May 24, 2013, 01:05:48 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.


Topics - jrista

Pages: 1 [2]
16
EOS Bodies / WOW, 5D III shadow recovery!!
« on: March 02, 2012, 04:17:48 PM »
I was browsing through some of the 5D III sample shots from CPN Europe. I came across this one, which appears to be an in-camera  multi-exposure JPEG.

http://cpn.canon-europe.com/files/education/technical/inside_canon_eos_5d_mark_iii/17_cinc_big.jpg

I was curious if there was any fixed-pattern read noise (banding noise) in the silhouetted parts of the image, so I downloaded it and started adjusting levels in Photoshop. The image below is a composite of two strips that have mid-gray levels adjusted by 3.4, next to two strips of the original image. I am blown away at the black recovery the 5D III has to offer!!! :o I mean, WOW:




17
EOS Bodies / A curiosity: Canon Mirrorless MF?
« on: March 02, 2012, 03:58:56 PM »
There have looong been rumors about Canon and their mythical medium format DSLR. Canon has mentioned they are "working on something" a few times, but nothing has ever materialized. I can generally understand their reluctance to put much time, effort, and money into developing such a thing, as it does tend to be incredibly expensive. Things have changed in recent times, though, with the advent of mirrorless cameras. They are all small-format right now, smaller than APS-C for the most part.

I'm curious, though, about the possibility of a mirrorless/EVF medium format camera. Looking at the likes of the H4D and Pentax 645, MF cameras tend to be rather hefty and bulky. That could change if someone took the mirrorless approach. Personally, I LOVE the design of DSLR cameras, I like focal plane shutters, I like the size, weight, and ergonomics of DSLR bodies and lenses. However MF cameras just seem to be a tad too large. With smaller size could come reduced cost, and better ergonomics.

Would anyone be interested in such a thing...a mirrorless EVF medium format DSLR from Canon?

18
Lenses / Plausibility of a 100-400mm f/4 L IS USM?
« on: February 17, 2012, 10:36:34 PM »
I'm a big fan of my 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM lens. Its served me quite well, and better than the 400mm f/5.6 lenses I've tried from friends or other fellow photographers met out in the field. The only real detractor, however, is the aperture range...f/4.5 to f/5.6 is a bit limiting, from an AF standpoint, and from the standpoint of using a teleconverter. I'd love to have a relatively affordable telephoto zoom lens that I could slap a 1.4x TC on to get 140-560mm f/5.6, something cheaper than the new 200-400mm f/4 L IS USM.

Is a 100-400m f/4 a plausibility, for a "reasonable" cost around $3500 or so? Would it be a lens anyone else even cared about, or is that just a focal range and price that doesn't serve anyone's needs? Personally, I'd find 560/5.6 to be far more useful for general bird photography, without having to lug around a heavy 500mm or 600m L.

Thoughts?

19
EOS Bodies / When do you expect to see CR3 rated 5D/3D rumors?
« on: February 09, 2012, 11:55:54 PM »
Despite the "exciting" statistics being released since the D800 specs and sample photos, they are still only CR1 rated. Do you think we'll start seeing CR3 rated rumors soon, or is there still some time to go, for the 5D or possible 3D?

20
EOS Bodies / DR and RAW bit depth on Canon's forthcoming...
« on: February 08, 2012, 08:42:53 PM »
With all the details flying around about Canon's forthcoming releases, I'm curious if there has been anything about dynamic range and RAW bit depth for anything announced or rumored? Despite the fact that Canon claims 14-bit capability, they have not seemed to make fully effective use of it so far, with most of their cameras topping out in the 11-12 stops of DR range. Does anyone know what the DR of the 1D X is...will it have a true 14 stops like most of the recent Nikon cameras? Have there been any rumors stating DR for the 5D II successor or this possible new 40mp model?

It would be fundamentally disappointing for Canon to miss the mark AGAIN on dynamic range and keep all their loyal customers bound to an 11.7-stop limit on DR when the competition is blowing that out of the water. Of all the various improvements Canon could make, having thought about it the last few days, I would take a 5D III with the same resolution as its predecessor, same ISO range, and only the 60D's 9-point AF...if I could have better dynamic range. An extra two stops would do more for my landscape photography than anything else...including unbelievably high ISO, the 7D or even 1D X AF, etc. I could stop wasting time setting up and adjusting the single 2-stop GND filter I usually have to use, and just spend my time capturing the beauty before me as-is.

21
It seems the use of the terms 5D X and 7D X are becoming popular, and I've even used 5D X a couple times myself. I've been digging through all the available material on Canon's forthcoming 1D X, and from what I can tell, the use of the moniker "X" is because Canon considers that particular body to be the "tenth generation" of their flagship camera. I was confused how they could call it the tenth generation, when at best you can count  eight separate cameras in the 1D line (including the 1D II N). Generationally, there are only four generations of the EOS 1D line. It seems Canon is actually counting the EOS-1 Series film cameras as well, which stopped at the 1V (fifth), followed by the four generations of 1D digital cameras. That would mean a total of nine EOS-1 cameras, both film and digital, have been released by Canon, making the 1D X quite literally deserving of the Roman Numeral for ten.

Given that, I think its highly unlikely we'll see some of the more wild rumors, such as a 5D X which would be the merger of the 5D and 7D lines, materialize. The "X" designation is not indicative of "merger", its indicative of "ten", and the 5D and 7D lines are still relatively new in the grand scheme of things. There have been the EOS 5 (more commonly known as the EOS A2 and A2e), as well as the EOS Elan, which included the EOS Elan 7, but I don't believe there is any correlation between those cameras and the 5D and 7D as there was with the EOS-1 and the 1D line.

Unless Canon decides to skip a few generations for both cameras (and nine whole generations for the 7D), it seems most logical that we'll see the 5D III rather than a 5D X, and a 7D II rather than a 7D X. I also find it unlikely that we'll see any kind of merger of the 5D and 7D lines...both have their niches, and even if the 5D gets a better AF system, its still unlikely to *replace* the 7D for anything that needs a high frame rate and a cropped sensor for the added reach.

22
EOS Bodies / Canon 1D-X: "Full" 2-Stops ISO Improvment...only in JPEG??
« on: January 27, 2012, 10:09:18 PM »
Based on a question about f/8 AF, I was directed to Arthur Morris, a renown bird photographer. On his site is an interview between Doug Brown (another renown bird photographer) and Canon's Chuck Westfall (http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/2011/11/05/canons-top-tech-rep-on-the-eos-1d-x/). While the meat of the first part of the interview was about the 1D X's new AF system, with a pointed question about f/8 AF (left largely unanswered), there was another interesting tidbit farther down:

Quote
DB: One of the advantages of moving to a full-frame sensor with a relatively low megapixel count is an improvement in high ISO noise levels. Canon is claiming a two stop gain in high ISO performance when compared to the 1D Mark IV. Will we see the full two stops when shooting RAW files, or is this limited to JPEG files only?
CW: To get the full two stops of improved performance you’ll need to shoot in the JPEG format. That’s not to say that high ISO performance isn’t significantly better when shooting in RAW, because it absolutely is.


Chuck seems pointed about his indication that to get two "full" stops of improved ISO performance, you need to shoot in JPEG. I'm curious if there has been more information about that elsewhere? I'm curious what that means for RAW photographers, and what he actually means by "significantly better" if its not a full two stops better.

Arthur Morris: http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/
Doug Brown: http://www.dougbrownphotography.com/

23
EOS Bodies / The Canon 5D line and AF...
« on: January 25, 2012, 10:00:16 PM »
So with all the rumors about the Canon 5D III, there is obviously a lot of speculation about what features it may have. I've noticed that when people post their ideas about what they expect in a 5D III body, they inevitably contain some form of "7D AF". I'm curious where that idea comes from. Personally, I see the 5D III positioned very differently, and as far as I can tell very appropriately, in the canon lineup compared to the 1D X and the 7D lines. I see the 5D line as a camera primarily (but not solely) tuned for landscape, weddings, studio, amateur astrophotography (know or know of a fair amount of people who use the 5D II for this), extreme macro (100mm f/2.8 and MP-E 65mm stuff...where low noise large pixel really helps gather the necessary light at necessarily tight apertures) and DSLR video work. In pretty much all of those cases, and many of the more fringe use cases, there does not appear to be a strong need for high FPS and super-awesome AF. When it comes to landscape, astrophotography, and video/cinematography, and macro autofocus is pretty much useless in any respect...manual focus really reigns king. The need for AF for other kinds of photography that you might use a 5D III for such as weddings, generally don't involve the kind of crazy high speed action you might find in motorcross; ski and snowboarding; baseball, football, soccer, etc; even wildlife and bird photography.

Granted, the bottom-rung AF system the 5D II has is definitely not worthy of a professional-grade camera, and NEEDS to be replaced...however is a top of the line AF system designed for AI Servo type continuous tracking of high speed subjects really necessary? Am I missing something in thinking that the 5D III needs an improvement to its AF system, but nothing on the level of the 7D? Am I not fully realizing the primary ways that the 5D II is used that would warrant a high speed AF system, and why a 1D X wouldn't be used instead? I'm mostly just curious, but also wondering if Canon has positioned the 5D line incorrectly according to the people who are interested in buying one and expect a top notch AF system like the 7D's.

24
EOS Bodies / Realistic projections on when a 7D II might hit the scene?
« on: January 25, 2012, 12:42:24 AM »
I just purchased a 7D in late November, almost two months ago now, and am really loving it. Its an excellent camera, ergonomics are excellent, fps and buffer depth are great (almost too great...8fps takes some getting used to), AF is pretty amazing (I never really understood AI Servo...now it makes total sense and is AMAZING), and the features and functionality are amazing in comparison to the Rebel line I used to use. I don't really have any complaints, outside of IQ...which while great when cropped for web or in print, seems to induce rather severe psychological twitches when pixel-peeping (ISO performance just isn't comparable to the competition from the latest Nikon bodies and the like.)

The rumor mill seems to have really picked up speed lately about a 7D Mark II. I've heard a lot of mention about it arriving by end of year. I suspect that any 7D successor will resolve the IQ issue, and maybe bring some improvements to AF (if thats possible...its pretty damn nice as it is for the price!) IQ improvements aside, is there really much else that can be improved enough to warrant a 7D II this year? I would be rather dismayed to have purchased the 7D less than a year before its replacement came out, especially if it has two stops improvement in native ISO (which, given that I shoot a lot of wildlife at and just after sunset in particularly dim light, would be REALLY helpful!)

So...is it really all that likely that a 7D II will hit the streets within the next year? Or is it all just wild speculation? How much life does the 7D have left in it?

25
EOS Bodies / The rift between the vocal "ISOers" and the "MPers"...
« on: December 11, 2011, 11:29:52 PM »
There was a topic here a little while ago, however it seems to have been deleted. It reiterated a growing theme that I've been observing here since I joined, and in larger scope across the net in general. I think is high time the highly vocal opinions of the Pro-ISO Anti-MP crowd be re'butted. As someone who understands the value of BOTH improvements to ISO and continued increases to MP, and is sick and tired of getting beaten down (and seeing others beaten down) by the ISO crowd, here is my reply to that deleted topic, as it was directed at the ISO crowd in general:

First off, I hear the term "bragging" thrown around a lot by people who seem to abhor continued increases in MP count. That term is completely inappropriate, and entirely unwarranted. I can't recall the last time I ever actually heard ANYONE brag about ANY of their gear. I've never once encountered a professional photographer who "laughed" at my gear, inwardly or otherwise. At worst, I've had some very enlightening debates about the merit of large format film (i.e. Velvia 50 4x5) and drum scans over digital, and learned a few interesting things about digital full-frame mosaic photography that can produce images just as high or higher resolution as a 300dpi 4x5 scan with FAR GREATER clarity! Perhaps I simply hang out amongst more mature crowds, I can't be sure, but its not about bragging rights. It is, quite literally and truthfully, about NEEDS. It doesn't matter if those needs are from a professional or a hardcore hobbyist! Just because someone is serious about their hobby doesn't nullify their NEEDS! The far-too-oft spouted "If you need more MP, get a digital MF!! Stop bitching!" is REALLY getting old! The Pentax 645D is the cheapest option out there, and the body alone costs ten grand!! Thats nothing to speak of the need to reinvest in a whole new line of lenses and accessory gear!! The cost of upgrading to MF is EXCESSIVE and almost incomprehensible, even for many professionals who don't have fifty to a hundred grand to drop on an entirely new brand and type of gear. So, "Stop bitching, get digital MF" is one of the most naive responses the i-hate-more-mp crowd has conjured up.

Second, there IS a measurable, demonstrable benefit from increases in MP, up to the levels we have today. Mathematically and physically, it can be demonstrated (or simply concluded, if you prefer) that CONTINUED increases to MP can STILL produce benefit. From the standpoint of FF sensors, were a long way from being maxed out. There is no reason to assume that continued increases in FF pixel density will increase noise when you factor in improved manufacturing techniques, better sensor design and layout, purer materials, etc. When you consider that current top of the line 18-24mp APS-C sensors are equivalent in density to 46.7-56.7mp FF sensors, and the quality people are eeking out of the 7D is STUNNING (http://500px.com/alwaysbj182), its hard to argue that high density sensors "suck and only produce unacceptable noise". A FF with 46-56mp is more than DOUBLE the current pixel density we have now with 21-24mp FF sensors from Canon and Sony...LOTS of room to grow there. Its a demonstrated fact (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=747761) that everything else being equal and without significantly out-resolving the lens, more MP means more actual resolution. In the case of Canon, with their mRAW and sRAW formats (which utilize more bayer pixel information per RGB pixel, producing a clearer, cleaner output akin to Foveon sensors), continued benefit could be gained well beyond the point where we out-resolve the physical maximum resolution of a "perfect" lens.

Finally, we have to put to rest that continued advancement on digital technology on ALL fronts INCLUDING resolution is a "waste", and that only improvement to ISO really matters anymore. Compare nature documentaries from merely a decade ago, and from the decade before that, to the unfathomable quality, both artistically and technically, that the BBC has been pumping out since Planet Earth and the advent of high resolution ultra high speed digital cinematography gear. Combine highly skilled cinematographers who are true artisans, possibly some of the greatest artists alive in the world today, with that incredibly advanced technology that many people would have called completely unnecessary a decade or two ago (and many who quite possibly still do today)...and you get something mindblowingly phenomenal. This ideology that what we have now is enough, that no more MP is necessary, that only better low-noise high ISO will ever help anybody else ever again, is about as naive as it gets! MP is just as important as ISO, just as important as reducing noise, just as important as improving optical resolution, just as important as improving the fundamental technology of the sensor itself (such as readout wiring, readout rate, etc.) Its all important!

As someone who wants it all...better ISO AS WELL AS more MP, I'm sick and tired of being considered a bragging fool by the "stop bitching, all you need is ISO, get digital MF!" camp. Not everyone needs astounding high-ISO performance at 52,100 and beyond. Not everyone needs a 14fps frame rate that might cause anime lovers to blush! Not everyone needs professional-grade video recording capabilities in every single one of their DSLR's. Not everyone needs extremely high resolution, either. Advancement needs to occur on all fronts, to meet the needs of everyone, and having one camp continually complain about another camp when they voice their opinions is nonconstructive and fundamentally annoying. Stop it.


26
EOS Bodies / 7D + 10-22mm or 5D III + 16-35mm L II?
« on: December 10, 2011, 05:59:38 PM »
I recently purchased a 7D, which I'm quite happy with so far. I do a lot of nature work, landscapes when I have the time to get out and find them, wildlife and birds most of the time, with a variety of other macro, still life, and even portrait work at times. I've been holding out for a 5D III, however it seems that its release is still quite some way off into the future. I also currently own the EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L II lens, which I've used with my 450D for a while, however it does limit me on the wide end...essentially capturing an FoV similar to that of the 24-70 on FF.

My question is, should I grab the EF-S 10-22mm lens for the 7D, and use that for landscapes? I've heard that lens is optically really great, but I've also heard it has a fair amount of distortion at the wide end. Should I save my money bank it for the 5D III and use my 16-35mm for that kind of work?

27
EOS Bodies / Lenses, sensors, and spatial resolution
« on: December 08, 2011, 08:29:19 PM »
This thread is for continued discussion of a topic started in a CR thread on the T4i. Moving here to continue without commandeering the CR thread.

Pages: 1 [2]