Messages

31

5D MK III Sample Images / Re: Moonbow!

« on: October 30, 2012, 12:54:44 PM »

Had a double moonbow here the other night, by the time I grabbed a camera it had swirled into a star/cog shape.

Is it on Cape Canaveral, FL?

32

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS [CR1]

« on: October 30, 2012, 12:13:35 PM »

Come on guys, you're all avoiding the real issue here - CANON SHOULD BE PUTTING STABILIZERS BUILT INTO THEIR CAMERAS.

But then Canon should design bodies again.

I wonder if anyone ever designed a stabilized converter ?
One could thing about a 1.2x that would convert any lens into IS with minimum loss in IQ, angle of view and speed.
It would of course not be ideal for WA lenses, but could be a useful accessory.
But maybe this is not technically possible (or marketing wise) ?

The best would be oversampled sensor signal readout and intelligent merge of subimages, but not yet
BTW - this is also a solution for DR increase

33

5D MK III Sample Images / Re: Moonbow!

« on: October 30, 2012, 10:43:49 AM »

I am starting to think the green streak is a meteorite - I think I am going to play the lottery today.

Andy

It rather looks like a landing Reptilian spaceship. It's even more rare than a meteorite, so bid double pot today.

34

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS [CR1]

« on: October 30, 2012, 08:34:55 AM »

What if this were really an non-L consumer FF lens designed to be paired with a 6D and future 'entry level' FF offerings?

-Brian

It would be strange because 24-105 is dedicated for FF "entry level" and plays this role quite well.

35

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Hurricane Sandy in New York City. Almost like a ghost town

« on: October 29, 2012, 07:54:42 PM »

First of all congrats on going out and sharing your great photos.
"I'm a Legend" - all that comes to my mind when I look at those photos

36

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS [CR1]

« on: October 29, 2012, 07:43:33 PM »

True, but one of the advantages of higher pixel counts is larger prints examined more closely, and another is additional ability to crop.  The first effectively reduces CoC, the second effectively increases enlargement, this reducing CoC.  Both require less blur to be effective.

If you choose to change the enlargement criteria, by making a bigger prints and reducing viewing distances or cropping etc, then obviously you need to change the coc criteria and acceptable blur amounts, but that doesn't alter the fact that pixel size is irrelevant with respect to motion blur (or diffraction) for the same sized image.

I suspect most people (I'm sure there are exceptions) don't judge critical focus based on their intended final output. Rather, they view the image at 100% (most likely with a loupe tool).  Therefore, comparing two images shot on different bodies with differently-sized pixels, with the subject projected onto the image plane at the same physical size, the image from the higher resolution/smaller pixel sensor will appear larger, and thus more subject to the perception of blur.

I still think, and as I understand what happens there on the surface of the sensor, that the size of the pixels doesn't play such an important role here, as the resolution. Assuming, that:
1. on the current sensors, geometry of particular subpixels makes them evenly spread across the surface
2. three or (even rather as for now) four of subpixels create a real pixel
3. information from subpixels (creating a pixel) distant from each other is interpolated in terms of luminosity
4. there are microlenses decreasing the infuence of the real geometry of subpixels

I would rather say, that if we want to observe the difference in contrast between the final pixels to catch the motion blur, then
1. if 4 subpixels act as one pixel
2. and those subpixels are evenly spread across the surface
then only the final resolution of final pixels (and not subpixels) determines this matrix'es capability to catch the motion blur caused either by the camera shake or the subject's move.

This can change somehow, if detection is on photo's WB or one of clear RGB components area. In the latter case it  can happen, that the other subpixels remain "blind" no matter if the real move has occured or not, but such a case I'd say is rather rare.

Looking at the real sensor's geometry and it's ability to detect motion blur, I think, that the resolution determines it's real pixel size as area limited by subpixels (but not in terms of it's light capturing capablities) so the bigger the resolution, the smaller the real pixels (even if empty somehow in the middle), so the bigger the ability to detect blur. At smaller resolutions, subpixels acting here as a bigger pixel interpolate the move on the bigger sensor's surface, so their sensivity to "detect" the move is smaller.

Does it make sense?

37

EOS Bodies / Re: real-world autofocus on 5d2

« on: October 29, 2012, 04:35:21 PM »

(...)

Blurred images I have seen are generally a result of my incorrect settings (...)

And this is very true. I have a brilliant  always working way to avoid any problems with focus:
1. Put 17-40 F/4
2. Set to 17mm
3. Set any aperture
4. Stay at least a few meters away from your subject

38

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS [CR1]

« on: October 29, 2012, 12:04:20 PM »

I keep on asking: why you need IS in this lens? to shoot 1/10? well, almost all "moving subjects" can do a lot of stuff within this time range, so you'll get blurred image anyway (well, with another kind of blur, but...). for non-moving subjects only?

Introducing this lens together with high MP body will force you to use higher shutter speeds at the same time even for static objects... or simply leaving IS on

how MP are connected to SS?

If your object moves you can do nothing but increase the shutter speed anyway, but for static objects (at 100% magnification) you will notice more blur on a camera with high MPs - assuming of course you don't intend to make 800x533 photos for web from 40MPs body....

39

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS [CR1]

« on: October 29, 2012, 11:59:12 AM »

I keep on asking: why you need IS in this lens? to shoot 1/10? well, almost all "moving subjects" can do a lot of stuff within this time range, so you'll get blurred image anyway (well, with another kind of blur, but...). for non-moving subjects only?

Introducing this lens together with high MP body will force you to use higher shutter speeds at the same time even for static objects... or simply leaving IS on
After having spent 7-9k$ for body it doesn't make a big difference to add another 500-1k$ for IS in a lens costing 2k$ itself

40

EOS Bodies / Re: real-world autofocus on 5d2

« on: October 29, 2012, 11:51:31 AM »

I had 7d and 5d2, now only have 5d2. I wish 5d2's  AF could be better, but I can live with it, although significant amount of photos goes to trash anyway. Depending on the type of sports you intend to shoot, you can miss the lens reach rather than the difference in AF. Most of these sport photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/marekjoz/collections/72157630780323252/ were made with 5d2 and AI servo, in most cases with center point AF
If you intend to change something regarding sport shooting, I'd advise to consider:
1. The required reach in relationship with lenses you have (you loose 1.6x of your current reach so check your 70-300 at 190 because it would be your maximum reach on FF)
2. Required ISO range in relationship with noise which the body generates and shutter speed you have to achieve in your lighting conditions
3. AF - in my opinion - is on the last place of importance considering above

The other thing is: do you have time after the event to edit and look through your photos to choose the best ones? 5d2 generates 20MB+ RAWs and going through 1000+ of them and looking for 50-200 best can be time consuming.
You need it for fun, print or web? Depending on the purpose your croping capabilities may differ a lot.

41

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS [CR1]

« on: October 29, 2012, 11:09:10 AM »

If it really appears, will it have...
1. IQ of 24-70 2.8 II and  price over 3k$
2. IQ of 24-70 2.8 I and price over 2.5k$
3. IQ better than 24-70 2.8 II and price over 3.5k$
??

42

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Mods get your sh** together and approve the topics that are idle.

« on: October 29, 2012, 10:33:16 AM »

Consider - there are now 6 posts in this thread, 2 of which are from you, and those are the only 2 complaining posts.

To use your metaphor, I'd say that indicates that the ship is sailing along pretty well.  Perhaps you've just fallen overboard and are floundering in deep waters?

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

You really must have bags for sale, don't you?

43

Canon General / Re: Canon Can't Even Make a Billion Dollars Anymore

« on: October 29, 2012, 10:17:14 AM »

I am living in Hong Kong. The 1Dx shows up in a lot of the camera shops now, like other luxurious items - watches, jewelry, French and Italian handbags, Apple items, expensive camera gear, ... etc, waiting for the rich Chinese to buy. 
In the past few years, this drive of luxurious items have pushed the local shop rent and residence prices sky high.
This might sound exaggerated, but cinema closed down to become Luxury Item Shop(s?), a section of the most popular shopping area is now filled with expensive watch shops, and can you image a whole street of camera store chains - you can spot 3 stores from the same chain within 100 meters and they are not small!
As the economic growth in China slows down, this bubble will burst soon.
Canon's marketing dept will have a hard time forecasting the demand and pricing their products. 

They can always make a Lunar version of 1dx

44

Lens Gallery / Re: Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM

« on: October 29, 2012, 06:38:59 AM »

Legia Warszawa - Piast Gliwice by marekjoz, on Flickr


Legia Warszawa - Piast Gliwice by marekjoz, on Flickr

45

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon to start using 0.18um (180nm) process for FF?

« on: October 28, 2012, 07:32:58 AM »

Seems Canon is most definitely not out of the CMOS Image Sensor design game yet. They seem to have some new tricks up their sleeves, and hopefully they will see the light of day in their next FF camera. Ah, competition is good!

My suspicion, which remains speculation as I have no proof, is that Canon has managed to get the very last bit it can out of its 500nm process. - What has been achieved with the 1DX seems pretty amazing considering the maturity of the process.

What I suspect Canon has been trying to do is to commercially leverage the 500nm process to the fullest extent.  The current crop of FF bodies has probably been released at the last possible moment when Canon can still get away with using the current process.  That gives Canon 3 to 4 years (or thereabouts) until the 1DX and 5DIII have to be replaced (unless market conditions change). - That gives Canon quite a leverage in terms of sweating an asset.
(...)

I also think, that they don't bring to market some technologies they have already developed. Someone could say that this is some naive point of view, but if they can still make money on old technology, then why waste this possibility killing it with quite new devices with superior specification? Everyone - I think - will agree, that they are doing incremental steps forward, rather than revolutionary. Those who bought either 5d3 or 1dx will still spend their money for new toys, if they will be better.
It's just a pity, that the life is too short to see the photos made with full DR, 200MP and 24 bits And if they achieve this moment, what would they work on next? Assuming that they have a technology allowing today to make a sensor having 14 stops DR, 100MP and 16bits at 25600 ISO... would it be smart from their point of view to put it into the next DSLR? I am sure, that the answer is NO and if I would be responsible for that in Canon I would simply not allow it to happen, no matter how much as photographer I would enjoy such a tool.