January 29, 2015, 09:46:14 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 ... 34 35 [36] 37 38 ... 45
Lenses / Re: Realistic wish lens
« on: November 10, 2011, 01:46:35 PM »
I've often wondered if an EF 35-105 f/2.8L (IS) would be a popular lens.  There are a lot of people who are upgrading from APS-C (and now will be moving from APS-H) to full frame; such a lens could give them the zoom range they're used to.  Also, there are some applications for which 35mm at the wide end is probably enough, but would appreciate the extra 35mm on the long end (press photographers maybe?).  A design starting at 35mm would probably not involve as many optical compromises as one starting at 24mm, so image quality would probably be improved.  The lens would probably be a lot more manageable in size than the 24-105 f/2.8L (IS) that a lot of people seem to dream of. 

Canon General / Re: New APS-C Camera in February?
« on: November 08, 2011, 05:06:30 PM »
Isn't one of the trade offs with CMOS based sensors the fact they require a higher proportion of their surface area to be dedicated to control and readout circuitry than with CCDs? With an ideal sensor (one with which each 'sensel' can gather light from 100% of its area) four smaller 'sensels' would gather exactly the same amount of light as one larger one.  At a given level of technology, can we assume that the circuitry required by a CMOS chip, whether it is (for example) 12MP or 24MP is roughly the same? If one accepts this and Meh's value of only 50% of each 'sensel' dedicated to gathering light, then four smaller 'sensels' will not be gathering the same amount of light as one larger 'sensel' because of the space wasted by the associated circuitry. 

DISCLAIMER: I present this only as a though experiment, I have no idea about the exact values involved as I have no background in the imaging electronics industry.  If someone with greater technical knowledge can provide with correct values, or refute the assumptions made then I would welcome the enlightenment. 

EOS Bodies / Re: Cinema EOS Development Opinion
« on: November 06, 2011, 07:02:03 PM »
IRT Jettatore:

No I don't believe that mirrorless is currently a game changer, but with convergent technologies such as on chip phase detect AF and high resolution EVFs, it is probably the direction that camera technology is going.  Once you don't need a mirror to provide an OVF and PDAF, why compromise your lens designs (particularly wide angle) to accomodate it? Canon needs a foothold in this market, or they'll end up in the position that Leica found themselves.  There is also the problem of what's going to happen to their compact camera business with the next couple of generations of mobile 'phones. 

People have been stating that digital cameras have reached a plateau for years; in the case of APS-C, I think they're correct.  Full frame can probably get to 30-40MP with a trade-off of increased (or perhaps I should say, not decreased) higher ISO noise, before it starts geting into trouble with diffraction.  If 21MP is good enough for you then great, stick with a 5D MkII (hope you're also fine with the two generation old AF and metering system), but I wouldn't make assumptions about other people's current or future output needs. 

Thanks for the lecture on wasteful consumer technology, this could easily be applied to 95% of the cr*p that we spend our hard earned money on.  If you're no longer interested in updating you gear because it meets all your needs and desires then that's great, just don't bleat about it on a camera rumours website. 

EOS Bodies / Re: Cinema EOS Development Opinion
« on: November 06, 2011, 07:52:17 AM »
Pedro wrote:
'"'Looking forward to it. Don't care if the 5Diii won't materialize in 2012. ""

Yeah same here.  I don't mind at all if the 5D III or renamed equivalent that I have been waiting for doesn't come out until late '12 or early/mid '13, I'm ready to buy it whenever it launches.

I disagree, 2012 looks like it will be an important year for the industry and Canon need to address weaknesses in its line-up, or risk losing further market share to Nikon and Sony.  The 1D X and this 'Cinema EOS' stuff is fine for the professionals, but now Canon needs to look at the enthusiast and mirrorless market. 

If the rumoured D800 really was delayed by the floods in Thailand, then Canon will need a strong 5D MkII repacement in 2012 not 2013, which addresses its predecessor's weaknesses without pricing itself out of the market (e.g. by trying to be a 1Ds series replacement). 

They also need to do something about mirrorless trend and it needs to be as strong and decisive as launching 'Cinema EOS'.   If they fail to provide this next year it will be Nikon and Sony's gain; people have waited to see Canon's hand, but they won't wait forever. 

Site Information / Re: A Note About The [CR] Rating
« on: November 06, 2011, 04:49:59 AM »
As long as the [CR] rating system means something then 3 'levels' seems sufficient.  I don't see the point in giving official announcements and news a [CR] rating, as they are not rumours.  Photo Rumors; Nikon Rumors; Mirrorless Rumors don't seem to bother with a rating system at all, while Sony Alpha Rumors; 4/3rds Rumors use a 5 tier system (incidently, what has happened to K-Rumors?).  Each approach seems to work in its own way, once people are used to it.  One difference that I've noticed is that some of the sites seem content to post any outlandish rumour floating around the web, whilst CR tends to be more reticent until Craig hears from his own sources.  This might explain why only 3 [CR] levels are required...

Just my observations!  ;)

EOS Bodies / Re: Live Coverage of the Announcement
« on: November 03, 2011, 07:51:59 PM »
We're running a way a bit here.  Couldn't the DSLR picture just be of the 1D X with a purple 'C' badge on it, to show that you can use the new cinema EF lenses on a regular EOS stills camera?

EOS Bodies / Re: Live Coverage of the Announcement
« on: November 03, 2011, 07:47:13 PM »
Now, let's not all get too excited, but that definitely is a DSLR because it has a prism.  Whether they're just including a generic CGI render of how the C300 may impact on future video capable DSLRs, or whether this is an actual second, cheaper model is open to debate.  Remember what's been said before on this board: Canon's video and stills camera divisions are almost two seperate entities.  The video arm at this announcement seem to be at pains to point out that they develped the C300's sensor separately from the stills division (of course, that could just be marketing hype to distance it from the 5D MkII). 

EOS Bodies / Re: Live Coverage of the Announcement
« on: November 03, 2011, 07:17:48 PM »
Very few replies here for an 'historic' Canon announcement!

Guess this means that everyone is disappointed, but I think that this announcement is really what most people expected.  Personally, I have no clue about what most of this means or its implications.  As far as I can see, Canon seems to have entered the bottom end of the mainstream film making industry market, with a camera system that's still very expensive for the indie crowd. 

Am I right, or wrong? Wonder if anyone will be interested in the new lenses for stills photography!

Lenses / Re: New Lenses Imminent? [CR1]
« on: November 03, 2011, 03:50:16 PM »

 I disagree with your statement regarding FF users and the cost of an FF setup. FF users are not much more likely to be rich than your average prosumer APS user these days: here in Canada, a 5D2 is $1999 and a 7D is $1449, which is not a huge difference. Also, used 5Dc's and 1Ds(II)'s can easily be had for less than $1500.

Your entitled to disagree, but don't forget that the 7D itself it quite an expensive camera that most photographers can't justify spending out on.  I take your point with used full frame, but I think the age of the cameras you mention is a put off.  Not only do they lack a lot of the features that even the Rebel line has these days, but I would also be concerned about spending a significant wad of cash on such a old camera; these days cameras are basically consumer electronics and as such, I would not trust their reliability long term versus a film camera (maybe that's just me).  By the way, a used 1Ds MkII still sells for more than a 7D, here in the UK at least. 

 Secondly, a 5D2 with a 35/2 provides better performance at a cheaper price than a 7D with 24L (my set up); similarly, said 5D with 50/1.4 is much cheaper and better than said 7D with 35L. You can pretty much go on forever with similar comparisons. A 5D2 with 24/2.8 isn't even comparable to APS, as an EF-S 15/1.8 doesn't exist and if it did, the price would be frightening.

Sure, but a 5D2 with a 35mm f/1.4L will perform even better; are you suggesting that you should shell out over £1500 for a camera and put a £220 lens on it (I'm sticking to my home currency here)? You're right when you state that there is no comparing the 5D2 with a 24mm lens to an APS-C camera, that's my point -Canon haven't bothered to produce a fast 24mm equivalent prime for APS-C.  You believe that a 15mm f/1.8 for APS-C would cost a fortune; I'm not sure that I'd agree, wide angles crop lenses require a lot less glass than for full frame, which is the whole point of EF-S  (but I think that a 15mm f/2 would be a better performance-price compromise). 

 If you look at it this way, you can see that your statement about a "decent" FF kit being expensive is quite wrong. One (myself included) might even say the opposite is true. I suppose that makes me look dumb, as I have a 7D/24L, but in my defense, they were purchased years apart, I need the 7D's features and my mkI 24L was way less than the new one is.

No need to defend yourself, your main camera requirements dictated that a 7D was the better choice of body for you.  The fact that you had to shell out for a 24mm f/1.4 to get a (roughly) 35mm equivalent fast prime demonstrates that there is a demand for dedicated EF-S lenses in this range.  How many people haven't bought a 24mm f/1.4L because it's too expensive for their budget, but would buy an EF-S 22mm f/1.8 (for example).  Now you are thinking about buying a 5D MkII in addition to your 7D to meet your ndesire to use fast wide angle primes (I'm guessing -am I correct?).  This would mean that you've covered all bases, but it's hardly an affordable option. 

 If you don't need high PD or the AF/FPS of a 7D, how exactly are your priorities wrong in buying a 5D2 with cheap glass? You get better performance for less $$$ and often end up with a lighter, smaller kit as well. There's no rule stating that FF users are stuck buying L glass and honestly, they need it less than us APS guys.

First, what if you do need both (like you?), buy a 7D and a 5D2? Second, how much do you think that a 5D2 be worth in ten years and how will your 24L be worth? Third, you keep insisting that it's a 5D2 or a 7D; most people shoot with Rebels and XXD cameras.   

 This is why I like the idea of Canon updating these non-L primes: they would benefit both APS and FF shooters. These lenses are mostly fine optically, all they need is USM, more aperture blades and maybe a tweak here and there. They should definitely be kept EF though, even if there is a small cost savings to make the wider ones APS, there's more than enough interest in them from FF users. Personally, I'm looking to add an FF body as soon as I can afford it and would definitely buy a 35/2.

If Canon could do this, it'd be ideal.  I just think that, especially with wide angle glass, there are quite a lot of cost savings to be made by going EF-S.  Compare the price of the Nikon AF-S 35mm f/1.8 G DX to the much poorer spec Canon EF 35mm f2.0; or the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 to the EF 16-35mm f/2.8. 

Lenses / Re: New Lenses Imminent? [CR1]
« on: November 02, 2011, 06:17:27 PM »
Canon badly need a decent 'normal' prime for APS-C users because the current offering all have significant weaknesses, as does the main third party alternative.  Beyond that, there is a need for some affordable wide angle primes.  To be honest, if it saves money they might as well make them EF-S, as anyone that can afford a full frame camera should really be able to afford 'L' glass (and if not, they've probably got their buying priorities wrong!).  I don't buy the argument that some people make that it's only full frame users who care about prime lenses.  A decent full frame setup will cost you many thousands of your local currency; it's a little insulting to suggest that only the rich can afford to be 'serious photographers'. 

It's really the same thinking as people that get harassed by Police (and especially security guards) for taking photos of buildings or transport infrastructure.  I can see the thinking behind not wanting people to take pictures of Police Officers, which could be used maliciously to identify them and target them whilst off duty.  The fact of the matter is that if it is someone's intention to target a Police Officer in this way, they can easily do so in a far more covert manner (just like anyone planning a terrorist attack could easily make do with a mobile phone camera or Google Streetview rather than a DSLR and tripod).  So all this Police targeting of citizens that are overtly filming their actions serves to do, is to give the impression that they are trying to cover up disreputable conduct (I am making no judgement here upon the validity of such a supposition).  It's time that the law and Police training caught up with the fact that we are living in the 21st Century; this may be difficult in a country where some lawmakers only recently realised that it was no longer the 19th Century!

EOS Bodies / Re: what the 1Dx may tell us about the 5Diii
« on: October 29, 2011, 05:46:08 AM »
The full frame camera market is in an interesting state of flux at the moment.  As I see it, Canon have five options for the 5D MkII replacement:

1) Keep the major specifications the same as the 5D MkII and use the 18MP unit from the 1D X.
I’m not sure that you could sell such a camera on the basis of better high ISO performance alone; thus Canon would have to reduce the price.   This could work if:
a)   they can realise production synergies with the 1D X and other models to reduce the cost of making the camera (thus maintaining their profit margin)
b)   they can realise a price point where they can sell enough extra units to compensate for the lower profit margin. 

2) Improve the major specifications over the 5D MkII and use the 18MP unit from the 1D X.  Differentiate from the 1D X based upon frame rate/buffer size, body size and viewfinder (+ probably a few other ‘pro’ orientated features such as Ethernet). 
i.e. the D700 strategy.  There are two dangers here:
i) Cannibalising 1D X sales in the same way that the D700 did to sales of the D3. 
ii) Alienating the section of the market of 5D MkII buyers who value resolution over build quality, AF and shooting speed. 

3) Take the 5D MkII and put a newly developed (for example) 36MP sensor in it. 
Problem: Nikon takes a D700 and puts a  36MP sensor in it; Sony builds a 36MP A9X based on their A77’s features: the 5D MkIII looks like the poor relation. 

4) Create a (for example) 36MP small body camera with improved AF, build quality and reasonable (4-6fps) shooting speed but keep the price near that of the 5D MkII. 
a)   You’ve basically just built a 1D Xs and are only charging 5d MkII money for it!
b)   â€œI’ve just bought a 1D X and now I feel ripped off”

5) Create a 36-40MP body and improve some of the specifications over the 5D MkII, compromising others. 
a)   It may be OK against the Sony, but might still look weak against the Nikon (so the price must be lower than the latter?). 
b)   People would always be speculating that the 1D Xs is on the way. 

If this looks like an awkward situation for Canon, bear in mind that Nikon are in the same boat.  In some ways it may be worse for them, as there would be uproar if they dropped any of the major specifications of the D700 for the D800. 

Sony’s strategy will only work if they can persuade full frame users of the benefits of the SLT concept and there’s not much evidence so far that they’ve persuaded the APS-C market yet.  Otherwise, they risk simply being the third choice brand all over again. 

EOS Bodies / Re: 5Diii vs 7Dii (FF vs APS-C)
« on: October 28, 2011, 01:34:17 PM »
As Flake stated, people are interested in the 5DIII in part because it's been a while since the 5DII came out.  The assumption that a 5DII replacement will have '7D build, AF and speed' is unwarranted, because Canon will need to differentiate the 5DIII from the 1D X on features to justify the price difference of ~$4K (or they'll minimize the price gap and charge $4K for the 5DIII but I really don't see that happeneing).  So, people won't get their 'dream camera'.

I'm sure that Canon will want to find some way of differentiating between the 1D X and a future 5D MkIII, but hobbling the build an AF is likely to lead to trouble.  I think that current 5D MkII owners are more than a bit annoyed with Canon that there have now been a succession of much cheaper cameras with better AF systems.  In addition, the 5D MkII is not regarded overly well in terms of weather resistance compared with say, the D700 (not so great for a "landscape camera").  A 5D MkIII will be up against a D800 and I think that quite a few 5D MkII owners and potential upgraders, will be reconsidering their brand choice if the 5D MkIII fails to address some of its predecessor's weaknesses. 

EOS Bodies / Re: The EOS-1D X & f/8
« on: October 24, 2011, 08:45:01 AM »
This weekend I joined an 2 days lasting workshop for motorsportphotography. The "hardware" was one of the hot topics there. The workshop was sponsored by canon and nikon. We could test some of the better lenses for sportsphotography including the camerabodys. It was very interresting. 
In the Canon-Group the tutors from Canon were not really able to highlight their new !-Dx product for sportsphotography for normal users. They recommend the usage of this camera with an fix focal lenght lens without an converter/extender! They did not see a reason to extend the AF working at an max f=8 even at another coming camerabody. "Buy an better lens... If you can buy this body, buy an 4.0 L lens with 500 to 600mm..." was the answer :o
Almost all visitors shook their heads.
The Nikonians laughed when they heard this. Nikon was presentig themselves as a corporation that is more and more looking to become an specialist for sports- and wildlife photography.

Sorry, I didn't realise that the D3 series actual had f/8 AF sensors? If Nikon fit an f/8 capable AF system to the D4, then maybe this argument will hold water.  I seem to remember that Nikon did the same sort of thing to their users when they made the D3 full frame, having claimed for years that DX was the new 35mm. 

The problem with the 1DX is that Canon have not release (nor breifed their own representatives of) a definitive explanation as to why they dropped the f/8 capability.  This has lead to speculation as to whether there was a geniune technical reason (i.e. a trade off), or whether it is just Canon being mean and trying to sell 1D Mk4 upgraders longer lenses.  Personally, I believe it is more likely to be the former reason; the f/8 focusing capability was a great marketing feature over the Nikon pro bodies and I can't see that they'd drop it when everything else about this camera seems to be focused upon topping the D3s. 

EOS Bodies / Re: The EOS 1D X Sensor Demystified...
« on: October 20, 2011, 05:11:18 PM »
The RAW format is a lossless compressed format.
The file size gets higher at higher ISOs because there is less to compress (due to higher nosise).

No, it's because CR2 format doesn't use adaptive Huffman, but predefined tables that are optimized for common case value distribution.

If adaptive Huffman or arithmetic coding (like h.264 CABAC) was used, high ISO raw images would be significantly smaller. Unfortunately, processing cost in terms of power consumption and silicon area needed would likely be higher, especially with more complex coding schemes.

Maybe future RAW formats will have PNG or lossless JPEG style spatial predictor functions. Combine that with adaptive arithmetic coding, and file size savings would likely be significant, even halved.

But may that doesn't really make sense - file size is not really a big issue anymore. Current scheme is very reliable - flip one bit in current CR2 format, and you can recover rest of the image with just one pixel error given software that can resync to Huffman stream. More complex coding could mean larger blocks of the image become corrupted without sophisticated error recovery and correction. Otherwise one bit flip could render whole image unusable.

Besides, if file size was really an issue, Canon would probably stop embedding a thumbnail AND a full size JPEG image in every RAW file! I prefer reliability over file size any day or night.

So much for "Demystifying the EOS 1DX Sensor", all this techno-babble has me even more mystified! Hopefully when someone gets hold of the actual camera we'll see some real life tests that show us what it can offer to photographers in practice...

Pages: 1 ... 34 35 [36] 37 38 ... 45