September 30, 2014, 10:28:56 AM

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 - scyrene

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 21
1
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Says Higher Resolution Sensors Are Coming Soon
« on: September 27, 2014, 03:52:44 PM »
One advantage that the 7D II can offer that I don't think the 5D III or 1D X could ever really compete with is the ability to get long equivalent focal length at a faster max aperture...allowing the use of more than just the central cluster of AF points at the much slower f/8. The 7D II could achieve an effective 1344mm focal length (FoV equivalent) at f/5.6. At best, FF cameras can achieve 1200mm f/8. The added AF power the 7D II can offer at a very long effective focal length is intriguing.

That's true if your output requires more than the 7-8.6 MP you'd get by shooting the FF at 840mm f/5.6 and cropping to the APS-C FoV.  Granted, the 20 MP APS-C allows deeper cropping, but in most cases the IQ will suffer from atmospheric impact at distances which would require such deep cropping.

It depends on what your shooting. As I said, my primary use case for 1200mm is not full body birds...it's bird headshots. The distance doesn't increase, only the amount of detail you are resolving on a smaller area of your subject. Similarly, when it comes to the smaller shorebirds, like a Least Sandpiper. Were I could get away with using 840mm for larger ones, 1200mm is useful for smaller ones. Again, distance does not increase.

Therefor, atmospheric effects are not an issue. The primary issue is getting pixels on target, for a subject that is filling a good portion of the frame. The 7D II will put more pixels (and hopefully BETTER pixels, at least than any other crop camera) on a bird headshot at 840mm f/5.6 than the 5D III at 1200mm f/8. I'd expect the IQ to INCREASE with the 7D II, assuming Canon isn't just playing games, and their high ISO has really improved by about a stop.

Don't forget songbirds! Little sparrow-sized passerines need a lot of focal length, even at moderate distances. It's rare they'll let you get close - especially the best-looking ones (in my experience).

2
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Says Higher Resolution Sensors Are Coming Soon
« on: September 27, 2014, 02:32:09 PM »
I don't want or need the 7d2 - 10 fps is way too fast..and I prefer the FOV of FF.

You can always jack the frame rate down. You have the high speed and low speed continuous modes, so when you don't want to rip out 20 frames a burst, you can always drop down to three or four per second (and I think it's configurable on the high end models...I don't think the 7D allowed it, but the 7D II definitely should).

i am sure it does, and i am sure it has a silent burst too which is throttled down...the bigger aspect is i don't need a crop body, FF has it's claws in me.  I favor splitting the lines more for MP count (too much is not always needed) and low IS quality...  and yeah, i'd rahter other things like higher sync speed than burst.

Yeah, I can understand that. I have uses for crop, but there are ultimately ways of mitigating the need. I can always get closer to my subjects, for example...and if I can get close enough, FF will always win. One advantage that the 7D II can offer that I don't think the 5D III or 1D X could ever really compete with is the ability to get long equivalent focal length at a faster max aperture...allowing the use of more than just the central cluster of AF points at the much slower f/8. The 7D II could achieve an effective 1344mm focal length (FoV equivalent) at f/5.6. At best, FF cameras can achieve 1200mm f/8. The added AF power the 7D II can offer at a very long effective focal length is intriguing.

If you buy that £100k 1200mm f/5.6 and stick a 1.4x on, you can get 1680 f/8! :D

3
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Says Higher Resolution Sensors Are Coming Soon
« on: September 26, 2014, 02:16:39 PM »
Guys you miss the point.

It´s not only HERE... it´s all over the web.

Canon now stands for old sensors and boring camera releases.

No matter how much of that is true, it affects the brand image.

Canon is now company to joke about.
Making Paris Hilton like BAGS for girls, to carry a SD100?   :-X

5 years to include an 1D X AF system into the 7D MK2?

The only real innovation these days is in mirrorless cameras.
here you can really see faster AF, better EVF, lighter, smaller with any new generation.

DSLRs are a pretty mature technology. If mirrorless is advancing faster, it's because they are newer, and still finding their way. DSLRs *don't* need to change fundamentally every year, because in many ways they already work well.

Choose whatever analogy you like. Mobile phones have advanced massively in a generation; home phones much less so. Because one has been around a lot longer than the other. And because one already does what it needs to do.

4
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Says Higher Resolution Sensors Are Coming Soon
« on: September 26, 2014, 01:33:50 PM »
Honestly, if the pro DR crowd wasn't always on their soap box in every topic here, telling us all that we're just plain idiots if we don't see the truth of the holy grail in the exmor sensor andthat canon sensors are just plain so terrible that it would be a miracle to ever get a decent shot (some have said here in the past that the only thing canon files are good for is posting to social media@!!!).  It's rather preachy, like religion.

This is pretty much how I feel. It seems to have got worse over the last few months. Like, if only they shout enough, we'll see the light. How can we not? It's so blindingly obvious! But it's just not a priority for me. I don't like being called a fanboy or an apologist by association just because I'm not upset about the same thing some other people are.

5
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Says Higher Resolution Sensors Are Coming Soon
« on: September 26, 2014, 10:48:31 AM »
Thought for you guys: how much of this 'problem' with Canon being so far behind is due to the rising prevalance of Photoshop and significant amounts of post processing? 

I have never been huge on all the PS work that a lot of folks do to their work.  To me I like pictures that look like what you saw when you took them.  But, that's me. 

Still, because one can do so many kinds of things in PS, it seems like at some point we have started to measure cameras against how far they allow you to take PS.   PS has become where the image is created, and not the camera.  The cart is before the horse, no?

Just food for thought.
Brian

No.

I post-process every image, and that's because I like the final result to look like it looked to me.  The out-of-camera JPEG or default raw conversion rarely looks like that.

That's exactly what I was about to say. Postprocessing is usually essential (to my eye) to get an image that resembles what I saw.

I think you guys are probably in the minority. I read "I want it to look like what I saw" quite often, but then the people writing it load up their flickr streams with razor-thin DOF and desaturated images, water blurred to a fog and polarized skies. Things I have personally never seen in real life.

Haha that's an interesting point. I do also like to use cameras to capture things that the eye cannot; macro, wide aperture work, long exposures, astrophotography. I suppose what I meant was (and should have been clearer about) on average, a raw image coming out of the camera needs work if it is to have the colour balance and (dare I use the term) dynamic range that my eyes saw. I recognise that it's still an approximation, an artificial concept. But SOOC images are further from the eye (in my experience) than further processed ones.

Incidentally, on the subject of things like blurry water - well our eyes can't take single snapshots, so in that sense all still images are unlike what we see. A short exposure freezing the water would be just as artificial.

6
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Says Higher Resolution Sensors Are Coming Soon
« on: September 25, 2014, 03:04:23 PM »
Thought for you guys: how much of this 'problem' with Canon being so far behind is due to the rising prevalance of Photoshop and significant amounts of post processing? 

I have never been huge on all the PS work that a lot of folks do to their work.  To me I like pictures that look like what you saw when you took them.  But, that's me. 

Still, because one can do so many kinds of things in PS, it seems like at some point we have started to measure cameras against how far they allow you to take PS.   PS has become where the image is created, and not the camera.  The cart is before the horse, no?

Just food for thought.
Brian

No.

I post-process every image, and that's because I like the final result to look like it looked to me.  The out-of-camera JPEG or default raw conversion rarely looks like that.

That's exactly what I was about to say. Postprocessing is usually essential (to my eye) to get an image that resembles what I saw.

7
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Says Higher Resolution Sensors Are Coming Soon
« on: September 25, 2014, 01:40:05 PM »
Who are these higher resolution customers, one might ask? I can only think of two groups, landscape and studio. By the time Canon bring their product to the table, there will not be much room left on it! Unless they improve the dynamic range on a product aimed for landscape pros all those extra megapixels will be as useful as a chocolate teapot. :-) For studio photographers I see the costs dropping for MF though not to the same extent as it is a small market but maybe enough to attract more people who would otherwise have bought this Canon higher megapixel. The only reason I can think of for Canon not improving their sensors is the profit margin. Building a new fabrication plant would impact on their profits and share price something they don't want to do until they absolutely have too, they may never build one and instead in the future just buy in sensors as they foresee that there is no future profit to be made in a declining market.

I don't know how representative I am, but as a wildlife enthusiast I'd like more megapixels to help with cropping. Even with very long lenses you can't always get close enough.

8
Lenses / Re: Inexpensive standard walk around lens question
« on: September 24, 2014, 01:38:55 PM »
I'd vote for the 35 f/2 IS. It's the lens I covet most (excluding crazily expensive ones). Supposedly excellent image quality, and although you're losing a stop of aperture, you're gaining ~4 in IS, which in lots of situations will help. But that's just me :)

9
Sometimes I wonder why Canon and Nikon refuse to make something in the same league as the Otus?

Is it because:

  • They Don't know how to / they lack the expertise
  • They want to milk as much profit from cheap and fast moving (sales-wise) lenses

I'm certain there are pro-users in the market (especially in the FF line-up) who can understand, appreciate and differentiate really good optical quality.


Anyway thank you guys for sharing about Schneider Kreuznach. I'm in my 20s and i really have no clue about the company's presence

Correct me / educate me if i am mistaken. But the 70~200 f2.8L IS II is the only lens that is decently sharp edge to edge wide open etc.

I'm quite certain, they could fabricate lens at Otus performance. The problem lies in the smallness of potential market. Why waste R&D funds for some niche product. The would also need to incorporate AF, since majority of their customers would dislike omission of it.

There are plenty lenses in Canon lineup "decently sharp" (as you put it yourself) edge to edge. As you mentioned 70-200/2.8 II, there is also 24-70/2.8 II, 100L macro, 135L, TS 17 and TS 24 as well (the latter is actually supersharp).

Not to mention the super telephoto lenses. They are very sharp wide open.

10
Bugger. Mine still has the original firmware. Not sure I want the hassle of sending the lens in though. How much of a difference is it likely to make? I don't have any complaints about AF with the bare lens.

11
EOS Bodies / Re: A New EOS Pro Body With 46mp Next Month? [CR1]
« on: September 21, 2014, 09:04:31 AM »
I'm sceptical it'll happen, but I would like more MP in my next camera. I crop a lot, even at long focal lengths. Extra resolution gives extra reach. Also downsizing to reduce noise and enhance sharpness. Not everyone after more megapixels is a landscape shooter. Even if the image quality remained the same as current bodies (which I think is fine), I'd be very interested.

12
EOS Bodies / Re: High ISO Samples from the Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 17, 2014, 06:51:40 AM »
What im expecting.
Well naiv as i am as amateur photographer, better image quality!  :)

Im just puzzled that i look at a new camera and the images look not better than from the camera i already own since 2010.

What does 'better image quality' mean to you? If "image quality" can be measured objectively (and that's debatable), it surely depends on numerous criteria, some determined by the sensor/processor, some by the lens (and perhaps some by composition, lighting, etc).

Would you expect every aspect of camera technology to noticeably improve with every generation? Some areas will be more mature than others. As far as colour/noise/detail are concerned, I don't expect to see all that much difference - especially in benign circumstances (though hopefully there will be some, at the margins).

Clearly the developers of this camera have focused on other aspects of the image-making process - autofocus and frame rate, especially. Those are critical for getting the shot (for the sort of work this body is aimed at). But even then, you can get great shots with older technology. I think the higher the grade of equipment, the more targeted the improvements will be. They'll give a small edge in critical situations. That would seem most useful to professionals and enthusiasts. I might see the benefit of 10fps vs 6fps, or an extra stop of useable high ISO. The average snapper likely wouldn't.

13
EOS Bodies / Re: High ISO Samples from the Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 16, 2014, 07:37:04 PM »
Well that new autofocus system in the 7DII is doing really well - the ISO3200 picture on his web page looks completely out of focus (front focus I'd say.) ISO25600 looks similarly misfocused.

So that new AF system in the 7DII ... so advanced that it can't deal with a model that's relatively stationary...

Yes, I'm sure that's the problem.  Thanks for point pointing that out, dilbert.  Maybe his real problem is that he thinks the 7DII is a lens.  Or you do.   ::)

Are you suggesting that the AF problems aren't the cameras and are the lens instead?

So all of those people that complained about the 5D2's AF should really have been complaining about lenses intead?

No, I'm suggesting that your allegation that the 7DII's AF has a problem is baseless trolling.

Are you saying that if of all the shots from the 7D II that you have seen 1 shot out of 6 that misses focus that there is no bases for a problem? :o

I am just hoping this guy was a bad photographer.

A sample size of 6 is far too small (in any context) to draw any conclusions. Maybe the next 6 would all have been in focus, maybe the next 60 would have (or vice versa). As others have said, we know next to nothing about the lens, AF mode, technique, and user capability. To immediately point to it being a flaw in the camera body is patently trolling as Neuro said. Let's just hope it was meant lightheartedly.

Miss spelled word, I was patiently trolling until mine arrives in November. Or maybe not....

Lol, I didn't mean you!

14
EOS Bodies / Re: High ISO Samples from the Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 16, 2014, 10:51:52 AM »
Well that new autofocus system in the 7DII is doing really well - the ISO3200 picture on his web page looks completely out of focus (front focus I'd say.) ISO25600 looks similarly misfocused.

So that new AF system in the 7DII ... so advanced that it can't deal with a model that's relatively stationary...

Yes, I'm sure that's the problem.  Thanks for point pointing that out, dilbert.  Maybe his real problem is that he thinks the 7DII is a lens.  Or you do.   ::)

Are you suggesting that the AF problems aren't the cameras and are the lens instead?

So all of those people that complained about the 5D2's AF should really have been complaining about lenses intead?

No, I'm suggesting that your allegation that the 7DII's AF has a problem is baseless trolling.

Are you saying that if of all the shots from the 7D II that you have seen 1 shot out of 6 that misses focus that there is no bases for a problem? :o

I am just hoping this guy was a bad photographer.

A sample size of 6 is far too small (in any context) to draw any conclusions. Maybe the next 6 would all have been in focus, maybe the next 60 would have (or vice versa). As others have said, we know next to nothing about the lens, AF mode, technique, and user capability. To immediately point to it being a flaw in the camera body is patently trolling as Neuro said. Let's just hope it was meant lightheartedly.

15
EOS Bodies / Re: Official: Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 15, 2014, 07:21:16 PM »
The dpreview run down of features makes this a much more competent-sounding device than all the rumours made it sound - I suppose it's easy to get bogged down by the negatives. But the biggest pleasant surprise has been the price - starting RRP of £1599 isn't bad at all. I might save up! :)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 21