September 17, 2014, 08:01:39 PM

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 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 63
46
EOS Bodies / Re: New Sensor Tech in EOS 7D Mark II [CR2]
« on: September 09, 2014, 06:07:19 PM »
You know, the A7S sensor numbers on sensorgen (http://sensorgen.info/SonyA7S.html) are quite a revelation.  Huge QE (67%), huge well capacity and almost no read noise at high ISO.  The read noise at low ISO isn't as good, but still better than anything Canon makes.

As far as sensor technology goes, there's your aim point, Canon.

47
EOS Bodies / Re: New Sensor Tech in EOS 7D Mark II [CR2]
« on: September 09, 2014, 03:01:41 PM »
Quote
These specs are largely identical with the spec list posted by CR, with a few differences. The source told me that:
•The EOS 7D Mark II sports a 20.2 MP sensor but it is not the same sensor as featured on the EOS 70D
•The AF has 65 points but only 32 are cross-type. Center point is dual cross. f/8 on center point
•The EOS 7D Mark II has a “pro build quality” (whatever this means in detail)
•Price in EU will be €1800 (that could mean $1,990 in the US)

http://www.canonwatch.com/another-mention-20mp-sensor-eos-7d-mark-ii/

We should know soon.   

I'm not sure I buy the 32 cross-type out of 65 total AF point spec.  Given the possible logical layouts of a 65-pt sensor, it's far more likely that a subset of cross-type points would be an odd number, not an even number.

Even if you count the center "dual cross" separately?

That's not how AF point count specs are listed, at least by Canon.

Yeah, but this is a third-hand rumor, probably translated multiple times from the original ancient Greek!

48
EOS Bodies / Re: New Sensor Tech in EOS 7D Mark II [CR2]
« on: September 09, 2014, 02:24:06 PM »
Quote
These specs are largely identical with the spec list posted by CR, with a few differences. The source told me that:
•The EOS 7D Mark II sports a 20.2 MP sensor but it is not the same sensor as featured on the EOS 70D
•The AF has 65 points but only 32 are cross-type. Center point is dual cross. f/8 on center point
•The EOS 7D Mark II has a “pro build quality” (whatever this means in detail)
•Price in EU will be €1800 (that could mean $1,990 in the US)

http://www.canonwatch.com/another-mention-20mp-sensor-eos-7d-mark-ii/

We should know soon.   

I'm not sure I buy the 32 cross-type out of 65 total AF point spec.  Given the possible logical layouts of a 65-pt sensor, it's far more likely that a subset of cross-type points would be an odd number, not an even number.

Even if you count the center "dual cross" separately?

49


I'd like to know the actual resolution of a lens regardless of body.

Hearty Amen.

Why? Academia? Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong in and of itself that I can see, but seeing as how we pay thousands of dollars for these lenses that we can't use without bodies I question any results relevance.

Convolution.

Ask yourself this question.  Why, when DPReview tests a body, do they use a quality prime at an optimal aperture, mounted to a heavy studio tripod, with careful focus bracketing and remote release?

The answer is, so that the lens so dramatically out-resolves the body that the results you get are almost entirely limited by the body itself.

Why do you want that?  So that you can estimate how the body will perform with other lenses.

Same thing with lenses.  How does the lens perform by itself?  You want to know that so you can estimate how it will perform with any body.

If you don't do that, you're left testing every possible lens/body combination and retesting every lens every time a new body is released.

Convolution allows you to avoid that.

1/R^2 = 1/Rs^2 + 1/Rl^2, where R is system resolution, Rs is sensor resolution, and Rl is lens resolution.

If you know Rs and Rl independently, you can find R.

50
The 100-400 + 2 x 1.4TCs doesn't look any better than the SX50, which costs less than 2 TCs

I hope you were kidding.  Your SX50 shot is noisy, over-sharpened, full of halos and artifacts, and full of CA.  Make sure you click on my shot to see it at full size.

51
EOS Bodies / Re: Are you planning to purchase a 7D2
« on: September 08, 2014, 10:04:20 AM »
i wonder if for most it would not better to buy a 7D and spend the rest for glass.

To me, that's not even the question.  It's whether or not the body build, performance and features are worth it over the 70D, not the 7D.  I don't use my camera to drive railroad spikes, so the body build isn't worth it to me.  The 70D feels good and solid, and has a lot of nice features that I could makes use of on occasion, including WiFi, tilt-swivel LCD (useful for video and when my camera is on my telescope), and the touch screen.

The 7D replacement announcement and follow-on testing will most likely dictate whether I buy it, or a 70D to replace my aging 20D.

52
In my experience the 100-400 is a dog with a TC,

This is a 100% crop from a 100-400L with two 1.4x TCs stacked on a T2i (18MP).


53
Wow!  Really F6.3 being marketed as a sports lens?  Maybe on the planet Venus.  Rarely is F6.3 enough to stop sports action.

Sometimes we play sports during the day, here on Earth.  Daytime is often about 7 stops brighter than nighttime under the lights.  So, unless you have a sports lens that's about 7 stops faster than f/6.3 I guess you can't shoot night sports.

I shot all day today at f/6.3, and I was getting around 1/1000th at ISO 200.  That was in leas than perfect weather.  Guess what?  1/1000th is often enough but where it isn't my camera does produce usable images at higher ISOs.

54
The announcement says it has a panning mode for the  stabilizer. That alone seems like a big plus over the Tamron.

I never, ever, use panning mode on my 70-200/2.8.  And I shoot thousands and thousands of panning shots.  Mode 1 just works better for obvious reasons - it stabilizes in both directions instead of just one.

55
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Why the delay for the Tamron 150-600?
« on: September 05, 2014, 09:23:38 PM »
Has Canon ever produced a super tele-zoom lens?  I mean, something that goes into the 500-600mm range like this Tamron or the newly announced Sigma.

FD150-600/5.6L

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/lens/nfd/data/zoom/nfd_150~600_56l.html


56
EOS Bodies / Re: A Rundown of Canon at Photokina
« on: September 05, 2014, 08:48:51 PM »
What are chances of Canon introducing cheaper FF (Rebel FF) camera with new lens EF 24-105mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM.

Pretty low, IMHO.  A 6D is a full-frame 60D, so I'd like to see a full-frame 70D (6D II?).

57
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: And what does Canon do?
« on: September 05, 2014, 05:04:28 PM »
At the moment, the A7s has 1 2/3rds stops more DR at ISO 100, and 2 1/4 stops more DR at ISO 51200. As a wildlife and bird photographer who likes to do landscapes on occasion myself, I would LOVE to have that kind of sensor performance.

Too bad that sensor is in such a horrible camera.

58
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: SIGMA 150-600!!
« on: September 05, 2014, 04:45:13 PM »
Perhaps you mean that the 120-300 can only actually be f/2.85 (i.e. 105mm) at full zoom? There is quite a bit of rounding in lens marketing. The difference between f/2.8 and f/2.85 is negligible to most anyone.

So is the difference between 294mm/2.8 (105mm) and 300mm/2.86 (105mm).

59
Lenses / Re: I'm terrified of my EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS II
« on: September 05, 2014, 03:57:07 PM »
I carry a 5D, 24-105, 35/1.4, 15mm fisheye, 580ex, and a 70-200/2.8L IS II with 2x TC III all in a ThinkTank ChangeUp.

I carry a lowepro 650 All weather bag.  It could carry 6 of these lenses, and a laptop.  And then you'd never lift it off the ground.  It is a great bag, but can easily be packed to be too heavy.  I have a wheeled art case that holds it and will often use that when I am "packing heavy"

I carried everything I said all day every day all around Orlando for 12 days straight.  And I'm a little guy.

60
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: And what does Canon do?
« on: September 05, 2014, 03:34:18 PM »
My Rebel T2i is good enough at low ISO.

Clearly, you are neither dramatically underexposing nor pushing your shadows several stops.  Get with the program!!

 ;)

Actually, I do sometimes.  This is an example I use for something else, but this was shot in raw, many of the raw pixels in the ceiling were blown so it isn't underexposed, I just had to push the shadows a lot.  This was shot on the T2i.


Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 63