Messages

16

Lenses / Re: Could a 35mm f/1.2 L be in testing? (pic)

« on: June 20, 2012, 11:38:11 AM »

Well, people seem to love the Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 and I have always felt that Canon could use such a lens in its lineup (esp since so much of its sales come from crop cameras), so it is quite plausible that they have been playing with one.

17

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon's Mirrorless Entry

« on: June 20, 2012, 08:28:33 AM »

If the one being introduced by Canon is just the consumer end then not having APS-C is perfectly fine as neither do any of the other entry level mirrorless cameras.

This is exactly why I think Canon should bring out a FF, APS-H, or at least APS-C.  This is (at least in part) the mistake Nikon made... when entering a tangental market, you generally do not want to go in with 'hey, our offering is about as good as established player's midrange offerings.  You generally want to introduce something that will counter the existing inertia, something people will pay attention to.  As it stands (at least according to the rumor mill) it sounds like the primary differentiation for Canon's mirrorless is that it is made by Canon.

Granted branding is important, but I would wager the people who tend to really care about the brand are the ones going for the higher end (xxxxD and above) lines, not the lower ones.  Hitting them first would build some reputation in the new domain.

18

EOS Bodies / Re: NEW FF Body that is able to take EF-S Lens

« on: June 20, 2012, 02:15:07 AM »

a bit of a dirty trick, kinda like how Canon quietly changes settings at low f stops to make the user think they are getting extra light... it is giving the user what they visually expect, sorta, but only because you are not giving them what they mechanically expect.

Would you explain this a bit more? It is new to me

I don't have the link handy, but it was discovered a while back that digital sensors, because of their geometry, do not get the full benefits of low fstops.  A much narrower family of angles actually register, so a good chunk of the extra light a really fast lens lets in does not actually register with the sensor.  Canon quietly increases the ISO when it detects low apertures to give the appearance the extra light is doing more then it is.   If you use manual aperture lenses (with no reporting) the behavior does not trigger and you can see the effect in play.

19

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon's Mirrorless Entry

« on: June 20, 2012, 02:03:59 AM »

If this rumor is true, It will be a disaster. It will have slow AF as the GX-1. It will have worst picture quality than the Rebel. It will be bigger than the GX-1, due to the lens is outside of the body. It will be more expensive than the GX-1. This camera is aiming at consumer. They will be better off either buying the Gx-1 or the Rebel. I just hope that this is really a rumor.

Probably is just a rumor, or at minimal is part rumor, but everything in it sounds plausible from a marketing perspective if your goal is to introduce a camera designed to do what everyone else is doing (including yourself) but with your own brand on it.   Marketing is filled with misguided attempts to compete in new spaces by throwing in an undifferentiated but branded entry... it is more about having a horse in the race then trying to actually win.. which isn't a good idea, but Canon has such a market dominance right now they probably are not too worried... and that can be bad.

20

EOS Bodies / Re: NEW FF Body that is able to take EF-S Lens

« on: June 20, 2012, 01:57:25 AM »

I'm sure its possible.  As mentioned, Nikon cameras can do it and I'm sure Canon engineers are just as capable.  With Nikon, If you mount a DX lens (similar to EF-S) the camera camera recognises this and works in "crop" mode.  Its not ideal as you potentially lose a lot of megapixels.  But otherwise, everything works fine.

*nods* at which point, you might as well just take regular FF pictures and crop them in post.  I always thought the Nikon thing was a bit of a dirty trick, kinda like how Canon quietly changes settings at low f stops to make the user think they are getting extra light... it is giving the user what they visually expect, sorta, but only because you are not giving them what they mechanically expect.

21

EOS Bodies / Re: Examples of DR photos and why this is important to landscape shooters

« on: June 18, 2012, 02:09:00 PM »

* The only 5D3 strengths I see are "it can use my current Canon lenses" and "it has clean video". At anything else, the D800 wins, or it's a tie.

The 'video' alone is enough to do it.  The 5D2 was a big success in no small part due to its popularity among video shooters.  With the 5D3 they are trying to build off that success by giving video capabilities a high design priority.  So a significant chunk of the 5D3 target audience are primarily concerned with how it behaves for video.

While the D800 does not exactly do poorly in that regard, it is generally held that the 5D3 is more geared for it.

22

EOS Bodies / Re: Examples of DR photos and why this is important to landscape shooters

« on: June 18, 2012, 10:50:43 AM »

I'm not complaining that the 5D3 is not good enough. I'm complaining that its price is out of line with the D800: it should be clearly cheaper, not massively more expensive.

Why should it be cheaper?
Outside the two cameras coming out at about the same time and being similar in price point, they are not really related.  The D800 does better at some things, the 5D3 better at others.  Of course if you are focused on the D800's strengths it seems odd the 5D3 is more expensive, but if you are focused on the 5D3's streghts the price makes a lot more sense (though many will still complain since we, as consumers generally want things cheaper)

23

EOS Bodies / Re: Examples of DR photos and why this is important to landscape shooters

« on: June 18, 2012, 08:35:16 AM »

Once the DR technology is perfected, and high ISO noise is completely eliminated, and all cameras are 60 mega pixies... What excuse will all the spec-sheet-pixel-peepin-chart-reading-camera-testers complain about as the reason their photos aren't good enough? I'm so excited for these future point-and-shoots!

*shrug* people often look towards what is better then what they currently have.  New equipment with new capabilities that lets you push the limits of what already exists can be exciting.

Digital cameras have been 'good enough' for years.  Outside large format they have pretty much completely eclipsed film when it comes to capability, and film spent its entire lifespan improving every year.  We are all on this site because we want to know what is next and because there is some element of photography that we hope will be improved over what we are currently using.

I am always perplexed as to why people feel the need to degrade or diminish others when they are hoping for improvements in domains that the speaker is not interested in, with this 'you are just pixel peepers' derailing being a common one.

24

EOS Bodies / Re: Examples of DR photos and why this is important to landscape shooters

« on: June 17, 2012, 08:59:59 PM »

It's called using a DSLR people.  No, DR will not be infinite and superb, on any DSLR camera.

There is nothing magical about a medium format or other sytems with higher then common DR.  There is no mechanical reason why a DSLR can not have a high DR sensor, it is just a matter of economics.  There are machine vision sensors that meet or exceed human DR, and in another 5-10 years the common DLSR (or mirrorless, depending on how the market goes) this will be likely be available to regular photographers.

25

EOS Bodies / Re: Examples of DR photos and why this is important to landscape shooters

« on: June 17, 2012, 01:48:11 PM »

I don't know why people are saying only landscape needs high dr - as soon as I'm shooting an animal with black & white fur or trying to raise the shadows I'm always wishing for more dr no matter what the scene is.

I think people are talking about landscape photographers not because 'only' they need high DR, but because they are a group that typically (or more often then most) encounter situations where 'the more the better'.  Sorta like how sports photographers need high FPS, but naturally lots of other types also benefit from it.

26

EOS Bodies / Re: Examples of DR photos and why this is important to landscape shooters

« on: June 17, 2012, 01:54:32 AM »

HDR is okay to do as long as you know what you're doing.  I've seen some bad HDR photos, haha.

Well, 'bad' is pretty subjective since what is 'in' is always in flux.
But yeah, setting aside the 'obviously HDR' pictures, used lightly it can be a really good tool for overcoming limitations in DR.

27

EOS Bodies / Re: Examples of DR photos and why this is important to landscape shooters

« on: June 17, 2012, 12:50:48 AM »

No doubt I'm wasting my breath, no-one has listened up to now about DR being only a small part of the whole. The photographer will make a much larger difference than any perceived deficiencies in a camera, whatever it may be.

DR is a small part unless you hit a wall, just like AF, MP, and high ISO are 'small parts' unless you hit limits with them, at which point they become big deals.

I regularly hit DR limit of my camera and need to use HDR to make the shots work, though I am planning to invest some grad ND filters, but those have their limits (i.e. are best when you have a nice strait horizon).

28

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: some may say its because of the D800.... MF gets cheaper

« on: June 09, 2012, 10:30:57 AM »

Altho I still don't quite get it, I've never worn a suit to an interview, just a funeral.
And only out of respect for the occupant of the casket I helped carry. (still wore hiking boots for traction  )

This fits in pretty well with the example, context and audience are key.  For professional photographers, some types of clients will care, others will not.  A while back I was arguing with a fine arts photographer that was pointing out in his community digital was stigmatized and nothing short of high resolution film with 50 year old $10k+ lenses would get you a second look.... so if you wanted recognition (work and awards) you used exotic film and expensive antique lenses.

With interviews, some will care, some will not.  At my place, last person who showed up in jeans we just sorta shook our heads, but I have been on interviews for other types of jobs that a suit was not necessary or appropriate.

29

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon haven't released a studio/resolution orientated camera since the 1ds3.

« on: June 09, 2012, 10:23:52 AM »

Sorry to be a buzz kill, but I simply do NOT get these types of questions at all.  Is this an attempt to generate some sort of rambling controversy?

Studio resolution.  What, on a computer screen, zoomed in ten times, is that what you mean?  Or do you mean digital files converted to prints that a customer might hang on a wall?

It is a poor word choice and people need to stop doing it.  Last studio camera I was looking into getting was 6MP (multi-shot MF) and produced fantastic low ISO pictures.

Usually what people really mean is 'relative to other offerings' because they want to improve over what they are already doing, in other words they want an upgrade path.  Higher MP effects post-processing, so even if final prints do not need it the intermediate steps can utilize it, which if you are trying to push things as far as you can in order to impress customers can make a difference.

30

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Ergonomics... Why you pay more for a 1D...

« on: June 08, 2012, 03:33:22 PM »

I picked up a 800 at the trade show and I personally didn't like it that much.  I don't know if it's the ergonomics or just the way it felt in my hands but definately not contoured like a Canon.  It's like comparing a Xbox controller to a PS3 controller...I prefer the 360.

That is actually a good comparison.
While there are some generalities to ergonomics, they are not universal, and are heavily tied to familiarity.  If you pick up something that has as a similar form factor to something you have a lot of muscle memory invested in it will feel off.

This is not to say that all complaints about ergonomics are just 'but it is new!', but it is an element that is important to account for.