Messages

346

EOS Bodies / Re: Eye Control Focus

« on: February 28, 2012, 04:57:05 AM »

+1

347

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Why the hate for video capable DSLRs?

« on: February 28, 2012, 04:56:20 AM »

Come on folks this is where the market is - Embrace technology

no smiting. As a Non-video photographer I would embrace new technology enthusiastically, if only Canon would BRING IT ON! First things that come to mind ...
* higher DR
* (even) better IQ at ISO 100-1600, I would forego ISO 6400+ in an instance for that
* better AF-systems
* usable Auto-ISO function
* ... and and and

Video+Audio capture? Not on my list. As simple as that.
Give me a stills only 7D II-S or 5D III-S for 200 bucks less than a "regular" stills+video 7D II or 5D III ... and everybody is happy!

348

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Why the hate for video capable DSLRs?

« on: February 27, 2012, 09:18:50 PM »

next thing that comes with video is ... AUDIO!
Another bunch of electronics + processing stuff that drains valuable power and does nothing whatsoever for stills photography.  Additional components, additional development costs ... making stills+video(+audio) more expensive than stills only.

349

Lenses / Re: What happened to the DO lenses?

« on: February 26, 2012, 10:03:44 PM »

If memory serves me correctly, Canon produced two DO (diffractive optics) lenses: 400/4 IS and 70-300/4.5-5.6 IS. The zoom is still current but no more DO lenses have been announced since those original two. The DO design was highly touted at the time, but seems to have been forgotten/shelved (?). Does anyone know why? Was it primarily IQ, manufacturing tolerances, slow sales, or-? (I'm new to the Forum, so apologies if this subject has been raised before.) Thanks in advance.

DO = sub-par IQ. Not enough resolution and rather poor Bokeh (onion structure in specular higlights). 
-> http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/540-canon70300f4556doisff?start=1

With the 70-300 IS both L and Non-L Canon themselves have proven "regular optical formulas" to be superior to  exotic diffraction-elements will deliver far superior IQ at significantly lower prices (at least with the 70-300 IS Non L). In addition, the DO size advantage over regular lenses is not really huge. 

Unless they really improve DO-lenses a lot and slash their prices a lot, DO lenses will vanish from the face of earth and will not  be missed. 

350

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Why the hate for video capable DSLRs?

« on: February 26, 2012, 07:33:38 AM »

Mentioned?  yes.  Addressed well? no.  Sensors only heat when active.  If you're shooting stills then this is no problem for you.  So what's the problem?

The problem is: a stills+video camera needs to be able to withstand (e.g. heatwise) the requirements of   running full-bore video capture and processing for the duration of up to a full battery charge [or 2 of them when gripped] - or some artificial limit like 29 minutes (owing to some wretched customs regulations).
 
A stills-only camera would not have to take that into account from the very start. That alone would enable a significantly different layout of the system and its components, geared more towards delivering highest IQ in each single exposure, rather than in a continous stream. 

The premise of the anti-video crowd is that adding video features inherently undermines still photography, and that a camera that was designed, ground-up, as a stills-only camera would produce better-quality stills and a better still-shooter experience.  The Leica is a counter-example to the assertion that stills-only produces better IQ, even though it is a substantially larger sensor and was selected/designed for stills-only. 

Leica M9 IQ is sub-par not because it is a stills-only camera, but despite it ... its Kodak is a very old design (5+ years?), and at the time apparently the only sensor Leica could get their hands on. Leica has no sensor know-how whatsoever.  If Canon (or Sony) were to design a dedicated "stills-only" camera now (in 2012) with sensor+processing pipeline targeted at highest possible stills IQ it would be quite a different beast, that's for sure. 

351

EOS Bodies / Re: Eye Control Focus

« on: February 25, 2012, 06:53:28 PM »

I have never used ECF. But I would absolutely  love to have it. Of course in a 2012 version with enough processing power behind it to make it really work as intended. I want it to be 100% free of "training needs" - it has to work right out of the box.

To me it is the only natural, intuitive interface to create images ... eye on the viewfinder, looking at what you want to have in focus - and bingo ... consider it done.

If Canon would pull that one off, they would leapfrog any competition in the market by a number of years. It would really give them a unique advantage.

I would instantly upgrade from my 7D to a 7D II with ECF - provided it works the way I expect it - even if nothing else were changed!

352

Lenses / Re: Lenses for 650D

« on: February 25, 2012, 11:37:06 AM »

I strongly recommend the following. Especially because you have $2500 to spend. That is a lot of money to get a nice gear with an outlook towards the future.
...
The body I recommend getting a second hand 450D. ...
...
If you want to shoot video, then get a second hand 550D.
...
It has the same size sensor as the 600D, 60d and the 7D, so you wont notice any significant image improvement.
...
The EF-S lenses for APS-C bodies like the 600D are not as good in terms of build and image quality.
...
May i reccommend putting your money into a 24-105 f/4 or a 24-70 f/2.8 lens. The 24-70 MKI is selling quite cheap as the MKII is coming out.
...
Another idea is to buy the 24-70 MKII new with a used 450D body.
...
Then a year later, you can afford to throw away that body, and if you are ready to move into full frame ...
...
Just my 2 cent and my experiences. Ive had loads of cheaper EF-S lenses, tamron lenses, sigma lenses, started with super zooms, and slow aperatures, but like everyone else, I learnt about he L lenses, the fast aperatures. I hope you will get there without spending too much unecessary money, ...

Sorry, but I wholeheartedly disagree with all of your above quoted recommendations. And all of your quoted assumptions are factually wrong. While giving you all my respect for trying to be helpful here, I do consider your entire posting very bad advice.

$ 2500 are NOT a lot of money to purchase a whole DSLR system plus all accessories (tripod). It basically allows you to get a decent APS-C starter stet. Luckily the OP is very realistic and fully aware of that.

I would NOT recommend buying an used rebel/xxxD. The current models all offer more than worthwile updgrades in a number of areas over the older models. 

FF is NOT the holy grail of photography. UNLESS somebody makes A LOT of large-sized prints, APS-C is perfectly fine for amateurs/enthusiasts (and many pro's too), unless money is littlle or no object.

You have obviously never tried the Canon EF-S 17-55. It beats the humdrum EF 24-70 by quite some margin, despite the latter being an "L" lens. Nothing magic about that L. And recommending the not even yet available, totally unproven but incredibly expensive 24-70 II to somebody who has a total budget of 2.5k is just ludicrous.   

353

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Why the hate for video capable DSLRs?

« on: February 25, 2012, 11:21:19 AM »

AvTvM, all you've just said is theoretical;

wrong. It's dead on, 100% real-life.

For all the reasons a number of people have detailed in this thread, digital cameras designed to capture both still images and video are a huge comrpomise from the very start. All of the points I've made are valid and very real.

354

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Why the hate for video capable DSLRs?

« on: February 25, 2012, 08:04:52 AM »

In short, I'd ask you this: what, precisely, of the following chain of events is substantially different between still and video?  And which of that is not already a requirement of consumer cameras?

1. Expose sensor
2. Read data from sensor
3. Demosaic
4. Encode a frame
5. Save to media

Really, I don't get it: why is video not just a (nearly) free bonus?

I am no engineer.

But as I see it:

For video, a sensor with 2 megapixels (FullHD - 1920x1080) is all that is required. Videos are viewed on monitors or on screens/beamers - all of which offer - at best! - Full HD.
The sensor+readout+processor needs to be able to handle an ongoing massive stream of data without any interruption. Image quality of single frames however is a secondary requirement at best. 
The sensor needs to be of a type that can handle capture incoming light for "indefinite periods" of time. Cooling that thing is a major hardware issue.
These requirements preclude certain sensor types (e.g. CCD-FT) from being used in regular video-enabled cameras altogether. This narrows the choice of image capturing device and layout friom the start to a much narrower field than for "stills capture only".

For photography (stills) hat is needed/wanted?
Sensors with the highest possible resolution [currently 36 MP+ on 36x24mm "FF"sensor size], with the best possible S/R [translating into good DR, low hi-ISO noise, and all other goodies us photographers want). Image quality of each single frame/capture is paramount, speed is a secondary concern - 10 fps more than good enough for virtually anything. Exposure times are typically fractions of a second, typically max. 30 seconds, and only in very rae instances minutes. Cooling is much less of a concern than in video use ... and yes, live view has is blurring that requirement a bit. But bottom line: the whole data readout/processing pipeline needs to be geared to highest "single capture performance" vs. "streaming performance". 

These two sets of requirements are not 180 degrees opposite of each other, but there is a significant rift between them. Fulfilling both requirements necessitates an enormous amount of compromise on both ends .. for video and for stills capture, making the final product significantly more difficult to design, test, manufacture = more expensive, more prone to defects, less good in each of the 2 disciplines.   

"Video" in DSLRs of all things  with all the mechanical stuff (anything inside the mirror box) and a lot of the optical stuff (prism, viewfinder etc.) really *in the way of video* rather than complementary is an aberration in camera design. Looking at mirrorless cameras changes the pictures a lot, but for DSLRs its madness.

The sole reason HDSLRs got popular with videographers  is their relative pricing compared to the "traditionally outlandish prices" for (relatively) large-sensored videocameras. All of a sudden, a $ 2,000 body comes with a sensor that rivals old-school videocams at $ 100.000+ ... that is the appeal in HDSLRs. It is a boon for videographers for sure, but not for photography/stills capture!  HDSRLs are highly affordable to a large group of aspiring moving images people, and given the price they are more than illing to put up with all of the disadvantages HDSLRs bring to their work. Basically, all they use in a HDSLR is the sensor and the data processing pipeline. They (generally) don't want AF, but will rather add "follow-focus" contraptions and all sorts of bulky rigs around the poor little HDSLRs. They don't need an optical viewfinder (with heavy/bulky, costly glass prism). Basically, 50% of the cost of an HDSLR is "wasted" on them.  Or, put another way, the money put into AF, mirrorbox, prism, optical viewfinder should go into even more video-suitable sensors+data processing capabilities. No reason, why there should not be 2k video cams with an FF sensor and an EF/PL mount in front. Without AF system, no OVF, but top notch EVF. In one word: a videocam! Something like a Canon C300, but at $ 2,000 not at an insane cost of $ 16,000 $

At the same time stills shooters should get a 5D III with e.g. a 24 MP FF "stills-optimized" sensor [whatever type/design may be best for that], top-notch AF, top-notch optical viewfinder minus all video-related features for $ 2,000 or less. 

I guess that should answer  the question, whether video-capability is just "a little freebie" on a HDSLR. It is not. It is a product design aberration  from the very start!     

355

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Why the hate for video capable DSLRs?

« on: February 24, 2012, 03:43:06 PM »

why the hate?

The evolution of DSLR's into HDSLR's is hard to accept by those who will never use video functionality.

And while I am on the video side of the end-user fence, I understand their feelings ...why are they paying for video in a form factor that- up to recent history - has been exclusively their domain .. still photography.

In fact, when I spend literally hours setting up and fine tuning for a shoot using an HDSLR, the effort involved is similar to shooting 35mm cinema ... the camera requires exact, metered lighting, the gear (mattebox, Follow Focus, external monitors, sound recorders et al) takes forever to properly assemble ... I wonder why I just didnt invest in a regular video camera to begin with (and probably saved money all the while).

So let the pure photographers gripe, they have a point. But at the end of the day, I love the craft, the gear, and the final product that I am getting from my camera.

exactly. Except that we will not only gripe and shut up, but continue to tell Canon and the other manufacturers that we want "pure still cameras".  One of those companies will (eventually) listen and get an amazing amount  of business from us.

356

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Why the hate for video capable DSLRs?

« on: February 24, 2012, 03:38:12 PM »

Customer paid for the option and use a software key to unlock the option.

Are you really suggesting Canon use a licensing model to lock capabilities that are intrinsic in the hardware? I think that would generate WAY more ill will than just a price increase.

it would be hacked within the week the first cameras are out in the wild. :-)

357

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Why the hate for video capable DSLRs?

« on: February 24, 2012, 07:03:46 AM »

So you want every feature of the 1Ds3 except that you want an APS-C sensor that doesn't exist
I dont understand the obsession with APS-C technology

No. I do NOT want a 1Ds III. I Do not want a FF camera. I do NOT want to buy 400mm+ superteles. I want a pro-grade APS-C 7D successor for the price of the 7D or 20% less, because there is no video gagdetry build in. And I would like that thing to have 1D-X AF system.  Not possible? Yes, possible. Nikon did just that when they brought out the D300 with the D3 AF module. Full featured, pro-grade APS-C stills cam at 1/4 the porice of an FF camera.

358

Lenses / Re: Lenses for 650D

« on: February 24, 2012, 06:53:42 AM »

A lens that might beat the Sigma you mentioned is the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 non-VC. It's very sharp for its price. Less zoom range, but f/2.8 on the whole range. Cheaper too.

+1

had a Tamron 17-50 non VC and it delivered excellent IQ on 350D/400D and 40D.   
Definitely recommended for a very good start if budget is limited.
I sold it after 2 years with little loss and "upgraded" to the Canon 17-55 ... just to get IS and USM, not due to better IQ.

359

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Finally! Shutter count made easy for almost all EOS cameras

« on: February 23, 2012, 01:04:47 PM »

@Mencho22: thanks for the link!
I'm a 7D user as well. Will download and try it out.
I think it's a good thing, that at least some people are careful before downloading/installing "unproven content" from the net, so don't feel offended!

360

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Why the hate for video capable DSLRs?

« on: February 23, 2012, 06:19:05 AM »

Used 1Ds3 are going for about the same price as a 5DII in the UK
It may be outdated but it still produces very fine pictures. If you are prepared to put up the 21mp, 5fps, 2 card slots, pro AF with a limitation of iso 3200 then it makes a lot of sense - and it is cheaper than the 5DIII too
A 1960s Rolls Royce is outdated by a VW Golf - but I would still prefer the RR if it was in good repair And the RR would be less than the Golf too.

I agree with all of this, except that I would not want to drive or maintain a 1960s Rolls instead of a current Volkswagen.  :-)

Similarly, I do not want a 1Ds III ... i am neither lusting for FF nor for yesteryears' top cameras. All I want, is a highly capable APS-C camera as successor to my 7D. Preferably as a compact but "pro-grade" mirrorless camera, featuring
* top-notch, latest generation APS-C sensor [possibly a backlit CMOS?], electronics, image processing pipeline - all geared to deluiver highest IQ for stills capture, with video being no consideration at all
* top-notch AF system [dual system with CD-AF plus on-sensor PD-AF ... similar to Nikon 1, just in APS-C size]
* tough body with full sealing and ergonomics / control elements 100% dedicated to stills capture, no unnecessary buttons ["video record" etc.], no unneccessary video options cluttering the menus.
in one word: WITHOUT any video-stuff built in.

Should not be difficult to make ... right?