December 20, 2014, 02:30:13 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 - Richard8971

Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18 ... 26
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon EOS M System Announced
« on: July 24, 2012, 12:51:13 AM »
In case you guys are interested, the Canon USA website now lists "Powershots" and now "EOS cameras" instead of "DSLR cameras"



EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Why 18MP???
« on: July 24, 2012, 12:39:22 AM »
Eighteen megapickles is really a great size.
I think one megapickle is more than enough.

Why 18? Well, apparently the folks at Canon take the Boss seriously. "18 till I die"...

Makes sense to me. I have been 18 for over 3 decades  ;D

OK guys, I don't care who you are, THAT's funny!!! :)

What you said makes sense. I can understand more why 18MP has been Canon's choice of sensor size.


EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Why 18MP???
« on: July 22, 2012, 11:53:27 PM »
Thanks for the analysis, Neuro.  I'm glad that Canon doesn't seem to be following Sony in continuing the MP race...

Oh, I couldn't agree more. I truly think that 15 ~ 18MP is more than enough to capture outstanding images and at this point in the DSLR game, less noise as well. :) But it just seems odd that all the sensors have been 18MP, not even 19MP or 21MP. (outside the 5D3)


EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Why 18MP???
« on: July 22, 2012, 11:35:51 PM »
There are two 'flavors' of the 18 MP APS-C sensor.  The first was launched in the 7D, and re-used in the T2i/550D, 60D, and T3i/600D.  That sensor was modified (or redesigned, if you prefer) for the T4i/650D - multiple clusters of photosites dedicated to phase detect AF directly on the CMOS image sensor were added.  In the 650D, they provide phase AF during video shooting.  It's that latter, 'new' (sort of) 18 MP sensor that I presume is being used in the EOS M, allowing it to feature phase detect AF without a reflex mirror, instead of only contrast detect AF. 

I'd almost go so far to say that this reworked 18 MP sensor was mainly intended for the new mirrorless body (since fast AF is desirable), and also used in the T4i (although the dSLR launched first).

Yes, I got all of that. But WHY 18MP? Why not 24MP or 28MP or 32MP for that matter? I am not a believer that more MP is better as I love my XTi and 40D which both have 10MP sensors. Super images from both camera bodies.

I was just curious if anyone had a theory as the the 18MP "wall" that Canon has seemed to hit.


EOS Bodies - For Stills / Why 18MP???
« on: July 22, 2012, 11:13:57 PM »
OK guys, I am open minded but with the release of the Canon EOS M we now have yet another APS-C 18MP sensor.

Beginning with the 7D in 2009 (with the exception of the 5D3 and T3) each new Canon camera body released has been 18MP! Now unless I have missed something, is 18MP a "magical" number? Now, mind you, I am not worried about Nikon or higher MP cameras, but I just find it very odd that yet another 18MP sensor has been released.

Thoughts as to why? Did Canon over produce 7D sensors and now they have to get rid of them all?


EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS M Specs
« on: July 22, 2012, 04:21:03 PM »
I have no idea what the price will be - Canon's been fairly high lately though. I would like it if the price is competitive but would not be surprised if its released at over a grand u.s.d. (including glass).

Uh, I can't imagine that it would cost more than the T4i. I would imagine that it would be priced above the T3 and somewhere below the G1 X.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS M Specs
« on: July 22, 2012, 04:17:09 PM »
Ah... another APS-C 18MP sensor from Canon. Is it just me or did Canon get a ship-load of these at some bargan center and now they have to find some way to unload them all??? :)



EOS Bodies / Re: first pic of canon mirrorless?
« on: July 21, 2012, 12:45:29 PM »

No it's not a joke. You are actually looking at the beginnings of the future of DSLR's.

Why do I say that? Simple. The only reason for the mirror is to bounce the image into the viewfinder so that the photographer can see exactly what they are taking a photo of. (Focus, DOF, etc...)

Now enter the world of mirrorless cameras. The back LCD acts as the viewfinder and for now they are large and cumbersome. Given advances in technology and the speed at which it is advancing, soon we will see LCD screens small enough AND high enough of resolution and brightness to act in place of our current DSLR viewfinders. Or it may be some sort of digital-optical viewfinder... who knows? But this is the start of it.

There will be added benefits too, higher FPS (no mirror to "slow" the camera down), camera bodies that do not have a shutter mechanism to wear out and reduced costs.

The DSLR won't be around forever, it will eventually be replaced by some other new technology and I believe that the mirrorless camera is the direction this is all heading.


Lenses / Re: Good, inexpensive zoom lens? Beginner here.
« on: July 21, 2012, 01:30:06 AM »
The best advice I ever received from a Camera friend is to "use the equipment you have and learn how to use it well."

Buy the best equipment you can afford that best suits your needs and be happy with your decision.

It's not the cheapest lens Canon makes nor is it the most expensive but one I would recommend without question is the EF 70-300 IS USM. It is easy to carry and has a great focal range. I have gotten thousands of beautifully sharp images from this lens on everything from my XTi to my 7D and my new 5D2.

The IS is well worth having as well as the focal range for the savings over an "L" lens.

This discussion is like an 18 year old buying an 8 passanger van because he hopes someday to get married and have a family. Down the road you can always upgrade your glass if needed. I have "L" lenses now but I still use my 70-300. It's a great lens and you won't be disappointed with it.


Lenses / Re: Which to keep? EF 70-300 IS USM or 70-200 4L IS USM
« on: July 20, 2012, 12:38:17 AM »
Keep the 70-200:  better IQ and versatility.  You could always add the 1.4x later to get close at 280 f/5.6.

I had thought about doing that. Will autofocus still work?


Lenses / Which to keep? EF 70-300 IS USM or 70-200 4L IS USM
« on: July 19, 2012, 10:08:38 PM »
I may have to downsize some of my zoom lenses and the two that I may have to choose between are the EF 70-300 IS USM lens and the EF 70-200 f4L IS USM lens.

Now of course, the "L" is a better lens in every way, but I like having the little bit of extra reach of the 300mm. What do you guys think? If you could only keep one, which one would it be?


Lenses / Re: Question...To UV or not to UV...that IS the question!
« on: July 19, 2012, 10:05:58 PM »
Wow, thank you everyone who took the time to give me your thoughts. I don't have high end filters so I think for most shoots I will leave them off. Granted I won't throw them away either, I'll keep them around just in case.

Thanks again everyone!


Lenses / Re: Question...To UV or not to UV...that IS the question!
« on: July 18, 2012, 11:48:35 PM »
The only reason I use filters is to protect my lens from other things that can break it. 

In the summer I shoot with high quality UV filters on and I don't notice a negative impact at all.  There's more glass in an IS stabilized lens afterall with no degradation of IQ.

I get great results from all of my lenses that I have UV filters on. Like I said, it isn't because I want protection from UV so to speak, but mainly to protect the glass.

I was just curious what you guys thought.


Lenses / Question...To UV or not to UV...that IS the question!
« on: July 18, 2012, 11:26:00 PM »
I have always used UV filters on all of my lenses. For me, it is cheap insurance against accidental damage to the lens glass. However, this past weekend shooting with a friend is making me reconsider this...

I met a gentleman who was told to me had been shooting for decades. He had some pretty impressive equipment (Canon) with him to boot! He looked at my gear and asked if I always shot with UV filters and I said yes. He then said, "Why? Why would you spend $$$ on a top quality lens and then shoot through a UV filter that can distort the image?" Needless to say, I had nothing to say. He then said that keeping the damage off of your outer lens glass was the hood's job and to not worry about it.

I looked at my friend and he said he agreeded with him and that he never used filters. He told me that you truly can get a better quality image without using UV filters...

Guys? Opinions?


EOS Bodies / Re: 2023: a look into Canon's flagship body
« on: July 16, 2012, 10:00:54 PM »
I would have to say that I think it would be pretty cool if Canon invented (regardless of MP) a multi layer translucent cmos that could take a photo in which there was an DOF with no limits. In other words the entire image would be in focus, no background blur. Think of it as instant highly expandable micro adjustment in a way. You would then process the image in Photoshop to produce what-ever DOF you wanted and where-ever you wanted. (I.E. f2.8, 8.0, 13.0...whatever) Auto focus would be extremely acurate and IS would be able to adjust much faster to camera shake.

I would also like to see an interface where the camera would change settings based on your thoughts. (I believe that this techology is already being developed and should have applications 10 years from now)

Just my 2 cents.


Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18 ... 26