April 20, 2014, 11:02:31 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 - Lee Jay

Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16 ... 34
196
EOS-M / Re: EOS M2 Shows up in DPP Literature
« on: September 23, 2013, 09:05:45 AM »
I want my pictures to look like they looked or would have looked to my naked eye, not like what they out-of-camera JPEG looks like, and they are very often dramatically different.
Presumably, on a pro body you'd be able to adjust the EVF to suit your needs.  Also, what if it's dark?  Your naked eye won't see much, but EVF can see in near-darkness now.  (maybe this doesn't apply to your style of photography)

Adjusting the EVF isn't sufficient.  What I can do in post is much more than can be done in the 5ms or so available to the processing pipeline in the camera, and it's very often the case that all of that post is what's necessary to get the image to look as it did to my eye.  Further, the sensor can't even do what my eye can do, partly because my eye is a much larger format even than full frame and partly because my eye can do its own pre-processing (different ISO at different locations, lateral inhibition) before the data is even sent to the brain.

Quote
Quote
The mirror assembly serves a very useful purpose, and EVFs are many, many generations away from being "good enough" for me (I'd estimate decades away).
I guess I'm more optimistic.  Aren't high-end video cameras all EVF now?  If so,  it seems like just a matter of a few years before that tech comes to still cameras. 

Video cameras have EVFs because they have to, and they all stink.  Even some users of RED's nearly $4000 EVF have demanded a non-TTL OVF because the EVF isn't suitable to their uses.
Quote
Quote
The difficulties with 36x36 sensor extend to the entire lens system as well.

How so?

The image circle isn't big enough, and some lenses already have rectangular hoods or rear windows, or both.

197
EOS-M / Re: EOS M2 Shows up in DPP Literature
« on: September 22, 2013, 07:50:50 PM »
Let's be honest.  All three people that wanted an EF-mount mirrorless camera already bought one.

I want one but don't yet have one.  My first (consumer) digital camera had an EVF, which I really liked.  I'm very much looking forward to the day that we can leave the SLR mirror on the dustbin of obsolete technology.  Many will argue that a mirror allows them to see the frame as it really is, but I can do that with my naked eye.

No you can't.  What about when you are using a very long lens and can't really see the subject with the naked eye?

Quote
I want to see the frame as the sensor sees it, so I have a better idea of what the resulting image will actually look like.

That would be with an OVF, not an EVF.  I want my pictures to look like they looked or would have looked to my naked eye, not like what they out-of-camera JPEG looks like, and they are very often dramatically different.

Quote
I may well get an M2, but what I really want is an SLR-replacement with fast AF and fast EVF refresh.  The mirror assembly is a waste of space and weight, and impedes the introduction of 36 x 36 sensors to replace "full-frame."  Good riddance.

The mirror assembly serves a very useful purpose, and EVFs are many, many generations away from being "good enough" for me (I'd estimate decades away).  The difficulties with 36x36 sensor extend to the entire lens system as well.

198
EOS-M / Re: EOS M2 Shows up in DPP Literature
« on: September 21, 2013, 10:03:51 PM »
Let's be honest.  All three people that wanted an EF-mount mirrorless camera already bought one.

199
Canon General / Re: Patent: EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS
« on: September 21, 2013, 08:04:07 PM »
To me, the requirement some seem have for IS on the 24-70 is somewhat difficult to understand and I wonder if it is based on real world experience or just theoretical thinking. When I first bought it, it replaced my 24-105 f4 IS as my standard walk-around lens, and I thought I would miss both the 70-105 range and IS. The truth is I don´t. I have a very low threshold for buying the latest and greatest, but I don´t see how IS on this lens would tempt me.

About 2/3 of my shots with my 24-105 are taken below the 1/f rule, and I have taken shots as slow as 2-seconds handheld with that lens.  I normally consider 1/10th to be my limit at 105mm and 1/2 second at 24mm.  Which would you rather have, 1/2 second, ISO 800 or 1/30th ISO 12800 with the same motion blur?

200
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Rumored Sigma Lenses Coming in the Next Year
« on: September 11, 2013, 12:47:49 PM »
24-85/2.8 OS with 77mm filter threads would be top of my list.  Canon's is too expensive and lacks IS, Tamron has 82mm filter threads (not a show stopper, but a little issue).  I'd really love the extra length on the long end compared to either of the others.

201
Lenses / Re: A Big Lens Announcement in September? [CR1]
« on: August 29, 2013, 04:36:08 AM »
The four most-needed lenses are, IMHO:

100-400L II which could also replace the 300/4 and 400/5.6.
17-55/2.8 IS updated to 15-60/2.8L IS (EF-S).
24-70/2.8 needs IS.
16-35/2.8L II needs an update of some sort to be sharp in the corners.  Personally I think a 12-24/4 makes more sense than a 14-24/2.8.  This would be consistent with the 8-15/4 replacing the f/2.8 fisheye prime.



202
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Big Sigma Primes [CR2]
« on: August 25, 2013, 09:06:20 PM »
Making the 120-300/2.8 have the same optical quality with TCs as the Canon 70-200/2.8L IS II would be top of my list.

203
Canon General / Re: Canon Targets Security Camera Market for Growth
« on: August 25, 2013, 09:05:25 PM »
I've spent more than $30k on security cameras at work, and plan to spend at least that much in the next two years.  They're highly valuable, even though I don't use them primarily for security.

One thing I've wanted that isn't available is a very, very long-zoom security camera.  The SX50 lens and sensor module with 2x digital crop would yield 1920x1080 without upresing with a zoom range of 100x (24-2400mm equivalent).  That is something I could really use.  The best I have now is a 20x range from about 35-700mm.

204
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Information [CR2]
« on: August 03, 2013, 07:49:01 PM »
Maybe they want to release a full frame with on sensor PDAF at the same time.

205
Lenses / Re: Sigma 24-70 f/2 OS HSM Coming? [CR1]
« on: July 29, 2013, 07:50:57 PM »
Would be interesting to know the filter thread size.

Scaling up the 18-35/1.8 would get us to 130mm!

206
EOS Bodies / Re: 'Revolutionary' Dual Pixel AF Explained
« on: July 27, 2013, 10:33:56 PM »
The supported lens box has some very disconcerting information.  I'm wondering about 3rd party lenses that should work but will be in contrast-detect just because they aren't "supported".  Also, what's the point of having this function work at f/11 if it doesn't work with teleconverters?  Who has a "supported" bare f/11 lens?


I assume for continuous focus while shooting video.


Pffft...I want it so I can use a 2x TC on an f/5.6 lens.


That would be cool. A 400mm f/5.6 + 2.0x TC combo is ~15% the price of the 800mm f/5.6.


And...might produce 15% the quality? ;P


The 400/5.6 is optically superior to the ancient and badly out-of-date 100-400L, and I got this from the 100-400L + 2x TC.  Fortunately, the moon doesn't move too fast for the T2i's contrast-detect focusing.

http://photos.imageevent.com/sipphoto/samplepictures/T2i__3574%20edited.jpg

207
EOS Bodies / Re: 'Revolutionary' Dual Pixel AF Explained
« on: July 27, 2013, 09:04:35 AM »
The supported lens box has some very disconcerting information.  I'm wondering about 3rd party lenses that should work but will be in contrast-detect just because they aren't "supported".  Also, what's the point of having this function work at f/11 if it doesn't work with teleconverters?  Who has a "supported" bare f/11 lens?

I assume for continuous focus while shooting video.

Pffft...I want it so I can use a 2x TC on an f/5.6 lens.

208
EOS Bodies / Re: 'Revolutionary' Dual Pixel AF Explained
« on: July 27, 2013, 09:01:18 AM »
Here's a pro grade EVF for you.

http://www.red.com/store/products/red-pro-evf-oled

Even a quality consumer grade EVF is an expensive device compared to an OVF.

209
EOS Bodies / Re: 'Revolutionary' Dual Pixel AF Explained
« on: July 26, 2013, 10:40:18 AM »
The supported lens box has some very disconcerting information.  I'm wondering about 3rd party lenses that should work but will be in contrast-detect just because they aren't "supported".  Also, what's the point of having this function work at f/11 if it doesn't work with teleconverters?  Who has a "supported" bare f/11 lens?

210
Canon General / Re: Canon Testing a 75+ Megapixel EOS-1 Body? [CR1]
« on: July 22, 2013, 07:17:15 PM »
Shoot mRAW or sRAW, problem solved.

mraw and sraw are very poor implementations.  The DNG spec with its lossy-compressed raw mode is much better.  It's still demosaiced like mraw and sraw but it's in object space (like full raw and unlike mraw and sraw), it's linear (like full-raw) and it can be any resolution up to and including full resolution, yet reduced in size by a factor of 3 or more even at the same resolution.  Reduce the resolution by a factor of 2 in each direction and compress this way and the file sizes are reduced by more than a factor of 10.

We are talking about mRAW and sRAW for sensors with very high pixel count. Whatever you do not like about the current implementation, will became a non-problem with higher pixel counts. For people, that definitely do not want to see 75mp or so anywhere in their workflow, this would be the solution.

Mraw and draw are the inefficient and of poor quality especially for color correction.  Higher pixel counts don't solve these issues.  Lossy DNG does and Canon should adopt that approach in their cameras.

Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16 ... 34