Messages

901

Canon General / Re: Lens Calibration / Micro adjustment

« on: January 23, 2012, 07:38:44 PM »

A few months ago I sent my 17-55 2.8 IS lens in to Canon service because it front focused dramatically at the wide end of the zoom range.  When it came back, it back focused at the narrow end of the zoom range. 

I sent it in again and they had me send in my 7D as well.

When the camera and lens came back together, they now front focused at the wide end of the zoom range, much like they did in the beginning. 

I did some more extensive testing putting that lens on different bodies and using the 7D with different lenses from my collection.   The body had similar problems with other zoom lenses, but in different parts of the zoom range!  Oddly, prime lenses still worked perfectly.   

The 17-55 lens showed wild focus problems on my 40D body, I think still front focused at the wide end.  (Don't have my notes with me now.)

So I speculate that Canon service attempted to adjust the programming in the body to make it work with a defective lens.  I really don't know if that is correct.   I have not been able to find a full explanation of how the focus algorithms are supposed to work, when they are working correctly.

The whole focus system sucks if you ask me.

Right now the lens and the 7D are back at Canon service for a third attempt.  I sent them to New Jersey this time instead of California.

Mike

Mike,
have you read this: http://www.canonrumors.com/tech-articles/this-lens-is-soft-and-other-myths/ ?

902

Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/2.8L II [CR2]

« on: January 16, 2012, 08:41:13 PM »

The simple fact is that this lens will cost the exact same price, $2000 with OR without IS. The real issue is if Canon wants a slightly lower profit margin in exchange for higher sales volume. There is no doubt in my mind that including IS in this lens will pay off big time. Specifically I feel the inclusion of IS will probably cut Canon's profits by 20% on the lens, but will increase sales by over 100%. I would easily pay $6000 for this lens with IS personally but would not even consider it without. I know twice as many people will buy it if it has IS.

Let's assume that technology (some discovery) allows manufacturing 28-300 F2,8 IS having weight, size and production cost of 24-105 and IQ better than 70-200 f2,8 IS II.
Do you think that such a killer would:
a) cost a fortune but be allowed for sales?
b) be put deep in a wardrobe but specific technologies used in it would be spread among the current lens line to improve it?
c) be never announced until competition enforced it ?

BTW there is indeed sth funny in it, that the only lens counted as "standard zoom" without IS is 24-70...

903

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 1DX pricing in Australia

« on: January 14, 2012, 05:46:06 AM »

Canon 1DX  RRP pricing in Austalia" rip off"

Canon USA expected retail pricing around $6800

Canon AUS expected retail pricing around $9990

The aus dollar has been higher then the us dollar  but we still are going to asked to to pay more then $3000 more down here for the same camera. that about 45% more ??

Then if you buy the camera from the a us canon dealer canon australia don't warrant it here ??

I just don't understand why the huge price difference i know we are a smaller market but 45% more does not make sence

that is completely absurd, its cheaper to fly to the US and buy one and have a holiday while you are at it.

You maybe found the reason there's such a difference - someone has to fly to bring it to Australia
It's obvious anyway comparing prices in US and somewhere else. I understand taxes, transport and exchange rates stability but 45% is strange anyway.

904

EOS Bodies / OT - hasselblad masters

« on: January 13, 2012, 02:34:15 PM »

Not regarding canon, but photography strictly. For all photos lovers - there is another contest finished: Hasselblad Masters. http://hasselblad.com/masters.

905

Software & Accessories / Re: Is it worth updating 5D2 to 2.1.1 firmware?

« on: January 09, 2012, 10:09:40 AM »

Magic Lantern Unified beta for 5d2 works on 2.1.1. Pretty cool stuff, even as beta.

906

Lenses / Re: Buying my first L lens...which one is best for video?

« on: January 07, 2012, 07:24:39 AM »

Difficult when no budget is set and the range runs from around £400 to over £2000 but my reccomend would be the higher end 28 - 300mm IS L which gives everything you need in one lens.

Being rather a strong guy, I have difficulties holding 70-200 f4 L IS without shaking for longer than some while. It's 0.76 kg vs 1.67 kg in 28-300. Even IS could not help in video...

907

Lenses / Re: Buying my first L lens...which one is best for video?

« on: January 07, 2012, 04:20:49 AM »

Without a tripod you simply can't use most of the lens without IS for video. The only L I can use for video without IS is 17-40. 24-105 and 70-200 require IS on if shot from hand, no matter if put on 7d or 5d2. Even 50 1.4 is not easy to use. For video I prefer 24-105 f4 over 50 f1.4 just because of IS.

In most cases as stated before it is more convenient to use f8-11 because of manual focus manipulation need. With f4-5.6 the DOF is so shallow that really very, very difficult to follow. The shutter speed set in video really doesn't matter in terms of the final picture shaking. No matter even wether it is 1/30s or 1/125s - the following frames with 1/125s would be frozen but the final video will be shaked if not used with tripod or IS.

Buy 70-200 without IS only if you are sure you will use tripod. Without it - this is just a waste of money if used for video.
I had EF 28-135 IS which was not L but could be something to consider - acceptable picture quality, IS, very good mm range and affordable price. I am sure you would achieve better results with it in video than 70-200 f4 no IS.

908

EOS Bodies / Re: What if - interchengeable sensors

« on: December 22, 2011, 09:07:06 AM »

What you propose would be the best and I'd love it too. But here we'd have interpolation issues which I really don't Know how to avoid.
Does anybody know if there were any tries of designing another type of sensor with some other than linear or rectangular rgb subpixels arrangement - ie in triangular arrangement? Or maybe splitting rgb dots in one dot (ie placing r, g and b subpixels over each other - some kind of layers)?
(Edited some grammar and meaning)

All this has been done and is currently done in professional video cameras.

The stills market can't really support the cost of these sort of designs though.

Thanks - I didn't Know that.

909

EOS Bodies / Re: What if - interchengeable sensors

« on: December 22, 2011, 04:33:58 AM »

IE, be programmed to...

1. Be a 28mp full frame, high (12800, example) ISO 4-5fps sensor (silky smooth images)
2. Be a 24mp full frame, low ISO (6400, emample), 10-12fps sensor (not so silky smooth, but trade-off for super speed)
3. Be a 18mp APS-H sensor (1.3 crop) low ISO high speed sensor, 16+fps
4. Be a 16mp APS-C sensor (1.6 crop) low ISO super high speed senor, 18+fps...

Low mp (14mp? 16mp?) and extremely silky smooth images at very high ISO (12800+)
(...)
"DIGIC" could be programmed to do each of these things. Trade one quality for another kind of thing... I also believe that if Canon went back to the "still" camera (and I hope they do, just MO) and took out video shooting you could squeeze allot of different sensor resolution programs in it's place. I would BUY this camera!

Just my 2 cents.

D

What you propose would be the best and I'd love it too. But here we'd have interpolation issues which I really don't Know how to avoid.
Does anybody know if there were any tries of designing another type of sensor with some other than linear or rectangular rgb subpixels arrangement - ie in triangular arrangement? Or maybe splitting rgb dots in one dot (ie placing r, g and b subpixels over each other - some kind of layers)?
(Edited some grammar and meaning)

910

EOS Bodies / Re: What if - interchengeable sensors

« on: December 21, 2011, 07:52:17 PM »

I want to be able to tilt my camera's sensor

... and shift?

911

EOS Bodies / Re: What if - interchengeable sensors

« on: December 20, 2011, 07:18:01 PM »

OK; each motherboard has a BIOS chipset (firmware - software on hardware with some part upgradable via flashing the bios) but, NO you can not put just any processor on any motherboard (think speed - if the motherboard is designed for certain speeds it won't go faster, nor a wider / 64 bit processor in a 32 bit bios / chipset; etc.) Memory has different types and different speeds, etc.

I respectfully disagree...
We're not talking about ANY processors. We're talking about digics - specialized mainly signal (image handling) processors of one manufacturer, based on special purposes design. They Know their design. If "30 years" you Know that chipset has nothing to do with it. You can have chipset with bios working with any processor, as far as io, memory and bus are properly operated and based on same microinstructions (yes, I programmed in assembler, also embedded devices). This is not about putting any processor. This is about design allowing inserting a next generation processor operating in the same environment. It's not about design allowing put 128 bit processor in 64 bit address space (let's look forward) without compability handling.
It's all about making everyone happy. Please archangerichard don't try to say it is not possible to design an architecture where just one or just two digics must operate at a time. Is it really not possible to give people a choice - you have one processor in standard, you want two (to have 10 instead 6 fps) - pay 200$ (300, 400...) more?

Is it really not possible to design microadjustment allowing to position a sensor properly? Is it not possible to design some simple lens-like ef mounted cap with some holes or led/laser assisted sensor positioning?
What differs digic2, 3, 4 and 5 in terms of board circuit design?
Can digic 4 or 5 (ie) work in different camera łines like powershot and eos with no respect to the sensor they operate on?
 I think techs are not really so important - a Man was sent to the Moon, a Man could design cheap interchengeable sensors in a camera.
 Maybe time didn't come yet? Maybe in 3 years? But why not now? Look how very different expectations from 5d3 there are. Some want high iso, some MPs, some don't bother about lazy AF.
The question is: how you maintain all these (sometimes) opposite requirements without forcing people to buy 2, 3 or 4 different cameras for their purposes and without canibalizing the flagship model? Could the winner in this slr battle be the player who offers this as the first one?

912

EOS Bodies / Re: What if - interchengeable sensors

« on: December 20, 2011, 02:04:18 PM »

Leaving for a moment all the technical issues (motherboard, circuits design, mechanical connections etc.) the Real question is whether there would be a market demand for such a design. If there would be, i'm pretty sure there would be some good solution when having the design concept and requirements in mind. Let's not forget, that this is just a specialized computer with it's computing power, reprogrammable software, IO system and some extensions.

Assuming that the price would not be a challenge and you would get a fully expandable system, would you really be interested? For instance: you are offered NOW to change a sensor in your 5d2 to 36MP 12800 ISO native (or 18MP with 25600) and add 7d focus capabilities. Would you pay another 500$, 1k or 1.5k$ for it?

913

EOS Bodies / Re: What if - interchengeable sensors

« on: December 20, 2011, 08:13:30 AM »

but as a consumer good, they want you to change the whole camera for the new stuff.

I think that for them it also could be good. They want you to buy new cameras but count their profit. They can't make everyone happy, so each time it is a kind of compromise. With this they could make everyone happy - fully customizable camera. Some don't want video - They don't buy additional video chip for 400$. Some will. And will also spend another 300$ for a beter codec chip. Do They loose on it? I'm not so sure. You can more often buy some New parts, chipper for you than New camera, but more profittable for them (some electronic stores make Money almost only on accessories)

914

EOS Bodies / What if - interchengeable sensors

« on: December 20, 2011, 07:21:50 AM »

What if next 5d would have interchangeable sensors?
I don't think it's not possible from technical point of view. You can change a processor in a computer or put more memory. Some kind of transport and microadjustment would allow to avoid not proper embedding.
From marketing point of view - wouldn't you like to have a body with a choice of having ie 18MP 51200 ISO or 36MP 12800ISO?
What if they would also allow change (or add another) signal processor? 3 types of AF board?
Let's say 800$ sensor, 500$ - digic.

With some restrictions this idea wouldn't canibalize 1dx. You could for instance build a body of same capabilities but higher price summing all parts' prices than 1dx itself.

Red is going some simpler way with it's skeleton (they don't allow to change sensors but why not?)
What do you think? 

915

EOS Bodies / Re: Upgrade to 5dmk2 or wait for 5dmk3?

« on: December 17, 2011, 05:37:00 PM »

I'm using it mainly for web and regular prints. I'm thinking MkIII will be higher mp cause they will have to match the d800. The 1dx is more against the d3/d4 lineup.

Crjiro: Yes, but were there d800 specs already confirmed? Maybe canon has another way to fight against MPs? Everybody here is speculating. I really hope MPs will not be the main improvement in mk3 beause it will not be a reason to buy one.

If you treat your gear as a tool you make Money on, then get the best that fulfills your needs but only if the investment will be returned. If this is your hobby, then the money spent on it is only a sky limit

Anyway and still - I would go for it.

Subsequently, all the hype about the 5D#, so I decided on waiting.  And I waited, and I waited.  (...)
I am aware that a 5D3 may be announced and ship tomorrow, but no regrets. 

Exactly. There always (probably:)) will be a better gear than you currently have. If you buy you'll be fearing what if you'd wait. If you wait, you'll regret you didn't buy.

Anyway and still - I would go for it.