July 22, 2014, 03:42:22 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 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 44
61
Canon General / Re: Canon PowerShot G1 X II Image
« on: February 07, 2014, 05:34:46 PM »
Hi All

EVF =Deal breaker not bothered by lack of flash.
EVF isn't a deal breaker, it's the fact that it looks like it's an optional extra on top of the steep price tab that breaks the deal for me.

62
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7D vs. 70D: Which has better image quality?
« on: February 07, 2014, 03:12:53 PM »
Dare one ask the question 7D vs 70D vs D7100: which has better image quality?

Worth considering because the D7100 is cheaper than the 70D.

That's a dangerous question to pose on this forum without starting a flame war, but I'll do my best!

If people were honest, they'd admit that the D7100 has the image quality advantage; it is superior on most metrics. The point of argument would be how much better it is and how important the image quality advantage is compared to other features. I would say that the D7100 is the better all round stills camera, with its weakness being buffer depth, plus a bit of build quality compared to the 7D. That being said, one doesn't buy a camera body in isolation, but as part of a system. I wouldn't say that anything that Nikon has to offer is compelling enough to offset the changeover costs, if one has a decent collection of EF mount glass. If one doesn't own any glass from either manufacturer, then deciding which lenses one is likely to need is a factor. To be honest, unless you're into wildlife or sports, I'm not sure that either manufacturer has the most compelling lens line-up for their APS-C cameras and I might be tempted to look elsewhere (e.g. m4/3rds or Fuji).

Im not sure how this thread ven got to three pages.

7d's problems are detailed and noted across the internets. It is simply not a good buy. The Af has problems & the iso is bay far the worst of any canon camera i have seen sicne the 450d. I HAD to dispose of my 7d. i loved the body.

Well documented by whom? I've not come across huge amounts of material substantiating this claim. There was a bit of a hoo-ha when it first came out, partly because of the "crazy megapixel number" (note how when Nikon went to 24 megapixels, no one batted an eyelid) and partly caused by a review from Darwin Wiggett that found the 7D to produce a very soft output. To be honest, I respect Darwin and regularly read his blog, but his was the only comparison I've seen where the 7D's file looks that soft compared to other cameras; I haven't seen anyone else find this result.

Trust me, im going through the same with a SECOND 6d, and its the most frustrating thing in the world. I have yet another canon body that i cant use to to Af issues. softie images and af misses at f4...enough of this mess already.

I just joined CPS gold so hopefully they can help. If not, im scraping for a 5dmk3.

Plenty of people find the AF system of 6D fine, if used within its capabilities. The 5D Mk3 is very good, but I'm not sure really how necessary such a sophisticated AF system is for non-sports/wildlife specialists (myself included).  I'm wondering whether I'd have been as well served by a 6D and saved the extra money; heck, even a 70D might have sufficed most of the time as all the 5D Mk3 seems to have done is made me more fussy about noise!

63
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7D vs. 70D: Which has better image quality?
« on: February 07, 2014, 12:39:56 PM »
Dare one ask the question 7D vs 70D vs D7100: which has better image quality?

Worth considering because the D7100 is cheaper than the 70D.

That's a dangerous question to pose on this forum without starting a flame war, but I'll do my best!

If people were honest, they'd admit that the D7100 has the image quality advantage; it is superior on most metrics. The point of argument would be how much better it is and how important the image quality advantage is compared to other features. I would say that the D7100 is the better all round stills camera, with its weakness being buffer depth, plus a bit of build quality compared to the 7D. That being said, one doesn't buy a camera body in isolation, but as part of a system. I wouldn't say that anything that Nikon has to offer is compelling enough to offset the changeover costs, if one has a decent collection of EF mount glass. If one doesn't own any glass from either manufacturer, then deciding which lenses one is likely to need is a factor. To be honest, unless you're into wildlife or sports, I'm not sure that either manufacturer has the most compelling lens line-up for their APS-C cameras and I might be tempted to look elsewhere (e.g. m4/3rds or Fuji).

64
Lenses / Re: 24-70 f/2.8 L II front coating peeling off?
« on: February 06, 2014, 01:46:43 PM »
UPDATE: I've just heard back from my friend, the technician at the service centre told him that it is very unusual for the lens coating to peel in this way after such a sort period of time. Usually they would expect to see signs of very heavy usage on the body of the lens in these cases. The service centre have been instructed to replace the front element under warranty and send the damaged front element back to Canon for further investigation. Meanwhile it looks like my friend will have his repaired lens back tomorrow.
I'd say this might be a case of an isolated manufacturing defect. I don't think it's anything to worry about if you own this lens, but worth knowing in case it does happen to you.


That is a good, responsible  reaction from the manufacturer.... S___ happens, they can either learn from it or deny it... looks like they chose to learn.

+1 -which is why I wanted to update the thread when I heard of the outcome: credit where credit is due.

65
Lenses / Re: 24-70 f/2.8 L II front coating peeling off?
« on: February 06, 2014, 01:43:01 PM »
UPDATE: I've just heard back from my friend, the technician at the service centre told him that it is very unusual for the lens coating to peel in this way after such a sort period of time. Usually they would expect to see signs of very heavy usage on the body of the lens in these cases. The service centre have been instructed to replace the front element under warranty and send the damaged front element back to Canon for further investigation. Meanwhile it looks like my friend will have his repaired lens back tomorrow.
I'd say this might be a case of an isolated manufacturing defect. I don't think it's anything to worry about if you own this lens, but worth knowing in case it does happen to you.

They do a large batch of them at once.  It is a very critical process, but its hard to understand why it would not affect a whole production run, or at least a whole tray of them, unless someone happened to somehow get just one lens dirty, or the cleaning process missed one lens.
 
You can get some info about the process here;
 
http://youtu.be/qzpt49qq6v4


Even with the most thorough quality control, there is always variability which can mean that a defective unit slips through inspection. This is especially so when you are using statistical process control to ensure that correct standards are being achieved. This might be the case when there are a large number of units and it is uneconomic to inspect them all (although, as the video link clearly shows - Canon are claiming 100% sampling for lens element QC checks at the grinding stage), or when a particular check requires a unit to be destroyed (e.g. you wouldn't want to crash test every car you made!). This could possibly be the case (I'm speculating here) with lens coating resilience: you could test a statistically significant percentage, but if the testing process is damaging to the lens element or takes a long time (e.g. an accelerated ageing simulation), you couldn't test them all. Japanese companies tend to lead the way in process control and I'm sure that Canon has well developed procedures and tight tolerance limits for its processes, but even these cannot guarantee that no faulty unit will reach the customer. I'm guessing that given the opinion of the repair centre technician that it is not caused by misuse, is why Canon have expressed an interest in investigating the problem further: this is the sort of problem that technocratic Japanese managers like to deal with.

66
Lenses / Re: 24-70 f/2.8 L II front coating peeling off?
« on: February 06, 2014, 10:39:25 AM »
UPDATE: I've just heard back from my friend, the technician at the service centre told him that it is very unusual for the lens coating to peel in this way after such a sort period of time. Usually they would expect to see signs of very heavy usage on the body of the lens in these cases. The service centre have been instructed to replace the front element under warranty and send the damaged front element back to Canon for further investigation. Meanwhile it looks like my friend will have his repaired lens back tomorrow.
I'd say this might be a case of an isolated manufacturing defect. I don't think it's anything to worry about if you own this lens, but worth knowing in case it does happen to you.

67
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: New Pentax 645d ii is coming next week
« on: February 06, 2014, 10:26:46 AM »
I wonder what this will do to the market for a 1Ds Mk3 replacement? It might help to speed up a new high-megapixel 1D series body,  or it might force Canon to rethink their strategy and move the high-megapixel sensor into a lower end body. A lot will depend upon the price of this new Pentax 645...

68
Lenses / Re: 24-70 f/2.8 L II front coating peeling off?
« on: February 04, 2014, 11:38:48 AM »
It's certaily possible for the coatings to become damaged or to delaminate.  If the outer protective layer(s) are damaged (by physical impact like an object hitting the front element or a scratch caused by larger particulates on the lens when it's rubbed with a cleaming cloth), moisture can penetrate the layers of coatings, and some of the antireflective layers are quite susceptible to moisture damage (not even water on the lens - humidity is enough).  Use of inappropraite cleaning solution can damage coatings, even Scotch tape can cause microscopic lesions of the surface.

Possible explanation, but it was quite widespread over the front element (sorry, I didn't think to take a photo at the time). At first, I thought it was just moisture, but it wouldn't rub off; it also didn't look like your usual scratches: they weren't thin lines, but fat and speckled. It's strange because it's his newest lens (less than a year old) and none of the others are in this sort of state, despite similar usage.

UPDATE: I've just had a 'phone call from him (whilst typing this); Canon are blaming this on "excessive cleaning". The lens is just over 12 months old and apparently been cleaned with only a microfibre lens cloth... Time to buy UV filters for my lenses? Oh rats, the good ones are multi-coated too!!!  :o

69
Lenses / 24-70 f/2.8 L II front coating peeling off?
« on: February 04, 2014, 08:38:15 AM »
I have a friend whose 24-70 f/2.8 L II is currently with Canon, as the front coating appears to be separating from the glass of the front element. Has anyone else experienced anything like this with any of their lenses and if so, how did Canon respond?

70
Lenses / Re: How many radioactive lenses do you own?
« on: February 03, 2014, 01:36:57 PM »
Apparently, my M42 mount SMC Takumar 55mm f/1.8 is radioactive...  :o

71
Lenses / Photozone's review of the Sigma 24-105 f/4 Art is online
« on: February 02, 2014, 02:47:22 PM »
Pretty similar to the Canon 24-105 L, but with better centre resolution...

EDIT: Sorry, forgot to post the link -how rude of me!

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/864-sigma24105f4eos

72
PowerShot / Re: Canon PowerShot G1 X Successor Coming Shortly [CR2]
« on: February 02, 2014, 02:28:30 PM »
And if it features another slow zoom lens and tiny optical viewfinder, it will be equally unexciting.

73
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon Curved Aperture Diaphragm
« on: January 27, 2014, 04:58:52 PM »
So one of the Canon engineers was playing around with his wife's steamer basket and thought "ah ha!"...  :D

74
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon 11-24mm f/4 Lens
« on: January 25, 2014, 03:16:44 PM »
I find myself agreeing with Dilbert (God forbid  ;) ) on this one: fix the bread and butter lenses first before moving on to exotica.

75
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS-A1 with Hybrid EVF? [CR1]
« on: December 21, 2013, 03:49:45 PM »
Seems to me that the 1D C is s bit crippled as a video camera without an EVF. A hybrid OVF/EVF would also be a great addition to a high mega pixel flagship stills camera, for critical focusing tasks.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 44