Messages

46

Canon General / Re: Canon U.S.A. Raises Awareness About Counterfeit Accessories For Digital Cameras And Camcorders A

« on: January 20, 2013, 10:32:35 PM »

If they'd ever sell their batteries for an even remotely reasonable price, I might buy one someday.  As it is, I've had no trouble with any of the 6 third-party batteries I've bought for a total cost less than the cost of just 1 Canon.

47

Lenses / Re: New EOS-M Lenses Soon [CR2]

« on: January 17, 2013, 03:32:57 PM »

I sure wish Canon could focus on building something useful instead of all these stupid mirrorless and cinema offerings.

48

Lenses / Re: EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x Production to Begin in Q2

« on: January 10, 2013, 10:13:29 AM »

This lens should be under $4k.  I guess there are people willing to buy it anyway, and so Canon will charge what the market will bear.

I don't know. It is a considerably more complex lens to manufacture than a 500mm f/4 or 600mm f/4, offers 200-400mm zoom at a constant f/4, and up to 560mm @ f/5.6 with the 1.4x switched in.

Besides, at $4k, there'd be no room for the 100-400 II! 

This lens has 100mm of aperture (400mm/f4).  The 500/4 has 125mm and the 600/4 has 150mm.  Aperture is a big deal for these lenses as costs go up in a roughly cubic fashion with aperture.  This lens is less complicated than the 70-200/2.8 except for the larger aperture and the integrated teleconverter.

A 100-400L II should be the same price or a little less than the 70-200/2.8L IS II.

49

Lenses / Re: EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x Production to Begin in Q2

« on: January 10, 2013, 08:31:18 AM »

This lens should be under $4k.  I guess there are people willing to buy it anyway, and so Canon will charge what the market will bear.

50

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma Launches the 120-300mm F2.8 DG OS HSM

« on: January 08, 2013, 09:07:52 AM »

I'd really like to see some tests with teleconverters on a high-pixel-density 1.6-crop sensor.

51

PowerShot / Re: Canon Announces The PowerShot N

« on: January 07, 2013, 10:14:54 AM »

Things I like about my compact (Elph 500 HS) over my smartphone (Samsung Galaxy S3):

• Wider angle lens (24mm versus 29mm equivalent)
• Telephoto lens (105mm versus 29mm equivalent)
• Faster lens (f/2 versus f/2.6)
• Xenon flash versus LED flash (brighter, better color, freezes motion)
• Better handling and controls including a shutter release and tripod mount
• Bigger sensor
• Better processing

Canon has managed to get rid of four of those seven items in attempting to produce a smartphone supplement.  Amazing.

52

EOS Bodies / Re: A New Cinema EOS DSLR Body in 2013? [CR1]

« on: December 29, 2012, 10:44:45 AM »

I don't think 4k content distributors will ignore any movie posted in 2k so we will get 4k releases of movies posted in 2k the same way we have blu rays of 28 Days Later.

http://www.reduser.net/forum/printthread.php?t=88034&pp=10

"There is a new standard from Japan (not exactly sure why they get to call the shots) for consumer 4K . It dictates that you can't up-rez to 4K.

It means that features and TV shows shot on 1080P or 2K are destined to be left out of a second bite of the apple for a 4K delivery opportunity."

53

EOS Bodies / Re: A New Cinema EOS DSLR Body in 2013? [CR1]

« on: December 27, 2012, 05:43:10 PM »

To be frank, any "cinema" body that doesn't shoot 4k or above should be DOA as of now.  The new 4k delivery specs specifically stipulate no upresing, so if you shoot cinema below 4k, you can never deliver at 4k, which would be horribly stupid on a big-budget enterprise (i.e. one that would use "cinema" cameras and not just dSLRs).

When a $300 gopro can shoot 4k, there's no longer an excuse for a cinema camera not to.

54

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: World's First EOS-1D C Motion Image Shoot

« on: December 25, 2012, 12:12:45 PM »

"This is the future".  Sure.  But with the 1DC?  I don't think so.

Motion blur is a big problem.  Since this shoots at 24fps, you're basically talking 1/24 shutter speed.  Right?

No.  You can choose the shutter speed you want, but many would choose 1/48th for video taken at 24fps.  The so-called "180 degree" shutter is common for shooting motion.

55

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: World's First EOS-1D C Motion Image Shoot

« on: December 24, 2012, 05:00:07 PM »

In many cases, I can time my shutter release to within about 2ms for doing things like capturing a batter hitting a ball, a pitcher releasing a ball, etc.  For 2ms accuracy, you need 500fps, not 24fps.  Even if I'm only accurate to 5ms (I can nail that most of the time) you'd still need 200fps.  So, in many cases, "spray and pray", even at ordinary video speeds - or even at RED's maximum of 120fps - is not sufficient to capture the moment unless your "spray" is at very, very high frame rates that neither the "c" nor any of the RED cameras can manage.

I'm going to have to call BS on this considering the lower limit on human reaction time is ~150ms.  Give the following link a try to get a sense of the speed required for 2ms.

You don't have to react if you can see the action coming.  You can anticipate.

For example:

http://photos.imageevent.com/sipphoto/samplepictures/20D%20versus%20S3%20crops.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/sipphoto/samplepictures/20D%20versus%20S3%20crops%202.jpg

There are plenty more applications, some even humorous.  I did this on purpose.

http://photos.imageevent.com/sipphoto/aircraft/eaaflyin2007/12.jpg

Or these:
http://photos.imageevent.com/sipphoto/aircraft/aamairshow2007/044.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/sipphoto/aircraft/aamairshow2007/045.jpg

56

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: World's First EOS-1D C Motion Image Shoot

« on: December 24, 2012, 03:03:55 PM »

Okay, I'm going to call BS, for the most part.

First, I think it is legitimate to capture stills from a video stream.  Of course, if you want to do it right, shoot in raw, and that means use a RED camera, not the "c".  They mentioned this in the video and hoped for the next generation, when RED is already doing it.

Second, and they mentioned this as well, stills settings are nearly always very different than video settings for the same scene.  One might want 1/500th for stills (for reducing motion blur in the final frame) and 1/48th for video (for preserving motion blur to make the video look smooth).  This means it's nearly never possible to shoot video and stills at the same time with the intention of using both as final output.  You are going to have to pick one or the other in advance most of the time.  Again, though they mentioned this, they glossed over it.

Third, if you need flash for your images, video mode is not much help.  Flash is often an incredibly valuable tool for controlling scene contrast, and we stills shooters often don't really realize just how powerful our little on-camera flashes are.  If you want to replace a 580, you might need a 20kW video light, which comes on a truck.  So this stuff is really only for conditions where natural light is acceptable without modification.  Of course, there are many times like that, but not all by a long shot.

Fourth, capturing 24 frames per second and then picking your frame often does the exact opposite of what is mentioned in the video - it misses the key moment rather than allowing you to find it in the video stream.  Not always, but sometimes.  In many cases, I can time my shutter release to within about 2ms for doing things like capturing a batter hitting a ball, a pitcher releasing a ball, etc.  For 2ms accuracy, you need 500fps, not 24fps.  Even if I'm only accurate to 5ms (I can nail that most of the time) you'd still need 200fps.  So, in many cases, "spray and pray", even at ordinary video speeds - or even at RED's maximum of 120fps - is not sufficient to capture the moment unless your "spray" is at very, very high frame rates that neither the "c" nor any of the RED cameras can manage.

I want to reiterate that there are times when this approach can be useful, but it's no panacea as they try desperately to imply in the video.

57

Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS Exists as a Working Prototype [CR2]

« on: December 20, 2012, 09:04:08 AM »

IS. Meh. IS isn't going to stop your subjects moving. Period. Also I quite like the higher ISO grain noise of the 5D Mark III. IS is not an issue at this focal length

The most noise is from fanboys who don't actually shoot - they just want all the feature boxes ticked on their shiny equipment they don't use much, and not having it gives them something to complain about in forums like this. My advice - get the current Mark II, stay off the caffeine and learn how to hold the camera properly with steady hands, build a bridge and then get over it.

I've handheld my 24-105 at 24mm and 2 seconds.  I routinely hand hold it at 1/5th or so.  Here.  This is 1/5th at 45mm and ISO 400.  Would you have preferred 1/40th and ISO 3200 without IS?

http://photos.imageevent.com/sipphoto/samplepictures/5D_13386.jpg

58

Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS Exists as a Working Prototype [CR2]

« on: December 19, 2012, 09:23:31 PM »

It had better be less than the 70-200/2.8L IS II, which would mean the non-IS version will have to drop in price by quite a bit to make room.

I guess Tamron is pushing Canon to do this?  If you forced me to replace my 24-105 right now, the Tamron would be my first choice and the 24-70/2.8L II would be third after buying another 24-105.

59

Lenses / Re: 2013 - The Year for 400mm Lenses? [CR1]

« on: December 16, 2012, 03:53:17 PM »

I would appreciate a 100-400 2.8 :-)

You must be a back surgeon.

60

Lenses / Re: 2013 - The Year for 400mm Lenses? [CR1]

« on: December 16, 2012, 11:20:38 AM »

If they build the 100-400L correctly, there might well be no need for a 400/5.6L.  By "correctly" I mean light weight, great optics, fast focusing.  I suppose there could be a cost reason but I somewhat doubt they'd charge enough less for the 400/5.6 compared with the 100-400 to make the cost difference worth a new lens development.