Messages

1

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: New Camera Sensor Eliminates Need for Flash

« on: June 02, 2013, 05:02:32 AM »

There is also another thing:

"Ultrasensible photon hunter":

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121107073046.htm

All these things gives us theoretically much more freedom (for ex. think about crystal clear 12800 ISO) because I think that some integrated ways to reduce the sensitivity should exist even if in the form of simple ND filters. Also, there are other advantages like the flexibility of Graphite - thing which allows for curved sensors, hence the resolution will be (almost) the same in the center and in the corners.

Now I'm thinking how the lens will evolve, IF the above will be valid solutions for photography. No more F/1.8? No more F/2.8?

...but I wonder now in how many years we'll have a @ 18MPixel working sensor on these technologies.

2

Lenses / Re: New patents for Canon fast primes

« on: April 04, 2013, 01:03:06 AM »

60mm f/1 

You made me check the link ... it's 60mm f/1.8.

The link mentions that the patent is for cine / video lenses but most interestingly, doesn't mention whether or not the lenses have IS.

It seems that some high quality fast prime lenses (50mm f/1.2, 50mm f/1.4 - there is also an 45mm f/1.6 and a 60mm f/1. are in the pipeline at Canon. I am not sure though (from translation) that they are EF lenses. See at

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ja&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fegami.blog.so-net.ne.jp%2F2013-03-29

The original source: http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2013-03-29

  ...it wasn't intended. I wrote 60 mm f/1.8 and after that Closing Parenthesis.

3

Lenses / New patents for Canon fast primes

« on: April 03, 2013, 01:49:44 AM »

It seems that some high quality fast prime lenses (50mm f/1.2, 50mm f/1.4 - there is also an 45mm f/1.6 and a 60mm f/1. are in the pipeline at Canon. I am not sure though (from translation) that they are EF lenses. See at

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ja&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fegami.blog.so-net.ne.jp%2F2013-03-29

The original source: http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2013-03-29

4

Lenses / Re: New Canon L-lens: EF 16-600mm f2,8 L USM

« on: April 01, 2013, 07:51:12 AM »

No IS?.... 

...anyway, can you post some samples please? 

5

PowerShot Cameras / Re: Powershot SX280 - any more news?

« on: March 28, 2013, 03:37:22 AM »

Is already released together with SX270.

...but Craig missed this one:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/03/21/Canon-announces-SX270-HS-20x-superzoom-and-SX280-HS-with-GPS-and-Wi-Fi

Interesting specs:

Self Timer
Approx. 10-sec. delay/approx. 2-sec. delay/custom*

*Delay time (0-15 sec. (in one-second increments), 20/25/30 sec.) and number of shots (1-10 shots (in one-shot increments)) can be specified.

Continuous Shooting
1) Normal: Approx. 3.8 shots/sec. (in P mode)
Approx. 14.0 shots/sec.* (in High-Speed Burst HQ)

2) AF: Approx. 1.0 shots/sec. (in P mode)
Approx. 5.1 shots/sec.* (in High-Speed Burst HQ)

- Under conditions where the flash does not fire automatically
- Differs depending on the zoom position.
* The maximum continuous capture is 7 frames.


...also it says that it works till 6400 ISO - but I wonder with which noise...

6

Canon General / Will you pay $125,000 for Canon's Mixed Reality headset?

« on: February 22, 2013, 03:03:43 AM »

Look with what Canon fills their minds & hearts while we're expecting a better sensor, new firmware, better lenses... ...and better prices of course:

"Canon first introduced us to the concept of a Mixed Reality headset at its Expo in 2010. Now, the technology is going to be released for a whopping $125,000. The Canon Mixed Reality System—also known as MReal—will be available for big spenders on March 1st. On top of the device’s outrageous price, users will have to pay an additional $25,000 annual fee for maintenance.

The MReal is obviously not aimed at the average consumer. Instead, Canon is marketing it towards companies who want to create virtual prototypes to test user experience. Unveiled at an event at Manhattan's Classic Car Club, the MReal uses two cameras to send a video feed of the wearer’s surroundings to a pair of small monitors. This, combined with computer-generated graphics, creates a Mixed Reality experience.

The folks at Engadget have a hands-on with the MReal on their website. "

Sources:

http://connect.dpreview.com/post/7606640110/125000-canon-virtual-reality

http://www.engadget.com/2013/02/21/canon-mreal-hands-on/


And now I'm thinking... they really realize what's going on in camera market?

7

Lenses / Re: Would a 14-28mm f/1.8 be possible?

« on: February 15, 2013, 04:37:39 AM »

Well, I don't want "crazy" things...

I rather want an UWA with a normal zoom range (16-35 preferred but I can accept shorter zooms like, let's say 16-28, 14-24) with a fast-but-normal aperture (f/2 - preferred but if isn't possible be it f/2.2 or even f/2.8 ) but with stellar sharpness, no flare and low distortions.

And I know that this is possible in a good price range.

8

Lenses / Re: New Wide Angle Lens Ideas, please!

« on: February 15, 2013, 04:14:16 AM »

Tokina 16-28 f/2.8

Already discussed here on forums and elsewhere.

9

Lenses / Re: Anyone Want an Improved 16-35mm over the much requested 14-24mm?

« on: February 13, 2013, 02:55:57 AM »

Yes. As long as it is tack sharp across the frame @ all focal lengths, just like the Nikon 14-24.

+1

AND if it has lower distortions, especially at the wide end. Till then, Tokina 16-28 rulez.

10

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7D or 5D3 for low light candids?

« on: February 13, 2013, 02:47:59 AM »

All the discussion in this forum about the 5D3 in low light has me intrigued.  I'm particularly interested in a 5D3 w/24-105 f4L IS as an upgrade path for a 7D w/17-55 f2.8 IS.  (For low light candids, I'm often shooting at 1/30 second and find IS to be a must.)

I know that the 5D3 offers greater color depth and that full frame is typically sharper than crop.  I also understand that the 5D3 offers about a 1.3 stop advantage in noise over the 7D.  But, I'm comparing a crop body with a 2.8 lens to the full frame with a 4.0 lens and this noise advantage drops to about 1/3 of a stop.

Now the question.  A 2.8 lens lets in more light than a 4.0, which is more light for the AF system to lock in.  So which system can lock in on focus at lower light -- the 5D3 w/24-105 f4L IS or the 7D w/17-55 f2.8L IS?

Oh, I think that the response is quite clear: 5D3 with Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 IS

I use this combination in dire situations almost from the day one ("day one" applies for both body and lens) and it never let me down. 5D3 has a vastly superior AF compared with 7D (high precision double cross AF points etc.) and significantly superior performance in low light.

Tamron has IS at f/2.8 which enables the double cross AF points which I mentioned above - a lens at f/4 doesn't exploit the AF's full potential, even if it has IS. Mind you, a low-light candid means that you must freeze also the possible motion not only the camera shake. Hence you need a faster aperture IOW a f/2.8 zoom or a prime - the latest Sigma 35 f/1.4 is the best if you ask me. Also, be sure to have the Canon's 50 f/1.8. It isn't the best but it has a good optical IQ and is very cheap and by a wide margin is the best price / performance on Earth. You will love it and you will learn a lot by using it. (Ok, if you have money go for Canon 50 f/1.4 or wait for a better 50 lens).

11

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Tamron's fast 24-70mm zoom rates well in testing compared to Canon and Nikon

« on: February 13, 2013, 02:39:14 AM »

throw in the stabilization and much lower price this lens is certainly worth considering if you don't have the budget for Canon's latest or the Nikon.
It also beats Canon's f/4 offering at a similar price point.

www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Tamron-SP-24-70mm-f-2.8-Di-VC-USD-A-uniquely-versatile-pro-worthy-alternative

Anyone been using it?  How is it working for you.. subjectively?
Other than it's less-consistent across-the-range performance and likely less rugged build than the Canon, I don't see much for drawbacks to the Tamron for shooters who don't need best-in-class gear in this range.

Very very good value compared with Canikon.
IS is awesome and definitely very helpful in a lot of situations especially if you shoot in low-light environments.
Good build quality. Not L grade, but definitely better than average.
Optical quality - very good also. Not the best one, but definitely on pro level. Still I didn't need so far a better quality, speaking practically. If Canon 24-70 MkII would be at the same price I would still choose the Tamron because of the IS. If the Canon would have IS I would pay 200-300$ more for the Canon's MkII quality but not more.
There was some discussion about 'onion bokeh' - the issue is there but way overrated. Till now this issue didn't ruined me any single photo. And I shoot regularly in dim light environments. Same stands with the vignetting at f/2.8 - way overrated on forums. Ok, here you must remember, if you're bothered by this, to not shoot at f/2.8 the sky of the wall or any other monochrome boring composition.

Overall very pleased with Tamron.

12

Lenses / Re: New Tokina AF 16-28 F/2.8 AT-X Pro SD FX - Focus Pocus

« on: February 10, 2013, 04:36:25 AM »

Had the lens from almost a year. Used it very often in a great range of situations (lightning, composition etc.) on two bodies (1DsMk2 and 5DMk3), apertures ranging from 2.8 till... I don't know (16?... 22?) with the AF point almost everywhere, used with MF also in enough situations (last time 30 minutes ago in a big photo report) and I did not see what you're experiencing.

Yes, on 5D3 it needed AFMA. Also, at f/2.8 even if the center is very good the margins are a little bit soft, but this is quite normal for this class (in fact, I found Tokina's sharpness best for it's class). The corners start to catch up immediately from f/3.2 - 4 and become very good at f/5.6. From there on, I don't know anymore... 

Just my2c & HTH

13

EOS Bodies / Re: Big Megapixel Camera in 2014

« on: February 08, 2013, 12:06:42 PM »

@Mikael, Jon Rista, John Reilly & others: Why do you think that Canon got uncovered in the sensor game, since it has the patents and the like? I don't want to reiterate the architectural differences between different sensors but rather a "what happened and what they should do next?"

Also, besides improving the (classical) "data extraction engine" (read: ADC & co.) what do you think about the 'alternative' solutions like the...

Panasonic's new approach based on diffraction
(http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/02/04/panasonic-promises-high-sensitivity-sensors-using-micro-color-splitters)

Fuji's X-Trans and similar other approaches to avoid the OLPF like eg. Foveon
(sorry, no links here...  )

stacked sensors (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/sony-develops-exmor-rs-the-worlds-first-stacked-cmos-image-sensor-2012-08-21)

curved sensors (http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sony-patent-shows-a-new-curved-sensor-technology/)

honeycomb sensors (http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/new-sensor-patent-discloses-a-honeycomb-image-sensor/)


...and any other solution(s) as I said.


IOW, which would be, in your opinion, "The Road Ahead"?

14

Lenses / Re: Tokina AT-X 16-28mm F2.8 vs. Canon EF 17-40mm F4

« on: February 05, 2013, 03:46:52 AM »

I have the Tokina.  Fast & sharp.  Really sharp.  Big & heavy too and will flare just a bit if the light source catches from the side.  Highly recommended for landscapes and really shines on low light interiors.  Don't underestimate the weight, on a 5D3 it's quite a neckfull.

+1

Also the distortions are much less than Canon's 17-40 & Canon 16-35L. OTOH, Tokina flares more. Oh well... you cannot have everything. But in my experience, I stick mostly with Tokina these days. Better image quality overall. (Sharper & less distortions, as I said)

15

Lenses / Re: Tokina AT-X 16-28mm F2.8 vs. Canon EF 17-40mm F4

« on: February 02, 2013, 03:10:17 AM »

I'd be using the lens for landscapes and architecture.

I have filters on all my lenses currently, but I'm not opposed to the bulbous front end of the Tokina. I'm very careful and I am sure I can make do without a filter.

Thanks for your reply.

The thing that is so tempting about the 17-40mm is that, as you have pointed out, it is quite cheap for an L lens. I can buy a good used copy and invest the rest of the money saved into something else I like. The Tokina is about $200-300 more expensive.

I think that would be the most important consideration for me. If it were not for the bulbous front element, I'd be the proud owner of the Tokina today. I didn't love the sharpness of the 17-40 and sold it- on the other hand the Tokina was very good.

There are filters for Tokina. See here:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/12/06/Fotodiox-launches-WonderPana-Filter-Systems-145-66