Messages

1

EOS-M / Re: EOS M Announcement in the Summer? [CR2]

« on: May 16, 2013, 09:40:49 AM »

...an 18-135 compact zoom

Oxymoronic, surely...!

2

EOS Bodies / Canon are you listening?

« on: May 01, 2013, 08:14:48 AM »

We want more, MOAR!!!

Build us a camera that has more of this and less of that, and much more of this, and could do this with only a little bit of that, and doesn’t need that in order to do this.  And it must cost less than this and definitely less than that…  And another thing: we want it now, we want it yesterday and we will want more tomorrow, and all the demands will have changed by then so stay awake!

[With apologies to Billy Connolly!]

3

EOS Bodies / Re: The Future of EOS M [CR1]

« on: April 26, 2013, 09:23:47 AM »

Fix that AF & bring out FF.

I agree with you on the first point, Canon built their modern reputation on their AF performance (1D MkIII aside...); to have the slowest AF in class on their mirorless entry is a PR disaster!

I have to say that I disagree with you on the second point.  Full frame is an issue that is confusing the mirrorless market, putting off potential buyers.  I'm not trying to say that there aren't people that would be willing to pay $3000 on a mirroless camera, I just don't think that this segment is mass market enough for Canon at this point in time.  Canon need to demonstrate their commitment to the EOS-M as a system if they expect pople to choose it over the competition; two lenses and a converter is not doing that. 

4

EOS-M / Re: Future EOS-M Lenses

« on: April 14, 2013, 06:42:08 AM »

If you count the Crop factor, sure why not? afterall, 300mm FOV isn't that tele.

Ah...so crop factor applied to focal length, not just FoV?  You must be in some weird, Star Trek-ian mirrored universe where the normal laws of optical physics don't apply.  Say "Hi" to evil Mr. Spock while you're there...

Just imagine a world where 35mm didn't exist and only M4/3 did. Then we'd all be saying how 150mm is very tele and unless I'm mistaken, 150mm on m4/3 is pretty tele.

Context is important, but since everyone shoots 35mm, I just put it in those terms. Eh Neuro?

Funny how everyone is happy to convert the focal length to 35mm terms, but not the aperture... This would give you the equivalent of f/4 in 35mm terms.  Useful, but doesn't sound as good as the "300mm f/2" you quoted in your original post.  On top of that, as others have pointed out, the 150mm f/2 is "regular" 4/3rds and so on micro-4/3rds bodies, will focus even slower than the Canon M      

As CanNotYet points out, there are two native micro 4/3rds lenses that get to 300mm available; not only are these slow, optically they aren't that great at the long end. 

None of the mirrorless systems yet have compelling long lens options, which means that they lose appeal as DSLR replacements (as opposed to supplements) unless you can live with lenses below ~200mm (in 35mm equivalence  ). 

5

EOS-M / Re: To buy M or not to buy M?

« on: April 14, 2013, 05:57:29 AM »

...I just can't imagine being able to find an E mount lens in 10 years time, or an f2.8 telezoom just now.

I think we're a bit early in this game to pick clear winners and losers.  FWIW, I would think that micro-4/3rds and Sony E-mount would be the two main contender to survive (perhaps along with Fuji X-mount).  Nikon '1' seems stillborn, I wouldn't be surprised if they dump it (quietly) and re-launch an APS-C based system.  As for Samsung, you would struggle to buy most of their lenses and accessories here in the UK [think I'm joking: http://camerapricebuster.co.uk/manu.php?n=Samsung&m=17 - where the heck are the rest of the lenses... not available?  ]. 

I would definitely not (with bells and whistles) buy the 'M' as a system camera until there are a lot more lenses available.  That's not to say that it wouldn't make sense to get one with the 22mm f/2 if the price was right and it met your needs; just don't bank on there ever being an extensive range of quality lenses in the future. 

6

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: So ready for a move up from 450D - But how big? To 5DMIII / 6D or ...?

« on: April 11, 2013, 03:06:29 PM »

I can't speak for the 6D, as I've never used it.  Having gone from a 450D to a 5D MkIII, all I can say is wow, I was completely blown away! The 5D MkIII is in a totally different league, I didn't realise just how much better it would be until I used it.  The improvements I've noticed:

AF - it just doesn't seem to miss, unlike my 450D, which could be pretty unreliable at times (caveat: I've not used third party glass and I don't do too much taxing work with it). 

Buffer depth - with the Lexar 1000X cards, you'll feel totally liberated shooting RAW. 

Viewfinder - after a while, you'll wonder how you managed to frame anything through the 450D's (no offense intended  )

LCD - is a massive improvement

C1 - C3 Custom modes - really useful

Image quality - the first time I loaded a RAW file into ACR, I was astounded by how sharp and vibrant it looked.  Normally my 450D files seemed a bit soft and dull, but I knew that they'd look good after a bit of processing.  The 5D MkIII's files seem to need so much less work done to them, and yes, you will find yourself using ISO800+ a lot more. 

[I know that you will get many of these improvements by upgrading to a 60D or 7D as well, I just wanted to list what I found best about upgrading]. 

I didn't believe the hype about full frame cameras until I used the 5D MkIII, now my backup 450D rarely comes out of the bag -if I want more reach, then I tend to crop.  I'm only giving you my personal experiences and opinions here; it may be that 60D or 7D users wouldn't get quite such a "quantum-leap" impression and maybe you won't either, I'd hate to disappoint.   

I've foamed on too long already; if you can afford a 5D MkIII, then just go ahead and buy one; you look like you (mostly) have the glass already.  Sell the EF-S lenses and buy a 16-35 or 17-40 depending on your budget/usage, plus perhaps a 1.4x teleconverter to help with the 'reach' issue. 

Whatever you decide, I hope you're happy with it.

7

Lenses / Re: Question regarding ultrawide lenses on crop and full frame cameras

« on: April 09, 2013, 11:17:04 AM »

Full frame lenses have an advantage not because of pixel density per se, but because when you view the final image at a given output size the FF image does not need to be magnified as much. 

I think that you're getting your concepts a bit mixed up with film; how exactly does a pixel get "blown up" -it is a dimentionless unit?

A 40-something MP full frame camera (i.e. with the same pixel size as the 7d) with the 17-40 would show the same qualitative results compared to the 10-22 on the 7d (and might actually have slightly better resolution due to increased pixel density, though this effect would be small near the corners as the blur from the lens dominates). 

And then you start talking about pixel density, which you stated was not the issue!

8

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Announcements on April 23, 2013? [CR2]

« on: April 08, 2013, 06:20:20 AM »

It is nothing but a bunch of gearhead whiners crying because "theirs" ain't the biggest this week.

I think it is more that people look at the improvements Nikon has delivered and the price point at which they have delivered and when they look at Canon they're left thinking "WTF am I buying Canon?"

Ask yourself this:  have you ever been able to walk through a gallery and point out which camera shot which photo?  If the stuff was as bad as some of these idiots claim, nobody would use it.

Most of the time you don't need to because it is written underneath the artwork.

Something else you might want to ask yourself:  If this Sony technology is such a "game changer" why hasn't the game changed?  Where are the stunning examples of what can be done?  Why do we continue to see shots of the back of lens caps, mediocre landscape shots with shadows lifted 5 stops just to prove a point?  Where are the game changing photographs from this so-called game changing technology?

To pick one gallery, that exhibiting the work of the principal behind www.luminous-landscape.com, I imagine that the work being displayed has changed over time from being dominated by Canon sourced material to Sony/Nikon material if what he displays on the web is anything to go buy (and the fact that he no longer owns any Canon DSLRs.) Information about his gallery is at:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/about/gallery.shtml

If you read enough of the essays from professional photographers that write for the above mentioned website then you start to realise that Canon no longer features like it used to as a tool used by artists, never mind photojournalists, etc.

Dilbert,

You are evidently a deeply unhappy person as you seem to only come on the forum these days to complain about Canon.  All the pent up hate that you're holding inside you must be damaging to your inner artistic vision.  If I were using equipment that was seriously frustrating my ability to produce the photos that I envisioned, or that my competitors could deliver, I would feel compelled to take action.  I think that you want to take action, but are afraid to do so because you fear that it may be the "wrong" choice in the long term.  This inaction means that you are constantly clutching at the straws that are new camera rumours.  Because of this, rather than treating rumours as a bit of fun, every piece of (mis)information that damages your hopes of a new Canon "DXOMark-uber-camera", becomes a  personal assault on your wellbeing. 

You seriously need to draw a line in the sand and make a decision, either be happy with what Canon currently offers and work around that gear's weaknesses, or bite the bullet and change system.  Your current course of (in)action is psychologically damaging to you and getting tiresome to everyone else. 

9

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Can anyone explain what on Earth DXOMark is on about?

« on: April 05, 2013, 10:49:05 AM »

I would think that what he finds disturbing is the fact that DXO rate the D800 sensor much higher than the 5D, but then say;

" 'half a mo, when we put a lens on it we're not so sure".......

Show me where their sensor measurements include sharpness as a tested parameter.  Show me where the above article incorporates the measures they do use for sensors (DR, color depth, ISO noise) in the P-Mpix measurement used for the plot?

It's like they reported data on two people, one being 180 cm tall and the other being 160 cm tall, and you find it disturbing when they later report that the 160 cm person weighs 90 kg while the 180 cm person weighs 75 kg.  You assumed the taller person would weigh more, and you're 'disturbed' when the data don't fit your assumptions.  The problem is your false assumptions, not the reported data.

So what do they mean when they write this, with their Sensor Scores graph below?

Even the DxOMark mean and median scores can be explained by the small difference (-1/3 stop) in the Low Light ISO score between the cameras.

A small (1/3 stop) difference in the Low Light ISO score between the cameras accounts for lower median and mean DxO Mark camera / lens scores. [DXOMark]

Is DXOMark confusing the issue, or are they just confusing me! 

10

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Can anyone explain what on Earth DXOMark is on about?

« on: April 05, 2013, 09:25:59 AM »

I think they fall victim of their own undocumented P-Mpix metric....

I think you're probably right; GIGO, as they say! 

DXOMark's biggest failing is not the data that they generate from their measurements, it's the absurd way that they seem to calculate their single number scores. 

11

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Can anyone explain what on Earth DXOMark is on about?

« on: April 05, 2013, 07:57:02 AM »

It's simple.  The D800 has a better sensor than the 5DIII. Canon, in aggregate and on average, has better lenses than Nikon (in terms of sharpness, at least).  The resolution we care about is the system performance = sensor + lens.  So, while the D800 has a better sensor than the 5DIII, once you slap a lens on both cameras and take pictures, the resolution differences are a wash (on average across a large set of lenses, obviously specific lenses will vary).  I and others have made statements to that effect before, DxO is just quantifying those statements.

"In future tests, it will be interesting to see if the Sony sourced sensor in the Nikon D800E variant with its altered (zero strength) OLPF (Optical Low-Pass Filter) is significantly more efficient at resolving detail or if it’s as a result of the differences in fill-factor (affected by RGB filter transmission, micro-lens design and circuitry) between the Canon and Nikon sensors.

Either way, the Nikon D800 sensor simply isn’t as adept at resolving detail, pixel-by-pixel, as the Canon EOS 5D Mark III. There’s another surprise as well." [DXOMark]

I think they're saying more than that; it seems that they're implying that there is a difference in the architecure of the 5D Mark III sensor that means it resolves more detail 'per pixel' than either the D800 or previous Canon full frame sensors. 

12

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Can anyone explain what on Earth DXOMark is on about?

« on: April 05, 2013, 07:21:22 AM »

This has to be DXOMark's most bizzarely written article ever (and it has a lot of competition!)

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Which-lenses-should-you-choose-for-your-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-vs.-Nikon-D800-Competition-is-closer-than-expected

13

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Dynamic range, high lights information D800 vs 5dmk2

« on: April 03, 2013, 11:51:47 AM »

I don't have a pony in this race but wouldn't it be fairer to use the mark 3 instead of the mark 2,new tech vs old tech is just not cricket

It wouldn't make any difference, the Mk.III is either exactly the same or slightly worse than the Mk.II in terms of dynamic range. 

You could repeat this comparison (as many others have) with any Canon sensor versus any Sony sensor and get the same results (or against virtually any other manufacturer's sensor  ).  Until Canon addresses high read noise, shadow noise will remain a weakness that limits dynamic range at the lower ISO values. 

14

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Does Canon really have a Flagship Stills Camera?

« on: March 31, 2013, 11:08:27 AM »

For all of its advantages, the 1D X is a replacement for the 1D IV and not the 1Ds MkIII, which is why the "flagship" question keeps being asked and why the "high megapixel 1D-series" rumours keep doing the rounds.  If you are a 1Ds MkIII owner, then you probably value image quality at low ISOs and build quality.  The 1D X is not an advance over the 1Ds MkIII in this respect, so their money either stays in their wallets or gets spent on non-Canon equipment.  For this reason, I expect that a new "flagship" high resolution 1D-series camera will come along as soon as Canon has the sensor ready, to compliment the "flagship" action camera (i.e. the 1D X). 

15

Lenses / Re: Which Super-Zoom is the best?

« on: March 29, 2013, 06:32:51 AM »

Here's a good link comparing the Canon 18-200 vs Sigma 18-250 vs Tamron 18-250 and 18-270:

http://www.juzaphoto.com/article.php?l=en&article=35

It doesn't have the newer Tamron 18-270 PZ, nor either of the Canon 18-135s, which may also fit your girlfriend's requirements.