Messages

16

Lenses / Re: 70-400/ f4.0-5.6 Zoom ... Canon, where are you?

« on: March 05, 2013, 07:24:28 AM »

Not able to stick a new 4-stop IS into the current 100-400

In a way they did just that, plus an 0.7TC in the lens design to obscure it. Lets assume the 200-400 eventually becomes available to paying customers the actual utility of a new 100-400 would be reduced again, as in either 300mm is enough or I'd prefer closer to 5-600mm. With the high MP numbers common cropping is much easier then dealing wit a to narrow FOV.

The 200-400 is not available. And it is not affordable for 99% of non-Pro photogs. It is therefore NO alternative to a newly designed, excellent 100-400 II ... at a price not higher than the new Nikon 70-400. 

17

Lenses / Re: 70-400/ f4.0-5.6 Zoom ... Canon, where are you?

« on: March 05, 2013, 03:07:03 AM »

Shame on you, Canon! Geriatric ward still sound asleep.
Not able to stick a new 4-stop IS into the current 100-400 and even less so to come up with a newly-designed, excellent 100-400 f/4.0-5.6 IS L II ... matching the new Nikon's MTF.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/03/05/Nikon-launches-AF-S-Nikkor-80-400mm-4p5-5p6G-ED-VR-telezoom
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/7205672840/editors-opinion-nikons-new-af-s-nikkor-80-400mm-f45-56-g-ed-vr
 

18

Canon General / Re: Canon Announces the Development of New High Sensitivity Sensor

« on: March 04, 2013, 05:38:01 PM »

Can anyone explain why DSLRs sensors are not square which would provide more viewing area?

This has been gone over more times on this forum than I would ever count.  Simple answer: a square sensor with a diagonal of 43.3mm (same as 36x24mm) would not work due to the extra height needed for the reflex mirror and the flange distance of the EOS system (the taller mirror would hit the rear element or mount of the lens).  And as others have pointed out, not all lenses have round baffles to produce the full image circle (only to cover the portion of the image circle that contains the 36x24mm frame.

simple solution. a mirrorless camera! Bingo!
Which happens to be exactly what I want.
Even if it does not have a 36x36mm sensor. Although I would gladly take one. :-)

19

Canon General / Re: Canon Announces the Development of New High Sensitivity Sensor

« on: March 04, 2013, 07:59:26 AM »

Exclusively for video? Hooray! 

+100 - Halleluja! Canon suck up to the videots!


However, I will take a "leading edge" FF sensor ... in a truly innovative ***STILLS ONLY*** mirrorless camera! :-)

20

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: FULL FRAME MIRRORLESS

« on: February 27, 2013, 12:43:12 PM »

Dylan, you make my day!!!

I would laugh so hard, if a yeear from now Canon and Nikon (FF) DSLRs will be totally "cannibalized" by mirrorless FF ILCs 

Canon and Nkikon deserve and wil get massively punished on that one ...

http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/lets-drop-the-bomb-new-samsung-full-frame-nx-r-to-come-in-march/
I just hope this thing will be really hi-end and good. But with Samsung I am afraid it will just be consumer crap with no understanding of photographic matters.

Leica? Overpriced, old-fashioned, half-assed-digital, weakly-sensored 1950s style rangefinder? Not for me, thanks. :-)

21

Lenses / Re: 70-400/ f4.0-5.6 Zoom ... Canon, where are you?

« on: February 25, 2013, 08:24:51 PM »

This won't apply to everyone, but professionals such as myself would rather shoot with two bodies and two lenses so that a backup body is already with you. 

I realize that for many professionals 2 bodies is standard / "best practice".
It does not apply to me personally. Especially when I want to have reach up to 400mm.
Never brought a 100-400 to a wedding.

I do not consider a 100-400 a "mega-zoom". To me a 4x telezoom is a quite benign, even conservative zoom-lens class that has been around for 20+ years.

My usage of a 100-400 would primarily be for all sorts of "outdoor sports/activities" and for all sorts of "wildlife" - from zoo to National Parks/Safari.

In additon to a few prime lenses I currently use 3 zooms (on 7D): 10-22, 17-55, 70-200/2.8. I do not consider purchase of a 400 prime lens. I want one additional, handholdable longer Tele-Zoom ... and 100-400 would be perfect. But I will stay clear of the current dinosaur Canon 100-400, which is outdated in every way - from its  push-pull design to its image quality which is ok, but not great by today's standards and its 2-stops-at-best-IS whcih is substantially inadequate in 2013.

Basically I want a 100-400 II that matches my 70-200/2.8 L IS II in every respect. Build, sealing, IS, IQ - all the way to 400mm. At 400/5.6 it should be every bit as good as the current 400/5.6 ... and no, I do not believe this to be possible only in a 200-400/4.0 @ 12,000 Euro.

So, Canon .. get to work. It's time to deliver. :-)

22

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon 7100 has been anounced

« on: February 25, 2013, 01:15:42 PM »

But Neuro ... especially as a Canon-user it is really tough to spot the feature in the somewhat unwieldy spec list!   

Tough to spot on a Nikon spec list, mabe...but that's better than impossible to spot on a Canon spec list, since it's not there at all (e.g. the 7D has AFMA, but it's not referenced in the specs).

Totally agree on that one. AS I already mentioned when I quoted the D7100 viewfinder details ... it is not  possible to find  the same, still rather basic product information for a Canon EOS camera on a Canon website.

23

Lenses / Re: 70-400/ f4.0-5.6 Zoom ... Canon, where are you?

« on: February 25, 2013, 01:13:48 PM »

I've been shooting subjects like that (close and then far) for years.  The solution is to use two bodies with two different lenses on them.  Photographers have been using this standard setup for ages for close and then far subject matters such as field sports.  I would rather shoot with a great prime and then a great zoom on two bodies rather than use a mega zoom with lower quality. 

My personal preference is having to buy and carry only ONE camera at a time.
A 100-400 Tele-Zoom bears no resemblance to a  28-300 "super zoom",  bridging WW to tele range.
The current 100-400 L is optically quite decent already if you manage to get a good copy.
It could certainly be improved optically by about the same margin as the old 24-70 L compared to the new 24-70 II.  Actually it should be easier, since it is a pure tele-zoom.

24

EOS-M / Re: The Next EOS M? [CR1]

« on: February 25, 2013, 01:08:50 PM »

FF does not fit in an RX-1, that's why it has a fixed lens.  The lens includes the optical path for the light to get to the FF sensor.  LEICA = smart engineering and their FF body is the size of the 6D minus the viewfinder.

Your examples prove what I am saying and you are not understanding.  Fixed lenses to accommodate the approximately 35mm or 1.38" optical path minimum required between the FF sensor (35mm film) and the last lens element.  Add packaging for the body case and electronics and you are at around 1.75-2.00 inches minimum for a FF.  Film was easier, you could pretty much have the film slide along the back of the camera, not so with a sensor.

I do understand. We are talking of mirrorless here. No need for a lot of space betwenn rear lens element and sensor plane.

Whether "the light path is built into" a non-interchangeable prime lens stuck unto the body or into an interchangeable lens mounted via a lens mount makes no difference whatsover. Except the first "solution" yielda a dumb, inflexible single focal length camera and the second solution yields a versatile camera-system. :-)

Flange back for Leica M for example is is 27.8mm. I am quite sure 20mm are also doable with some smart microlens array and proper lens-design. And if the rear lens elements would stick somewhat into the camera body, the camera could be as thin as an RX-1 and the lenses could be really slim as well.

And that's exactly what I want.  And what the overwhelming majority of the market wants.

I will definitely NOT waste time and money moving from my current Canon APS-C DSLR plus lens assortment (EF-S, EF) to a Canon APS-C mirrorless plus new lens assortment (EF-M) to finally a Canon FF mirrorless ILC Camera ("EF-really right") with still another lens assortment. No way!

1. I want to skip purchase of another DSLR
2. I want to skip purhcasing any further APS-C cameras
3. I want to move right on to a compact, hi-performance FF mirrorless ILC with
* excellent sensor
* fast contrast+in-sensor-plane Phase-AF
* hi-end EVF
* full ergonomic controls [i.e. 2 wheels! ] 
* at max. 1/3 of the cost of a Leica M system - so basically at the price of Sony RX-1 

The first company to offer this, will be my next camera system vendor. :-)

25

EOS-M / Re: The Next EOS M? [CR1]

« on: February 25, 2013, 11:47:31 AM »

Nex-7 size: 4.75" × 2.75" × 1.69"
EOS-M size: 4.28" x 2.62" x 1.27"

Both are APS-C.  Besides the optics, there are electronics involved to improve sensor IQ, AF performance, etc.  I don't see how anyone can think FF came fit within these package dimensions.

FF does not fit in a package as small als the APS-C EOS M. But FF does nicely fit into a package the size of a Sony RX-1. All that is still needed is a lens mount up front. Plus a few FF-capable "pancake" lenses the size of Leica-M lenses or the EF 40mm/2.8 pancake. I do not see anything difficult in that task. 

Even many years ago 36x24mm imaging surface was available in really small boxes ... with some smart engineering. Digital should be way easier, since there is no bulky film cartridge involved, but a flat, thin imaging-sensor. No need to settle for half-format cameras. I want full format. In a small box. :-)

26

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon 7100 has been anounced

« on: February 25, 2013, 11:39:04 AM »

This 7100 may well be the sharpest APS-C camera around for a long time - in theory!
But no AFMA facility on it?
So in practice you may have to be very lucky to realise its full potential on your favourite lens.

Well, technically it doesn't have AFMA, because that's Canon's name for the feature.  But, what makes you think it doesn't have AF Fine Tune?  Might want to go read the specs again...

Yes, the D7100 does fave AF "fine tuning".
After all it is the same 3500DX AF-module as introduced almost 6 years ago in the Nikon D300. 

But Neuro ... especially as a Canon-user it is really tough to spot the feature in the somewhat unwieldy spec list!   

Tab Heading: Autofocus

Nikon Advanced Multi-CAM 3500DX autofocus sensor module with TTL phase detection, fine-tuning, 51 focus points (including 15 cross-type sensors; the center point is available at apertures slower than f/5.6 and faster than f/8 or at f/8), and AF-assist illuminator (range approx. 0.5 to 3 m/1 ft 8 in. to 9 ft 10 in.)

27

EOS-M / Re: The Next EOS M? [CR1]

« on: February 25, 2013, 08:48:18 AM »

Sony's RX1 is full frame but they had to resort to a fixed lens because the FF optics extend out of the main camera body into the lens, the size is 4.5" x 2.63" x 2.75" including the fixed lens.  To accommodate interchangeable lenses, the RX1 would have to be at least 1.7" thick and/or have complex optics at the camera/lens interface.

absolutely no! Package couild be axactly like Sony RX-1, just with a lens mount flush up front.
And a small range of lenses designed for it - essentially  a couple of ultra-compact pancakes 24/4.0, 35/2.8, 50/2.0, 75/2.8 and an equally ultracompact, foldable kit-zoom - say 24-70/f 4.0 L IS. 

And of course an EF-adapter ... distance ring with straight-through wiring from one end to the other, no chip, no optical elements. So easy, so simple, so cheap. :-)

 

28

EOS-M / Re: The Next EOS M? [CR1]

« on: February 25, 2013, 03:43:49 AM »

I don't blame Sony for pricing RX1 at $2800, since it's the ONLY FF sensor camera built in P&S body for less than $3000. Not to mention, it comes with Carl Zeiss f2 lens. No other companies have "BLL" to bring this kind of product to the market.
Mark my words: If Fuji or Sony comes out FF camera in compact body like the RX1 or Fuji x100, faster AF and with exchangable lenses, I will DUMP all my Canon gear. I don't understand the point of waiting for Canon FF compact camera.

Sony RX-1 is also a problem rather than a solution as far as my demands are concerned.
1. I will NEVeR  buy a digital camera with a glued-on, ultra boring 35mm prime lens. No way. Its got to have a lens mount. And its got to have a fully-functional (IS, AF, flash-metering, distance information, etc.) adapter for Canon EF.
2. I will NEVER again buy a camera with dead slow AF. RX-1 ist way too slow. My acceptable minimum AF-speed is Nikon1, but preferably like a Panasonic GH-3.

I really do not understand why Sony did not produce an RX-2 alongside the RX-1 ... with a lens mount. They do not even have to worry about "Cannibalizing" their DSLRs (or rather their sub-par SLTs) ... since those are not sold in worthwile numbers anyway. Sony could have gone ALL OUT and create the first real FF compact camera that beats a Leica M9 by a hige margin ... at a third of the price.  There is a HUGE amrket for such a camera + a range of ultra-compact, but decent pancake lenses and a high-end, ultra-compact / foldable 24-70/f 4.0 kit lens.

I hope Canon will continue to be punished by the market (=us!) and hits the wall soon with its lacklustre APS-C EOS-M system. I will NEVER buy another APS-C camer and yet another set of APS-C lenses. Still got a bunch of EF-S ...

29

EOS-M / Re: The Next EOS M? [CR1]

« on: February 24, 2013, 05:20:33 PM »

My ave Joe's math:
FF sensor in compact body(like RX1) + pancake fast prime lenses(14,16,35,50,85,135, and or 200mm) = BIG SALE

+1

Plus - Contrast or Hybrid - AF as fast as in a current Panasonic!

30

EOS-M / Re: The Next EOS M? [CR1]

« on: February 24, 2013, 05:19:18 PM »

still yawning and still waiting for a FF MILC, 1st company to do it gets my money.  High performance APS-C DSLR for sports & wildlife + relatively compact FF mirrorless for street and portraits is my idea setup...

+1   me too!