Messages

61

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 14-24 f/2.8L in Late 2013 [CR2]

« on: December 14, 2012, 10:01:16 AM »

When I saw this on CR, I thought if this doesn't get a bunch of ecstatic posts, then the forum members are just plain weird.

I guess I'm weird.

My least used lens is my ultra wide rectilinear.  I either use a 24-xxx rectilinear or my Sigma 15mm f/2.8 fisheye.  That fish is every bit an L-prime, and I find a fisheye is a much more useful lens than an ultrawide rectilinear.  I shot 18 times as many shots in 2012 with the fish as I did with my ultrawide rectilinear.  That number appears to be going up over time, as it's only 3x over the last 6 years.  I guess I'm getting more and more comfortable with the fish.

Oh, you're fine. An ultrawide zoom isn't what everyone wants.
But there are so many people here who have been posting repeatedly asking for the 14-24 and praising the Nikon, I wonder where they are hiding now. Even yesterday someone responded to the 50 1.4 IS post by saying where's the 14-24.

They're in shock.... and wondering how hey're going to save up all that money!

I know someone that switched to Nikon for the 14-24.  When he got it, he was so happy.  A year later he switched back after realizing he almost never used the 14-24.

It's not that it doesn't have its uses, but it's uses are so limited for many that it just doesn't get used that much.  14 is awfully wide for a rectilinear, giving you very stretched corners, having "only" 24mm on the long end makes it even less useful than the 16-35 or 17-40, and landscapers ought to be using the 17TSE or 24TSE instead.

62

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 14-24 f/2.8L in Late 2013 [CR2]

« on: December 13, 2012, 11:51:48 PM »

When I saw this on CR, I thought if this doesn't get a bunch of ecstatic posts, then the forum members are just plain weird.

I guess I'm weird.

My least used lens is my ultra wide rectilinear.  I either use a 24-xxx rectilinear or my Sigma 15mm f/2.8 fisheye.  That fish is every bit an L-prime, and I find a fisheye is a much more useful lens than an ultrawide rectilinear.  I shot 18 times as many shots in 2012 with the fish as I did with my ultrawide rectilinear.  That number appears to be going up over time, as it's only 3x over the last 6 years.  I guess I'm getting more and more comfortable with the fish.

63

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x TC Information

« on: December 02, 2012, 10:51:53 AM »

<li>Pricing: somewhere around $11000.</li>

Yawn....

If you can't afford it, why even comment? My money is in the bank just waiting and I'll be one of the first in line.

I can afford it, I just wouldn't buy it.  It's simply not worth it.  If it had been, say, 100-300/2.8 (all zoom range, no TC switch) and, say, $4000, that would have been interesting.  As it is, the Sigma 120-300/2.8 OS is far more interesting - it has more aperture (107mm versus 100mm), a wider total range (120-600mm versus 200-560mm), a faster maximum f-stop (f/2.8 versus f/4), and a current price of $3,000 (versus $11,000).

64

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x TC Information

« on: December 01, 2012, 06:01:44 PM »

<li>Pricing: somewhere around $11000.</li>

Yawn....

65

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

« on: November 30, 2012, 11:58:13 AM »

--The camera will also get some technologies from the EOS-1D X, like the AF system and noise performance.
Is that even remotely possible?

Sure, since it probably means the low read noise of the 1Dx compared to the other cameras Canon makes.

66

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

« on: November 30, 2012, 09:41:02 AM »

f/8 AF, flexible video crop, 5D AF system, low read noise.  That would be perfect.

67

EOS Bodies / Re: First Round of EOS 7D Mark II Specs [CR1]

« on: November 28, 2012, 09:10:25 AM »

I know, a 2 stop boost in high ISO noise reduction is a lot to ask for.

Regarding the noise reduction benefit of the 5D3 vs. 7D, I was definitely looking at the JPEGs and have looked at DPReview's comparison tool.  In a way, I'd take it as good news that the difference is less than two stops since I don't want to spend the money on a 5D3.

I've also looked at the Image Resource's Comparometer (link below).  I don't know if they use in-camera JPEGs or RAW converted by software.  But, to me, the 5D3 at 25600 looks better than the 7D at 6400, but not as good as the 7D at 3200 -- roughly 2 1/2 stops.  Now, I suspect this is a controlled test and real world results may not be as significant.  So, it helps to hear from those with hands on experience.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM

Those are JPEGs and, yes, the new JPEG engine is very impressive in this regard.

68

EOS Bodies / Re: First Round of EOS 7D Mark II Specs [CR1]

« on: November 27, 2012, 08:35:09 PM »

I only want two things in the 7D2.  Less noise at higher ISO -- ideally a 2 stop boost.

I seriously doubt that's possible.

The one feature that intrigues me about the 5D3 is it's performance in low light.  Based on researching online reviews, I estimate the benefit to be about 3 stops over the 7D (and my 60D).

Not even close.  Slightly more than 1.  Much less than 2.  1 1/3 is what you'd get from nothing but the larger sensor so this is about right.

You might be looking at JPEGs.  The processing engines in the new cameras are quite good, but the raw data hasn't really improved much since the 7D came out.

Have a look:  http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii/28

Select the 5DIII and the 7D.  Compare 25,600 on the 5D to 12,800 and 6,400 on the 7D.

69

EOS Bodies / Re: First Round of EOS 7D Mark II Specs [CR1]

« on: November 27, 2012, 06:05:42 PM »

No, it doesn't.  The extra pixels are capable of showing the blur that was already there in more detail.  Reducing the pixel count just hides that blur inside the blur due to poor sampling.

Advanced Diffraction calculator for different sensor types:

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm

Please don't use that site.  That guy barely understands diffraction and the site itself is misleading in that it could lead people into thinking that smaller pixels cause more diffraction, which is just flat out false.  Diffraction is caused by lens aperture, and nothing else.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spatial_cutoff_frequency

Spacial cutoff frequency = 1/lambda*f#

Notice there's no mention of film, sensor, pixels or or pixel size.

70

EOS Bodies / Re: First Round of EOS 7D Mark II Specs [CR1]

« on: November 27, 2012, 01:08:30 PM »

Well, I am assuming everyone updated to 2.0, then got furious when they released 2.0.3, leaving us to wonder what was done in 2.0, then added to 2.0.3. Once the dust settled on that, I personally think the imaging improved, but the ISO noise could have been improved(IMHO).

I don't see how firmware would improve high-ISO noise, which is mostly dependent on the quantum efficiency of the sensor and the transmittance of the Bayer dyes.  You might be able to do some calibration tricks and dark-frame subtraction to help with fixed pattern noise, but there's just not much else you could do, other than applying noise reduction to the raw images which we generally don't like.

71

EOS Bodies / Re: First Round of EOS 7D Mark II Specs [CR1]

« on: November 27, 2012, 12:50:26 PM »

If all that is true, why does the 1Dx have only 18MP and the Nikon D4 only 16MP?

Speed.

72

EOS Bodies / Re: First Round of EOS 7D Mark II Specs [CR1]

« on: November 27, 2012, 11:11:06 AM »

I wish they would build it with the battery grip, however I know that would be very inconvenient for many folks that don't like it or it's too large for.

I don't see why anyone would want the grip to be built in and not removable.  I do see why people would want a better grip than the ones they build for the non-1-series now.  That's why I advocate for the better ungripped bodies (5D, 7D, possibly xxD, plus the 1-series) to get a 1V-style grip, and leave the bottom-mounted grip for the Rebels.  That way everyone can get what they want.  You could have an ungripped 1-series, or a solidly-gripped 7D/5D etc. neither of which is available right now.

73

EOS Bodies / Re: First Round of EOS 7D Mark II Specs [CR1]

« on: November 27, 2012, 09:44:54 AM »

New Ergonomic Design

Why is everyone assuming this means smaller?  I find the design of a 1-series body to be much more ergonomic. 

Yep the 1-Series ergonomics must be used to be fully appreciated. While I like most aspects of my 5D3, the 1D4 is streets ahead in the ergonomics department. If the 7DII can close the gap somewhat, then that can only be a good thing. Sports/action/BIF shooters who are lamenting the demise of APS-H will no doubt be looking keenly at this announcement. The new battery? I can only assume it's a higher horsepower item than the LP-E6 to drive the relevant performance benchmarks along. If Canon gets it right, the 7DII will be an absolute killer.

-PW

++1

I think the ergonomics of the 1D series are horrible.  I have small hands and the bodies are just too thick for me (literally, with my hand on the grip in the proper place, my index finger doesn't reach the shutter release).  Plus, you can't remove the grip meaning you have to tote around all that extra weight and size even if you don't need it for what you are doing that day.

74

EOS Bodies / Re: First Round of EOS 7D Mark II Specs [CR1]

« on: November 27, 2012, 09:41:04 AM »

For the billionth time, more pixels does not mean more noise.  In fact, given the same basic sensor performance, more pixels means less noise (given the same total sensor area, of course).  This is because bigger pixels do nothing but simple block averaging while noise reduction software uses far more sophisticated approaches to reducing noise than that.

Think of it this way - a perfect sensor would record each photon's location.  This is sort of equivalent to "infinite" pixel count.

There are a couple factors here. Hand-holding ability suffers when pixel density is too high,

No, it doesn't.  The extra pixels are capable of showing the blur that was already there in more detail.  Reducing the pixel count just hides that blur inside the blur due to poor sampling.

On top of that is encountering diffraction earlier on.

That's also baloney, and for the exact same reason.

There are several drawbacks to cramming more pixels on small sensors. You can take as many shortcuts as you like, but eventually physics will emerge victorious, thus the booming full frame market.....

The only drawbacks to more pixels are that better manufacturing is needed, faster processing pipelines have to be included, more storage is consumed by the final files, and more processing power is needed to post process the final images.  There are no image quality disadvantages except in certain extremely way out there edge cases no one ever mentions anyway.

75

EOS Bodies / Re: First Round of EOS 7D Mark II Specs [CR1]

« on: November 26, 2012, 11:22:39 PM »

<li>24.2mp APS-C Sensor</li>

I hope this isn't true. I'd actually like to see Canon knock back the MP on the 7D II to 15 or 14.  While I really like my 7D, the noise levels at ISO 100 are not what I'd classify as "ideal".

For the billionth time, more pixels does not mean more noise.  In fact, given the same basic sensor performance, more pixels means less noise (given the same total sensor area, of course).  This is because bigger pixels do nothing but simple block averaging while noise reduction software uses far more sophisticated approaches to reducing noise than that.

Think of it this way - a perfect sensor would record each photon's location.  This is sort of equivalent to "infinite" pixel count.