Messages

466

EOS Bodies / Re: Rebel T3i/600D, T3/1100D? [CR1]

« on: January 03, 2011, 12:45:24 PM »

My comments about at 1000D successor being a new small camera didn't imply a higher crop factor at all. I can't see any reason why Canon shouldn't be able to make a 1.6 crop dSLR significantly smaller than 1000D.

I wrote form factor, not crop factor and I was refering to the rumour about Canon producing a smaller APS-C DSLR (can't find the link at the moment -do you remember the one that had a picture of the EOS IX APS film SLR?).  With hindsight, I should have made this clearer!

I have read that the Panasonic doubled the refresh rate of the GH2's sensor

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/panasonic_gh2_first_look.shtml

I've also read somewhere (but I can't remember where -typical!) that a slower refresh rate is one of the reasons that the new Nikons' CDAF is so much slower than the G-series.  If so, then it was a poor strategy by Canon to fail to address this whilst pushing HD video in their DSLRs' marketing, as it is a feature that most amateurs would find very useful for video (it would also make the 60D's articulating screen far more useful for stills photography). 

I'm not quite sure what the extra two connections on the lens mount do for micro-4/3rds lenses.  If they truely help with CDAF then maybe Canon should have already started introducing such a system on new DSLRs and lenses. 

I didn't know that the SX series still used a micro-motor for AF. 

467

EOS Bodies / Nikon Mirrorless to be launched in March?

« on: January 03, 2011, 06:06:03 AM »

NR thinks so, based upon an article in the German DSLR Magazine.  So with Pentax hinting at a mirrorless camera in development and Canon still "monitoring developments", perhaps "the first shall be last and the last shall be first" (apologies on my poor biblical referencing!). 

Have Canon missed the boat? In a way, it doesn't matter for anyone considering a puchase because using existing DSLR lenses via an adaptor is a poor solution to the lack of lens availability on current systems.  This is micro-4/3rd's greatest advantage over the current Sony/Samsung offerings (credit to Samsung and their comprehensive roadmap). 

Whilst mirrorless is currently not up to DSLR technology in performance terms, either it or Sony's SLT technology (ironically pioneered by Canon in the sixties) probably represent the future.  The 500lb Gorilla of the consumer electronics world is hedging its bets, while the old silverback of the camera world seems to be digging its heels (or its head) into the sand. 

468

EOS Bodies / Re: Rebel T3i/600D, T3/1100D? [CR1]

« on: January 03, 2011, 05:46:13 AM »

Canon do really fast CD AF on several P&S with Digic IV, AF with a small sensor don't need to be as accurate, but I don't believe Digic IV is the problem with the AF speed. What you need to get better CD AF is higher refresh rates from the sensor, and maybe the main cause for concern for Canon - better control of the lens AF.

USM motors are according to some sources not particulary suited for CD AF algorithms (I've no idea why), but this could be a problem for Canon.

As for new models, a 600D with an articulated screen would make the 60D harder to sell, but would give Canon one unique feature in this segment while they figure out how to make CD AF usable. A 1000D upgrade would make even more sense as just decreasing prices on 450D and 500D (again) wouldn't work too well against the D3100 which feature full HD with AF and a better sensor. A 1100D couold also be the "promised" small dSLR which Canon hope can compete with mirrorless models.

Like you say, DoF must be a big contributing factor to the overall slowness of DSLR CDAF, as I suspect is the size of the lens elements that need to be moved compared to P&S cameras.  I don't profess to understand the electronic engineering behind digital signal processing;  is the rate at which data can be read off the sensor mainly limited by the processing power of the camera, is it governed by the architecture of the sensor itself, or is it a combination of the two? Certainly, Panasonic seem to have had this problem cracked for a while on their G-series cameras.  If Canon is limited by the architecture of the 18MP APS-C sensor, then it was a bit short sighted of them not to consider video when they were designing it!

An interesting point about USM motors, I hadn't seen this before.  It goes against my expectations as USM motors are known not only for their speed, but also for their precision.  Does this also apply to micro-USM? (N.B. the Powershot SX1 IS had a USM motor.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrasonic_motor  (O.K. I know it's only Wikipedia!)

An articulated screen would remove one marketing advantage of the 60D over the 600D, but there are still plenty of reasons to buy a 60D and you can be pretty sure that a Nikon D5000 replacement will feature one. 

I like you idea that the 1000D replacement might feature the smaller form factor that Canon have previously suggested as a counter to mirrorless.  Even though I don't think that simply shrinking a DSLR will be enough to counter mirroless' popularity, it would still be an interesting development. 

469

EOS Bodies / Re: Rebel T3i/600D, T3/1100D? [CR1]

« on: January 02, 2011, 01:26:33 PM »

Personally, I can't see the point in such a release as it wouldn't add the one feature that the Nikon D5000 replacement definitely will have, and the 3100 and Sony SLTs already have: autofocus in video mode.  I'm not interested in this myself (nor the 600D) and I guess it won't matter to a lot of other people, but it just looks bad in marketing terms if your main competitors have this feature on their video mode and you do not (even if Nikon's implementation is far from perfect).  This is an important market segment for Canon as it's where the money is made and where future upgraders are recruited. 

I'm guessing that better contrrast detect AF, and by extension AF in video mode, are beyond the capabilities of Digic 4.  I'm sure Canon will need Digic 5 for the 1Ds Mk III replacement, so it is either not ready yet or Canon don't want to debut it in a Rebel.  Neither situation is good IMHO. 

470

Lenses / Re: Who do you trust?

« on: January 01, 2011, 07:29:20 AM »

I'm also suspicious of a site that seems to have very close connections with a lens company.  I'm not going to name it, (It is one of the ones named above) but I can't help thinking about the apparent connection when I see a high rating on that site and low ones elsewhere. 

Yes, I think I know which one you mean.  A certain brand seems to get their lenses highly rated with major faults (like poor AF accuracy) skimmed over.  It's always going to be difficult for a website that accepts lenses for testing from (what appears to be) their country's importer of the aforenotmentioned brand.  You get early access to new lenses at no expense to yourself, but if you give too many negative reviews the plug will be pulled.  I guess it's the same with any print magazine or website that lives off advertising. 

One good thing about Bryan Carnathan's reviews is that I always feel that he has actually used the lens 'in the field', rather than simply setting it up on a testing rig.  I think that this can often be the cause of reviewers missing important aspects of a lens' handling and behaviour. 

471

EOS Bodies / Re: CES Update [CR1]

« on: December 31, 2010, 07:52:30 AM »

Heard anything about CP+ in February?

I'm somewhat doubtful we'll see a 5D MkIII this year if the 1Ds MkIV (or whatever is going to replace the 1Ds MkIII) is not announced in Q1/2. 

472

Lenses / Re: Very, very initial impressions on the Sigma 120-400 APO DG (OS) HSM

« on: December 29, 2010, 11:28:09 AM »

Nice to have your very detailed thoughts on an interesting alternative to the 100-400L. 

Can we look forward to your thoughts on its performance when you finally receive an EF mount version?!

473

Lenses / Re: EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS Review

« on: December 28, 2010, 07:26:37 PM »

I disagree with all of you complaining about the lack of controlled testing.  There will be plenty of reviews that concentrate on these aspect out there on the web, we don't need another one.  Yes it is variable aperture, but then most of the 70-300/400 class are, if you need a fast lens then you obviously need to look elsewhere (and fork out even more!).  OK this lens is very well built and sharp, the difference between the 70-300 IS L and 70-200 F/4 IS L didn't seem that great to me.

My problem is the price: it is now the most expensive 70-300, making the Sony 70-300G seems like a bargain! Yes the 100-400 L is expensive too, but along with the 400 f/5.6L and the 300 f/4 L (+TC) it is the only way to get to 600mm equivalence without spending small-car money.  This lens is really just a posh version of the 70-300 USM for over three times the price.  I can't help thinking that Canon should have withheld the 'L' designation and given us an improved 70-300 USM. 

474

Lenses / Re: Who do you trust?

« on: December 28, 2010, 12:34:45 PM »

users of these sites, including DXO should be aware that they do NOT test lenses, and do not have equipment capable of testing lenses.

What the sites do test is a lens / camera combination.  What this means to those who read the results carefully, and they tell you this, is that the results only apply to a lens used on that exact camera model and not on others.

Very true, Photozone also points out that it's results are not comparible across different systems.  Whilst I'm aware that a 18MP sensor is more likely to show a lens' limitations than an 8MP sensor, I'm always intrigued that some 'lens test' results are so poor compared to others.  For example, the EF 85mm f1.8 comes out looking quite poor in the SLR Gear sharpness (sic) test, but better in the Photozone test (Photozone seem to have got a better copy when they re-tested this lens at 15MP).  Perhaps it has more to do with where each reviewer sets their 'scales' in terms of what is excellent, good, acceptable and poor. 

I guess the advantage of the The Digital Picture's ISO12233 chart crops is that you can see for yourself what each lens' results look like, but even then they are only tested at one distance. 

Finally, I have to agree with kubelik; there is indeed more to a lens than its resolving power, unfortunately I have learnt this through bitter experience!

475

Lenses / Who do you trust?

« on: December 28, 2010, 07:12:10 AM »

I know of the following sites that do lens reviews:

http://www.photozone.de/
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/index.php
http://www.lenstip.com/
http://www.photodo.com/
http://www.bythom.com/index.htm - is of potential use for third party lenses

and of course

http://www.pixel-peeper.com/ to do your own comparisons (assuming the photographer's technique is good and you can find a hi-res version). 

I often find that there are quite large differences in their resolution (sharpness -sic) tests of the same lens.  Can this be explaiined solely by sample variation, or is it down to the testing methods they use? Also, the measurements they come back with vary, from line pairs per picture height (DPR) to 'blur units' (SLR Gear). 

I would therefore like to pose the following question to members of this forum: which site do you prefer and why?

P.S. I forgot CR itself! Whilst I think the 70-200 IS II review was good, it would be nice to have some more... Please?!!

476

Lenses / Re: Which 50mm prime?

« on: December 27, 2010, 09:42:26 AM »

.. wonder if canon will make any revisions to the 50mm primes.

I think a lot of people have been hoping for an upgrade to the EF 50mm f/1.4, but the latest rumours don't seem to be good:

http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/12/70-300l-more/

The difference between Canon and Nikon is that Canon has the 50L sales to protect, unlike Nikon who needed to release a new 50mm to maintain compatibility with their motor-less entry level cameras. 

The dilemma for Canon, if they were to release an updated 50mm f1.4, would be how much to improve it.  They could go the whole hog and give it ring type USM, aspherical elements, 8 rounded aperture blades and perhaps UD elements as well.  But this would kill a load of 50L sales, as it would most likely make it a sharper and faster focussing lens.  If they simply upgraded the AF motor and tweaked the optics, it would mean sinking a lot of investment developing a lens that would struggle to command a premium price and may not sell any better than the current model. 

I am starting to wonder if Canon's f/1.2 primes are still an asset to the EOS system, or if they are starting to become a millstone.  Nikon and Sigma have now both released f/1.4 lenses in the 50-85mm range that are faster to focus, cheaper and maybe sharper.  Could it be time for Canon to replace the f/1.2Ls for new f1.4Ls in this focal range, like they did with the 50mm f/1.0L?

477

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III [CR1]

« on: December 26, 2010, 05:56:55 AM »

This rumour is nearly there, but misses a few of the basic rules of made-up rumours; here's my take on how to make one up:

Canon 5D MkIII to be announced early 2011

28MP -new breakthrough in S/N for Canon
4fps
1920×1080 30/25/24 frame Video with manual audio levels, peaking and zebras
3:2 aspect ratio tilt/swivel screen
63 segment iFCL meter
Same AF as the 5D MkII -Canon believe that most users were satisfied with AF performance
+ a new feature for Canon EOS cameras

First, you must keep the date vague for a bit of longevity -if you give an exact date that is only weeks away you'll be quickly disproved. 

Note how an effective made-up rumour combines the believable (and totally expected) specifications with those that will cause excitement such as the S/N ratio BS (the video stuff that I don't really understand, but is easy to lift from any internet wish list). 

The controversial features need to be included: a tilt/swivel screen will split opinion between the 'must have for video' crowd and the 'likely to break and so not professional' elements.  I've gone out on a limb with the statement that it will keep the 5D MkII's AF system; most people would find it incredulous that Canon would keep the most critisied feature of the MkII.  Then again we've been shafted by Canon on so many previous occasions that the seed of disappointment will already be in their minds. 

Finally, you need to give a mystery feature -this both invites speculation as well as covering you against major new features that you missed. 

478

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon at CES 2011. A Vague Initial Report.

« on: December 25, 2010, 08:02:11 PM »

No new lenses? Shame, as I'm in the market for one at the moment and there are some holes in Canon's (and my) current line up.  I guess we'll now have to wait until PMA at the end of the summer for lens announcements.  Hoping for new lenses at CES was probably wishful thinking!

479

Lenses / Re: B&H & Adorama Taking Preorders on new Teleconverters

« on: December 23, 2010, 06:53:52 PM »

Didn't I read somewhere that the new TCs are meant to allow faster focusing with the new super-teles?

Of course, I could look up this source, but it's easier just to say it with confidence!

480

EOS Bodies / Re: No 1Ds Mark IV in 2011? [CR2]

« on: December 21, 2010, 11:13:45 AM »

If you extrapolate the increases in processing power for each Digic generation, dual Digic V processors should be capable of coping with a 24MP sensor at 10fps (assuming there are no other issues preventing this).  In theory, this could allow Canon to combine the 1D and 1Ds lines into a single model that is both high resolution and high speed; the pixel density would be slightly lower than the current 1D Mk4.  Given recent improvements in read-out noise levels, demonstrated by what Nikon and Pentax have done with the 16MP Sony APS-C sensor, it should be possible to achieve very adequate (if not quite D3s) levels of noise on a Full Frame sensor. 

I'm not saying that this is likely, Canon will be loathed to allow Sony/Nikon to gain the resolution high ground (assuming the rumours of a >30MP Sony Full Frame sensor in the pipeline are true), I'm just suggesting what is possible.  Of course, there is always the possibility that a breakthrough technology is what is causing the delayed release dates... Then anything is possible. 

What all this would mean for a 5D MkIII is further baseless speculation.  Rumours, don't we all love them!