April 18, 2014, 06:19:38 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 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 42
61
I think there may be a processing power and heat dissipation issue with the 20MP sensor from the 70D; either that or it's too expensive to manufacture!

62
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS M2 announced in Japan
« on: December 03, 2013, 03:04:57 AM »
Seems more like a firmware update than a whole new camera...

I thought that, but they're claiming that it is 8% smaller, but as this is volume (i.e. a cubic measure) I bet one wouldn't even notice!

63
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS M2 announced in Japan
« on: December 03, 2013, 02:55:59 AM »
Wow, you're keen -even DPreview hasn't got this up yet!

Looks like nothing but a small warm-over of the original EOS-M. Google Translate is pretty opaque with the wording about the AF system...

64
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS M2 Specs Revealed?
« on: December 02, 2013, 05:40:27 PM »
hmm. no new lenses?

DOA

The 'leak' is of the camera's spec.

Where does it imply there are no new lenses?

I'm guessing because the rumour doesn't mention any, but then it's only a rumour.

I would think that the lens that would be announced with such a camera (i.e. targeting "smaller") would be a short range collapsible/power standard zoom, like the Panasonic 12-32, their PZ 14-42, or Sony's 16-50mm (actually, not too much like this lens because it's bloody rubbish!  ;))

65
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS M2 Specs Revealed?
« on: December 02, 2013, 02:04:45 PM »
There are rumours out there that Nikon is intending to do something different to their "1" series in a P7800 style body; Canon might be advised to do the same. At least they've gone for an APS-C sensor.

The real weakness of the EOS-M system is the lack of lenses. You could probably make do with EF(-S) mount telephotos on the adaptor if the AF system was up to it, as the size difference wouldn't be that great, but the whole point of removing the mirror is to make wide angle lenses more compact.

I can't see Canon bothering to launch any primes with this sort of M2, as it's too consumer orientated and Canon don't think consumers buy primes -witness the total lack of any non-macro primes for the EF-S line (I think the EF-M 22mm f/2 was a sop to the enthusiast press to try and generate some good reviews).

66
EOS Bodies / Re: Two New Full Frame Cameras in 2014? [CR1]
« on: December 02, 2013, 09:49:27 AM »
Gentlemen, please step back from the brink..... a lot of you are getting way to personall and it would be a shame if the moderators had to step in.

I value all civil voices and like to hear both sides of the debate, but only when it is civil. When you resort to name calling and taunting each other, anything good that you have to say gets lost in the noise.

Take a deep breath, count to 10, go take some pictures, whatever.... let us restore our sanity.

+1 ... Well said. I agree

This topic is now ruined by this argument: I haven't read it all, because I really don't care about its contents. It's a shame, because it puts people off posting who might have something genuinely interesting to write...

67
EOS Bodies / Re: Two New Full Frame Cameras in 2014? [CR1]
« on: November 28, 2013, 06:44:15 PM »
...This is a NL rumor, so take it with a huge grain of salt.

Yes, and it's kind of garbled too.

Break it down:

The 5D IV will push toward higher specs. No Sh*t Sherlock. Did you think it would push toward lower specs? No information on when this would be released. Could be 2015, could be 2016, who knows. Just a random statement tossed in there.

Canon's new studio camera will be the one to maximize image quality Again, let's state the obvious. If it's a studio camera it better maximize image quality, else why make it?

There will be no 3D Of course not, Canon will never use the 3D designation unless they build a stereo camera. Too confusing.

By early 2015 there will be four full frame cameras Let's see: a 6D, a 5D, a 1Dx and a studio camera. Yep, that's four.

Two of which will be announced next year Okay, if they have three cameras now. They aren't replacing any of the three, but adding a fourth, where does the "two" come from. Either somebody is bad with math or one of the three could be updated. But which one?

My suspicion is that the 6D won't be updated for awhile says Keith

I’m willing to wager the EOS 6D won’t be replaced before the EOS 5D Mark III or EOS-1D X. says Craig

First off, neither Keith nor Craig are particularly good at predictions. No assessment of their ability to extract information from inside sources – there is a big difference. Craig has the best sources in the industry, and once a rumor hits CR2 or CR3 he's almost never wrong. I'm just saying that when it comes to personal opinions/predictions, the batting average doesn't seem to be any better than anyone else on this forum.

So, let's discount the idea that the 6D won't be replaced before the 5D or the 1D and put them all on equal footing.

Me, I'd bet on the 6D being updated first. There is a lot of headroom between the 6D and the 5D so Canon could throw a 70D/7D autofocus system into the 6D II without seriously impacting sales of the 5D or 1D. The 6D also seems like a prime candidate for the current dual pixel technology. I don't see 5D or 1D owners particularly caring about that until it shows some significant benefits beyond what it offers in the 70D.

The 1Dx is the oldest in the lineup, so it could be updated, but neither Canon nor Nikon like to update the flagship too frequently because the professional customer base just isn't that into frequent upgrades. Still, a late 2014 announcement with availability in 2015 is certainly possible.

Or, it could be the 5DIII. The only reason to update the 5DIII would be because I just bought one, so with my track record, it could get an update. But, honestly, I'm pretty hard pressed to see what they would update that would motivate buyers to upgrade. Especially since the current 5DIII has been a pretty phenomenal seller.

Bottom line, I'd be surprised to see any of these three updated, but my personal bet is the 6D.

You're assuming that a second full frame DSLR won't be something totally new, like some cr*ppy Nikon Df me-too  ;D

68
Lenses / Re: IS Versions of the 50mm, 85mm & 135mm Coming? [CR1]
« on: November 27, 2013, 12:45:09 PM »
*sigh* Ok, new lenses, probably better optical IQ than their previous, with IS (yay?), more expensive and a lot slower. Yes, I said it, f/2.8 is slow. For a good quality prime that is. For a zoom, yea, that's pretty fast. But for the 85mm going from f/1.8 to f/2.8? Ugh.

The rumour states f/2 not f/2.8: granted that's 1/3rd stop slower, but not as bad as you're suggesting. I'd take 1/3rd stop slower maximum aperture if it meant higher resolution at f/2 and lower longitudinal CAs than the current 85mm f/1.8.

69
From what I can see on TDP, there's not a lot between the Sigma and Canon's 24-105 f/4s. The Sigma is perhaps a touch better at the wide end and the Canon a bit better at the long end; nothing that I think most people would notice in real life. No doubt Bryan's full review will find that the Sigma can't focus consistently...

70
Lenses / Re: IS Versions of the 50mm, 85mm & 135mm Coming? [CR1]
« on: November 27, 2013, 12:03:36 PM »

The 135L is a special lens that I don't think will be lumped in with a 50/85 refresh (keep in mind that there also is a 100m F/2 USM that no one talks about, also in need of a refresh).  I see the 135L being a very serious piece of kit that will get its own fanfare when it is released.

The 135mm f/2L is indeed a cut above the non-L primes mentioned; despite the lower price (bonus!), I would place it into a group with the 50mm and the 85mm  f/1.2L. What might be interesting would be a lightweight and lower cost 135mm f/2.8 IS. Judging by the price of the 24mm, 28mm and 35mm refreshes, it might hardly be worth it given the current price of the 135 f/2L, unless IS was really important to your shooting (video?).

71
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXOMark: Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4
« on: November 27, 2013, 09:32:52 AM »
I know DXO scores are pretty arbitrary, but how is the zeiss 6 points higher than the 300/2.8 even though its worse in 4/5 of their "categories"

Because of the difference in speed of the two lenses. Dxo seem to load the 'transmission' score more heavily.

But is a 1.4 lens better than a 2.8 lens per se ?


Well, you see a Score, and you see a bunch of Measurements under it.  Logically, you assume the Score represents some sort of summary or synthesis of those Measurememts.  But, no...that's DxOMark's Biased Scores for you - BS. 

The Lens Score is actually based on 'performance in 150 lux illumination' - the light level of a dimly lit warehouse.  So, the Lens Score is determined mainly by the T-stop of the lens...and by the camera on which the lens is tested.  Like I said...BS.


I find DXO Mark's measurements OK, as long as you're willing to look past the headlines and read the actual results (and not just the summary table). Like most journalism, it catches audience attention with simplistic headlines, not long lists of qualifications and caveats. There are complicating factors when you're trying to compare the resolution of a normal to a 300mm lens; Photozone comments:

"Some may be surprised that all these long tele lenses don't deliver a better performance than many wide-angle lenses. Please note that there's QUITE a bit more space between the test chart with super tele lenses so the longer the focal length the higher is the amount of air diffusion" [http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/173-canon-ef-400mm-f56-usm-l-lab-test-report--review?start=1]

although this is in relation to the 400mm f/5.6L on APS-C, the principle remains. If I were to criticize DXO Mark's comparison, it would be for making this sort of facile comparison at all. From a photographic point of view comparing a 55mm to a 300mm lens makes about as much sense as comparing a sports car to a tractor.

72
Third Party Manufacturers / Sony to revolutionize our lives!
« on: November 27, 2013, 08:27:06 AM »
Take that Canon and Nikon, Sony are about to revolutionize our lives with this!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-25099262

And to think that people made fun of that Canon calculator mouse!

73
PowerShot / Re: PowerShot Cameras Coming for CES 2014 in January [CR1]
« on: November 22, 2013, 03:19:36 PM »
The G series is still quite compact compared to some DSLRs...  For an APS-C sensor (as rumored) if they can maintain the size of the present G1X, this is still one of the smallest even among mirrorless aps-c.

A G1X successor would make sense if they kept the body size the same, fitted an EOS-M mount, an EVF and dual-pixel PDAF. Of course, that would require them to show commitment to EOS-M and release some more lenses, which they are not doing at the moment.

74
PowerShot / Re: PowerShot Cameras Coming for CES 2014 in January [CR1]
« on: November 22, 2013, 06:28:52 AM »
G1X with an APS-C sensor?  Hmmm....  Nice but could be too big to be one of the "G" series.  If compact enough like G1X, then count me in.  This can be a very good backup/fun camera if the on-sensor dual AF can be copied from 70D.  10 to 15MP should  be more than enough.  I like a 17/18-135 F3.5-5.6 lens though. 

On the other hand, why not the eos-M with a viewfinder and a built-in flash instead?  Both should be almost the same size.  G1X with APS-C sensor doesn't make sense really unless they can make the lens smaller and retractable just like the G series.    ::)


G1X... compact? I think our definitions must differ, I find it pretty bulky.

http://j.mp/1dnFrac

Likewise, I think that the other G-series are now too big for the level of performance that they offer; I never did like my G12. Hopefully a G1X successor will offer an EVF instead of the crappy tunnel viewfinder of the rest of the G-series.

Maybe they'll follow Sony's example with the RX10 and move to a larger sensor in the SX series, as I don't think that increasing the focal length of the lens is really achieving much.

75
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: How does Olympus get away with this?
« on: November 18, 2013, 12:09:18 PM »
It does get interesting when you try to compare two cameras... You set them both at ISO1600 and look at the noise.... camera A appears to be cleaner than B... then you realize that the ISO's are different and you are comparing 800 to 1600....

It looks to me like DXO Mark has come up with a test that proves you can not compare apples to oranges :-)

Yes, I thought that, but I reconsidered after reading Mt Spokane Photography's comments. The way I see it, if camera A reports ISO1600 and shows a SNR of say 26dB and camera B reports the same ISO and SNR, what does it matter if the sensor output from camera A is only at ISO800 and has been brightened in software? To the photographer, the output looks the same. It is not as if you could brighten the image from camera B by a stop and see less noise, as the SNR is the same.

Unless someone can think of a reason why the opposite is true...?

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 42