January 26, 2015, 10:52:24 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 - traveller

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 45
16
Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM
« on: June 03, 2014, 01:22:37 PM »
Depends upon your needs. Whilst I think it's a great compact option on full frame, for me it's too long and too slow for a true fast-50 equivalent on APS-C. The Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is the closest you'll get in EF mount, as Canon doesn't think it's worth making one.

Now repeat the exercise for a fast 35mm equivalent? That would be either the 24mm f/2.8 IS (a bit slow) or the 24mm f/1.4L (heavy and expensive).
How about a fast 24mm equivalent lens: Canon 14mm f/2.8L, Samyang 16mm f/2 or Zeiss ZE 15mm Distagon? All have pretty obvious drawbacks!
70-200mm f/2.8? -Third party again (Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 or Tokina 50-135 f/2.8 ) are you're only options.

Is it any wonder that plenty of photography enthusiasts are looking at the increasing capable mirrorless options? Canon are at risk of losing the middle ground between the "Soccer Moms" (a lovely American marketing term!) and professionals. If they want to secure this ground, it's lenses not bodies that they need to address.

When I used crop cameras, I had the 10-22, 17-55 and supplemented it with a 24L and 35L.  The Sigma 30 f/1.4 is not nearly in the same league as the Sigma 35 f/1.4, and at 500 the Sigma 30 is also pricy for what it offers.  The 35 f/2 IS is a nice lens and could be had for less than 500 during one of the Canon refurb store's sales.  Smaller format cameras are at a disadvantage when light levels are low, so faster glass is more necessary and flash will be used more.

If I were looking to outfit a crop kit from scratch, I'd seriously look at Sigma's 18-35 f/1.8.  With that lens, you wouldn't need 24 or 35mm primes.  Add a Tokina 11-16, and that'll satisfy most for the wide and mid range.  I'd then supplement it with a 50mm prime and a 70-200.  I like the f/2.8, and wouldn't give it up.  I used it for sports, events, etc.  I think 3rd party offerings strengthen the APS-C offerings; not everything needs to be Canon.

The 6D can be purchased new for ~1500, which isn't that much more than the X-T1, and I'm sure the price of FF will continue to drop, which will threaten premium APS-C systems like Fuji.  The Fuji system is more compact, but the lens family is much smaller than Canon + 3rd parties.  Plus, the Fuji lenses are expensive too.  I like the idea of a Fuji system, but the lens/flash options are too limiting.  When I need to use something compact, then I use the M.  It's not as nice or capable as the Fuji, but then it had cost a lot less and I can still use all my lenses on it if I had to.

The original Sigma 30mm f/1.4  (non-"Art" and optically identical) version is on run-out special, here in the UK at least, for £279. The "Art" version is £369, which is still cheaper than the EF 35mm f/2 IS at £459 (although I would probably recommend the Canon lens as worth the extra money). None of these is really at the same price point as the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 DX lens, which is why I think that there is still a gap in the market for a Canon equivalent.

I sort of agree when it comes to the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8, but it is very heavy and quite expensive -£629 is quite a put off to the owner of an entry level camera that might have been purchased for half that amount. Whilst a set of fast primes may end up costing and weighing a similar amount, they have the advantage of being purchased over a period of time and not needing to be mounted on the camera at the same time. The problem with Canon's current strategy is that you're forced to use full frame ultra-wides with all the attendant size, cost and speed disadvantages to fill in for non-existent dedicated APS-C wide angles. 

I wouldn't like to comment on the production costs of a 6D versus a X-T1, but one could turn your argument around and point out that the X-T1 currently manages to hold 75% of the 6D's price despite being only APS-C. My guess would be that whatever cost savings can be made on a full frame camera can also be applied to an APS-C camera. Besides, the real cost of jumping up a format size can often be measured in lenses rather than just the body.

I know that one runs into thorny ground with the whole lens equivalence question, but I think that if absolute depth of field and/or low light performance are critical to your style of photography, then you're probably one of the people for whom full-frame-35mm will always make sense. If you're prepared to accept some compromises, sub-frame can make sense; it's just a question of which brand offers the most for the least...

17
Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM
« on: June 03, 2014, 04:34:30 AM »
I bought my EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM when I bought my Canon 20D (2006). I see no reason to replace it. The minimum focus distance is 9.5 inches (24cm). At 10mm (16mm FF) there is some wonderful barrel distortion, but at 22mm (35mm FF) it's rectilinear and I've used it for products shots and people It weighs 13.6 oz. (385 g.) and uses 77mm filters.

The Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM is lighter at 8.5 oz (240g), the minimum focus distance is about the same at 8.64in (22cm) and it uses smaller, less expensive, 67mm filters. It's also a lot cheaper -- $299.99 vs $649.99  (BTW these are Canon USA prices).

Photography is a lot like shooting, Snipers don't have stabilizers on their rifles and TV News Camera-people don't have stabilizers on their lenses. Holding a rifle/pistol or a camera steady is an acquired skill and fairly easy to learn.

I can see the 17-55 and 10-22 being updated over the next few years.  I remember times when the 17-55 was 1000+ and the 10-220 was 850 new.  Although I only had the 10-22 a short time before moving to FF, I liked the lens a lot.  The overlapping FL range with the 17-55 was handy and prevented a lot of lens changes.

I agree with preppyak in that the lens will be popular with the rebel market.  Sell it as a 10-18/18-55/55-250 combo, and Canon will sell a LOT of these.

Updating the 17-55 and producing a high end constant aperture replacement for the 10-22 (f/2.8?) would be a good start to catching up with 4/3rds and heading off Fuji.  The 10-18 is a good idea from Canon to entice the lower end of the market; what other lenses might sell? EF-M has a 22mm f/2 STM that's perhaps the highlight of the entire EOS-M system, why not produce one for EF-S (granted, it's slightly more difficult to design for a DSLR)? Nikon's 35mm f/1.8 DX lens sells pretty well by many accounts, why does Canon not produce a low price normal prime too? How about a premium 15mm f/2 USM?  Combine this with a 50-135mm f/2.8 and you could start to claim that EF-S is a good choice of system for people that don't want the cost or size of full frame.

At the moment, Canon's message seems to be that if you want anything more exotic that a slow zoom, you need to go full frame. Whilst many will (including you and I!), many others will decide it is not worth the extra price and bulk; they will switch to one of the increasingly capable alternatives.

Low price normal lens that's cheap? Hmmm could that be the 40mm pancake perhaps?

Depends upon your needs. Whilst I think it's a great compact option on full frame, for me it's too long and too slow for a true fast-50 equivalent on APS-C. The Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is the closest you'll get in EF mount, as Canon doesn't think it's worth making one.

Now repeat the exercise for a fast 35mm equivalent? That would be either the 24mm f/2.8 IS (a bit slow) or the 24mm f/1.4L (heavy and expensive).
How about a fast 24mm equivalent lens: Canon 14mm f/2.8L, Samyang 16mm f/2 or Zeiss ZE 15mm Distagon? All have pretty obvious drawbacks!
70-200mm f/2.8? -Third party again (Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 or Tokina 50-135 f/2.8 ) are you're only options.

Is it any wonder that plenty of photography enthusiasts are looking at the increasing capable mirrorless options? Canon are at risk of losing the middle ground between the "Soccer Moms" (a lovely American marketing term!) and professionals. If they want to secure this ground, it's lenses not bodies that they need to address.

18
Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM
« on: June 02, 2014, 06:02:46 PM »
I bought my EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM when I bought my Canon 20D (2006). I see no reason to replace it. The minimum focus distance is 9.5 inches (24cm). At 10mm (16mm FF) there is some wonderful barrel distortion, but at 22mm (35mm FF) it's rectilinear and I've used it for products shots and people It weighs 13.6 oz. (385 g.) and uses 77mm filters.

The Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM is lighter at 8.5 oz (240g), the minimum focus distance is about the same at 8.64in (22cm) and it uses smaller, less expensive, 67mm filters. It's also a lot cheaper -- $299.99 vs $649.99  (BTW these are Canon USA prices).

Photography is a lot like shooting, Snipers don't have stabilizers on their rifles and TV News Camera-people don't have stabilizers on their lenses. Holding a rifle/pistol or a camera steady is an acquired skill and fairly easy to learn.

I can see the 17-55 and 10-22 being updated over the next few years.  I remember times when the 17-55 was 1000+ and the 10-220 was 850 new.  Although I only had the 10-22 a short time before moving to FF, I liked the lens a lot.  The overlapping FL range with the 17-55 was handy and prevented a lot of lens changes.

I agree with preppyak in that the lens will be popular with the rebel market.  Sell it as a 10-18/18-55/55-250 combo, and Canon will sell a LOT of these.

Updating the 17-55 and producing a high end constant aperture replacement for the 10-22 (f/2.8?) would be a good start to catching up with 4/3rds and heading off Fuji.  The 10-18 is a good idea from Canon to entice the lower end of the market; what other lenses might sell? EF-M has a 22mm f/2 STM that's perhaps the highlight of the entire EOS-M system, why not produce one for EF-S (granted, it's slightly more difficult to design for a DSLR)? Nikon's 35mm f/1.8 DX lens sells pretty well by many accounts, why does Canon not produce a low price normal prime too? How about a premium 15mm f/2 USM?  Combine this with a 50-135mm f/2.8 and you could start to claim that EF-S is a good choice of system for people that don't want the cost or size of full frame.

At the moment, Canon's message seems to be that if you want anything more exotic that a slow zoom, you need to go full frame. Whilst many will (including you and I!), many others will decide it is not worth the extra price and bulk; they will switch to one of the increasingly capable alternatives.

19
Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM
« on: June 02, 2014, 02:41:23 PM »
It is however, a great completement to your APS-C stills or video kit if you don’t need ultra wide angle very often. If you do, there are better and more expensive options out there.

What "better and more expensive options" are there in the 10-18 range, on an APS-C?
(not trying to trip Northlight up, just genuinely interested)

The 10-18 STM appears to be better than the Canon 10-22mm - at least on paper

Sigma 10-20mm options perhaps?

What options are there around this range? (that isn't a fisheye)

Apart from third party options, the Canon EF-S 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 USM is better built (metal mount, ultrasonic motor), slightly faster and longer. Of course the 10-18 STM has IS, which the 10-22 lacks. I would say that whilst image stabilisation is a really nice feature, even in a wide angle lens, optical performance would override all of these in my decision (not that either of these lenses would fit my camera!). I have a suspicion that the 10-22 might be slightly superior in the corners, but we'll have to wait for Photozone, TDP or Lensrentals (etc.) more formal tests to establish this...

Depending on what you do, not everyone considers USM a plus over STM. And are you sure the actual mount of the 10-22 is metal, or is it just the end piece visible?

For stills use with conventional separate-sensor-phase-detect-AF at least (what a mouthful that's become!), I would always prefer USM to STM: YMMV as the Americans like to say ;-)

As for the thorny issue of plastic versus metal mounts, the new 10-18 is plastic right to the bayonet, whilst the 10-22 has a metal bayonet. Metal bayonets are generally considered more durable. As for your question about whether the 10-22 has an all metal mount, I think you should read this article by Roger Cicala:

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/12/assumptions-expectations-and-plastic-mounts

On the basis of Roger's report, I would think that the 10-22 has a plastic inner mount, just like a high proportion of Canon L-series lenses.

20
Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM
« on: June 02, 2014, 09:27:56 AM »
It is however, a great completement to your APS-C stills or video kit if you don’t need ultra wide angle very often. If you do, there are better and more expensive options out there.

What "better and more expensive options" are there in the 10-18 range, on an APS-C?
(not trying to trip Northlight up, just genuinely interested)

The 10-18 STM appears to be better than the Canon 10-22mm - at least on paper

Sigma 10-20mm options perhaps?

What options are there around this range? (that isn't a fisheye)

Apart from third party options, the Canon EF-S 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 USM is better built (metal mount, ultrasonic motor), slightly faster and longer. Of course the 10-18 STM has IS, which the 10-22 lacks. I would say that whilst image stabilisation is a really nice feature, even in a wide angle lens, optical performance would override all of these in my decision (not that either of these lenses would fit my camera!). I have a suspicion that the 10-22 might be slightly superior in the corners, but we'll have to wait for Photozone, TDP or Lensrentals (etc.) more formal tests to establish this...   

21
EOS Bodies / Re: New Full Frame Camera in Testing? [CR1]
« on: May 28, 2014, 05:15:38 AM »
....

however I'm not sure about this rumor.

This rumor makes it sound like "Canon came and visited us with a new camera that we got to look at and try."

If that is the case, Canon will know exactly who it is (or have a very short list.) If they signed an NDA ... and even if they didn't, I suspect that Canon would look unfavourably on this kind of disclosure - UNLESS it was specifically asked about and agreed to.

Additionally, any professional (working in a studio where Canon visits you is going to mean you're seriously good) is going to know that the colour accuracy of a file when viewed on a laptop screen is highly dependent on the ability of the screen to represent colour itself and without being able to use the images on a calibrated screen, the colours seen on some random laptop mean nothing.

I'd be almost prepared to call this rumor a hoax.

Its more the fine color transitions and discrimination they are referring to and fine color detail, that is different than accuracy (which depends a lot on the color profile used to develop and matching white balance and so on and so forth).

And maybe they were told to leak talk about amazing colors regardless of what they could see on the laptop.

In that case it comes back to my point of they were specifically allowed to "leak" certain details. i.e. it's not a leak but rather marketing designed to look like a leak.

If I wanted to read a website that's little more than a mouthpiece for a camera manufacturer, I'd read Sony Alpha Rumors! ;-)

22
There's an awful lot of angst on this thread about what Nikon is doing with the D800. From what I can see, it is a mid-life refresh designed to reduce costs by consolidating the D800 and D800e into a single model, combined with a few extra goodies to boost sales at the soft point in the cameras life cycle.

I can't see the point of dredging up the same old arguments that were had on this forum two years ago; either the D800(e) appealed enough back then that you sold your Canon glass and jumped ship, or it didn't and you bought the 5D MkIII or decided to wait a generation. What would a D800s change in this whole equation? Were people seriously thinking that Canon would replace the 5D MkIII on a two year life-cycle?

23
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 DO
« on: May 24, 2014, 10:22:07 AM »
Unless Canon have made a breakthrough, then DO whilst an interesting concept, is not ready for use in mainstream lenses like the 100-400mm replacement. An important update such as this simply has to prioritise superb optics over light weight, not to mention the price of DO lenses in relation to their conventional counterparts!

24
A much needed pair of lenses for Canon.

Let's now hope that the 16-35 f/4L IS is a big improvement on the 17-40 f/4L, especially in the corners.

The price of the EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM is great, a perfect complement to the 18-55 and 55-250 IS STM lenses, so long as it is optically up to scratch. A few fast wide angle to normal primes would help Canon stave off the mirrorless competition ;-)

25
EOS Bodies / Re: More Sensor Technology Talk [CR1]
« on: May 01, 2014, 06:13:44 AM »
Canon ... please stop f*rting about and just give me a higher megapixel camera !

My 21Mp 1Ds3 is six years old, tired and itching to be replaced.

We've waited long enough ...

I've got a friend in the same position: he likes the 1-series bodies and now wants to upgrade to higher resolution and better noise control. I believe that Keith Cooper over at Northlight Images is also waiting... Neither find the 1D X the right solution, as they are unwilling to spend the money on a camera that doesn't improve on the resolution they get from the 1Ds MkIII.

People assume that their needs are the same as everyone else's and that people who want a high resolution body would prefer a smaller camera. For some, this is indeed the case, but I also believe that there is a significant proportion of 1Ds owners that are happy with their cameras' configuration. How many of these will continue to wait if Canon further delays a replacement, and how many will be tempted to migrate to the likes of the Pentax 645Z? 


26
Lenses / Roger Cicala's initial Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art results
« on: April 30, 2014, 06:46:34 PM »
He's done some multiple sample tests against the Zeiss Otus and Canon 50mm f/1.2L, though he isn't confident enough in his sample size to give too many definitive conclusions (he only tested seven   ;) )!

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog

27
What would be cool to see is the breakdown of the numbers of which lenses :)

EF 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 (all variants) - 10 million
EF 28-90mm f/4-5.6 (all variants) - 10 million
EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 (all variants) - 40 million
EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 (all varients) - 10 million
EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 (all varients) - 10 million
EF-S 18-200mm f/4-5.6  - 10 million
All others - 10 million

A touch harsh perhaps?  Maybe not ::)

28
EOS Bodies / Re: New Sensor Technology Coming From Canon? [CR1]
« on: April 30, 2014, 05:09:40 AM »

Surface area of FF => 864mm^2
32429/864=47.41

If they can only get 20 FF sensors out of that, they have about 58% losses. 

This is an 8 year old white paper and nobody mentioned these mistakes before?

That's very interesting if indeed that does translate to about 58% full frame sensor losses per wafer, even if it was 8 years ago.

I made a mistake (maybe Canon has a job offer ;-)), corrected it in my last post. It should be

Surface area of FF => 864mm^2
32429/864=37.5

If they can only get 20 FF sensors out of that, they have about 47% losses.

It isn't exactly 47% loss. It's 64% of the area is actually used to print FF sensors. If this diagram is any indication, then they actually ETCH exactly 24FF, or 80APSC on a single 200mm wafer:



The actual losses would be out these numbers...so accounting for defects and whatnot, actual FF yield would have to be less than 24, and actual APS-C yield would have to be less than 80. Assuming they actually get 20 FF out of 24, the loss is 16.7%.

That assumes that the article was clear about the size of wafer used to produce APS-C sensors...which it is not. Since a 300mm wafer can handle about 212 APS-C sensors, and since the article states that around 200 APS-C sensors are made from each wafer, it makes sense that Canon is manufacturing APS-C sensors on 300mm wafers, rather than 200mm wafers. Either way, they clearly have a higher yield off smaller sensors.

So the conclusion of this thread seems to be that (if this rumour has any truth in it) Canon are moving their full frame production to 300mm wafers? Could this also be an opportunity for them to move to a newer process generation?

29
EOS Bodies / Re: New Sensor Technology Coming From Canon? [CR1]
« on: April 29, 2014, 12:32:26 PM »
So with the Sony a7r, do the clipped corners affect the image in anyway? Surely not since no one has reported black corners. How does that work then? Is the entire sensor area not used then? That would mean in reality a sensor size slightly smaller than FF, prob negligible though overall?

If that's the case then perhaps a FF sensor could be squeezed into the M mount then with a tiny bit of cropping. Or Canon could make a completely new sensor that is almost FF in size and fits perfectly (seems unlikely in terms of maximizing profits).
The clipped corners aren't a problem because of the way light travels when leaving the lens - think of it as an expanding cone, so the image circle is physically smaller at the lens mount than when it hits the sensor.  Just look at the back of the EF 40mm f/2.8, the rear element is significantly smaller than a FF sensor:



OTOH, there may be issues with some lenses with a large aperture and an exit pupil close to the image plane (similar to the 'clipped' bokeh of the 85L wide open with close subjects).

Interesting points. Could this explain why Sony/Zeiss have so far steered clear of large aperture wide angle and telephoto primes?

30
EOS Bodies / Re: New Sensor Technology Coming From Canon? [CR1]
« on: April 29, 2014, 11:11:07 AM »
Thus either this rumor is a hoax (why would Canon not want to reduce the cost of sensors made for the top end?)...

Can I flip this around: why would the top end be the priority for reducing production costs? Surely the margins are tighter at the bottom?

I believe that you're thinking it wrong: ANY reduced manufacturing costs goes straight to the bottom line.

Sure, the lower end has a higher volume, but sometimes it is easier to reduce costs at the high end simply because people didn't bother too much about cost, with the argument that "it's high end, so our focus is quality, not cost", which ends up in a circular argument resulting in high cost.

Believe me, I speak from experience (sigh).

1. What yield improvement were you thinking of that is of no benefit to APS-C sized sensors?

2. If it is of benefit to APS-C sized sensors, why apply it only to full frame sensors? Surely you apply the technology that improves yield to the production line that has the highest production levels (i.e. APS-C), not the one with the lowest?

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 45