Messages

31

Lenses / Re: List of rumored lenses

« on: January 11, 2013, 07:54:55 AM »

Is the 16-35 ii good sharp at edges at F8 at 16? I'd be surprised.

I've been using one for 4 years now....have you tried one? I hope you aren't basing your opinions on forum chatter. Please take a look at my flickr page and see if there are any landscapes where the 16-35IIL is found to be lacking...then again, I never found the 17-40L particularly lacking either. Both are excellent lenses.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/23849425@N06/

Now you might be right, but a couple of low-resolution images on flickr are unable to show the technical merits of the lens (I like the photos though) because nearly everything looks sharp down-sized so much...

32

Canon General / Re: Hey Canon, I've got cash to burn, but...

« on: January 11, 2013, 07:22:07 AM »

So just get 6D. Better shadow noise performance and you can change the focussing screen. What about putting 1.4xtender on your 70-200? or 135L with extender.

Hm, you are right, the 6D has interchangeable focus screens, that's unexpected, I had read somewhere that it doesn't... However I would appreciate the 5D3/1DX AF system, too.

But the extenders are a good idea, might help bridge the time to a 100-400 update, thanks.

33

Canon General / Hey Canon, I've got cash to burn, but...

« on: January 11, 2013, 02:36:42 AM »

...and I'm writing this to counter all the recent Canon bashing and flaming here, I can't find anything worth buying!

My 5D2 needs an upgrade, but the 5D3 doesn't have interchangeable focus-screens which I need for wide-aperture (manual) lenses (and the lack of improvement in the shadow noise is a bit of a let-down). The 1DX would be possible, too, but for that amount of cash I'd like 24 or 28 megapixels (with proportionally slower frame rate), everything else is great.

Since moving to full-frame the 70-200 is a bit short, but I don't want to substitute it with a less-sharp-and-inferior-IS 100-400, give me a new version already, or an updated 300 f/4, I'll take whatever comes first! And what about wide-angle, where is the 14-24 competitor, or even a 17-40 or 16-35 that's half as sharp? Where is the quality 20 IS USM to go with the 24 and 28?

And don't get me started on all the missing or crippled firmware features, some decent updates there might have pushed me to a 5D3 or 1DX, but there's no real auto-iso in m with exposure compensation, no proper way to set the min and max shutter speed or aperture in the semi-auto modes, no histogram when zoomed in like the smallest nikons do, ... ... ...

Rant finished, obviously I don't make my living from photography, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't spend some more on it, because I do shoot a lot and some things are often difficult with my current gear!

34

Lenses / Re: Your "precious" lord of the red rings is?

« on: January 08, 2013, 10:37:30 AM »

3.  I was just trying to creatively ask about your favorite lens.

135L

It might be the 200/2.0 or 300/2.8 but I don't have them.

Now if only there were a version of the 1D-X with 28MP and 7fps, let's call it the 1D-Y.

35

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Natural Progression of Camera Bodies. Type Your story below.

« on: December 24, 2012, 07:35:24 AM »

Canon PowerShot G1
Canon PowerShot G7
Canon EOS 500D
Canon EOS 5D mark II

36

EOS Bodies / Re: First Round of EOS 7D Mark II Specs [CR1]

« on: November 27, 2012, 04:27:04 AM »

Looks like the same 8-channel setup to me. At the minimum, I'm betting on dual DIGIC 5 (non '+').

Isnt't the difference between 5 and 5+ just the frequency at which it's clocked? In that case they could easily clock it at some inbetween frequency, or if they managed to improve a bit even higher than in the 1DX, after all, that's what all other processor manufacturers do.

37

Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS

« on: November 12, 2012, 05:05:07 AM »

The more I think about the 24-70 f/4 L IS USM the more I like it.

Why?

Disregarding image quality the main features for a comparison are focal length, aperture, maximum magnification, and stabilisation.

The 24-70 f/4 is worse than the 24-105 f/4 for focal length, but better for maximum magnification. Now here's my take:

In practice, when not using the macro, I am often MM limited or focal-length limited, the difference is that an MM of 0.7 could often be enough, whereas in situations where 70mm aren't enough I often need more than 105mm, too, so the 24-105 is of no real advantage.

I actually have the 24-70 f/2.8 I now, which I got over the 24-105 for the larger aperture, but since I've got a couple of fast primes this isn't half as important as it used to be.

38

Canon General / Re: Canon Can't Even Make a Billion Dollars Anymore

« on: October 29, 2012, 11:11:08 AM »

A quote from Canon's press release;

"Demand for interchangeable-lens digital cameras continued to realize
robust growth in all regions while the market for compact digital cameras shrunk due to the stagnation of the global economy."

http://www.canon.com/ir/results/2012/rslt2012q3e.pdf

Aren't compacts going away because phones are now good enough to replace a compact for most people?

39

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon to start using 0.18um (180nm) process for FF?

« on: October 29, 2012, 09:03:26 AM »

In a way, though, we are victims of Canon's success.  They're on top, have been on top for a long time, and thus the pressures to innovate are less strong.

So we should all publicly hold off from buying a new Canon (FF) DSLR until they migrate to the new process.

Assuming that it will bring the desired/required/imagined advantages (and it's not too late, like for Neuro' :-).

40

EOS Bodies / Re: PhotoPlus Announcements?

« on: October 22, 2012, 11:46:16 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?

This and if Canon users are expecting a higher mp enthusiast camera anytime soon, they might be very disappointed when they realize that it's a $9k 1d-body and it'll take years to trickle down the tech into more affordable regions.

If Canon would say "More than 22mp in a consumer body be until the 5d mk4" then some people are bound to abandon ship and go Nikon.

Or get a 5D3 and sit it out because they can be sure it won't be obsoleted (by Canon) too soon?

41

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon EOS-1D X DXOMark Sensor Scores

« on: October 11, 2012, 07:50:56 AM »

Oh, it's about DXOMark.

Comfortable chair? Check!

Beverages and snacks? Check!

Let the flaming begin, I'm ready ;-)

42

EOS Bodies / Re: More Big Megapixel Talk [CR1]

« on: October 04, 2012, 03:37:53 AM »

Why is 14 a hard limit ? I understand that it's impossible to represent more than 2^14 different intensities but that's not what dynamic range is. DR is log2(saturation point) - log2( blackpoint). Why can't this be greater than the number of bits in the ADC converter ?

It could with a nonlinear ADC, except that almost all IC-based ADCs are linear.  So, while the analog DR is the delta between the full well capacity and the noise floor (in e^-), a 14-bit ADC maps signal at the noise floor to 0 and signal at full well capacity to 16,383, binning intermediate e^- values incrementally, subject to quantization error.

You have the response (possibly nonlinear of the ADC). What about the response of the sensor itself to light ? Must this always be exactly linear ?

Also, if I pool four adjacent signals into one supersize pixel, how many bits do I have in my new "superpixel" ? Do I not have 56 bits ?

That would be too easy, no, when merging 4 pixels you gain (at best) two more bits, because 4 is 2^2 (where the exponent is the one we're interested in). Think about it, you have 4 times a value from 0 to X, so the combination gives you a value from 0 to X*4, which is two additional bits, not X^4 or whatever you need to go to 56 bits! Said differently, you can't multiply the bits by 4 when you multiply the pixels by 4 because the pixels are on a linear, and the bits on a logarithmic scale.

43

EOS Bodies / Re: More Big Megapixel Talk [CR1]

« on: September 26, 2012, 06:44:05 AM »

I rather have a 7MP camera with the dynamic range of a 4K video camera than 40+MP with the existing DR

I dream of the day I can get the same output out of my camera as to what I see in the viewfinder.

Technology today should enable multiple sensors for highlights and shadows and midtones combined in real time.

Even if the camera did 3fps and have 7MP (approx. 4K resolution) I would
Buy one.

It's about time cameras start "seeing" what we see...

multiple sensors? around $20K up.     It will only be available for those who really gets a lot of money through photography or those very rich pampered guys.  Well, we can dream...

Have a single sensor, but with a mask that drops a few stops on every other pixel, i.e. they've got sunglasses on. Combine the pixels and off you go. It would just drop the resolution of your sensor by 1/2, so if you combine it with a higher pixel sensor overall (46mp), then you'd stay par with today with increased DR. I should patent that idea (probably already been done)

Fuji has built sensors with alternating larger and smaller pixels for higher dynamic range.

44

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 3D at 46.1mp Next Month? [CR1]

« on: September 25, 2012, 10:07:39 AM »

Yes! Yes! Yes!

Now 28 or 32 would have been enough, but I'll take 46, too ;-)

45

Lenses / Re: List of rumored lenses

« on: September 21, 2012, 08:44:45 AM »

I would rather have a 10-600 f/2 perfectly alligned for an APS-C, weighing not more than 500 gram, which has perfect image quality, no vingetting or CA at all, fully sharp wide open, and is delivered as a kit lens.

Sold seperately for under $1000.

Likelyness it is going to happen? About the same as other suggestions made here 

You forgot it also needs to be a pancake :-)

You also forgot that it has to have IS, tilt, shift and macro capabilities too 

Wouldn't buy, no soft focus!