July 29, 2014, 10:17:57 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 ... 29 30 [31] 32 33 ... 44
Does anyone know why this class of macro lens is often 180mm rather than 200mm? Is it simply lens size vs. speed? I notice that the equivalent Nikkor is 200mm, but only f/4. 

PowerShot Cameras / Re: Canon PowerShot G1 X ISO Sample Images
« on: January 11, 2012, 05:33:07 PM »
I don't think you can read too much into sensor performance from these crops.  In terms of jpeg output, it may be of some use, but it says as much about how good each manufacturer's noise reduction algorithms are (and Sony's are notorious for smudging detail) as how good the sensor itself is.  I see that you can download the raw files, but to be honest I can't be bothered!

PowerShot Cameras / Re: Canon PowerShot G1 X Brief Hands On
« on: January 10, 2012, 05:11:16 PM »
I still want a f/1.4 shallow depth of field capable small camera. Which is where an interchangeable large sensor camera comes it.

I don't think that you're alone here...

The 4D - Full frame, mirrorless, compact sized, with a range of slim 'pancake' wide aperture primes.

I like your thinking and so would a lot of others, but Canon probably won't go there -do I remember an interview where a representative from Canon actually said that people that wanted this from a camera should buy a Leica?!

Might settle for the new fuji...

And that's the danger that Canon doesn't seem to have noticed.  You buy a Fuji X-Pro 1 and a couple of their nice primes to use when you don't want to drag your Canon system along.  Then you find that there are fewer and fewer occasions on which you are using your DSLR.  Finally you realise that, for your style of photography, you're giving up very little in terms of capability using the Fuji and decide to sell the rest of your EOS system. 

PowerShot Cameras / Re: Canon PowerShot G1 X Brief Hands On
« on: January 10, 2012, 04:45:25 PM »
When I see a human holding the G1X, I realise what a large camera it is.  Comparing it on camerasize.com, I realised that it isn't much different in size to the Leica M9!  Impressive as it first seems, I think that the G1X is a little misplaced as a concept: it's a bit too big as a DSLR owners second camera and too expensive for the mass market. 

I can't help thinking that Canon should have concentrated its resources on developing a compact system camera.  Dump the crummy OVF for a decent EVF, slap on an interchangeable lens mount and this would be the camera that Canon DSLR owners have really been waiting for. 

PowerShot Cameras / Re: Canon PowerShot G1 X Announced
« on: January 09, 2012, 02:06:38 PM »
Whilst I'm impressed with what Canon has managed to squeeze into a body that is little larger than the old small sensor G-series, am I the only one that wished they'd gone the whole hog and put an interchangeable lens mount on it? That would have given them the option of a compact motorised kit zoom (GX1 style), or pancake primes and telephoto zooms. 

I wonder if this is Canon's first 'Fuji X100' type step which may convince them to produce a compact system camera in future...

EOS Bodies / Re: Why aren't there full-res 1Dx samples?
« on: January 08, 2012, 05:41:31 PM »
I've got a sneaking suspicion that Canon knew that Nikon were ahead in the development of the next-gen flagship cameras and decided to sneak in with an October 2011 announcement to steal their thunder.  Given how similar the two cameras are, it seems to have worked: many people are commenting on how non-revolutionary the D4 seems to be on the stills front (although perhaps this is because the D3S was so good).   

EOS Bodies / Re: 1D X Limitations Fixable?
« on: January 08, 2012, 12:35:56 PM »
Is anyone else a little bit suspicious about this? First Neuroanatomist speculates upon the subject:


then NL gets fed a rumour that some of the 1D X's limitations are fixable in firmware (and the f/8 focusing issue is a big one for a lot of photographers, especially after the D4 announcement)...

Granted it could be a coincidence, or someone at Canon could actually be watching these sorts of fora for feedback (yeah, right!), but it's also possible that some malevolent individual is simply stirring it based upon what they've read here. 

EOS Bodies / Re: D4 AF vs 1d X AF
« on: January 08, 2012, 07:27:21 AM »
I am keen on Rob Galbraith's test results, assuming he's still willing to test the 1DX after all the flak publicity he received for posting his 1D3/1D4 AF findings. :D

  ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)

PowerShot Cameras / Re: *UPDATE 3* Canon PowerShot G1X Revealed
« on: January 08, 2012, 06:10:02 AM »
Anyone else think that the G1X (stupid name considering Panasonic's recently announced GX1) is going to be completely overshadowed by Monday's Fuji X-Pro 1? (http://photorumors.com/2012/01/07/detailed-fuji-x-pro-1-specs-you-must-read-this/). 

Perhaps Canon have finally cottoned on to what they're missing, as they are now promising their own compact system camera this year? Presumably they must have already be developing it for some time...


I'm no expert here, but I happen to think that on the video front, the D4's AF abilities will be a greater advantage than all this uncompressed video-out stuff.  Here is my logic: the market for the 1D X's video features is primarily from photojournalists that need a video capable camera for mixed media reporting.  These people are (like myself) less interested in the technicalities of cinematography and more concerned about the ease with which they can shoot a video for consumption on their news outlet's website.  AF in video would be a boon to these people, as it's one less new skill for them learn. 

For the people out there who are looking for a cheap, large sensor video camera for indie movie production, I think that Canon's new video-DSLR will be more tailored to their requirements. 

EOS Bodies / Re: D4 AF vs 1d X AF
« on: January 07, 2012, 12:42:39 PM »
Over to Neuroanatomist...?


Noticed and hypothesized on yesterday:


In short, my take agrees with yours - it's a firmware implementation, and there is a possibility that Canon could match it with the 1D X (if it works well enough with their sensor, and if the choose to (they may not, either for marketing reasons - driving customers to buy longer lenses - or to avoid being seen as reacting directly to the competition).

Sorry, I missed your post on that thread! Didn't mean to tread on your toes. 

Here's hoping that your "possibility (2)" is correct and that Canon can respond by enabling AF at f/8 in firmware. 

EOS Bodies / Re: D4 AF vs 1d X AF
« on: January 07, 2012, 08:02:33 AM »
I've just noticed this about the D4's AF system, from Rob Galbraith's website (http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-11673-12223-12224):

"Autofocus with lenses or lens + teleconverter combos whose maximum aperture exceeds f/5.6. With the D3S, and many other Nikon digital SLR models past and present, attaching something like a 600mm f/4 + 1.7x teleconverter would result in sub-par autofocus or no autofocus, because this combination is beyond the f/5.6 AF limit of most Nikon models. The D4 can autofocus properly to f/8, the first Nikon digital SLR to be rated to do so, as long as your composition keeps the subject relatively close to the centre of the 51-point array.

If the maximum aperture of the lens or combo is between f/5.6 and f/8, the number of AF points that retain their cross-type performance drops to nine, while six others, left and right of centre, operate with single line sensitivity only. The remaining 37 AF points in the array may function, but may not detect focus distance properly if they do.

If the maximum aperture of the lens or combo is f/8, the total number of properly-operating points is 11, with the centre-most AF point retaining its cross-type sensitivity. Other points may function, but might not function well.

Note that the D4 doesn't prevent the user from selecting a non-optimal AF point. If you plan to hook up a long lens and teleconverter that puts you into the beyond-f/5.6 territory, you'll want to pay special attention to which of the 51 AF points work best."

From what is stated here, it doesn't seem that Nikon have actually made physical changes to the design of the AF sensor to incorporate f/8 sensitive lines, just that they are confident that the AF chip is capable of operating with less light and a smaller 'rangefinder' base length.  Perhaps because (ibid.):

"The minimum light level for AF detection, at EV-2, is one stop better than the D3S' EV-1."

So, if the 1D X's AF system is also capable of working at EV-2... (http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/technical/eos_1d_x_af_system_explained.do):

"The benefits of the new AF system include finer precision and increased AF tracking speed, increased low-light sensitivity down to EV -2"

Would it be possible for Canon to simply do the same as Nikon and not disable their AF system at f/8 and simply warn users that only the central sensors are likely to be reliable?

Of course, without actually seeing the D4's AF sensor, we can't know what changes Nikon have actually made to enable f/8 AF, so my logic may be totally wrong!

Over to Neuroanatomist...?

EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon price match the 1DX to the D4?
« on: January 07, 2012, 07:40:44 AM »
I don't think that people should make too much of the "ISO 12800 maximum without expansion" on the D4 versus the "ISO 51200 without expansion" on the 1D X; I think this is just a difference between the two companies' nomenculture.  The term 'native ISO' is misleadingly used by many people; each sensor only has one native ISO (its base ISO); in Canon's case this is ISO 100 and in Nikon's ISO 200.  Every other ISO is achieved by either on-chip amplification, or by under/over-exposure with post capture software signal amplification.  I had always thought that the switch over point was where the ISO expansion (boost) settings kicked in, but recent forum posts by others have led me to believe that I was wrong in this assumption.  It seems that where this transition occurs is somewhat of an opaque subject that is not revealed by the manufacturers.  Thus, one canot tell from the quoted ISO range specifications what one can expect in terms of signal to noise ratio for each sensor.  It seems that each company has its own standards for what it considers acceptable signal to noise for its cameras "normal" ISO range.  The only way to determine the sensors' signal to noise performance will be to test the actual sensor post-release (i.e. we'll have to wait for DXO Marks analysis).  Of course, some are suggesting that the camera manufacturers are starting to 'cook' their RAW files by subjecting them to a certain amount of post-capture noise reduction during the initial on-chip stages of image read out. 

EOS Bodies / Re: D4 AF vs 1d X AF
« on: January 05, 2012, 03:04:15 PM »
neuroanatomist, teaching people as usual. How do you have so may smites? Do people hate the truth that much?

People just hate it when they're proved wrong, especially in public...

My two cents? I think that the major AF advantage the D3 series had over previous 1D cameras was the tracking by colour that the meter did.  As Neuro states, the 1D X now has this; I wonder if they had to pay Nikon a licensing fee?

Pages: 1 ... 29 30 [31] 32 33 ... 44