July 24, 2014, 02:35:04 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 - bseitz234

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 18
46
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 70D Spec List [CR3]
« on: July 02, 2013, 09:12:34 PM »
then,  outside of build quality and a few faster shots per second,  what advantage does the 7d mki have over the 70d?

None...until its specs are known.  But probably better standard phase AF, better sealing to go with the better build, perhaps better metering, definitely more C# modes, more MP, much better high ISO, time will tell...

Ooh! Ooh! I get to correct Neuro!!

That said mki, not mkii ;-) We know the specs on the mki.

I expect your 1dx caused you to forget about your poor 2nd body... ;-)

47
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 70D Images Surface Early
« on: July 01, 2013, 11:27:42 PM »
Hmmm, is it worth upgrading from the 60D? New specs including built in WiFi would be very handy. Are they going to loose the annoying "lock" button on the control dial on the top of the body?

Looking at the pictures, it looks like it locks to me. Sorry....

48
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 70D Spec List [CR3]
« on: June 29, 2013, 03:50:49 PM »
I am surprised that nobody so far has asked the big question about the 70D..... Does the mode dial go all the way around?

It definitely looks like it locks!!!1!!1!one!1!

</sarcastic excitement>

49
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 70D Spec List [CR3]
« on: June 28, 2013, 08:53:49 AM »
$1199 would be a downright bargain, compared to canon's normal pricing lately. If this comes in at that price point, I'm SUPER excited for the 7d2 because I might actually be able to afford it...

Re: CPUs and AF system. The 7D has dual digic 4, + 1 processor for AF. This has 1 digic 5+, which has "18 x computing power" (see above). Now, I understand that all this is a simplification, and that "power" is a very vague term. But, it doesn't seem inconceivable to me that the camera could process slightly less data at max burst (20.2MP * 7fps vs 18MP * 8fps), AND drive the AF system with the same CPU. Unless there are other, more demanding processing requirements, it would seem to me that 1 digic 5+ is doing the work of the previous 2 digic 4s + unspecified AF chip.

50
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 70D Spec List
« on: June 27, 2013, 09:28:16 PM »
If a discounted 7D is not much more expensive than the new 70D, which would you choose?

Refurbs from the canon store can be had for < $1,000. I'd bet the new 70D is more expensive than that... my decision would probably depend on IQ from this new sensor.

51
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 70D Spec List
« on: June 27, 2013, 07:38:20 PM »
while number of shots in a 1 or 2 second burst will be higher than the 7D I bet the total shots in a 4 or 5 second burst will still be higher on a 7D.

Hmm? Why would 1 or 2 seconds at 7fps be higher than the 7D's 8fps? I can shoot 25 RAW before the buffer fills up on my 7D, meaning the 7D will win for the first 3ish seconds... but after that, the only way the 70D is going to win is if its buffer is deeper.

52
EOS Bodies / Re: From NL: Big Product launch invitations
« on: June 27, 2013, 11:26:42 AM »
So, by this line of thinking, I assume everyone buys their gear from Bosnia & Herzegovina? Is that some sort of tax loophole?

53
EOS Bodies / Re: From NL: Big Product launch invitations
« on: June 26, 2013, 09:44:32 PM »
BIG MC
NL.... i thought it´s Neverland.

I'll take that as the former... darn internet makes sarcasm so much harder. Oh well...

54
EOS Bodies / Re: From NL: Big Product launch invitations
« on: June 26, 2013, 08:00:30 PM »
Either there's a lot of sarcasm going over my head, or no one realized NL is Northlight...

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/Canon_rumours.html

See "Latest Information"

56

Um? The AF system gets its light through the lens just like anything else... and the camera AFs with the lens wide open. The reason the AF system is dealing with so much less light is that it only gets the fraction of the light that comes through the mirror; anything reflected to the viewfinder can't be used for AF. So, a wider max aperture does provide more light- both to the viewfinder and the AF system...

bseitz234, that doesn't sound like the system used on current Canon DSLRs as I understand it.  To clarify, I'm talking about the phase detection system that uses an array of sensors in the viewfinder area.  This system only does its job when the mirror is down and all the light coming through the lens is reflected up into the viewfinder.  You may be thinking of cameras that use a partially silvered mirror which splits the light between the viewfinder and the image sensor?

Or perhaps you are thinking about the contrast detection system that operates in live view mode?  Let's save that for another discussion. :)

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autofocus#Phase_detection:
"The system uses a beam splitter (implemented as a small semi-transparent area of the main reflex mirror, coupled with a small secondary mirror) to direct light to an AF sensor at the bottom of the camera."

try this: unmount your lens, and look into the camera. start LV, to flip the mirror up. Look down. See those funny looking slots? That's where the AF system is. Those slots allow the light in, so if that light isn't coming through the lens, and through the mirror when it's down, where is it coming from? You can actually see the semi-transparent area of the mirror, too, if you get the angle right...

57
I've seen some discussion of the 6D being able to focus down to EV-1, or something like that, but nobody ever says if that varies with the lens that is attached to the camera.  It seems to me like it should.  Hopefully one of our resident experts can bring this issue into sharp focus!  LOL

The important part about the aperture: the AF-system has its own, and that is always stopped down quite a bit, so anything wider them f/16 or so has no effect on the amount of light the AF gets.

Um? The AF system gets its light through the lens just like anything else... and the camera AFs with the lens wide open. The reason the AF system is dealing with so much less light is that it only gets the fraction of the light that comes through the mirror; anything reflected to the viewfinder can't be used for AF. So, a wider max aperture does provide more light- both to the viewfinder and the AF system...

58
Lenses / Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« on: June 24, 2013, 08:30:05 AM »
About 18 months ago, when I really started investing time reading lens reviews, it was pretty much unanimously stated the the 70-200 f/2.8 II was the world's sharpest zoom lens.

6 months or so ago, the 24-70 II f/2.8 was considered a contender to that crown with some reviewers stating it IS the world's sharpest zoom.

Last month, the 200-400 f/4.0 became the latest to be spoken of in such terms.

Imagine the new 14-24 f/2.8 rouses similar reviews.

So with 4 lenses, you could realistically cover the 14-560 range with potentially the 4 best zoom lenses in the world.

The whole set would probably cost ~$20,000 - can the average participant on this forum fork that much cash for lenses?

I'm sure there are a few photographers on this forum can spend that much cash on lenses, and justify it as well, personally I'll be very happy to be able to add the 24-70mm f/2.8 II & 14-24mm f/2.8 to my collection.

Drop the 200-400 out of that, and you've still got 14-200 covered, which is probably all the average participant on this forum really needs... are there people who need more than 200? Absolutely. But if we're talking averages... Not to mention I don't think there are enough 200-400s in existence to give one to everyone on this forum...  ::)

59
Lenses / Re: Lens Help..EF 28mm f1.8 any good?
« on: June 22, 2013, 05:14:13 PM »
I have been considering this lens as a normal lens for my 7d: love hearing all these good reviews! Thanks all for sharing your real-world experiences, they're very helpful and I'll probably pick one up tonight!

60
Lenses / Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« on: June 20, 2013, 07:26:09 AM »
I guess I'm the odd guy out here, because I don't get the interest in 16-50 at f/4 over 16-35 f/2.8 even with the IS.

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE image stabilization, and I like it on the new 28 2.8 IS. But f/4 does nothing for me, especially in the longer focal length; f/2.8 give me a lot of extra light when I need it.

The 14-24 could be interesting if it doesn't flare like the 4th of July as it does in Nikon-land. Otherwise I am only interested in replacing my 16-35 2.8 II ...  IF version III is significantly better, and the upgrade doesn't kill my bank account.

I'm with you there! The problem with the Nikkor 14-24mm lens is that there is a very vocal group who keep telling every one that it's the best wide lens ever....and yet filters are a pain. The curved front element is very prone to damage and even water drops seem to get magnified on it. Sure it's image corners are sharp wide open, but it's not a lot greater than mose wides when stopped down (ie landscapes). It flares badly due to the bulbous front element and the angular distortion is quite high at 14mm. I don't really see much photographic value of those extra 2mm over the far more versatile 16-35IIL.


I have to agree with this... I never really looked into it much, but after this rumor I was more curious about the 14-24. Sample pictures look... well, not bad, and sharp in the corners, but also almost comically distorted, which actually really bugged me. Given a choice, I'd take the 16-35's soft corners any day.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 18