March 01, 2015, 11:58:42 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 - torger

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 16
EOS Bodies / Re: Poll: Would you buy a high MP Canon EOS 5DIV?
« on: September 26, 2014, 07:53:45 AM »
I'm interested in a high MP Canon, but I would be disappointed if they are not competitive with the Sony sensors concerning base ISO dynamic range. I'm less interested in high ISO performance as I would not intend to use a high MP camera as an all-around camera, but rather use it as I use my medium format camera today, ie carefully set up shots from a tripod shot with base ISO.

As I shoot landscape, and I expect many will with a high MP Canon as landscape photography is huge among amateurs, base ISO dynamic range is of interest.

EOS Bodies / Re: A New EOS Pro Body With 46mp Next Month? [CR1]
« on: September 18, 2014, 09:50:54 AM »
D800, D810 and A7r have been proven popular. Crossover into medium format space. $9k is still cheap compared to medium format. A high MP body is a good idea, but if Canon cannot compete in dynamic range at base ISO I think it's better to wait until they can.

Canon has so far prioritized video and other advanced sensor features ahead of absolute image quality at base ISO. It's probably the right thing to do for the bulk of photography, but to succeed with a high MP body I think they need to rethink and really do everything they can do get the best possible image quality out of the sensor at base ISO, possibly sacrificing some other features.

(don't get a mirrorless, you'll regret it (even if it's from Canon, should they ever decide to produce such ****, which I hope they never do)

Unfortunately(?) the DSLR concept is as dead as CRTs (you know those big fat TVs and computer screens) was in the early 2000s, but they don't know it yet. DSLRs will hang on for as long EVFs and on-sensor focusing is not as good for the photojournalists and action photographers, but then they will disappear in favor of mirrorless.

It will be interesting to see who will be leading this unavoidable shift in technology. Currently it seems like Sony has the lead.

I think this is the adapter:

Focusing performance etc won't be great of course, but I would be using this camera for landscape and still life (for hand-held action and high ISO Canon is very competitive indeed already), ie manual focus via live-view off a tripod.

Say if it's 1 year until Canon releases it's first big megapixel, and it still lacks in DR (I think it will), and then 2 more years before they become competitive at that point. Having an A7R meanwhile at the same time as say a 5D mark III and use Canon glass via adapter seems like a quite good idea. Sure an extra body on the side only for landscape/still life is an expensive solution, but looking the pile of L glass the main cost is there, not in the bodies, and you would get some residual value off the Sony when selling it second hand when you can get a Canon of corresponding functionality.

Saying that this camera is slow and and focusing performance sucks is missing the point. What we should be excited about is that high resolution high DR sensor and the ability to use our excellent Canon glass with it. If you don't desire this resolution or DR then you don't need to look at it.

1DX a Mazda chassis ... I'm glad if it works for you!


It depends on genre. Canon has always been great for journalism, action, wildlife, ie the high ISO lower res department. This new A7R is not at all that competitive in these genres by the way, too slow.

For still life and landscape you can sure call the 1DX a mazda chassis when you compare with the current competition. Today I shoot most of my landscape with a digital medium format system, but is also interested in a smaller lighter system in some conditions. I don't like to drop down to 18 megapixel and a base ISO dynamic range worse than a medium format digital back from 2004 when doing so though.

I could potentially buy it with a metabones adapter just to use it with my Canon lenses for landscape photography, and then sell the body when/if Canon comes up with something at the same level of performance. The big investment is in lenses.

I think Canon big megapixel is still quite far away, and I doubt that the first camera will be as good in the dynamic range department as Sony.

Canon have some really great lenses though just waiting to be used with a great sensor. With Canon's own bodies it's like using a Ferrari engine (lens) on a Mazda chassis (camera)...

For us landscape photographers the wait for a high megapixel body with state-of-the-art dynamic range to be used with lenses like the TS-E 24 II has been tough. But now it's possible at last, with a Sony!

Lenses / Re: Should I get a clear filter for my lens?
« on: August 16, 2013, 04:37:35 AM »
...polarizers for each of your lenses.

Coupled to a 5dIII or the like, you won´t even need to remove them in low light situations if you do not want to.

Sure...because who needs that extra ~1.75 stops of light when there's not enough to begin with...   ::)

Those with very good low light capability cameras, >1.75 stops better than the previous generation  ;=)

You could use Kenko Zeto Ex polarizer wihch loses a bit less light than the typical polarizer. But is easier to break too. I would not recommend to use polarizers. I have a clear filter on my 70-200, but all other lenses are naked. On my medium format system I go bare. The reason I have it on my 70-200 is that I tend to use that in "rough" conditions, rainy, splashing etc and I rather frequently wipe the clear filter than the front element. I prefer clear filter rather than UV as I don't want any change to the image whatsoever, it's only there as a splash-cover for the front element. I don't have it for general impact protection, my impact protection is called insurance :-).

I once used polarizers quite often for my landscape photography, but nowadays I use them very rarely. My photographic style generally don't gain from them.

EOS Bodies / Re: A Big Megapixel Discussion
« on: June 13, 2013, 10:24:56 AM »
Big megapixel is a "medium format killer", just as D800 currently is. It's targeting a specific genre, high resolution photography.  It's not a journalist camera like the flagships. Sure, for typical 35mm photography high resolution is just a waste of disk space. But a high resolution 35mm is there to stretch into medium format territory, just as medium format digital stretched into large format film (think 4x5 and 8x10 view camera) territory. In other words expand what you can do with a 35mm system. A pro Canon shooter could have a 1DX for fast handheld action work, and a big megapixel camera for studio/still life/architecture/landscape.

Probably the high resolution genre is smaller, but every landscape hobbyist will want it (those are many!), and some of the pro shooters that use medium format today will drop the costly MF system and use only 35mm for convenience. I think Canon need this type of camera in their lineup in the long-term to provide a cameras for all genres users nowadays expect 35mm to be good at.

In the medium format forums the only camera that is considered as real competition with MF is the D800, and indeed several has ditched MF in favour of the more user-friendly, all-around and cheaper D800. In the same forums Canon is still used as an example to show off how "bad" 35mm is compared to MF, as it still has poor dynamic range and color rendition at base ISO compared to MF, while the D800 actually is competitive and even better in some aspects.

Not a single recent sensor out from Canon is even remotely close Sony Exmor sensors in terms of base ISO performance. I'm still waiting to see that Canon actually can produce a sensor which has the properties high resolution photographers desire - ie great dynamic range and great color fidelity at base ISO. High ISO performance (which Canon indeed is good at!) is not irrelevant, but much less important than in traditional 35mm photography.

I shoot medium format digital myself for my landscape photography hobby, and use my Canon system for everything hand-held. I follow the developments closely, a good high resolution camera could be a game changer for users like me. But it must deliver competitive image quality per pixel, not just resolution.

As the second system I have a Leaf Aptus 75 digital back on a Linhof Techno digital view camera, most of my landscape photography is done with that system. It would have been deadly expensive unless I had bought almost everything second hand. I like the quality for landscape pictures I get out of my Canon too, but use the Linhof to get movements (shifts and tilts) on all focal lengths and it's an all-mechanical camera (shutter and all), using a loupe on a ground glass to focus. I like getting back to basics, but without having to mess around with film, it's really fun to work with.

Images get very sharp of course, the "large format" lens designs (only primes of course) are near distortion-free, have large image circles (for shifting) and very sharp, with the drawback that largest opening is only f/5.6 and there's huuuuuge vignetting on the wides so one needs center filters and correct for color cast. The same designs would not work for a hand-held DSLR.

The slower workflow has also made me more thoughtful about the pictures, so I get home with fewer but higher quality pictures which makes me spend less time at the computer, which is great. However now when getting used to the Linhof I also work in a similar way with the Canon when out doing landscape, so one does not necessarily need a slow camera to work slow ;).

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 3D at 46.1mp Next Month? [CR1]
« on: September 25, 2012, 04:43:46 PM »
If Canon releases such a high MP camera, then price will be one of the major factors accountable for its success. It does not look like an "upgrade" cam for 5DMKIII as it will appeal to a limited market (landscapes and studio shooters), so it will not be in any real direct competition with 5DMKIII.

Wait a second. I thought studio and landscape shooters represent the majority of the market, at least according to all the whiners on Canon Rumors :o

No, the majority of whiners on Canon Rumors just want Canon to deliver actual improvements rather than the "same old" that is marginally better than what was previous.

i.e. They don't want a sensor in a camera that is almost identical in characteristics to one that is already 3.5 years old, they want a sensor that measurably has less bad attributes and measurably more good attributes.

Yes the success of this camera will very much be about low ISO performance, since that is what high resolution photographers use. Will it have as good DR as D800 at ISO50/ISO100? If it is as "bad" as 5D mark 3 it will not be a MF killer.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 3D at 46.1mp Next Month? [CR1]
« on: September 25, 2012, 04:35:23 PM »
I think Canon thinks this is a niche camera, primarily competing with medium format digital.

Anyone familiar with medium format digital prices know that this camera does not need to be cheap. I think it is smart of Canon to make it a true pro body (unlike the D800) since it will then be more attractive as a "MF killer".

Even with a high cost body you will need the best lenses which will not be cheap either. High resolution photography is not cheap, so I would not spare any expenses on the body.

The 40 megapixel Hasselblad H4D-40 is $16,000 body only, and it is one of the cheaper MFD systems.

A major part of the manufacturing cost is the sensor, large sensors are exponentially more expensive than smaller ones. With today's sensor manufacturing technology a full-frame camera cannot approach the price of an APS-C camera.

I've heard somewhere that 60% of an entry level full-frame camera manufacturing cost is the sensor, and for these even lower cost cameras it's probably more.

Bottom line -- if you want cheap don't go full-frame.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 3D X [CR1]
« on: August 21, 2012, 09:16:57 AM »
So, if the 3D is supposed to between the 5D and 1D series, that also means the price will be somewhere between $3500 and $6800.  If this is supposed to compete with the D800(E), then I think Canon seriously missed its price-point.

I think it shouldn't compete directly with the D800(E). Making a prosumer body for a camera that requires top-of-the-line pro lenses to make full use of the pixels is just strange, which is what Nikon has done. I think a high MP camera should be a pro body.

Shooting high MP to its full potential is not cheap, you need expensive tripods and/or expensive lighting, and expensive lenses. When you have to buy everything of the highest quality anyway, then the body should be that too I think.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 3D X [CR1]
« on: August 21, 2012, 09:10:17 AM »
"Industry leading ISO Performance" limited to 6400 native  :P

High MP cameras is not about high ISO performance, it is about high DR at base ISO. If your applications require high ISO they don't require high MP, and then there's 5Dmk3 and 1DX.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 16