Messages

16

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma Announces 18-35 f/1.8 DC HSM Art for APS-C

« on: April 18, 2013, 10:08:48 AM »

18mm?  What the heck is it with these idiotic lens makers.  We've got the 17-55, 18-55, 18-135, 18-200, 18-270 and now 18-35.  What do we have that starts at 24mm-equivalent?  The only one I own - the 15-85IS.

f/1.8 sounds interesting, but not if it starts at 18mm!!!

Pass.

First of all, this is the dumbest gripe I've read in a while.  If you're that unhappy, get a FF with a 24-70 and stop whining. 

I have a 24-105.

Second, it's not even a valid gripe, as Tokina has a 16-28mm constant F2.8 that gets excellent reviews on crop.  Are you really that concerned about the difference between 25.6 and 24?

Yes, I am.

My point is, in the film days, only the cheapest kit zooms started at 28, and all the rest started at 24.  The same is true now of full-frame lenses (24-70, 24-105 versus 28-135).  But on crop, even the expensive lenses start at 27 or 28.  I won't buy one, and it's a stupid limitation.  The 17-55 could easily have been a 15-50.  The 18-35 could have been a 15-30.

17

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma Announces 18-35 f/1.8 DC HSM Art for APS-C

« on: April 18, 2013, 09:06:26 AM »

18mm?  What the heck is it with these idiotic lens makers.  We've got the 17-55, 18-55, 18-135, 18-200, 18-270 and now 18-35.  What do we have that starts at 24mm-equivalent?  The only one I own - the 15-85IS.

f/1.8 sounds interesting, but not if it starts at 18mm!!!

Pass.

18

Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Lightroom 5 Public Beta Available

« on: April 16, 2013, 12:53:16 AM »

Yes, the update cycle is faster and no, performance isn't close to the only new thing.
http://www.lightroomqueen.com/2013/04/15/whats-new-in-lightroom-5-0-beta/

19

EOS Bodies / Re: Is the SL1 sensor an improvement?

« on: April 12, 2013, 08:17:57 PM »

I asked no such question at all.

I asked the rhetorical question ... It's rhetorical because no one can answer that conclusively until we get some raw data from this camera.

So...it was a completely pointless thread.  Well, gee, now I know to ignore your posts henceforth.  Lesson learned.

The point was, I was able to push an SL1 JPEG harder and with better results than I've been able to push JPEGs from other Canon cameras.  This very site has suggested that we keep an eye on the performance of the SL1 sensor due to the claim that it's actually a new sensor rather than yet another rehash of the ever-present Canon 18MP 1.6-crop sensor.  I posted an early sample of that.  If you find that pointless, then fine, I suggest you move on or provide some of your own test results from this sensor.

20

EOS Bodies / Re: Is the SL1 sensor an improvement?

« on: April 12, 2013, 07:31:00 PM »

The point is that he asked if the upcoming SL-1 was going to be better than his T2i. 

I asked no such question at all.

I asked the rhetorical question of if the posted push of an SL1 JPEG was, "Better noise processing?  Black point clipping?  Or a genuine reduction of read noise?"  It's rhetorical because no one can answer that conclusively until we get some raw data from this camera.

21

EOS Bodies / Re: Is the SL1 sensor an improvement?

« on: April 12, 2013, 12:00:00 PM »

That was an ISO 100 shot.

Well, I guess one of two things then. Either the shot was not DR limited and the shadows were not deep enough to exhibit the classic Canon banding problems (which seems to be the more plausible), or Canon has definitely done something with that sensor to reduce banding noise. The lower-end Canon DSLRs usually have less anyway, as the ADC runs at a lower frequency...but there is usually some.

Yes...it's going to take raw data to tell for sure, but it looks promising so far.

22

EOS Bodies / Re: Is the SL1 sensor an improvement?

« on: April 11, 2013, 10:11:20 PM »

That was an ISO 100 shot.

23

EOS Bodies / Re: Is the SL1 sensor an improvement?

« on: April 11, 2013, 03:34:06 PM »

It is true, he asked how it would compare to his T2i, not a D800.  A D800 or Nikon was not mentioned by the OP!
Its not going to be much different from his T2i.

Since when has that stopped anyone from bringing up the comparison?   

and when will it stop them 

You guys are off on an irrelevant tangent.  I compared a 5DIII to a D800.  But okay, how about a D7000 to a 60D?

http://www.sensorgen.info/NikonD7000.html

3.1e-

http://www.sensorgen.info/CanonEOS_60D.html

13.2e-

Still a very big difference in low-ISO read noise, which tends to drive dynamic range at low ISO.

24

EOS Bodies / Re: Is the SL1 sensor an improvement?

« on: April 11, 2013, 12:48:43 PM »

As far as IQ, at low ISO's you are almost certainly not going to notice any difference.

Not true.

Canon's problem has always been very high read noise at low-ISO, limiting dynamic range.  For example, the 5DIII's base-ISO read noise is 33.1e- while the D800's is 2.7e-:

http://www.sensorgen.info/CanonEOS_5D_MkIII.html
http://www.sensorgen.info/NikonD800.html

There's a huge difference between 33.1e- and 2.7e- when you have to push the shadows really hard.  I don't run into base ISO dynamic range problems a lot, but I wouldn't mind Canon getting competitive here so that when I did I didn't struggle with the noise produced.

Canon's sensors have always been superior or competitive at high ISO where read noise drops dramatically and performance is dictated by Quantum Efficiency where the 5DIII and D800 are nearly the same at around 50%.

25

EOS Bodies / Is the SL1 sensor an improvement?

« on: April 11, 2013, 11:55:30 AM »

DPReview published some JPEGs from a pre-release camera.  Still, I can't do this with my T2i.  Here I've pushed blacks that were in the neighborhood of 8 counts up to the neighborhood of 140 counts.  I see no sign of banding and very little noise.

What do you think?  Better noise processing?  Black point clipping?  Or a genuine reduction of read noise?  Raw images will settle this, but I haven't seen any yet.

Here's the animated gif:

http://tinyurl.com/dxr747l

26

Lenses / Re: New 100-400 to Launch with EOS 7D Mark II [CR2]

« on: March 27, 2013, 01:13:12 PM »

Hopefully, 100-400L II + 1.4x TC III + 7D II and its f/8 AF sensors are all designed to work together perfectly from the start.  I've only been asking for this since about 2006 or so.  Now they'll finally make it, and it'll be unaffordable!

27

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 200 f/2L IS & EF 800 f/5.6L IS [CR2]

« on: March 13, 2013, 03:56:33 PM »

If either of these two lenses were under $5,000 I might care.  As it is, no way.

28

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Information [CR1]

« on: March 07, 2013, 08:24:31 PM »

We’re told at least one variation of the camera being developed has an integrated grip, really making it a “Baby EOS-1D X”.

That would instantly make it a non-starter for me, as the integrated grip is the main reason the 1-series is so entirely uninteresting to me.  I rarely need it, I have little hands, and it has to fit in my current bag or I won't buy it no matter what its specifications or performance.

29

Canon General / Re: Canon Announces the Development of New High Sensitivity Sensor

« on: March 05, 2013, 05:13:17 PM »

You missed my point entirely.   I'll spell it out.

You can cut the pixel linear dimension by a factor of four (giving you four time the resolving power), use NR to reduce the per-pixel noise to parity and still be left with twice as much resolving power.

30

Canon General / Re: Canon Announces the Development of New High Sensitivity Sensor

« on: March 05, 2013, 03:57:50 AM »

Large pixels generally have high read-noise which means they tend to have a tough time in such environments.  Read the text.  They claim to have developed technologies that counteract that affect (that read noise increases with pixel size).

Hmm, ok. But in the general discussion, noise increases when pixels get smaller (at Hi-ISO).

Yeah, but that's a myth.

It is only a "myth" assuming images are always compared on a size-normal basis. That is certainly a valid way to compare, and the only normalized way to compare. However...assuming one buys a higher resolution camera for the purposes of using it for its native resolution, rather than downscaled to something smaller...the increased noise of a higher density sensor is no myth.

Smaller pixels have a lower cap on charge. Lower charge means higher gain. Higher gain means that for any given illumination level photon shot noise is exacerbated by amplification, which results in higher noise at native size.

Amplification has nothing to do with it and well capacity only matters at base ISO.  And it's still a myth anyway as cutting pixel size by a factor of 16 (area) still allows double the resolving power at lower per-pixel noise in the final image because noise reduction software is so much better than spatial block averaging which is all bigger pixels do.