January 25, 2015, 09:46:20 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 - traveller

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 45
46
EOS Bodies / Re: UPDATE: EOS M2 Not Coming to North America
« on: March 03, 2014, 12:37:37 PM »
Yes Canon is very sucessfull and know what they are doing. Thats why they dominate. Why would they come out with a really good mirrorless and I know they have the technology already. It will canabilize their sales on the DSLR market specially the Rebels.

Why? Because otherwise Sony, Fujifilm, Panasonic, Olympus and all others will cannibalize their Rebels and all of their other DSLRs with the possible exception of action-oiented models (1D-X)?  ;D

They haven't so far and growth in mirrorless in at least two major markets has reversed.

That's not to say that there's no future for mirrorless, nor that mirrorless isn't the future, just that it doesn't seem to be the present. Why would Canon and Nikon risk undermining their supremacy by bringing out 'pro' mirrorless cameras? Isn't that effectively endorsing their competitors' efforts? If Canon and Nikon dump their legacy mounts, what competitive advantage do they have over the likes of Sony or Fujifilm?

I think that's the crux of Canon's current dilemma. They didn't want to rock the boat by developing mirrorless, but evidently elements in their hierarchy felt the need to enter what was a growing market (hence EOS-M and Nikon 1). Now that the growth has died, so has Canon and Nikon's enthusiasm for their mirrorless systems.

Who knows how this will end up, maybe EOS-M will develop into a fully fledged system (especially if there is room for a full frame sensor in the specification), or the EF mount may start to evolve towards going mirrorless. I suspect that this isn't fully decided at Canon and will depend on what happens in the market this year. 

47
EOS Bodies / Re: UPDATE: EOS M2 Not Coming to North America
« on: March 03, 2014, 08:22:29 AM »
Quote
Not necessarily, once you've dumped the mirror, there's a lot of room inside a legacy mount body where you could put lens elements. I suspect that this is what Canon and Nikon are thinking; why throw away your biggest advantage over your competitors by changing your lens mount? Sony has nothing to lose, the Alpha mount was a distant third place also-ran.

This already exists, it's called EF-S, and the cameras are as big as a fullframe 6D f.e..

Probably because the difference is about 4mm, versus 26mm between EF and EF-M (measured slightly differently -i.e. flange back), and last time I looked the 100D was substantailly smaller than the 6D  :D

48
EOS Bodies / Re: UPDATE: EOS M2 Not Coming to North America
« on: March 02, 2014, 02:29:18 PM »
The only plus for mirrorless cams is the size, but with the existing Nikon- or Canonbayonett the advantage is gone. And new systems? Why? But I agree, if the ships turns and the mirrorless systems are getting better and better, the big two could fall down very deep.

Not necessarily, once you've dumped the mirror, there's a lot of room inside a legacy mount body where you could put lens elements. I suspect that this is what Canon and Nikon are thinking; why throw away your biggest advantage over your competitors by changing your lens mount? Sony has nothing to lose, the Alpha mount was a distant third place also-ran.

49
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Announcement in Q2 of 2014 [CR1]
« on: February 28, 2014, 05:32:13 AM »
People seem to be suggesting (not just on this forum) that Canon are scratching their heads over the potential specifications of a 7D Mk II. I'd have thought that it was pretty obvious -an APS-C sensor version of the 5D Mk III with a higher frame rate (i.e. 8-12fps).

The elephant in the room is whether the 20MP sensor from the 70D is good enough for their "flagship APS-C camera" or whether Canon are waiting to launch a new generation of sensors in the 7D Mk II. The more time passes from the 70D's introduction, the more likely I think the 7D Mk II will be the launch vehicle for the new generation of sensor; I would therefore expect any announcement to be just prior to Photokina. [Sod's law they will announce it next month and make this prediction wrong!  ::)]

50
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Announcement in Q2 of 2014 [CR1]
« on: February 28, 2014, 05:23:42 AM »
Seeing as the D4s is coming with a 'new' 16 mp sensor, I'm going to be brave and guess the 7DII will also be 16 mp, aps class leading low light performance, very fast and no pop up flash. See you in the second quarter.
Please God hear our prayers. Only 16 megapixel camera with ISO 3200 without noise bothering, costing less than $ 2000.

I'd rather have 24, 32 or even 72MP.  More resolution and less noise that way.

That's a misconception. If you account for noise as a factor of total sensor area, it doesn't really matter how large or small your pixel are. The expectation is that you are downsampling any and all of those sensors to some common output size...i.e. the same magnification.

Otherwise, smaller pixels are always going to have more noise at the pixel level. Any technology you might apply to smaller pixels is applicable to larger pixels. Any potential technological gains you might have that allow smaller pixels are only going to make bigger pixels better. In no way can smaller pixels be less noisy than larger pixels. They may resolve more detail, but assuming Q.E. remains roughly the same, that detail WILL be noisier.


All else being equal, if you have 6 micron pixels and 3 micron pixels, the 3 micron pixels are going to have 1/4 the FWC. A 6 micron pixel might have 60,000e- max charge at ISO 100, where as a 3 micron pixel is going to have 15,000e- max charge. Since noise is the square root of the signal, you have 244e- noise with 6 micron pixels, and 122e- noise with 3 micron pixels. In other words, you have a 244:1 SNR with 6 micron pixels, and a 122:1 SNR with 3 micron pixels.

The only way to make those smaller pixels equal to the larger pixels is to downsample by a factor of two.

What's the problem with having a high resolution sensor that allows detailed images at low ISO and then downsampling to reduce noise when you need to used higher ISOs?

I'm asking because you seem to know your stuff and I'd like to get this cleared up once and for all!

51
Lenses / Re: Review: Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4 Distagon T*
« on: February 26, 2014, 03:54:55 PM »
For me, the elephant in the room with fast primes is focus. It's easy to get you're point of focus wrong with these lenses and that's assuming that the phase detect AF system in your camera is up to the job. If the AF misses, it's difficult to see in the viewfinder, because they're all optimised for slower zoom lenses and don't show the full depth of field below f/2.8. This also makes manual focus tough, especially as even the replacement (courser grained) screens available for some cameras (but not mine :( ) don't often have micro-prism or split image focus aids (unless you go for a third party design and accept your meter being disrupted).

To be honest, most people can't achieve as accurate focus as AF systems even with in-viewfinder aids , which is why AF cameras now dominate the market. This is the huge advantage of mirrorless cameras with EVFs, you can easily toggle a variety of manual focusing aids depending upon the situation.

I can't help agreeing with Lloyd Chambers [http://diglloyd.com/blog/2013/20130306_2-why-electronic-viewfinder-matters.html] that the next development in DSLRs should be hybrid OVF/EVFs (like the X-Pro 1). Imagine that on your 1D Xs or 5D Mk4: a nice bright OVF for when you want to track moving targets with the PDAF system, which can be swapped over to a high resolution EVF at the flick of a switch when critical focus on slow moving or static subjects is required....

52
Lenses / Re: Review: Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4 Distagon T*
« on: February 26, 2014, 07:33:54 AM »
I don't regret one second buying it…. it really is that good. I did a test against some other lenses we had lying around and while some of them were ok in the center at 2.8 Most of them were crap in the corners.

The so-called great value for money 50 1.8 looks terrible compared to the Otus… really down right terrible, and it feels equally as terrible operating. I never understood why people were so hyped over this Canon 50 1.8, but I guess that is needed when all you can afford is that.

I'll be picking up every Otus lens as they come out… as simple as that. But I fully acknowledge that some people are depending on AF to get the job done. I'm not… and if I am I'd still choose expensive L lenses over cheap non-L.

The thing is…. I shoot a lot of video. Actually video has become my main business by now. So I need something that operates well for video and even L lenses dont do that. The throw is too short and the sharpness fall off looks ugly, often the bokeh as well.

There's a reason that most major cinema releases, heck even Sundance and Cannes short films are shot on Arri Master / Ultra Primes or Cooke lenses. Because even though they are completely manual, the operate better, they are consistent in look and light transmission and that nice long throw for pulling focus.

Yummy.

Quite.

Actually, I can never understand all this hype around mere 35mm cameras in any case, everyone who truly appreciates quality is already using medium format. I don't understand these people that rely on manual focus either; everyone that's anybody simply employs a man to do that for them! Next, these plebs will be suggesting that it is acceptable to carry ones own kit, instead of employing a Nepalese Sherpa.

What is the world coming to? Ra, ra, what, what!  :P

53
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon DSLR Announcement in March? [CR1]
« on: February 19, 2014, 12:06:49 PM »
Yes, it's likely that the next camera is launched T6i. I just hope it has the same sensor 70D.

Canon is shrewd when it comes to milking profits from sensors.  Consider that the T5i/700D did not get the latest version of the 18 MP APS-C sensor.  The T5i's sensor has Hybrid CMOS AF (same sensor as the T4i and the EOS M), whereas the sensor used in the SL1/100D and the EOS M2 has Hybrid CMOS II AF (where the phase AF area covers 80% of the frame vs. just the central portion).  That allows Canon to release another T#i-series body with a 'new' (to the line) sensor (but not the 70D's sensor).  Put Digic 6 in there, and they're good to go with the T6i/750D.

I was being factious because of my frustration with Canon.  In truth I think 2014 will be a good year for new hardware.  I know that Canon has cited the 5DIII as one of their current success stories so I don't expect much there.  This might be the 1DX going to 24MP or it might finally be the first of the new sensors.
 I'm probably wrong but I think that the Nikon 800e caught Canon flat footed.  Their sensors ruled the roost for a long time and the 800 was  the point where they knew their current sensors could not continue to compete with the Sony's. Perhaps they were working a new line for a while but the Nikon's with Sony sensors really got their attention.  I'm sure that it takes years and years before a sensor goes from design to profitable production.  Hopefully, Canon is near then end of that cycle and we will see some significant new sensor technology.  Canon has made real improvements everywhere but in sensors. Fortunately, they have held their market share but that can't last forever.  Sony probably has another generation in the pipeline already.

Canon's sensor advantage came from their early adoption of the CMOS type sensor; they have fallen behind as other manufacturers also adopted this technology. Canon fabricate their own (large) sensors, which represents a considerable capital investment, and are therefore understandably keen to recapture the maximum value back from this. I think that Sony has an advantage here, because they sell so many sensors to other camera manufacturers, they can afford to move their sensors forward a fabrication generation more often than Canon. As much as I understand Canon's reluctance to invest in new fabrication technology at a time of recession and market contraction, I think that they've reached the end of the road with what they can squeeze out of their current technology. Either they will have to change their fabrication foundries over to newer sub-0.18 micron (or even sub-0.11 micron) process generation architectures, or they'll have to start subcontracting the manufacture of their sensor out to a third party foundry partner.

Sony does seem to have established itself as the dominant player in CMOS sensors at the moment, but it doesn't have the field all to itself; apart from Canon, Aptina have shown they can produce and Toshiba sensors have found their way into the Nikon line-up. Even the vaunted Olympus EM1, which everyone thought had a Sony sensor, turns out to be using a Panasonic sensor -another manufacturer that people were starting to question.

54
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Tokina 24-70 f/2.8 Pro FX Spotted
« on: February 17, 2014, 06:07:49 PM »
In any case, I'm not keen on Tamrons and Tokinas because their rings tend to rotate the Nikon way round, which I find annoying when combined with a bag of Canon lenses!

If you look at the photo  you can see the zoom ring rotates in the Canon convention.  Maybe they'll have the different mounts rotate in different directions for consistency with the OEM lenses.

I stand corrected, it's just Tamron (should have looked twice at the photo in the post!).

I still can't see the point of this lens unless it has an ultrasonic motor. All the other major manufacturers have moved on (except for Zeiss and Leica, obviously) from this eighties arrangement. Who cares if it's built like a tank, I don't intend to use it to invade another country  ;D.

55
Reviews / Re: Review - Sigma 24-105mm f/4 OS
« on: February 17, 2014, 10:54:23 AM »
Why do people insist on posting images of bookshelves to demonstrate how "sharp" a lens is? There was not one detail in those images that was resolved differently by either lens, mainly due to the dearth of any high frequency detail that might show up resolution differences. If it wasn't for the distortion differences, I might have actually thought that they were samples from the same lens.

I think I'll wait for the results from Roger Cicala to decide whether the Sigma is a worthwhile upgrade. I would recommend that in future, you either do reviews properly or stop publishing this rubbish as CR's "official" review.

Out of 23 "reviews" this is the first and *only* time we posted photos of my dusty bookshelves. I certainly don't insist on it, or like it, but it does show difference of detail in the corners, vignetting and other real-world variables.

Roger is an incredible technical reviewer with all the right tools to measure and analyze lenses and I too look forward to his reviews and articles. I just pay less attention to the charts and more to how it works for me professionally. The final image is what matters to me and my clients.  I'm also open to hearing your take on what entails a "proper" review for my future rubbish.

Please accept my apologies for my last comment, it was harsh and rude; I appreciate anyone who takes the time to post a review and take the flak for it!

I wouldn't expect anyone who isn't properly set up for it to attempt quantitative testing, nor given the number of technical review sites available, would I feel the need for it. I would prefer to see you use large crops from photos taken in your professional style, like the photos that you used to illustrate the review, to demonstrate your points.

I won't mention the name of the website that uses the "bookshelf-of-doom" to "show" lens "sharpness", suffice to say that I don't put any credence in their reviews!

56
Reviews / Re: Review - Sigma 24-105mm f/4 OS
« on: February 17, 2014, 09:37:46 AM »
Why do people insist on posting images of bookshelves to demonstrate how "sharp" a lens is? There was not one detail in those images that was resolved differently by either lens, mainly due to the dearth of any high frequency detail that might show up resolution differences. If it wasn't for the distortion differences, I might have actually thought that they were samples from the same lens.

I think I'll wait for the results from Roger Cicala to decide whether the Sigma is a worthwhile upgrade. I would recommend that in future, you either do reviews properly or stop publishing this rubbish as CR's "official" review.

57
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Tokina 24-70 f/2.8 Pro FX Spotted
« on: February 17, 2014, 08:33:31 AM »
This lens would need to have excellent optics combined with a low price to compete against the current offerings, given that it looks like retains an out of date DC motor and clutch mechanism. I might be wrong, they could have incorporated an ultrasonic motor and retained a clutch type mode switch for retro appeal. In any case, I'm not keen on Tamrons and Tokinas because their rings tend to rotate the Nikon way round, which I find annoying when combined with a bag of Canon lenses!

58
Lenses / Re: Canon PowerShot G1 X II Thoughts from CP+
« on: February 14, 2014, 01:11:35 PM »
After owning the s90 I stopped believing there's such a thing as a pocketable compact.

Even that camera was not comfortable to walk around with or store along with anything else in a pocket. I can't imagine what it's like to walk around with the RX100 in your pant pocket.

The G12 was far worse, even in my jacket pocket it felt like I was carrying a brick.

On a different note, I was watching one of the Canon preview videos and it looks like the G1X MkII retains the same crappy menu structure as the rest of the G-series; why can't they bring the high end Powershots into line with EOS, so we wouldn't have to learn a whole new system?

59
Lenses / Re: Canon PowerShot G1 X II Thoughts from CP+
« on: February 14, 2014, 11:16:11 AM »
The G1X-II looks to me to be a collossal waste of time and money for Canon development.  If they had wanted to
hit a home run, they should have used M lenses, priced it at $499.00 and pushed it as a new mirrorless system.
Now they just have two turkeys on their hands and will have a hard time selling either.

Really? I think that if you took the lens off this camera, it would be pretty ordinary. What would be the advantages over the current EOS M2? (assuming you can get your hands on one!)

60
Lenses / Re: Canon PowerShot G1 X II Thoughts from CP+
« on: February 14, 2014, 11:06:12 AM »
The point of owning an RX100 is its "pocketability"; that's not to say that the G1X II won't fit in a pocket, just that the size of the pocket will need to be larger.

Yeah - I don't really consider something to be 'pocketable' if I'm required to wear a coat or cargo pants to have a sufficiently large pocket.  By that definition, in at least one of my coats the 1D X + 40/2.8 is also 'pocketable'.

I've never come across a coat that would comfortably be able to fit a 1D-series in its pocket; I'm sure they exist, depending on your definition of "comfortable". My old G12 felt very big and bulky in my coat pocket and the G1X II is even bigger; at least it is far more capable camera. Besides, if you lived in Britain you'd find that you were pretty much "required" to wear a coat for 90% of the year anyway.  :P

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 45