July 28, 2014, 10:42:31 PM

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 - AvTvM

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 60
DXO should
1. capture image of identical test target using 3 copies of purchased test cameras and the same optical bench
2. physically print the images using the same physical printer every time and exactly the same print settings
3. scan those Print-outs using the same scanner and scan settings every time
4. then present to us 100% views of the same, pre-defined image areas of those scans ... 1x Center, 4x halfway out along image diagonals and 4x corners

THEN i might start taking their test method seriously. :-)

I know the videos. Shutter sound seems minimal. But i have yet to see precise specs or detailed images of the shutter unit showing whether or not it is
A) a fully electronic global shutter free of any mechanical components
B) just a somewhat improved version of the A7 shutter with only an electronic first shutter and a mechanic second shutter.

While B is some progress over regular mechanical shutters, it is A) that i really want to get in my next camera ... The full monty, not some half-mechanical solution.

Sony's obfuscation and lack of clear specs leads me to conclude the A7S only has such a half-mechanical, quiet shutter rather than a truly electronic, SILENT and totally VIBRATION-free shutter.


DxO should know better.  It's not 'trolling' to point out that the 'Print DR' value is misleading and ludicrous, as is a 'Sports Score' based on the sensor alone, as is insisting that the 70-200/2.8L IS is better than the MkII version that succeeded it, etc.

Full ACK.

EOS Bodies / Re: A Few EOS 7D Mark II Specs [CR1]
« on: June 17, 2014, 05:02:33 PM »
You could even take shots of the marshmallows that unicorn is crapping out as it flys around on it's magical cloud. :P

Hehehe! :-)

Unfortunately Canon's unicorns are of the non-aviatory kind. :-)

EOS Bodies / Re: More EOS 7D Mark II Talk [CR1]
« on: June 17, 2014, 04:35:44 PM »
I don't think that any successor or replacement for the 7D will be incompatible with EF-S lenses.  That would just drive a lot of near-certain buyers down to the 70D.


EOS-M / Re: Canon EF-M 55-200 f/4.5-6.3 IS STM Gets Official
« on: June 17, 2014, 04:33:55 PM »
Thanks for the MTF charts!

Since i do have the ef-s 55-250 + adapter i will also hold back buying more ef-m lenses until canon either announces a golden unicorn eos-m3 :-) or at least a vlear roadmap showing, where they want to take the M system to.
If a really good M3 comes along, i will shed all EF-S lenses and pick up Ef-M instead. Actially i might pull the trigger on the 11-22 even before ... If i get a teally good deal. 55-200 is somewhat less enticing to me due to f/6.3.

"Full electronic shutter" is still a mystery to me regarding A7s. Reichmann's review is very unspecific on thos but sounds more like Electronic 1st curtain only". Sony is not able or willing to provide clear cut specs either.

Personally i dont want video at all, but i want a fully electronic shutter, 0% mechanics, 0 noise, 0 vibration ... For my next stills camera. If this also means "no rolling shutter, no jello" for video, then fine. They shall use it in soecial video cams or pirely video optimized versions of my stills cam and sell me a stills-only version for less money. :-)

EOS Bodies / Re: A Few EOS 7D Mark II Specs [CR1]
« on: June 17, 2014, 11:41:36 AM »
I think our favorite spot on the mode dial is a religious matter -- it often defines our first priority to the shot and everything else follows.  Mine is locked on Av unless (a) I deliberately want a specific shutter (< 1% of the time) or (b) I've got the flash on in really low light and I go to M.  It's not right, it's not wrong.  It's what I do.  Each of us has our own sensibilities to follow.

Exactly what I do!!
But unlike you I hate to use AUTO ISO on my 7D as i often find it not to select high enough ISO's. I like the auto-metering of my camera, I seldom use spot metering, only in extremely different lit situations where I would need DR my camera can't offer.

Auto-ISO on the 7D unfortunately is still limited, even after firmware update 2.0 
Only 5D 3 and 1-series have fully functional Auto-ISO. sigh.

EOS-M / Re: Canon EF-M 55-200 f/4.5-6.3 IS STM Gets Official
« on: June 17, 2014, 11:08:47 AM »
Not necessarily.  What is the T-stop of of the 35 f/2 IS?  T/2.  What is the T-stop of the 24-70 f/2.8 II?  T/3.  Modern coatings are much better than they were a decade ago.  It's time for you to sell the 55-250 and buy the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II because that is what you really want.   ::)

For less expensive, darkish consumer zoom lenses, manufacturers tend to LIE MORE regarding focal lengths and f-stop. ;-)

and btw ... i got both, EF-S 55-250 and EF 70-200/2.8 II ... and use each for its own. I do have pictures, where I could not tell from just looking at them, with which one they were made. ;-)

EOS-M / Re: Canon EF-M 55-200 f/4.5-6.3 IS STM Gets Official
« on: June 17, 2014, 10:29:36 AM »
you're not going to see a significant difference between 5.6 and 6.3 for any of your issues though.

yeah, but
1. every bit worse hurts ... anything from f/5.6 onward is twilight zone anyways ;-)
2. especially considering how ALL manufacturers LIE about focal lengths and f-stops ... in reality f/5.6 often really means T/6.2  and f/6.3 means T/7.9 ... or so  ::)

EOS-M / Re: Canon EF-M 55-200 f/4.5-6.3 IS STM Gets Official
« on: June 17, 2014, 10:25:13 AM »
Regardless, I think the main reason for the f/6.3 is a size reduction.

same.  even if this factors in as a not cheap item to get all the way over to NA, I'll probably get one just because it's far more smaller than the EF-S + adapter.

Just an interesting comparison (granted the fuji is faster - but you don't have any other options).

Between the APS-C short registration systems, the telephoto kit len's:

Fuji 2.95 x 4.65" 20.46 oz  f/3.5-4.8
Sony 2.5 x 4.25 12.1 oz  f/4.5-6.3
Canon M 2.4" x 3.38 9.17 oz f/4.5-6.3

I do expect the Canon EF-M 55-200 to be a better perfermer in terms of IQ than both the much more expensive Fuji [which is not great] and the Sony lens. But lets wait and see .. MTF charts anyone? ... and then test results and pictures. :-)

Of course this lens only was announced, because I recently purchased the EF-S 55-250 for use as light telezoom on both my 7D and via adapter on the M.  ;D

EOS-M / Re: Canon EF-M 55-200 f/4.5-6.3 IS STM Gets Official
« on: June 17, 2014, 10:17:36 AM »
Regarding the f/6.3, isn't the f stop somewhat moot with contrast detect AF?  Of course more light is likely better, but I thought that was more of an issue with phase detect.  Canon has had P&S cameras for years with >f/5.6 and contrast detect AF.  How is this any different?

EOS-M has hybrid Af ... phase detect on sensor  + contrast-detect. Less light will certainly not help AF, although the issue might not be as bad as on DSLR/phase AF-only system.

Plus f/6.3 on a 200mm lens (equivalent FOV to 320mm lens on EOS M/APOS-C sensor) will require use of higher ISO setting quite often to get fast enough shutter speeds to freeze motion in anything other than fully sunlit scenes ...   

Yet another issue are diffraction losses. f/4 typically delivers maximum sharpness on APS-C sensors, from f/8 onward diffraction losses will set in. A f/6.3 APS-C lens does not leave room for stopping down.

See for example photozone-review of Canon EF-S 10-18/4.0-5.6 ... which shows diffraction losses already at f/8.
We've seen it already with the Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM ... Canon really knows how to design sharp lenses even at this price point. The MTF results are nothing short of astounding. However, first of all some comments regarding the "curves" below. Some of you may be surprised that the lens is capable of providing its best results at max. aperture. This may sound strange but please keep in mind that APS-C lenses perform best around f/4 (full format: around f/5.6) and diffraction has already an impact when stopping down. Thus because the Canon lens is "so slow" to start with, it performs already best between f/4.5 and f/5.6.
The center quality is generally excellent till f/8 and the borders as well as the corners are very good. At f/11 diffraction has a significant impact already. Usually we don't include the reading for f/16 but we've shown it here just to illustrate that this setting should be avoided on APS-C cameras. The reduced quality has nothing to do with the lens, this is just physics in action.


EOS-M / Re: Canon EF-M 55-200 f/4.5-6.3 IS STM Gets Official
« on: June 17, 2014, 09:48:26 AM »
I really don't bother. I just thought that it was odd when the others have metal mounts.

yep, I agree. Even though I don't really mind plastic mounts on cheap lenses, a metal mount would have been "nicer" and in line with the other, rather well constructed lenses in the EF-M range. Even the EF-M 18-55 kit zoom got a metal mount, as opposed to the EF-S 18-55 STM (plastic).

But again, a rather superficial corner cut, compared to f/6.3 on the long end.   

EOS-M / Re: Canon EF-M 55-200 f/4.5-6.3 IS STM Gets Official
« on: June 17, 2014, 09:21:16 AM »
First EF-M lens with plastic mount.  ???

so what ... it won't hurt optical performance nor durability. It's a convenience consumer lens at an affordable price. 
People who insist on metal mounts can get the all-metal EF-M/EF adapter and mount their full metal jacket L lenses. Or pay 1 grand a pop for Fuji X-lenses or Sony FE-"Zeiss"-pancakes.

I'd have happily traded the savings from plastic vs. metal mount against 1 stop more light though. ;-)

A7s is doomed to fail as a video camera, since it cannot even record 4k Video without using an external device, that is not even available yet.

A7s is doomed as a stills camera, because it only offers somehwat better offer Hi-ISO performance (from 6400 upwards) in exchange for the very low resolution. It would need to be CLEARLY better ...
A7s is doomed, because it is a totally compromised video-stills bastard, offering less than desirable competence for either task. And due to that it is also too expensive for what it is. Compared to A7, A7R, 5D II, D800, GH4, ...

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 60