December 21, 2014, 04:57:36 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
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...   

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! ;-)

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?

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!

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 ;-)

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? 

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   ;) )!

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 ::)

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

Surface area of FF => 864mm^2

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

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 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?

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?

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?

EOS Bodies / Re: New Sensor Technology Coming From Canon? [CR1]
« on: April 29, 2014, 10:13:10 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? Besides, I can't think of why a new production technology that improves yield wouldn't equally benefit APS-C sized sensor production costs.

I think that this whole rumour is based upon the "all cameras will be  full frame in the future" fallacy that we're now meant to buy into. If Canon are experiencing pressure from mirrorless in the APS-C market, then it's lenses that are more to blame than camera bodies.

So I think your first proposition is probably more correct:

Thus either this rumor is a hoax...


EOS Bodies / Re: New Sensor Technology Coming From Canon? [CR1]
« on: April 29, 2014, 09:58:53 AM »
Not sure this can even be answered yet but if Canon came out with a full frame EOS-M version, would they need to change to a new lens mount as well? Could the EF-M still be used?

EF- M mount can't be used for FF unfortunately. Too small. Likely they'd create a mirrorless camera with the regular EF mount instead.

This is widely stated, but I can't see that the EF-M mount is much different in dimensions to the Sony E mount; I know that E mount is tight for full frame, but it is still possible. I'm struggling to find the technical specifications, but here's a comparison (assuming the scaling is correct) -measure for yourself:,351,325,466,459,ha,f

EF-M is pretty similar to E-mount in its internal diameter and a bit larger than either X-mount or micro 4/3rds. We also know that the flange back distance is the same as E-mount (18mm, vs 44mm for regular EF).

I'm not saying that this proves EF-M is compatible with full frame sensors, nor that Canon would have any near term plans to produce a full frame mirrorless camera if it were, but it would be a bit strange if they happened to make it so similar in size to E-mount and it not be FF capable. They must have had some idea that Sony were interested in making a FF E-mount camera. I believe that FF probably is possible with EF-M mount, if nothing else then to cover that base for the future. Of course, Canon would never admit that now whilst it is still trying to push their FF DSLRs!

As for a mirrorless camera with an EF mount: it's possible but not with a reduced flange back distance, or they'd create all sorts of lens compatibility confusion!

Lenses / Re: Review: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens
« on: April 22, 2014, 02:39:22 PM »
This is a real bummer, as I rate AF consistency as one of the most important aspects of this type of lens. I've found that for the most part, missing focus is far more destructive to resolution than a few hundred line widths per pixel height difference in MTF50. Of course, this new Sigma 50mm and the Zeiss Otus are exceptional in that they are clearly far superior at large apertures to the conventional double-gauss designs.

The situation might not be so bad except that my camera's focusing screen (5D3) is pretty useless at showing depth of field at large apertures, so it's easy not notice the fact that the focus is off; this also makes accurate manual focus almost impossible below f/2.8.

Lenses / The-Digital-Picture Sigma 50mm f/1.4 "Art" lens review posted
« on: April 22, 2014, 09:39:42 AM »
Bryan has posted his review of the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 "Art"

The verdict:

"With excellent image quality and great design, this lens becomes the easy 50mm AF lens choice. AF consistency remains this lens' biggest weakness."

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