January 27, 2015, 09:59:00 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 - rs

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 47
EOS Bodies / Re: Do what?
« on: May 28, 2014, 08:50:53 AM »
3.) This resolution differential can clearly be seen in downsized images (as small 1800x1200 px for instance).

How wrong my assumptions are. I was under the impression that if you have two images, both taken with lenses and sensors capable of exceeding 2.1 MP by a big margin, and then output them at a resolution of just 2.1 MP, the resolution would be the same.

Still, what does logic mean when you can throw in a good dose of moiré which can create false information, corrupting the image at any size?

EOS Bodies / Re: Debating on selling my 5D II and 35L/135L for a...
« on: May 26, 2014, 12:24:03 PM »
Sony RX10.
24-200mm 2.8 equivalent, 1in sensor, good size and grip.

It has an 8.8-73.3/2.8 lens. Which, in 35mm equivalent terms is a 24-200/7.6

My guess is that Canon will retain the 82mm filter size, and upgrade the next 70-200/2.8L to 82mm as well.
In this way, the f72.8L "holy trinity" series (16-35, 24-70, 70-200) all use 82mm filters, whereas the f/4L mid-range series uses 77mm filters.
Both the 70-200/4 lenses have 67mm filter threads

Technical Support / Re: canon 70-200 f2.8 II problem
« on: May 21, 2014, 11:11:28 AM »
but shouldn't it stop when he swithed the stabilizer off???
It could be something as innocent as a faulty IS switch - so no matter what physical position the switch is in, it intermittently shorts, turning the IS on/off regularly?

Typically turning the IS on/off yourself regularly will cause those exact same symptoms - the viewfinder jumping and motor noise.

Technical Support / Re: canon 70-200 f2.8 II problem
« on: May 21, 2014, 07:22:31 AM »
Both the jumping viewfinder and the noise point at an image stabiliser fault.

Send it in for repair. Is it still under warranty?

Lenses / Re: The Next \
« on: May 20, 2014, 01:21:36 AM »
...be worth it as well if they can maintain a constant f/4.

You realize how nutty that request is?  It would be bigger (and more expensive) than the 200-400/4.

Not if it's an EF-S L   8)
The smaller imaging circle doesn't reduce the physical size of the lens when the angle of view is narrower than 45 degrees (longer than 50mm in FF terms).

A 400/4 lens requires an entrance pupil that's exactly 100mm in diameter. That means the front element cannot be any smaller than 100mm, regardless of the imaging circle size. Add in the complexities of a zoom and IS, and you've got a full size 200-400.

Lol....UK pricing for the 16-35 f4 LIS seems to be nearly as expensive as the f2.8 version!
While I'm sure the UK price will fall dramatically once the product is on the shelves, i really thing that canon urgently needs to refresh it's UK RRP policy.
It's a tax for the impatient.

...my point was that shallow DOF is not the drawing card for UWA lenses...

Not for you, but then, you're not 'everyone'.

Fine, if shallow DOF in ultrawide is your thing, have at it.  But you'd get better results with a 24 1.4, than 2.8 zoom
In some situations a prime and/or 24mm focal length won't do, even for those who want a large aperture. In those scenarios a zoom covering the range which is as fast as is practical is the best option. f2.8 is still a whole stop up on f4. A whole stop in every respect, including the effects on DoF.

Lenses / Re: EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM Image Samples
« on: May 17, 2014, 04:19:18 AM »
"I highly doubt I'd sidegrade my 10-22mm for this..."

"I'll be keeping my 10-22mm for a bit longer" 

"not nice enough for me to switch from my 10-22"

Typical responses from owners of existing lenses that are 'threatened' by the new lens. Same kind of resposnes from owners of 24-105 when the 24-70 f/4 was introduced, and the 70-200 f/2.8 owners when the Mark II was introduced.

Without any reviews, these folks were able to determine that the new lens is inferior to what they already own. Impartial conclusions, or divertiture aversion?

Or, maybe these folks are right on this one.  The 24-70 f/4 and the 70-200 f/2.8 II were more expensive that what was previously offered.  The 70-200 II was an upgraded version, whereas the 24-70 trades focal length for some IQ and macro capabilities, but it still costs more.  This one is designed to be slower and to cost less than what is in the market (10-22).  The MTF charts don't look radically different, so at the end of the day it may come down to IS and price versus aperture, build quality.

You see the same kind of reaction from existing 16-35 f/2.8 II owners when the 16-35 f/4 IS was announced on the same day. Now this one is a cheaper and slower lens. How do you explain that? It's a cheaper lens that has IS and a better MTF chart, despite losing out in other areas. Perhaps that lens was to replace the 17-40, but 16-35 f/2.8 II owners feel the need to defend their choice of lens as well.

As for MTF charts, I can easily put it another way, of the 3 crop sensor Canon UWAs, the 10-22 is the WORST performing, beaten by the 11-22 and 10-18 that are both cheaper and IS equipped.
First of all, the plastic mount, slower aperture and slower AF are all pretty big pills to swallow on top of the reduced focal length range - all issues people with 24-105's didn't have to contemplate when looking at the 24-70/4.

And secondly, the MTF charts look pretty damn similar at f8. Comparing the performance at any other aperture is impossible with the data so far - one MTF shows 10mm f3.5 performance and the other 10/4.5. Who's to say what's Canon's simulated MTF of the 10-22 looks like at 10mm when stopped down to 4.5? And at the long end it's even harder to compare due to different aperture and focal length.

This lens is a great addition to the lineup. But it is clearly part of the plastic mount, STM, budget lineup. Not the premium EF-S lens range. The budget range is now looking pretty spectacular, and the premium range is getting a little bit old, but you don't hear of many people preferring the really sharp 18-55 STM over the 17-55. They're just not in the same ball park.

Lenses / Re: Canon Working on Faster f/2.8 Ultra Wide Zoom [CR2]
« on: May 16, 2014, 01:33:44 PM »
Thinking mainly aboit landscape on tripod I don't need much aperture or even IS. Just wondering, under which use cases would you need f2.8 wide angles? Events/weddings?
Opening up the aperture doesn't just reduce the depth of field - it also yields faster shutter speeds for the same ISO. So if we take the depth of field at ultrawide angles as being minimally reduced by shooting at f2.8 instead of f4, it's for anyone who wants a fast shutter speed, or keep the same shutter speed with a lower ISO. Which means any photographer shooting moving subjects who want to minimise noise. Events, weddings, sports, and stars all spring to mind.

As useful as IS is, at such short focal lengths camera shake only really has an effect with a very slow shutter - so this is purely of an advantage to photographs of completely stationary subjects, and of course videographers.

I photograph both still and moving subjects with an ultrawide, and due to the usability of long shutters without IS, I believe a brighter aperture is of more use than IS for me with this mixed usage. Therefore as I'm in no pressing need to hit the buy button right now, I'm going to sit this one out and wait to see what comes of an f2.8 ultrawide zoom. And I can rest assured that if nothing comes up before I need to jump, there'll be a damn good f4 IS option available as a backup plan.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: "Higher Bit" Sensors
« on: May 15, 2014, 03:31:13 PM »
All Canon DSLR's for the past several years have shot 14 bit raw.

I'm not aware of any DSLR from any manufacturer that shoots greater than 14 bit raw. Nikon certainly don't.

Technical Support / Re: Err 30 (stuck shutter) once - get it serviced?
« on: April 08, 2014, 08:02:10 AM »
A one off fault, while leaving you with a lack of trust of your equipment could be just that - a one off. It may never occur again, and the chances of a repair centre (no matter how skilled) of finding anything are minimal.

An intermittent fault is much more serious from your point of view, but similarly speaking there's no guarantee a repair centre will pick it up, even with someone testing it full time for weeks on end.

The only types of repair which are likely to be solved are either persistent faults, or intermittent faults which you've managed to work out exactly what conditions invoke the failure.

In other words, if you don't get the error again, leave it.

PowerShot / Re: The manual for the G1 X mark II is published
« on: March 27, 2014, 10:00:42 AM »
No 14-bit RAW or AdobeRGB; boo-hiss!
from Canon's website:
(...)Shooting and Recording Modes Including 14-bit RAW + JPEG
The PowerShot G1 X Mark II offers a host of shooting and recording modes ranging from fully automatic to fully manual, plus Full HD movies and full-resolution high speed continuous shooting. The camera recognizes 58 shooting situations, automatically optimizing settings for achieving the highest quality shots on the go. Alternatively, you can exert complete creative control over the look and feel of your images. 14-bit signal processing, just as in EOS-series cameras, gives images notably rich detail and smooth gradation, and RAW images are available in a choice of 3:2 or 4:3 aspect ratios. Compared with 12-bit processing, 14-bit offers a 4x increase in RAW data for a visible impact, giving images rich detail in both highlights and shadows as well as smoother, more natural tonal gradation for outstanding image quality.(...)

Thanks for debunking that for me; I recall reading it in the specs but I can't remember where, & I couldn't find anything on it in the manual.  I'll still miss the AdobeRGB (my Fuji X10 does it!) but the lower bit depth would have been more of a bummer.
If you shoot raw, the colour space in the files is limited purely by the sensor. Any pre-defined colour space standard is only applied as you convert the raw file to a format such as jpeg - so you can choose what you like at that point - sRGB, Adobe RGB, ProPhoto RGB etc... Cameras only offer an option of colour space for the jpegs it creates.

EOS Bodies / Re: New Full Frame Camera in 2014? [CR1]
« on: March 26, 2014, 12:06:41 PM »
Can movie theaters show 4K movies with their digital projectors?  I'm not really sure what resolution the average 'non-hollywood' film is shot in though.  I would assume it is 1080p or the wide screen equivalent.

Quote from: wikipedia
In digital cinema, resolutions are represented by the horizontal pixel count, usually 2K (2048×1080 or 2.2 megapixels) or 4K (4096×2160 or 8.8 megapixels).

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Patent: Tamron 10mm f/2.8 Fisheye
« on: March 25, 2014, 09:04:11 AM »
Wondering if it would be for Full frame or cropped sensors... Don't have much experience on Fish eyes, but I am quite sure I will buy one at some point in the future, after so many other adquisitions!


It doesn't say the image height in the patent, so its not too clear. However, typically fisheyes for APS-C are around the 8 to 10mm mark, whereas fisheyes for full frame bodies are around the 15mm mark.

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 47