March 05, 2015, 02:08:11 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 - hoodlum

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8
PowerShot / Re: New PowerShot G17 Coming in Spring [CR2]
« on: March 02, 2015, 03:40:15 PM »
This sound more like a G5 X.

EOS Bodies / Re: Full Specifications of the EOS Rebel 760D
« on: February 05, 2015, 11:36:39 AM »
Why on earth would Canon give up on sensor production and use Sony ?  It's clear to me that the 24mpx sensor will be the new baseline, used in the 750D, 750D, M3 & probably the replacement to the SL1 & 1200D.

What's less clear is where the 80D will fit, I'd now expect a cut price 7DII using the same 20mpx sensor.

1200D 24 MegaPixels
750D 24 MegaPixels
760D 24 MegaPixels
80D 20 MegaPixels
7D MkII 20 MegaPixels

That doesn't look tempting to potential upgraders, i'm thinking 24MP+ across the range.

It'll be many years before we see a 7Dmkiii.  My guess is that most 7Dmkii owners would have preferred a 24mp sensor with greater DR at base ISO vs the 20mp sensor with dual-pixel AF.

EOS Bodies / Re: A Sony & Canon Sensor Partnership Mentioned Again [CR1]
« on: January 28, 2015, 11:02:34 AM »
This does not make sense to me.
Canon has just put out the 7D2 sensor, which scaled down to FF gives the 53-56MP wanted.
If Canon wanted to put a Sony Sensor on the High MP FF it would put a cut version (same pixel size) on he 7D2.
Or else the 7D2 would be outdated very soon. Canon waited 5 years to update the 7D. If such a major move was about to happen, they would not leave the 7D in the cold, they could wait some more months.
A FF scaled version of ths 7D2 sensor makes all the sense in this timing, a few months after, to allow better yelds of the larger version.

It seems like both Canon and Nikon want to push FF over crop to consumers.  Nikon creates D750 instead of 7Dii direct competitor and Canon may be keeping older sensor tech just for APS-C.  Both seem to be emphasizing FF more than ever.

Lenses / Re: Quick Comparison: Canon's new 400mm Options
« on: January 27, 2015, 09:45:13 PM »

I don't see any major issues related to bokeh or contrast from these images.

It may not show in carefully arranged and selected official glossy marketing materials ... but it will rear its ugly head in real life - exactly in those situations, when owners of the lens are already most challenged to capture good images. ;)

There is an issue! Otherwise Nikon would never have admitted to it up front and included warning language and images in their 300/4 phase fresnel "brochures" and added (only partially effective) correction functionality to nikon software ...

Those images were from a production unit that someone purchased in Australia. 

Here are some images from a production lens.

And here is a comparison to the old Nikon 300mm (no diffractive optics)

I don't see any major issues related to bokeh or contrast from these images.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS Rebel 750D Spec List [CR1]
« on: January 21, 2015, 09:28:05 AM »
The big differentiator between 7DII and this new camera will be (beside the AF) the FPS and the size of the buffer. The current Rebel's buffer is speced at 3 raw frames, the reality it is just 2 raw frames. The 7DII buffer is 31 raw. A big difference.

Just wait for all the complaints if the new camera gets the better Sony sensor.  The 7Dii sensor would then already be out of date with no replacement in sight for 4 years.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II USM Lens Review
« on: January 20, 2015, 03:27:15 PM »
SLRGear used the same bodies for the 300mm and 400mm prime tests.  ePhotozine used the 5Dii with the 300mm f2.8 ii and then used the 5Diii with the 400mm f4 DO ii.  The SLRGear tests would be more reliable for comparing.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II USM Lens Review
« on: January 19, 2015, 08:29:20 PM »

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II USM Lens Review
« on: January 18, 2015, 10:10:26 PM »
Riker, although I don't necessarily agree with your last comment on the 300mm f2.8 + TC, I do believe Canon has lost its way with the DO lens.  The 1st gen lens could barely be handheld for long periods but now I think the 2nd gen lens has passed that threshold.  Even Canon seems to agree as the tripod collar is no longer removable like on the 1st gen.

I think Nikon did the right thing with their new 300mm f4 "DO" by allowing it to be handheld all day if needed.  Initial field reports from production lenses seem to suggest the compromise in IQ was minimal to get to the reduced size.  Maybe Canon will do a 400mm f5.6 DO lens that is sharpest wide open.  It would be a lot lighter and likely half the price of the F4 DO lens.

Hopefully Canon has a lighter DO lens planned as a light handheld telephoto prime would be nice to see.  Dropping an additional 1kg with a 600mm DO lens will still require a tripod so the benefits wouldn't be as noticeable.

Lenses / Re: Quick Comparison: Canon's new 400mm Options
« on: January 06, 2015, 12:25:10 AM »
Primes will always beat zooms in light transmission due to fewer optics.  There is an advantage to primes that most people don't realize.

I find primes have about a 1/2 stop advantage over zooms of similar apertures.

Lenses / Re: Quick Comparison: Canon's new 400mm Options
« on: January 05, 2015, 09:34:01 PM »
Now that Nikon has announced their first DO equivalent lens, I think we see more competitive pricing for this technology.  It doesn't have to be that more expensive than non-DO lenses.

PowerShot / Re: New PowerShot(s) for CES Next Week [CR1]
« on: January 02, 2015, 06:16:39 PM »
But no built-in viewfinder?!?

Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II
« on: December 31, 2014, 09:18:53 AM »
I was expecting this lens to beat the 400mm f/5.6 at 400mm but Bryan says IQ is similar.

That's because they're both very close to "perfect" (diffraction-limited).

Although, it sure looks like the zoom is quite a but better on crop (I know - 7DII versus 60D):

Hmmmmmm...seems the 400mm f/5.6 is sharper...
    On full frame, the 400mm f5.6L seem a bit sharper, but on crop, the 100-400 II look sharper. Too bad TDP don't have the test shot of the Tamron 150-600mm for crop camera...

    Have a nice day.

I did not know that lenses change sharpness qualities FF vs crop. Hmmmm.

The crop images would be taken at a further distance.  So distance comes into play here as well.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8