Messages

46

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: New MFA method

« on: February 11, 2013, 09:49:20 AM »

Hmmmm....  I suspect we'll see an official word from FoCal why this method doesn't work so good and we will all read it and collectively say "nice try, bye bye".

Sorry to be cynical, but we live in a day and age where people and companies with any kind of commercial interest are known to tell a lot of lies and even defend them in court if it means that they can, well, maximise profit. They might of course really have something, but anything they say will have to be double checked. And although I'll have to do some more tests, as I wrote above, double checking this new method the other day indicated that it was spot on for me.

That was in fact my point... that Focal will issue a explanation of why this DotTune doesn't work but we will say "nice try" to them.  You hit the nail on the head... in order to protect their business they will come up with a reason even if it isn't quite true or if it overstates the advantage of their method.

47

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: New MFA method

« on: February 10, 2013, 07:37:55 PM »

Well, this makes FoCal and LensAlign obsolete... or does it?  Could there still be any advantage to a FoCal type method and, if so, how much better might it be? 

The points made about being able to achieve critical/perfect/best (or whatever you might call it) focus using CD are valid, but I think it's a reasonable assumption that manual focus at 10x live view can get real darn close to perfect focus...  anyone have any experience with that?

But, maybe perfect focus or repeatability don't matter so much... even using a theoretically "perfect" method only gets a theoretically "perfect AMFA setting" at one distance.  If we accept that the AFMA setting can not be perfect anyway for all subject distances and focal lengths (for a zoom lens) and all we are trying to do is identify substantial systematic PD focus error and adjust to get closer to the centre of the focus variability then this method may do the job quite well.

Are we sure the focus confirmation dot in the viewfinder works exactly how we think it does?  Does testing for the range of focus confirmation while in MF mode actually give us the centre of the focus variability when PDAF is functioning normally?

Hmmmm....  I suspect we'll see an official word from FoCal why this method doesn't work so good and we will all read it and collectively say "nice try, bye bye".

48

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 6D pattern noise compared to 5D2, the info you won't get from DxO

« on: February 08, 2013, 02:11:19 PM »

Canon can not be equal with theirs old  sensor lay out and and  and signal  path way.
Thera are no indications that Canon has gone from the   old 180nm  tech to Sonys, Panasonic Aptina, Toshiba tech which are down at 65nm

http://www.chipworks.com/blog/technologyblog/2012/10/24/full-frame-dslr-cameras-canon-stays-the-course/

Canon is at 500nm.

Nikon 350nm & 250nm

Sony at 250nm & 180nm (though technically the 180 is in the Nikon D800)

Where are you getting 65nm from?

then read again

I said Sony and others are down at 65nm, the Sony  APS etc are made at 90nm, canon are still at 180nm

Read what again?  Do you have a reference for the numbers you gave?

49

Lenses / Re: What lenses are good enough for the 18mp APS-C sensor? 1000$ limit :)

« on: February 06, 2013, 09:53:59 AM »

Which lens is good enough for a 7D?  All of them, any of them.  A lens does not have to be perfect to be magical.

50

Lenses / Re: How much would you pay for Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L IS

« on: February 05, 2013, 10:34:19 PM »

$5000, but if it comes with the new cap maybe $7500.
 

Please do not joke about such things ... Canon might take you seriously and we'd all be 5crewed, having to pay $7500 for our beloved lens.

Haha.. I think it's too late, they already grabbed on to the idea..

The way I see camera gear is a tool for the "professionals" and a toy for big kids, hobbyists.
Nothing wrong with that but as every school yard, there are always kids who have more money than the rest and they want to be popular by "flashing" their stuff .
I see the same here. Some could take an amazing photo with a piece of emmental some couldn't with a 5d3/1dx if his life depend on it. Yet, these people have money and can and will buy the most expensive and/or the newest stuff even if they don't "need" it, because it's a status symbol. Look at me I have a ....
They (especially the flock of non pro early birds) practically "outbidding" each other and ensuring Canon that the price is not high.
More people, more social media and photography is getting more and more popular. Now there is a larger pool who can afford a lens at $2500 then many yrs ago.
Canon realized this (like Apple) and now the more they charge the more people want to buy.

A fun BBC movie "Secrets of the superbrands" pretty much explains it.

May I offer you some cheese to go with that wine?

51

Lenses / Re: How much would you pay for Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L IS

« on: February 05, 2013, 11:36:30 AM »

Hm really? I think AF is more useful. I can live without IS on my lenses but i dont wanna trade AF. Useable high ISO might be the best i think. Way more than IS.

You talkin' to me Willis?

Yes, really.  I did say "one of".  I did not use the word "best" and I did not use the word "useful".  No wonder so many arguments get started, when you paraphrase someone and change the meaning, then disagree with your paraphrased version you have committed a logical fallacy called a "straw man" argument.    I'm just havin' some fun...

I agree that the other two you state are also in that same category.  An exact rank ordering of what is best, second best, etc. would involve a lot of factors including personal preference so best to avoid trying to do that.

AF has been around since the late 70s so whether we lump that in with other so-called "modern advances" is a choice.  But sure, if I had to choose of course I'd take AF over IS.

High ISO capability is great, but distill it down a little further... being able to change ISO from shot to shot is even more useful/beneficial/wonderful/magical.  In film days, there were different ISO films... but once you put a roll in, you shot at that ISO until you were done (do I have that right, I never shot film).  Or imagine going out shooting for a day, planning to shoot say 5 rolls of film, but not sure what ISO you'd be using... man, you'd have to take along 5 rolls of film of each ISO you thought you might use.  Yikes!

52

Lenses / Re: How much would you pay for Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L IS

« on: February 05, 2013, 10:00:04 AM »

Image stabilisation is magical.  Of all the modern advances in camera tech, IS is one of the truly great advantages compared to days gone by.  Worth every penny.

53

EOS Bodies / Re: on the verge of buying, just need some final moral support

« on: February 04, 2013, 06:45:37 PM »

the 5d3 doesnt seem too far away in price, but i cant really justify getting it! lol

Ok, so here's the thing about trying to justify gear purchase.  Just don't do it.  Instead, pick any feature of a piece of gear and arbitrarily define that feature as a necessity for a particular near-term purpose... after a few days or weeks you will start to integrate that thought into your conscious and subconscious mind and, voila, you no longer need to "justify" anything because it's a necessity.  I have plenty of gear I rarely use but I don't regret a single purchase because they were and are necessities.  Most recently it was necessary that I purchase a 5D3 and 24-70mm f/2.8 II.  And so I did.  I now have a 5D2 and a 7D that I rarely use but I'm glad to have them because they are necessary.  When the 7D2 comes along I will buy that too.  And my 5D2 will be the backup for the 5D3 and the 7D will be the backup for the 7D2.  See, it's awesome.  Enjoy.

Edit... I'm kidding.  Kind of.

54

Lenses / Re: Resistance to Larger Filter Size, Kills Great Lenses?

« on: February 03, 2013, 05:47:08 PM »

Seriously Neuro, what's with your obsession with evidence, logic, and reasoning?  Frankly, it's getting old and tiresome.   

Yeah, it's Canon Rumors and not Canon Facts for a reason :-)

What do facts have to do with anything, people don't want facts interfering with their opinions.

55

Lenses / Re: Resistance to Larger Filter Size, Kills Great Lenses?

« on: February 03, 2013, 03:59:40 PM »

This thread is just silly.  There is no reason whatsoever for a 24-70/2.8 IS to have or need a larger front element than a 24-70/2.8 non-IS.

Which is why, upon reflection, I asked for some evidence from the OP.  I wonder if he can produce some...   

Seriously Neuro, what's with your obsession with evidence, logic, and reasoning?  Frankly, it's getting old and tiresome.   

56

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: a digital photography noob has a question about image quality

« on: January 30, 2013, 10:08:19 AM »

I am amazed that so many posters here are trying to recommend to the OP to keep the 5D3 which is so much more expensive and way in excess of his needs. Too many users in this forum are gear heads. The gentleman stated that he couldn't tell the difference with his test shots. He knows enough about photography to understand the impact of lighting and lenses on the results. And I am sure he understand the differences with features etc. His main concern was IQ! Yet he was expecting something different - its a real eyeopener if you ask me.  We assume that everyone has the desire to pixel peep and find the most discernible difference while forgetting that photography is an art and a pastime not something to keep our wallets empty. I say to the OP to SEND BACK THE 5D3 and stick with what works for a little money and go from there. Later down the road if you want the performance or 61 focus points etc you could buy the 5DMk4 or something better. In the end i think this guy knows something that us gearheads dont!

Oh bollocks.  Nobody is assuming anything rather expressing why he may not have seen much difference in image quality in his test shots and the comments are bang on.  The OP said he's a pensioner but didn't get caught up in cost and, afterall, he is in a position to order two new bodies to try out and says he will buy more lenses.  It seems perhaps that image quality is his primary concern rather than cost and in that context he should keep the 5D3 or as another comment suggested, return both and get a 6D.

There are many aspects to image quality and most are not about pixel peeping or editing.  Noise is a biggie and in the well-lit daytime conditions that the OP did the test shots there will be very little noise in any image even from an iPhone.  Images at dusk, dawn, night, or indoors will be a different story.  Or images with deep shadow regions.

57

PowerShot Cameras / Re: Why does Canon release 17 new powershot cameras per YEAR?

« on: January 29, 2013, 09:32:42 PM »

Now, imagine (difficult as it may be for some of the affluent posters here) that you have a severely limited budget

Hey, who you callin' affluent... take that back!

58

PowerShot Cameras / Re: Why does Canon release 17 new powershot cameras per YEAR?

« on: January 29, 2013, 07:45:52 PM »

They sell far more power shot cameras as DSLR's.  That might be the reason.  Dollar wise, they GET more dollars from DSLR's, but they sell far more Power shots.
Its also a matter of hogging shelf space in the big box stores.  When a company that makes fewer models,their cameras tend to get lost among the many Canon models, buyers are then much more likely to buy Canon.
Why do bread companies make hundreds of different brands with the same bread inside ... same reason, marketing!  And... It works!!

Yep, it does!   Additionally in the P&S market they are selling to a very broad range of consumers who have varied tastes and budgets.  Some want a simple camera, some want features.  Some want the ones designed to look a bit like DSLRs, others like the thin models.  Some want pink.  None of them know how big the sensor is.

59

EOS Bodies / Re: 1DX - The Workhorse?

« on: January 27, 2013, 10:27:36 PM »

1DX... overall, it's pretty darn nice.

Yep, pretty darn nice.

60

Technical Support / Re: at what shutter speed you turn IS off?

« on: January 27, 2013, 07:52:19 PM »

Oh boy, here we go!