November 26, 2014, 03:32:44 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 - rs

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 47
1
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 5DIV: 36 MP US $ 3799 TBA in March 2015
« on: November 23, 2014, 08:15:46 AM »
I wouldn't bet on 36MP.

DxOMark gives some FF lenses (600mm mkII, 24-70mm mkII) as much as 13-14MP on the 70D. If the lens' corner IQ was as good as the center, they would produce a wee under 36MP on FF.

Taking DxO's ratings as gospel is almost in the same league as doing the same with KR. OK, it's not that bad  ::)

2
Lenses / Re: 60d lense options ?
« on: November 23, 2014, 05:28:28 AM »
The three lenses you've listed all exist as they fill very different needs. Amongst the countless lenses that could be added to your list is the highly acclaimed Canon 17-55/2.8 IS, but again, that's aimed at a different market to the other three. If you want to get any sort of meaningful advice, you'll need to answer the following:

What subjects are you planning on shooting with your new lens?
What lens/lenses have you already got?
What's your budget?
What focal lengths do you need?
Do you want a fast lens to stop action?
What are you looking to gain from this new lens?

3
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 5DIV: 36 MP US $ 3799 TBA in March 2015
« on: November 23, 2014, 01:37:46 AM »
Very credible and consistent spec list. Definitely not just poorly thought out click bait:

Storage

Two CF slots.

Weight

30.0 oz. (850g) with battery and SD card.

4
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon EF-S 11-24mm f/3.5-4.5
« on: November 20, 2014, 03:05:25 AM »

Also the back focus of just 3.26mm means its not even EF-S, as that has a 44.0mm flange distance and a mirror box to clear.

This appears to be an EF-M lens.

+1 I don't think it's a coincidence that this patent coincides with rumours of a new EOS-M.

kind of moronic because there's already an exceptional 11-22mm EF-M out there.

Moronic or not, read the patent. How can it mount onto a DSLR with that BF?

Please remember that just because there is a patent, it doesn't mean this lens will become a production reality.

5
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon EF-S 11-24mm f/3.5-4.5
« on: November 18, 2014, 10:33:25 AM »
Yeah, I'd be very interested if it's EF.  I use my 10-22 almost every day, and wouldn't be at all interested in losing anything off the wide end.
If you want EF 11-24, there's the rumoured upcoming EF 11-24/4L that you should keep a look out for.

This is definitely not EF. The image height (radius of imaging circle, half the diagonal) in this patent is 13.66mm. It is enough for a 1.6x crop with its 27mm diagonal, but not enough for a 1.0x sensor with its 43.3mm diagonal.

Also the back focus of just 3.26mm means its not even EF-S, as that has a 44.0mm flange distance and a mirror box to clear.

This appears to be an EF-M lens.

6
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Is IQ better with smaller files?
« on: November 18, 2014, 10:00:57 AM »
The S/N ratio is unaffected. There is no less noise in the low resolution image. What is going on is a difference in how much you can enlarge the resulting image.

If you view both images at a 1:1 pixel ratio on your display, there will be more noise visible in the high resolution image. But at the same time, more detail is visible. This is because the extra resolution has allowed you to enlarge that image to a much greater extent.

What you have to do is forget about what extra noise and detail you can see at a 1:1 pixel ratio, but look at them both with the same enlargement - that is, print them both at the same size, or display them both on a monitor at the same size. Then you'll quickly come to realise that there is zero difference in the amount of noise. The only difference is the higher resolution image gives you more latitude for enlargement before pixelation sets it.

7
Good comment regarding the MTF information with the 1.4x attached.  It looks very good on the MTF, but I hadn't thought about the diffraction at f8 keeping you from attaining the theoretical.  At f8 that is only getting started, so I'll keep my fingers crossed.  I'm still hoping that the resulting 560mm will be better than the 400mm I'm getting on the 70-200.  If the testing shows it isn't, then that will probably cause an all stop on the changes I'm making on the long end of my kit.  Depends how good it is with just the lens.

Bear in mind that as good as the 70-200 II is, when used with a 2x TC and a 1.6x crop body, the end result is much the same as using a 3.2x TC. That is really pushing it. I'd be willing to put money on the 100-400 at full zoom on a 1.6x body being much better.

Even with a 1.4x TC on the 100-400 and the 1.6x crop factor, it's a lower 2.24x magnification. Still pretty radical expecting to get ~900mm out of a 400mm lens, but it's much closer to sensible limits than 3.2x.

Diffraction is possibly the most predictable form of aberration out there, and mild forms of it (which you'd get with a 1.4x TC even wide open) could possibly be largely overcome with a very mild amount of sharpening in PP.

If you're uncertain, I'd suggest waiting for the digital pictures test chart shots of the lens, hopefully with this body too. Certainly looking at the standard lens to compare bodies, the 200/2, when set the f5.6, there's hardly any resolving difference between a 7D II and a 6D. Big difference between a 7D II and 7D. Let's hope he uses the 7D II as the standard crop body to test with from now on, and does the 100-400 II with/without TC's with that.

8
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7DII AF system explained by Chuck Westfall
« on: November 17, 2014, 01:10:40 PM »
Looks like a quick summary is the 1D X has the best AF in most regards with a super tele, the 7D II is the best in most regards with a slow lens (slower than f4 wide open) such as the 100-400 II, and for other lenses, pick whichever body ticks the most boxes for you.

9
Software & Accessories / Re: My HP Laptop getting too hot!
« on: November 17, 2014, 04:52:41 AM »
Check the fans still run, and the air vents aren't blocked.

10
I'm seriously considering the 7D II and 100-400 II for the exact same reasons (although in addition to my kit). For the same reasons, I've got little need for that reach until Q1/Q2 next year, so I'm holding off to see what happens with reviews and prices.

My take is that the two should be an awesome combo for portable reach, but although the lenses MTF charts look razor sharp with the 1.4x attached, that f8 aperture will induce diffraction on the 7D II, so it won't be fully realised. I'm not sure if the extender will be better than cropping on that body.

It looks like you've got a well thought out upgrade strategy there, one which works better than your previous setup for your subjects.

11
Reviews / Re: Sigma 150-600 OS Sports reivew (Nikon)
« on: November 17, 2014, 02:59:53 AM »
Just to put the lens comparison into perspective, he's comparing the 150-600 wide open at 600 to this:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=650&Camera=614&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=2&LensComp=739&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

The Tamron beats that quite easily, so I'm sure the Sigma can.

12
What does the metadata and file size look like? Genuine 6D files? And what sort of date/time are these images? During the time the camera was stored or had the lens cap on?

13
Quote
......
– Records 2K with 16,000 frames per second.

So a 7D2 at 2K 60Hz video cranks out 440Mbytes per minute.... At 16000 fps that becomes 117,333Mbytes per minute or a mere 1,956Mbytes per second. My 32Gbyte CF card would hold 16.3 seconds worth of video....

I think I need a bigger card :)


Are those values for RAW video? Generally speaking, you can gain massive compression ratios with video, and at such high frame rates, the differences between frames are going to be quite small, so I would expect the compression ratio to be even higher.
That would take some pretty impressive processing power to achieve a good level of compression in real time at that frame rate.

14
Great. So each colour is sampled at a different time, as the colour filter physically moves in front of the pixel. This will be great for tripod based static scene shots, but will result in colour tearing - much like a field sequential display does. Bad news for video, bad news for stills of anything that moves as there will effectively be three exposures taken at different times for red, green and blue, and then all merged into one.

Plus the exposure time for each colour cannot be more than 1/3rd of the total exposure time, so I'd hazard a guess that the sensitivity isn't increased either by these larger pixels for the same resolution. And as the filter can't transition instantly between the colours, its less than 1/3rd of the exposure time available to each colour.

did you read that the sensor is able to readout 16000 times a second?

i wonder how you will see color smearing.... especially when bayer sensors are all about "smearing colors".
A 1/8000 shutter speed would only allow time for two colours at that paltry speed. Three readouts, or 24,000 per second is needed for full colour and full on tearing at the shutter speeds most of us can use right now. If long shutter speeds could be made up of hundreds or thousands of frames stacked together, then it could be good - at slow shutter speeds. Forget about it for action until that figure closes in on millions per second, but then you're still left with low sensitivity due to shorter exposure times per colour. Not to mention the processing, and how to make something move millions of times a second.

you are translating bayer sensor tech to a new sensor tech.
im not sure your example works that way for a new sensor design.

but im pretty sure sony thought about it IF this sensor is a real development...

No. There is absolutely nothing in any bayer sensor which requires multiple readouts during the exposure time.

15
Great. So each colour is sampled at a different time, as the colour filter physically moves in front of the pixel. This will be great for tripod based static scene shots, but will result in colour tearing - much like a field sequential display does. Bad news for video, bad news for stills of anything that moves as there will effectively be three exposures taken at different times for red, green and blue, and then all merged into one.

Plus the exposure time for each colour cannot be more than 1/3rd of the total exposure time, so I'd hazard a guess that the sensitivity isn't increased either by these larger pixels for the same resolution. And as the filter can't transition instantly between the colours, its less than 1/3rd of the exposure time available to each colour.

did you read that the sensor is able to readout 16000 times a second?

i wonder how you will see color smearing.... especially when bayer sensors are all about "smearing colors".
A 1/8000 shutter speed would only allow time for two colours at that paltry speed. Three readouts, or 24,000 per second is needed for full colour and full on tearing at the shutter speeds most of us can use right now. If long shutter speeds could be made up of hundreds or thousands of frames stacked together, then it could be good - at slow shutter speeds. Forget about it for action until that figure closes in on millions per second, but then you're still left with low sensitivity due to shorter exposure times per colour. Not to mention the processing, and how to make something move millions of times a second.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 47