March 04, 2015, 05:49:18 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 - dgatwood

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 63
1
If/when EVF becomes standard (=is good enough), you could remove LCD from the body and have Google glasses as your EVF.

One great thing on that is that no matter your angles over crowd shooting or strange angles hanging your camera down from a bridge or something, you'd always see what you're shooting.

That sort of integration would probably be trivial if the camera were running Android.  Just saying.  :)

2
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Plastic/Resin Mount for DSLRs
« on: January 03, 2015, 02:57:04 PM »
From the wording, I'd guess that a similar patent for the lens side is on its way.

I would hope so.  I'd expect metal-on-plastic to have a serious wear problem, because of the extreme difference in material hardness.

3
EOS Bodies / Re: 1DX or 1DX2 - that is the question
« on: January 03, 2015, 02:54:19 PM »
That said, the volume of 1DX sales is by far the smallest of the three. It would be easier to make enough 1DX sensors for the foreseeable future and keep them in storage. My bet would be the 6D gets replaced, the 5D3 gets replaced, and then the 1DX gets replaced last..... and that's a long wait!

Agreed.  I would expect the 6D to be updated on a schedule that's slower than the rebels, but faster than the higher-end pro bodies.  My money was on approximately a two-year cycle, which would make the 6D mark II about a month and a half past due.  I would not be at all surprised to see it updated "real soon now".

With that said, I would expect the 5D to be on a three-year cycle, which means I'd expect it in a couple of months.  So if I'm wrong about the two-year number, it could come out first.  Or they could shock everybody by releasing both of them in March.  :)

4
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: C100 Mark ii pushed back?
« on: January 03, 2015, 02:42:11 PM »
Someone on Twitter said Canon has pushed back the release to January, and I noticed B&H removed the "End of December" verbiage from the product page. Anyone have any word on this?

Oh, you thought they meant December of 2014:D

5
A trained experienced cameraman will put an evf to his eye and his fingers will turns the lens the right way enough automatically.

Or, if he or she is used to that other camera system, an experienced cameraperson will automatically turn it the right amount in the wrong direction every time....  :)


Traditionally, certainly not, there was uniformity in design between Fujinon & Canon ENG lenses, and certainly between bodies, be they grass valley, sony, ikegami, panasonic.

I realize that.  I was just using it as an opportunity to take a cheap shot at Nikon.


I have to say, and this is a gross generalisation but I'll stand by it, I've never met a pro video user using a nikon body ever.

Me either.  Then again, I've never met a pope, but I know that at least two of them exist.  The same principle applies (and probably with similar numbers).  :D

6
...We're complaining that something trivial—GPS—is missing from nearly all of the high-end cameras, even though it would cost almost nothing, and is really, really easy to add.

If it's so easy why don't you retrofit it?...

Retrofitting it (at least if you want to do it right) would likely require serious surgery.  Adding it during the design process is quite doable, as evidenced by both the 6D and the 7D Mark II (the latter being an all-metal body, I think).


A GPS antenna can't just be bunged in anywhere.  You're going to need a top rear edge mounted antenna ...

It doesn't really have to be at the top, and if you have only one antenna, it shouldn't be at the rear, because you'll get too much attenuation from it being pressed up against a bag of meat (the photographer).  I'd probably lean towards antennas in several locations:

Location #1: Bezel antenna mounted underneath the black plastic trim around the rear screen.  You'll probably be limited to a quarter wave with a straight antenna, but you might be able to pull off a full-wavelength loop antenna.  Either way, there are standard GPS antennas commercially available that are small enough to mount ten of them in the border around a 6D screen, so mounting two of them there shouldn't be much of a challenge.

Mount two Wi-Fi strip antennas behind there, too, while you're at it (preferably along the two edges that you didn't use for the GPS antennas).

Location #2: An 11mm x 6mm antenna mounted right behind either the product logo or the Canon logo or both.  Use a plastic plug with a rubber back for the product logo.  Nobody will even know it's there.

Location #3 (optional): Replace the top dome with plastic and put an antenna under it.  Obviously, some people will be against that idea, and it probably isn't strictly necessary to get a usable GPS signal.  However, I think that's what Canon did in the 7D Mark II.


Yes, I realize that I'm simplifying things a lot.  There's engineering work required in figuring out just how much metal you have to remove behind the logo plug, in figuring out how (and where) to mount the antenna behind the bezel to maximize signal strength, etc.  But I'm sure Canon can afford to hire an RF engineer or two.  Heck, they almost certainly already have a few working over in their printer division.

7
Lenses / Re: Cost to repair image stabilization on 70-200 f2.8L IS II
« on: January 03, 2015, 12:05:51 PM »
Actually having torn a couple similar lenses apart.  It takes a considerable amount of time to diagnose the problem, tear it down, replace the bad module, then reassemble the elements...keeping it all clean...then recollimating the optics again.  It's not something you can just replace like a set of spark plugs.

I think 400.00 to fix it is quite reasonable for employing someone as specialized as they are to do it right.  I personally would not attempt it even if I had a great YouTube video showing me how.  The specialized tools and knowledge to do it correctly would cost more than the repair.

Unreasonable?  Perhaps not.  But the labor market isn't that different between Canada and the U.S. (in part because it is relatively easy for workers to move back and forth between them), so I'd expect the labor cost to be about the same (unless Canon put their repair center in the middle of Silicon Valley).

8
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Confirms Development of High Megapixel Camera
« on: January 03, 2015, 11:51:17 AM »
Since it's getting touched on... I'm sure this a pipe dream but seeing as how I assume this new rig will be DPAF and have (perhaps) 7D2 like rack focus and AF features.... what's the chances we finally get a REAL C-LOG clean HDMI out instead of Mush-Log now?  Slim or none?

Not sure high megapixel sensor will have DPAF. Manufacturing could be expensive. And even decent Full HD alone could be expensive (in terms of scaling all that ~ 52MPix down to only ~2 for video).

If they're talking about scaling up the 7D Mark II sensor, it will.  I just hope they have the good sense to include a touchscreen so that live view focusing won't be such an epic pain in the a**.

9
EOS Bodies / Re: 1DX or 1DX2 - that is the question
« on: January 03, 2015, 11:43:21 AM »
Do you mind me asking where you purchased your 1TB SSB drive for your MB Pro 17.  I also have a MB Pro 17 and have been wanting to upgrade to a SSD, but have had a hard time trying to find one that size.

It's a Crucial M500 960GB SSD, I think ordered it from Amazon.

New MBP can not be upgraded.

Not entirely true.  The RAM is soldered, I think, but the SSD is a removable stick, and at least one company builds upgrades in that form factor.

http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/SSD/OWC/Air-Retina/Apple-MacBook-Pro-Retina-2012-Drive-Internal-Flash

I just wish somebody built something bigger than a terabyte.  My three-year-old MacBook Pro can be upgraded with dual 2 TB drives, for a total of 4 TB.  My nine-month-old MacBook Pro can't go any bigger than the tiny 1 TB drive that Apple shipped in it.

With that said, even though I wish *my* MacBook Pro were thicker and supported real hard drives (or at least provided four SSD slots instead of one), I'm glad my mother's isn't.  (It fell out of an overhead bin on my head last week....)

10
First, phones sell in vast numbers. There are what? A couple of billion mobile phones in active use now, maybe more? How many cameras has Canon sold in its entire history? A couple of hundred million? Impressive, but doesn't have the same economies of scale. Second, your phone has a PHONE CONNECTION. A camera doesn't - and adding one would entail selling a contract, cf the difference between wifi-only tablets and 3G-enabled ones - or increasing the upfront cost quite a lot. Ditto "GPS" - which only works outdoors, right? The indoor location tags are generated by communicating with mobile phone masts. Again an unconnected device can't do that.

Well, yes, but AFAIK, nobody is complaining that GPS doesn't work indoors (and frankly, cell phones don't generate very accurate locations indoors, either).  Most of us would be perfectly happy with GPS simply reporting the last known location until you pop back outside.  We're complaining that something trivial—GPS—is missing from nearly all of the high-end cameras, even though it would cost almost nothing, and is really, really easy to add.


Finally they're different types of device - I think a smartphone is a bit like a Swiss Army knife. It does lots of things relatively well. But you want to saw some wood? You get a saw. You want to do DIY? You get a screwdriver etc. Cameras do one thing well, and everything else is peripheral.

The problem is, now we have a whole generation of photographers who are used to camera phones.  They're used to being able to do all sorts of things with their cameras.  It isn't really unreasonable to expect similar tools to have similar capabilities, or at least to integrate well with other tools that do.

Unfortunately, integration between cell phones and cameras is about as primitive as it could possibly be.  There are many reasons for this—the fundamental clumsiness of Wi-Fi tethering, ending up with multiple copies of every photo you import into your phone (one from the phone, one from the camera), not-so-great apps for the phones themselves that clumsily downscale your photos and convert them from RAW to JPEG even though the phone's software can handle RAW images, etc.—but what all the issues boil down to is this: Tablets and phones are designed to work with photos that they took themselves, not with photos that came in from another device.  As long as that is the case, it will still be clumsy to integrate an external camera with your phone or tablet.

By contrast, if your camera were a proper tablet, that conflict in design wouldn't exist, because your Canon camera would be the tablet's camera.  It would just be a natural extension of the technology instead of a clumsy hack.  I really don't see any way to integrate cameras with external phones or tablets in a way that would even approach that level of user-friendliness.

11
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Confirms Development of High Megapixel Camera
« on: January 02, 2015, 11:27:41 PM »
Its more difficult to design a lens for short flange distances, due to the requirement to bend light more in order to cover a FF.  Expect either poorer lenses, smaller aperture lenses, or more expensive and complex good lenses.

Or lenses with a permanently recessed rear element.  There's no law that says the rear element has to stick out from the rear of the lens.  From a lens robustness perspective, moving the rear element inwards could be a serious win.  :)

Mind you, doing that wouldn't make the lenses any shorter, but it would be a reasonable design approach for long lenses that wouldn't really get much shorter with a shorter flange focal distance anyway.  And it could potentially allow mechanical adapters to short-flange-focal-distance EF-M lenses so you could use the cameras with existing lighter, shorter wide lenses (using a zoom mode that blows up the center 40% of the image).

12
What part of it was so amazing? Most of these innovations seem to apply to entry level consumers and those not knowledgable about cameras.  He seemed to make a big deal about face tracking and a $7k camera not having that, but if you use a face tracking feature for your autofocus you probably are not skilled enough to be using a $7k camera in the first place.

Nonsense.  That's a non sequitur.  It's like saying that for people who use automatic transmissions are not skilled enough to drive stick, or saying that people who use automatic focus or any of the semi-automatic Av/Tv/* modes are incapable of using a manual iris or manual focus lens.

People use different tools under different circumstances and for different reasons.  Face detection AF is great in live view modes, because manual focusing is harder on an LCD screen.  It's also great for video, assuming you're using AF at all, because it makes AF a lot more usable.

For example, I have a 44M that I use for portraits on occasion, and I often end up in full manual mode when shooting anything on a black stage (concerts, plays, etc.) to avoid blown-out faces.  But when I'm walking around with a tour group, dealing with wildly alternating amounts of light, I'd miss a lot of great shots if I were trying to manage all of those extra variables.  In those situations, I'd estimate that 99% of my shots are done in P mode, with autofocus, and with automatic ISO.  The nearly fully automatic setting does a good enough job in most typical circumstances (sometimes a little overexposed or underexposed, but not enough to ruin the shot), freeing me to focus on more important things, like choosing a good shot angle, nailing the timing of the shot to get good facial expressions, and all the other myriad things I'm thinking about in the background.  And this is how I come home from a two-week trip with 6,000 photos, with only a single-digit number of shots that are bad enough to throw away.

Would I use face detection?  Maybe sometimes, so long as it is a quick knob twist between that and traditional focusing modes, and so long as they also add an in-viewfinder indicator to tell me what shooting mode I'm in.  Then again, I guess it would be obvious, because that mode would switch over to an EVF, and none of the other modes would, so....



A trained experienced cameraman will put an evf to his eye and his fingers will turns the lens the right way enough automatically.

Or, if he or she is used to that other camera system, an experienced cameraperson will automatically turn it the right amount in the wrong direction every time....  :)

13
Lenses / Re: Cost to repair image stabilization on 70-200 f2.8L IS II
« on: January 02, 2015, 11:48:41 AM »
Yikes.  Assuming that price from Canon Canada is correct, if you had shipped the lens to Canada for repair, after taking 20% off their fixed price, and after converting to USD, it would cost you only $218.27 US (plus shipping).

Why does Canon USA charge almost double what Canon Canada charges for the same repair?

14
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Confirms Development of High Megapixel Camera
« on: January 02, 2015, 11:28:18 AM »
What makes high-MP sensors hard is yield.  The more pixels you have, the higher your tolerance for stuck pixels has to be—particularly as the feature size approaches the limits of their lithography technology.

Speaking of which, has anybody gathered any statistics on dead/stuck pixel rates across the different sensor manufacturers?

15
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Confirms Development of High Megapixel Camera
« on: January 02, 2015, 10:56:18 AM »
It's hard to do full read out of a sensor with tons of MP though. The A7S has only 10MP for instance.

I'm not sure why you say that.  The effort scales linearly in the number of pixels.  If you have twice as many pixels, you just throw twice as much hardware at the problem.  With a two-sided or stacked chip, I'd think that it would be possible to pack all the needed processing on the back side of the sensor die, with room to spare.

What makes high-MP sensors hard is yield.  The more pixels you have, the higher your tolerance for stuck pixels has to be—particularly as the feature size approaches the limits of their lithography technology.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 63