparent field of view is smaller, even if it has the same magnification as the naked eye.

The last (35mm) camera to have a close-to-1.0x viewfinder was the Pentax MX (0.97x and 95%).  Nikon's largest was the Nikkormat EL2 and FT3 (0.90x and 92%), the largest Canon is the TL, FT QL, Flex R2000, Flex RP and Flex (0.90x and 94%).  Note that all of these cameras are manual focus film SLRs.

In the autofocus era, here are the biggest viewfinders from the 'big two': Canon - 620/630/650/RT (0.80x and 94%), Nikon - N2020 (0.85x and 92%).

In the digital era there is only one APS-C camera with a 1.0x viewfinder - Canon 7D (1.0x and 100%).  Many other crop cameras come close, namely - Nikon D90 (0.96x), Canon 40D/50D/60D (0.95x), Pentax *ist D/*ist DS/*ist DS2/K10D/K20D/K-x (0.95x), Sigma SD1 (0.95x), Nikon D200/D80/D300/D300s/D7000/D7100 (0.94x).

The largest viewfinders for any less-than medium format DSLRs are the one's found in the 1Ds Mark III and 1Dx (0.76x and 100%).  Nikon's biggest are the ones in D3/D3s/D3x/D4/D600/D800 (0.70x and 100%).

The medium format Leica S2 has a viewfinder with 0.86x magnification and 96% accuracy (along with a crop factor of 0.8x, resulting in a normalized size of 1.03 in 35mm terms - which comes out to be 35% larger than the ones in Canon's 1Ds Mark III and 1Dx).

So, I do think a magnification of 1.0x would be a huge step ahead of what is available, or has ever been available.

2

Canon General / Re: Desired fantasy gear

« on: May 15, 2013, 10:21:28 AM »

I agree with you ive longed for a 24-105 f2.8L IS for ages

I'll add my
35-85 f2L IS with IQ as good as the sigma 35 f1.4

I've heard you mention that lens before, and I think it's a pretty interesting and unique idea.  From a size standpoint, I believe it might be reasonable (although, since I'm not an optics engineer, I'm not sure how difficult such a lens would be to design).  Sigma (with the 18-35mm f/1.8) and Olympus (with the 14-35mm f/2 and the 35-100mm f/2) have proven that zoom lenses can be designed and sold with apertures greater than f/2.8 (albeit with a smaller image circle).  The lens you have proposed is probably the ideal candidate for a larger aperture zoom with a 35mm image circle (wider than 35mm or longer than 85mm would probably start to make the design prohibitively large).

3

Lenses / Re: EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x Announcement Around the Corner? [CR1]

« on: May 13, 2013, 03:18:43 PM »

Let's call this lens Sasquatch...it's off white, it's got a big foot, and while everybody's heard of it, very few have actually SEEN it.

I'm thinking more along the lines of a Yeti (aka. Abominable Snowman).  That's a big, white beast (and has left us out in the cold).

4

PowerShot / Re: A New Large Sensor PowerShot Coming [CR1]

« on: May 09, 2013, 01:35:06 PM »

Saying that, I don't use 3200iso on a FF camera either for exactly the same reasons. The 5D MkIII and 1DX might be workable for me there, but I don't own either of them.

I come from a 25/50/80 iso slide background, I also shot Pan F for thirty years, I probably print bigger than most more often than most and I have a built in abhorrence to noise.

Then why are you even here?  Clearly nothing physically possibly will mean your demands (especially something not medium format).

5

PowerShot / Re: A New Large Sensor PowerShot Coming [CR1]

« on: May 09, 2013, 01:25:29 PM »

For my personal use that output is worse than useless, I would rather try and remember the scene than look at that kind of compromised image of it.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make.  I am trying to state, in a fairly objective manner, that a modern mid- to high-end fixed lens camera can produce noise levels similar to that of DSLR cameras that was produced several years back.  You're making extremely subjective comments that seem to indicate some sort of gearhead complex, and from everything you've stated absolute lack of noise and shallow depth of field are the only things that make a photograph, and without them the image is absolutely worthless.  I will not validate your opinion, but you certainly have a right to have it.

In a dimly venue the following cameras will all produce the same image, with different DOFs and noise levels, whether one is happy with the noise level or DOF is for each individual to decide:

6D/5D Mark III @ ISO 3200 f/2.8 1/60 35mm
7D/60D/550D/600D/650D/700D/100D/EOS M @ ISO 3200 f/2.8 1/60 20mm or 24mm (slightly wider or narrower)
G1X @ ISO 5000 f/3.5 1/60 18.9mm
G15 @ ISO 1600 f/2.0 1/60 7.6mm
S110 @ ISO 3200 f/2.8 1/60 7.6mm

6

PowerShot / Re: A New Large Sensor PowerShot Coming [CR1]

« on: May 09, 2013, 10:27:52 AM »

I'm very happy with my RX100 with its zeiss 1.8 zoom thanks.

That would be a 28mm-100mm f4.9-f13.2 equivalent, hardly anything to get very excited about.

F/1.8 is ALWAYS f/1.8!! Some people are more interested in shooting in Low Light than having oh-so-trendy paper-thin DOF. YMMV.

+1

I think DOF equivilents are important, but they are not everything.  I would venture to say a modern 1" sensor good results at ISO 800 (similar to an APS-C sensor from 3 or 4 generations back), and a modern 1/1.7" sensor (like the BSI-CMOS in the S110) likely gives acceptable results at ISO 400 (similar to an APS-C 4 to 5 generations back).

In a given era different sized sensors will never be able to compete against each other, but looking back you might be able to get the same image quality from an S110 @ ISO 400 & f/2.0 as a 10D or 20D at the same ISO and aperture (and have all the modern features of a new camera and many more MP to boot).

The same could probably be said for a RX100 @ ISO 800 & f/1.8 and a 30D or 40D.

Depth of field does not an image make.

7

Lenses / Re: New Tilt-Shift Lenses in the Wild [CR2]

« on: May 02, 2013, 05:26:11 PM »

I also own the TS-E 17.  It is a nice lens but not as sharp as the TS-E 24 II and flares badly. 

I believe that comments like these should always be put into context by saying that the 17mm TS-E is widely considered to be one of the sharpest UWA lenses of all time.

8

Lenses / Re: Viking Burial Fun (eral) topic!

« on: May 02, 2013, 10:19:21 AM »

Likely sell for parts on eBay (I picked it up on eBay for $67 shipped, which is far below the $200+ it typically sells for, and well below the $100-150 they go for when repair is needed).  Selling for parts will likely end close to a break-even point.  I find no joy in destroying otherwise usable parts.

9

Lenses / Re: Viking Burial Fun (eral) topic!

« on: May 02, 2013, 10:06:39 AM »

I've fixed over 2 dozen bodies, and at least a dozen lenses.  I'd be taking it apart and repairing it.  Currently I'm attempting to reassemble a Nikon 35-70mm f/2.8D lens (push-pull) that I fixed.  Trying to reassemble in the same way I disassembled it has not worked and there are no complete repair manuals available (only exploded diagrams and parts lists).  Not sure if this will be a successful repair or not.

10

Lenses / Re: Macro lens or attachments to make my current lenses go macro?

« on: April 29, 2013, 09:57:42 AM »

That's the crux of the issue right there.  100 2.8 used is $400.  Tubes or attachments are half that cost.  For what I'm thinking, is the difference going to be that substantial?  (And there comes the key...I will notice it, but will my clients?)

Your clients likely won't notice an IQ difference.  You might not, even.  What you will notice is the difference in convenience.

+1

Enjoy the added flexibility that my two extension tubes (Canon EF12 and EF12II) give me with all my lenses, however, having to take them on and off with varying focal distances is a pain.  Additionally, I have noticed that AF is affected when using ETs (slightly slower, sometimes hunts).  I would really like a dedicated macro, for reasons of convenience alone.  I can't argue with the price I paid for the ETs (one was free after I sold the TC that came with it - guy had no idea what he was selling, and the other was only $29).

11

EOS Bodies / Re: Why not higher resolution video?

« on: April 26, 2013, 05:18:34 PM »

The other question to ask is why does the current 1080p video frame look so infinitely crappier than the equivalent  2mp still?  If they can give me broadcast quality or better 1080p, people would not be waiting for 4k as much as they are.....

Have you taken a 2MP still on your camera to compare it with a 1080p video grab? (and I mean taken the image at 2MP, not resized in PS)

That's the only fair way to compare because of pixel binning etc.  Oh and at JPEG as well.  And at 1/50th or 1/60th shutter too.

And for complete parity can you also enlarge the 2MP print of your still to the size of your TV screen?  Remember to keep everything sRGB for equivalence.

As I alluded to earlier, we put up with 400k resolution tv pictures for decades because the illusion of motion and the motion blur caused by the relatively slow shutter (not to mention the interlacing) was all too much for our lowly brain power to handle and so it looked all crisp and sharp and detailed and that.  We only see each image for 1/25th or 1/30th of a second, so our brain is filling in a lot of the gaps at quite a rate.  A bit like temporal compression in reverse.

Why isn't my tractor as fast as my coupe on the motorway?  Why can't I plough a field with my bike?  All similar questions.

And if it's not broadcast quality how come I've been getting stuff on telly shot on my 7D, 550D and 600D for the last few years?

If the 1Dx had an option for 1920x1280 I'm sure it would look substantially better (even at the highest JPEG compression level) than a single frame of a static scene on a good, heavy tripod.  The reason I say that - 4:2:0 encoding.

I would venture to say a Canon D30 (2160 x 1440) or Nikon D1/D1H (2000 x 1312) using the same tripod placement and lens in Large-JPEG-Normal (or even Small-JPEG-Normal at 1440 x 960 for the D30) would probably meet or exceed the resolution of any modern DSLR shooting 1080p of a static subject in good light (obviously the modern cameras would win hands-down in high ISO situations).  The reason I say that is softening and loss of detail caused by 4:2:0 encoding and H.264 compression.

I think if someone has a modern camera and an old D30 laying they should compare them and see if 1080p can stand up to a 13 year-old DSLR.  I would be very interested in the results.

12

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: The Blackmagic Production Camera 4K

« on: April 09, 2013, 10:48:41 PM »

Let me just get this straight, so it has the same sensor size as the 5D Mkiii and only costs $500 more at there releases and it shoots 4K raw...

Close, with one very important correction: Super 35mm is a film format that is approximately APS-C size.

13

Lenses / Re: Why can a Sigma 10-20mm fit on a "FF" Body?

« on: April 05, 2013, 08:18:52 AM »

While some manufacturers such as Sigma make lenses designed for Canon crop bodies, only Canon make EF-S mount lenses. This means these third party EF crop lenses can physically mount on FF bodies, even though the image circle isn't specifically designed to cover such a large area. Hopefully they have enough mirror clearance too.

Does the Sigma 10-20 image circle cover the entire frame when zoomed in to say 15/16mm or longer?

A friend of mine bought this lens, and I tried it out on my 5D, I think the hard vignetting stopped at 14mm or 15mm.  The corners were quite dark, but it worked out to be a fairly usable 14-20mm IIRC.  I did not save any of the test shots I took with it.

14

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: What does Vincent Laforet Think is a Game Changer?

« on: April 04, 2013, 08:33:14 PM »

Fast 50mm epitomizes the "one device". My guess: Canon 50mm [f/1.4-2.0] IS USM. Heard it here first. Works perfectly with the release cycle of Canon's other IS USM primes:

24mm IS - Aug 2012
28mm IS - Aug 2012
35mm IS - Jan 2013
50mm IS - Apr 2013

I was really excited when I read your suggestion, which is pretty much my dream lens!  Then I read this part:

“And while it will be more expensive than the Canon 5D MKII was”

Yeah, forgot about the part that it's $3000+. Maybe a 24-105mm f/2.8 IS?  Sounds crazy, but Tamron made 28-105 2.8.  Maybe wishful thinking, but I'm not sure I'd classify it as 'game changing'.

Could it possibly be a 50mm f1.2 IS?  I think that could command 3 G's.

15

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: What does Vincent Laforet Think is a Game Changer?

« on: April 04, 2013, 06:46:56 PM »

Fast 50mm epitomizes the "one device". My guess: Canon 50mm [f/1.4-2.0] IS USM. Heard it here first. Works perfectly with the release cycle of Canon's other IS USM primes:

24mm IS - Aug 2012
28mm IS - Aug 2012
35mm IS - Jan 2013
50mm IS - Apr 2013