Messages

6271

Lenses / Re: Recommendation For Long Lenses

« on: January 06, 2012, 02:27:41 PM »

I'd take the 300/2.8 II + 1.4x III over the 400/4 DO - the IQ of the new 300/2.8 even with a TC beats the 400/4 DO lens. 

The 200-400mm with the built-in TC would be ideal...but given that we haven't even seen a formal announcement yet and Canon has still not delivered on the 500/4 II and 600/4 II that were announced back in 2010, I sure wouldn't be holding out any hope you'd actually see that lens by March...perhaps not even March of 2013...

6272

EOS Bodies / Re: Easiest way to clean.

« on: January 06, 2012, 01:25:36 PM »

Looks like reflections?

6273

Macro / Re: Water macro

« on: January 06, 2012, 12:56:25 PM »

Very nice!
Here's mine:

Very nice photo! Fascinating those reflections

Yeah, how did you edit yourself out of the reflections?   

No need - it was at at 5x with the MP-E 65mm, the FoV is smaller than the fingernail of your pinky (the white spots are the reflections of the MT-24 EX flash heads).

Oo, interesting article, been wondering what the speeds were... you wouldnt happen to know the durations for the 430EX II would you? been trying to find articles but havent found any yet...

Sorry, no idea.  I found one post indicating the 430EX II is ~1/520 s at full power, but that post also stated 1/520 s for 1/2 power, and that can't be correct.  I would guess they'll be the same or longer than the 580 for a given flash power, since the 430 has a less powerful flash tube.

6274

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon's D4 Officially Official

« on: January 06, 2012, 12:03:32 PM »

It did give them time to tweek their marketing approach for sure (focus on weight, F8 AF, etc). 

I certainly noticed that Nikon is highlighting the f/8 AF ability.  But...I'd be very interested to know exactly how they implemented this.  From the published information: "...the D4 maintains the power of the eleven central AF sensors, including one cross-type even if the combined open aperture value is f/8."

There are two possibilties:

• It's the sensor.  They redesigned their 51-point sensor to include additional sensor lines for the f/8 AF, such that the center point is an f/5.6- and f/8 dual cross-type sensor, and the other 10 points have additional f/8-sensitive line sensors.  Canon's previous 1-series bodies had a unique center AF point which had a dedicated f/8-sensitive single-orientation sensor. 
• It's a firmware implementation.  We know that Canon bodies which are limited to f/5.6 will try to AF and sometimes even do reasonably well with an f/8 combination that has pins on the TC taped (or a non-reporting 3rd party TC).  Likewise, 3rd party f/6.3 lenses seem to AF ok on the f/5.6-sensitive sensors.  So, Nikon may have simply tested the AF performance of lenses slower than f/5.6 on the D4, and enabled those points which gave decent results to AF with slower lenses.

Personally, I'm almost positive it's #2.  The subsequent statement in their announcement was: "If the combined aperture value is between f/5.6 and f/8, you even have the power of fifteen central AF sensors available, of which nine are cross type sensors."  I highly doubt the AF sesnor has individual points of differential sensitivity, such that the center cross point has additional f/8 lines, and the surrounding 8 crosses have additional f/7.1 lines or something like that. 

Rather, it sounds like they saw the 1D X announcement with the lack of support for AF, tested the D4 models in development, found that they could get away with implementing f/8 AF for some of the points, slightly-wider-than-f/8 for a few more, and altered the firmware to make those points active with an f/8 lens attached.  Unlike redeveloping the AF sensor, that is something that could easily have been implemented for the D4 in the short time since the 1D X was announced (as could the H3/H4 ISO bumps). 

More importantly, if Nikon's f/8 AF is a firmware implemetation using existing f/5.6-sensitive AF points, it's very possible that Canon could test and then implement something similar, even prior to the actual release of the 1D X.  Perhaps not the same number of AF points, but at least some support for f/8 AF.   Then again, even if they can...will they?  Previously, it made sense as a marketing strategy to drive people to buy longer lenses.  But, from a competitive standpoint, matching Nikon's announced and touted f/8 AF capability may be more important...

6275

EOS Bodies / Re: Easiest way to clean.

« on: January 06, 2012, 11:25:47 AM »

This is on the outside of the VF?  Sure, you can clean it like you would clean any other optical glass surface - I use lens cleaning solution and lens paper (or a pec pad) wrapped around the end of a cotton-tip applicator (a Q-tip would do).

6276

Lenses / Re: A tale of 3 Lenses 70-200 F4 IS vs 70-200 F2.8 vs 70-300 F4.5 IS

« on: January 06, 2012, 11:22:26 AM »

You do know a new 100-400 is coming out? i would wait for that...

Really?  When?   

A new 24-70 was coming out in 2009.  A lot of people recommend waiting for that, too.  Even more people recommended waiting after the CR2 rumor in 2010.  We're still waiting...

6277

Canon General / Re: EOS Announcements in January?

« on: January 06, 2012, 11:12:20 AM »

Although Canon's MTF charts are pretty accurate of late.

Accurate compared to what?   

First off, they are theoretical MTF curves, calculated by computer algorithms using the design parameters for the lens.  They are not empirically measured using actual production copies of the lens.  In one way, that's a good thing, because the theoretical curves ignore QC and copy variation.  But they aren't telling you much about real-world performance.  FWIW, Nikon's MTF curves are also theoretical, but without knowing the algorithms used to generate them, it's meaningless to compare Canon's vs. Nikon's MTF curves.  Zeiss' MTF curves, on the other hand, are real data generated from empirical measurements of actual lenses.   So, the Canon curves are useful for comparing one Canon lens to another, and that's about it.

Second, and perhaps more importantly, Canon's theoretical MTF curves are scaled in line pairs/millimeter (lp/mm) - a useful measure for film, but a more appropriate measurement for dSLRs is line widths/picture height (LW/PH) since it takes sensor characteristics into account.   The fine resolution information (the thin lines on Canon's charts) represents the theoretical data at 30 lp/mm - when you convert that into dSLR relevance, it's 1440 LW/PH.  That value is far lower than the resolution of which modern sensors are capable - the Canon 5DII and Nikon D3X can resolve over 3500 LW/PH. 

So, current cameras can outresolve the theoretical curves.  What does that mean in practice?  When you look at something like the MTF curves for the 400mm f/2.8L IS II, you see that the MTF takes a hit with an extender, but it appears there's not really that much of a difference between the 1.4x III and the 2x III in terms of their theoretical effect on performance.  But when you look at a real comparison between those two conditions using a 21 MP sensor, the IQ hit is bigger than those theoretical curves suggest, because the higher resolution of the sensors is exposing a weakness that the theoretical curves don't show.

6278

Lenses / Re: New official Canon iOS App from Canon Singapore detailing Lenses

« on: January 06, 2012, 10:20:29 AM »

+1, thanks!

I have been using this app:

http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/canon-lenses/id400121928?mt=8

It doesn't have the calculators, etc., but does have links to several reviews for each lens.

Fanboi app? I'd feel like a work-for-free salesperson for Canon

Personally, I feel like someone who enjoys spending time helping others by answering their questions, ideally with detailed, factual information.  But if you'd rather view that as a waste of time or fanboi-ism, suit yourself.

6279

EOS Bodies / Re: Easiest way to clean.

« on: January 06, 2012, 10:17:06 AM »

Where did you blow? Assuming it's inside and not on the exposed glass of the VF where you put your eye, you'd need to blow into the mirror box (lens off, camera off is fine).  Note that you should NOT be in the manual sensor cleaning mode, as the foreign object is above the mirror.

6280

PowerShot Cameras / Re: Making sense of compact camera sensor sizes

« on: January 06, 2012, 07:53:46 AM »

...why can't they just state the height and width in mm!?

Because then consumers could easily compare across models and brands.  Goodness knows, we certainly wouldn't want that...  </sarcasm>

In many industries, specifications are given in non-standard units or relative to brand-specific benchmarks to make comparisons more difficult for consumers.  Marketing departments just want you to believe, "Ours is better - trust us!"

6281

PowerShot Cameras / Re: *UPDATE 3* Canon PowerShot G1X Revealed

« on: January 05, 2012, 06:23:05 PM »

There's no doubt that it will have a 1/1.5" (smaller than Nikon 1) and not a 1.5" (bigger than Canon 1D) at this price point. Also Canon wouldn't dare create such a rift in their lineup, using a sensor that big in a "compact" body.

Still, the f/16 (minimum) aperture is interesting, usually compact don't go that small.

1/5" is bigger than the 1D series' sensor???

Ummmm...not quite.  What was stated was that 1.5" (not 1/5") is bigger than APS-H.  Decimal point, not fraction.  It's still not correct, but a 1.5" sensor would fall between 4/3" and APS-C in terms of size.  The fractional and larger inch designations are the outmoded nomenclature used for digicam/camcorder sensor sizes (which derives from vacuum tube diameters of the 50s era), and a 1.5" sensor would have approximately a 1" diagonal measure = 25.4 mm, and the diagonal measure of Canon's APS-C is 26.7mm.

Come on ... Have you read anything at all? Ah, I see, 1.9 (crop factor) is bigger than 1.3

It seems that someone wasn't reading, but that someone was you, not OvelhaMacho.   

6282

Site Information / Re: Any way to see which posts you got positive karma for?

« on: January 05, 2012, 05:54:52 PM »

I believe one has to have a certain number of posts before they can give karma.

Yes, there is a minimum number of posts, and it changes every so often as stated by one of the mods.

6283

Lenses / Re: ahhhh!!! i just bought a brand new 35mm 1.4 three weeks ago :(

« on: January 05, 2012, 05:49:46 PM »

Man I wouldn't worry about it too much, out of all the Canon lenses I've had I felt that this one needed an upgrade the LEAST. 

Just remember, when a new version of a lens comes out it's not like the older version becomes a bastard lens that gets thrown away or anything.  It's optics don't become any better or worse.

Phew, what a relief!  I read on another forum that as soon as a MkII comes out, the MkI versions all spontaneously melted down!   

The 35L could use weather-sealing.  Optically, it's very good, although it would probably benefit from the newer coatings designed for digital imaging.  But you're right in that pretty much all of the other L-series primes under 100mm that were updated had one or more issues that needed work, whereas the 35L really doesn't. 

6284

PowerShot Cameras / Re: Powershot Gx? [CR1]

« on: January 05, 2012, 05:38:23 PM »

This has been hashed out in the newer thread.  I'm fairly certain the spec should read 1/1.5", not 1.5" - that would make it a 2/3" sensor, exactly the size the Fuji X10 uses. 

6285

Canon General / Re: Canon 16-35 vs Tamron 17-50

« on: January 05, 2012, 05:21:48 PM »

My 17-55mm IS is mighty sharp wide open (for what it is), but the amount of falloff and CA is just staggering. 

Mine is also quite sharp, the vignetting is obvious but comparatively not bad (the comparators being several L lenses on FF - the 35L, 85L II, 24-105 @ 24mm and 16-35 II @ 16mm wide open all show more vignetting than the 17-55mm).  The CA is pretty mild, IMO.