Messages

76

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Chipworks low level sensor reviews: Canon vs Nikon vs Sony

« on: October 25, 2012, 08:40:11 AM »

Sorry,

I think that I may have posted on the same topic before I realised that you had already! 

It's good to actually read some analysis based upon research and facts in all the rumour, hype and speculation.  For me, the Chipworks articles show that Canon has been eeking out the last performance from an older generation (or two!!) of technology.  The important thing is that Canon has reached the point where they need to change their fab process and modify their sensor designs to support the new technology. 

It seems to me that Canon aren't in a great position with regards to sensors.  They have been buying in Sony designs for their compact cameras and so lack the design experience as pixel size shrinks, as well as the economies of scale for their R&D departments.  Canon also maintain their own capital intensive fabs solely for larger sensors (APS-C & full frame), which could be what is tying them into older fab technology (i.e. lower production volumes means it takes them longer to amortise the fab assets).

While I think it is almost certain that Canon will need to move to (at least) a 0.18µm process in its next generation of sensors, that doesn't mean that Canon isn't equipped to do that.  Without intimate knowledge of Canon's capabilities, we are all speculating.
Canon potentially benefits a lot commercially from skipping 0.35µm and 0.25µm processes for its larger sensors.

On the compact side, Canon has for a number of year made its own sensors - notably in the G series.  Although these do not have the highest resolution, they do pack a high pixel density.  I think we may be speculating hugely to say Canon does not have the experience of designing to higher pixel densities.

An alternate view could also be that, given what Canon has pulled out of a 0.5µm process, it bodes well for what Canon can do with a 0.18µm process.  Canon will almost certainly release a new generation of APS-C sensors next year, so it will be interesting to see how well such a new design performs, and whether there is a significant performance improvement.

You're correct with the G-series, but that isn't where the volume is: think mobile 'phone camera chips. 

I'm sure that Canon are very good at the 0.5µm design level, but that won't necessarily help at 0.18µm.  My main issue is with Canon's approach of fabbing their own sensors; I think they could get a lot more flexibility by subcontracting the actual manufacturing out and concentrating on R&D.  If they are determined to keep fab in-house, I think that they need to try and expand production by fabbing sensors for other manufacturers. 

77

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Full frame sensor design - Canon vs. Nikon vs. Sony

« on: October 25, 2012, 07:48:18 AM »

Please refer to the following thread -this is a duplicate (sorry -didn't notice when I posted)

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=10469.0

78

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Chipworks low level sensor reviews: Canon vs Nikon vs Sony

« on: October 25, 2012, 07:28:52 AM »

Sorry,

I think that I may have posted on the same topic before I realised that you had already! 

It's good to actually read some analysis based upon research and facts in all the rumour, hype and speculation.  For me, the Chipworks articles show that Canon has been eeking out the last performance from an older generation (or two!!) of technology.  The important thing is that Canon has reached the point where they need to change their fab process and modify their sensor designs to support the new technology. 

It seems to me that Canon aren't in a great position with regards to sensors.  They have been buying in Sony designs for their compact cameras and so lack the design experience as pixel size shrinks, as well as the economies of scale for their R&D departments.  Canon also maintain their own capital intensive fabs solely for larger sensors (APS-C & full frame), which could be what is tying them into older fab technology (i.e. lower production volumes means it takes them longer to amortise the fab assets). 

79

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Full frame sensor design - Canon vs. Nikon vs. Sony

« on: October 25, 2012, 06:55:55 AM »

An interesting couple of articles from Chipworks [via Canon Watch]:

http://www.chipworks.com/blog/technologyblog/2012/10/23/full-frame-dslr-cameras-part-1-nikon-vs-sony/
http://www.chipworks.com/blog/technologyblog/2012/10/24/full-frame-dslr-cameras-canon-stays-the-course/

Refreshing to actually read some facts amongst all the rumours and speculation.  The second part throws some light on why Canon seems stuck around 20MP and what the future might hold. 

80

EOS Bodies / Re: PhotoPlus Announcements?

« on: October 22, 2012, 08:51:41 AM »

I’ve also heard through the grapevine that Canon USA wasn’t all too happy with the purported Photoshop’d EOS-3 with a 46.1mp sensor articles that popped up not too long ago. That in itself is quite interesting, as why would they care about something that isn’t real?

Possibly because they're marketing machine is trying to convince the user base that 20MP class cameras are enough for everyone's needs?

81

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Soon-To-Be-Released Tamron 70-200 2.8?

« on: October 21, 2012, 01:09:16 PM »

I used to own the earlier Tamron 70-200 and I rate it as sharper than the first two Canon 70-200mm f/2.8s.  I picked mine up new for a very cheap price and traded it in to a dealer for nearly the same amount against a Canon 70-200 f/2.8.  Mine had an aperture fault that affected the camera in cold weather, so that might be something to bear in mind.  In general, build quality was fine for me, more plastic than the Canons, but very good plastic.   Its biggest flaw was its AF motor, which was slow and inaccurate.  If Tamron can keep the optical quality of the original and the price reasonable, whilst improving the AF, I would certainly not discount this lens.  My Canon replacement is better built and has better AF, but I still think that the Tamron was sharper, when it worked and when it hit correct focus! 

82

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS-1D X Firmware 1.1.1 Now Available

« on: October 18, 2012, 03:47:06 AM »

"... the new firmware allows cross-type autofocusing with the center AF point when the maximum aperture becomes as small as f/8."

Am I reading this press release wrong? Why only the centre point when users like Arthur Morris have found that the non-centre AF points work fine at f/8 with Kenko teleconverters? It seems that third party or contact taping might still be the preferred method for many users.  Surely all Canon had to do was to get rid of the protocol that disables AF beyond f/5.6 and warn users that AF might not be as reliable?

"I was able to toggle through the various AF Area Selection Modes. Then I pressed the edge of the newly designed joystick; stunned times three. Not only did the 1DX focus with the the Kenko Teleplus PRO 300 DGX 1.4x AF Teleconverter, I was able to move the active AF sensor." http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/page/3/

I should perhaps clarify that this is all based upon Art's blog entry; I have not bought his 1D X user guide (as I don't own a 1D X!).  Perhaps Art and Canon have different standards for AF reliability; maybe Canon are concerned about low light reliability, or possibly they are scared of bad publicity following the 1D(s) MkIII AF debacle?

83

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon EOS-1D X Firmware Update Addresses f/8 & Red AF Points in AI Servo

« on: October 17, 2012, 10:47:57 AM »

Until now, cross-type AF on the EOS-1D X has been limited to EF lenses and lens/extender combinations with a maximum aperture of f/5.6 or larger. The new firmware allows cross-type autofocusing with the center AF point even when the maximum aperture of a Canon EF lens/extender combination becomes as small as f/8. Ideal for wildlife photographers and others who often use EF super-telephoto lenses with extenders, this new feature greatly expands the range of EF lens/extender combinations that support autofocus when used with the EOS-1D X.</p>

Hillarious - translates as: "Everyone keeps telling us that our camera is actually better than we realised, so we decided to reprogram the software to stop telling the AF system to not do what it is clearly capable of if you can con it into doing it". 

If AF point expansion is selected with an f/8 maximum aperture lens/extender combination, the four AF points surrounding the center point will act as AF Assist points. This option effectively expands the size of the AF detection area to enhance autofocus performance with subjects that are small in the frame and difficult to track, such as small animals and birds in flight. AF points above and below the center will be sensitive to vertical contrast, while points to the left and right will be sensitive to horizontal contrast

That is a bit different.  Hope it works well, or many users would be better off using the original firmware and electrical tape over the relevant TC contacts (or buying Kenko). 

84

Lenses / Re: Canon Announcements Next Week? [CR1]

« on: October 17, 2012, 07:43:39 AM »

Big megapixels talk's gone quiet; delays to megabucks lenses... To be honest, other than reputation, this is probably not of much concern to most Canon users, even more so if the hi-res camera is going to be a 1-series.  What do Canon need to do to please most users?

1. Re-establish faith in their core enthusiast market, i.e. APS-C DSLRs (sales figures don't lie, as Neuro likes to point out).  How? EF-S 15mm f/2; EF-S 22mm f/2; EF-S 30mm f/1.8 would be a darn good start! A 70D and a 7D MkII in 2013 are also a requirement (yes, I think there is still a need for two separate models)

2. Next generation of APS-C sensors - we want to see progress: less noise, both at high ISO and in the shadows. 

3. Show commitment to EF-M: enthusiast orientated body with EVF; faster AF; lenses - see point 1 (above)+ 60mm f/2, 85mm f/2 and 55-200mm zoom - credit to Canon for the EF-M f/2, assuming performance is up to snuff. 

4. A more compact large sensor enthusiasts'... well, compact!

Or maybe Canon thinks that everyone will shell out for full frame DSLRs if they spread enough FUD about APS-C's future? Either that, or a lot of people will be taking a serious look at the likes of the OMD EM-5, XE-1 or NEX-6/7 (notice that I've omitted Nikon from that list?). 

Canon's got a lot to prove to their average users (the ones that are least tied in with lens purchases) in 2013. 

85

Lenses / Re: DXO - lens reviews - 300mm f/2.8 IS II - that bad ???

« on: October 15, 2012, 07:48:53 AM »

Don't forget that longer focal length lenses need to be tested at greater distances from the chart than shorter focal length lenses.  This can give unexpected results like when Photozone tested the well regarded EF 400mm L (on an 8MP, 1.6x crop EOS 350D):

"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 (the distance to the test chart is focal-length x 1.6 x ~40). " [http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/173-canon-ef-400mm-f56-usm-l-lab-test-report--review?start=1]

There are also a number of other factors that can come into play, these are well explained by Roger Cicala:

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/09/why-arent-the-damn-numbers-the-same#more-9362

On the other hand, DXO has a bit of a reputation for lens test results that go against the general consensus of other well know lens testers...

86

Lenses / Re: The new 24-70L II vs. 24-105L, 16-35L II, 24L II, and Sigma @ 50m (sharpness)

« on: October 15, 2012, 07:30:59 AM »

Thanks for posting these test shots.  I think that to a certain extent, your photos show how difficult it is to achieve the level of consistency required to form accurate judgements.  I looked at the f/4 tests, as this was where all the lenses that you compared were included but where resolution differences would still be obvious. 

The 24L is so badly front focussed that you can’t tell much from the photo other than the area in focus looks pretty sharp, except for the extreme corners.  The 16-35 is either a bit more front focused than the 24-105, or has big resolution issues in the top right hand corner; given that this corner is the furthest away, I would suspect the former explanation. 

Things aren’t so clear cut with the 24-70 II and 24-105; is it resolution or depth of field issues causing some of the loss of sharpness visible? Comparing these lenses at f/4 to the equivalent photos at f/8, I’d say that the 24-105 is just soft (this conclusion fits with others’ testing).  As for the 24-70 II… Is the softness in the top right caused entirely by depth of field/focusing issues, or is it a bit soft in this part of the frame too?

87

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Question about the diffraction limit of sensors

« on: October 12, 2012, 04:13:44 PM »

Lens softness is far more noticable than diffraction at medium apertures (i.e. ~f/5.6 - f/8 on APS-C).  You'll need very sharp lenses to see the benefit of using larger apertures and you'll certainly notice the softness caused by inadequate depth of field more than diffraction.  I'd recommend reading this article by Ctein, which helps put it all in perspective:

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2011/08/nex-7-diffraction-effects.html

If you're really going to get anal, you'll need a tilt shift lens or a view camera and learn to focus using Scheimpflug principle. 

P.S. - link for a good diffraction calculator (and website in general):

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm

88

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Future of APS-C

« on: October 09, 2012, 10:36:18 AM »

Strangely enough (or perhaps not so...), this is Thom Hogan's "topic of the month":

http://www.bythom.com/

Let's not start to throw insults around, the OP raises this issue at a good time, what with Photokina dominated by full-frame announcements.  The fact of the matter is that APS-C is not going away for two reasons:

1. Full frame is still way too expensive for the lower end of the DSLR market (60D/D7000 and down)

2. There are some people that are focal length limited even with an 800mm lens; a good APS-C DSLR gives these people more pixels on target when they need them (i.e. a crop-frame camera option can co-exist in a camera bag with a full frame body). 

In some ways, the question over the future of APS-C is whether these cameras will continue to be DSLRs, or go 'mirrorless' (I hate that phrase!).  I'm sure that there will be a market for a capable enthusiasts APS-C DSLR for some years yet (i.e. to meet the requirements of case 2 [above]), but I also think that the lower end of the market will increasingly be occupied by 'mirrorless'. 

89

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: 6D Need To Change Something..

« on: October 05, 2012, 09:40:47 AM »

Canon 6D Has Superb ISO Sensitivity...

Not sure about the high ISO performance of 6D, but the D600 is outstanding.
Has anyone checked the D600's preview on DPreview, the high ISO performance is better than 5D3 in RAW
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikon-d600/8

simonxu11, the picture that you posted of the 6D AF point layout looks a lot more like what I have seen previously. 

As for mitesh's post about the high ISO sensitivity of the 6D, it may be the case or it may not.  Just because a manufacturer provides ISO 102,500 doesn't actually mean that the camera is any good at that setting.  Often these extended high ISOs are no better than underexposing at a lower ISO and pushing the exposure in post. 

90

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: 6D Need To Change Something..

« on: October 05, 2012, 08:14:40 AM »

6d vs 5d3 (source: http://thenewcamera.com/canon-6d-vs-canon-5d-mark-iii/)
 

Interesting, the comparisons that I've seen show the 6D's AF points to be much more tightly grouped in the centre than they appear in this picture

See: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=9656.msg174173#msg174173. 

To be honest, I think that I believe the conceptualisations that I found more than the one above.  Can anyone that's actually looked through a 6D viewfinder confirm?

P.S. mitesh, if possible could you please check for previous threads and try posting in them, rather than creating new ones? I know that it can be difficult to find older threads, especially if you're new to the forums, so I'm not trying to have a go at you.  It's just that posting to existing threads can avoid repeating old topics.