October 22, 2014, 06:39:35 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 - jrista

Pages: 1 ... 67 68 [69] 70 71 ... 298
1021
EOS Bodies / Re: New Full Frame Camera in Testing? [CR1]
« on: May 28, 2014, 07:54:39 PM »
The color accuracy of the 1Dx actually isn't all that great.  It's nothing compared to the 1Ds Mark III.

Yeah, that would be expected, given the weaker CFA relative to the 1Ds III. I wonder what Canon is doing to remedy that issue...

1022
Landscape / Re: Deep Sky Astrophotography
« on: May 28, 2014, 05:18:41 PM »
We finally had a couple of clear nights the last two nights here in Colorado. These are the first since the lunar eclipse some five weeks ago now. Gave me the opportunity to image part of the North America nebula in Cygnus.



Equipment:
- Canon EOS 7D (unmodded)
- Canon EF 600mm f/4 L II (image)
- Orion ST80 (guider) + SSAG

Integration (49 subs (3h 40m)):
- 52x270s (4m30s) (95% integrated)
- 67 Darks (divided into three groups, temp matching lights, ~15-20 darks per group)
- 100 Biases
- 30 Flats

1023
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7d2 IQ thoughts.
« on: May 28, 2014, 12:12:37 AM »
It will sell because it is an all purpose imaging unit. In the case of a new 7D, the properties of a crop sensor that are attractive for still photographers in certain applications are just as attractive to videographers taking video instead of stills. A video centric 7D will be more attractive to sport and wildlife videographers than a 5D would, for the exact same reasons as stills.

In the modern era a camera needs to be able to perform both types of imaging well to really succeed as a general purpose imaging device (which is how the average owner would use it).

The concepts of consumer/prosumer cameras being dedicated still or video cameras is an outdated idea that properly belongs in the past.

I've never made any point about consumer/prosumer cameras being dedicated still or video cameras.

None of this changes the point I was making. I was debating the points made by Pallette about the reasons behind why Canon might add or enhance the video features of the 7D II. His points were based in the notion that Canon made somekind of mistake with the 5D III, and that they would correct that mistake with the 7D II. It's a false notion. Canon will fix problems in the 5D III with the 5D IV. Those who might have bought the 5D III for video and passed it up won't be buying a 7D II as an alternative...they are most likely going to want a full frame sensor for the cinematic quality it offers when using EF lenses, which means the only camera that Canon can "fix" any presumed problems with the 5D III's video is in the 5D IV.

That video will somehow make the 7D II sell like hotcakes is another mistaken notion. Video is certainly an endemic feature of DSLRs and Mirrorless cameras now, but it isn't the primary reason DSLRs like the 7D II sell. It isn't even the primary reason cameras like the 5D III and 5D II sell or sold. For every person doing cinematography with a 5D II, there were a dozen doing landscapes, and at least a dozen more doing weddings.  That doesn't count all the dozen other photographers using the 5D II for other STILL photography purposes. All for each and every individual who actually bought the 5D II for the purpose of doing video...EXTRA sales of the camera that primarily intended to use it's secondary feature set. The amount of photographers using still camera DSLRs for photography completely swamps the amount of photographers or cinematographers using them for video.

Any failures with the 5D III, at least any failures that have a significant impact on the bottom line for sales numbers, primarily have to do with the core functionality and core technology. The sensor, the AF unit, ergonomics. Canon MIGHT have "lost" a few customers here and there because the 5D III, which DOES have many improvements for video over the 5D II, might not have the specific video feature they want (i.e RAW HDMI out). Most of the reasons why video people might have skipped the 5D III have also been fixed by Magic Lantern, so most of the points are moot these days anyways. I don't doubt that Canon will be improving the 7D II. I highly doubt those improvements will have a particularly significant impact on the number of units Canon will sell, given it's predecessors primary use cases.

1024
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7d2 IQ thoughts.
« on: May 27, 2014, 06:13:18 PM »

Speculation. As much as people like to use DSLRs for video, video is still the secondary purpose of this kind of camera. I don't think Canon is focusing solely on improving the video capabilities of the 7D II...especially because it's an APS-C camera. It is simply incapable of the same kind of thin DOF cinematic look and feel that the 5D II became famous for due to it's cropped sensor. I don't think the 7D II will be a particularly popular video DSLR. It might be somewhat popular, especially if it has some enhanced video features, but it isn't going to be the cinematic DSLR powerhouse that gave so many movies and TV shows reason to use it for professional prime time/big screen productions.


Which is the reason why the GH3 and GH4 were total failures in sales  ::)

No one would ever buy a camera like that....oh, wait....they do....how can that be? Very weird, there must be something wrong with those customers.

Your missing my point. I'm not saying 7D II's wont sell for video. I'm saying that won't be the primary reason they sell...not by a very long shot.

The reasons the GH3 and GH4 are successes in sales has not been determined to be solely due to their video features. They are also good CAMERAS. The notion that DSLRs sell best because they have video features is an ASSUMPTION. It is not backed up by any data. Sure, more will sell because of video, because people who want a DSLR for video purposes will buy them, but that doesn't change the fact that the majority of sales are due to PHOTOGRAPHERS buying them for of PHOTOGRAPHY. That's the case for pretty much every DSLR or Mirrorless with video features...they are still cameras, designed for still photography, and far more of pretty much any camera model you bring up will sell significantly more for photography purposes.

As far as the 7D II being a better seller for video than the 5D III, I don't think so. The larger sensor in the 5D III is extremely appealing for that cinematic look and feel. I'm not saying no 7D II's will sell for video purposes, but I don't think that video features will be the primary reason the 7D II sells. I still think the 7D II will sell primarily because of action photographers, particularly bird and wildlife photographers, want a camera with high resolution, lots of reach, and a damn fast frame rate (and doesn't cost a mint and a half to buy.)

1025
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7d2 IQ thoughts.
« on: May 27, 2014, 01:20:31 PM »
Every time you split a photodiode, each resulting smaller photodiode is less sensitive to light...it has a smaller area.

When you split a photodiode in two, you get LESS than half the light in each half. There is an amount of waste real-estate around the edges of a cell. To illustrate with a simple example, let's say the manufacturing process has a resolution of 1 unit and a pixel is 10x10 units square. You have a waste area of 1 unit around the outside of the photodiode so you end up with an 8x8 photodiode and 64% of the surface area used to gather light. By splitting the photodiode, you end up with 2 3x8 photodiodes, or 48% of the surface area used to collect light.

Yes, you can use microlenses to counter this, but perfection (which can never be achieved) would get you back to even with the single photodiode.

Aye, this is very true. There are spatial losses. Based on Canon's patents, I don't think the waste is quite as significant as your basic example with the units. It's probably more on the order of each pixel being 100x100 units square, losing maybe 5 units around due to wiring and other amp/readout transistors. Then there may be a 1-unit gap between the two halves of the split photodiode. So there are losses, but maybe not quite as extreme as your 10x10 example.

Regardless, there is still no way to construe DPAF or some hypothetical future QPAF as being some magic bullet to increasing either the readout performance nor dynamic range of Canon sensors. ;P That's a myth that just won't die, it seems. It's like the horse that was beat, and is now undead. It just keeps coming back for more brains... O_o

1026
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7d2 IQ thoughts.
« on: May 27, 2014, 05:53:45 AM »
The bad timing of the release of 5D III was actually caused by the bad timing of the
release of 1D X. It was delayed after Nikon introduced the new D4. Canon managed
to use the extra time to adjust the sensor tech to match the Nikon performance.

Highly unlikely. It takes YEARS to design a sensor. Canon did not even have a year between the initial announcement of the 1D X and it's actual release to Photographers during the Olympics. The major changes between announcement and release had to do with the AF system, not the sensor.

Canon did not adjust the sensor technology to match Nikon's performance. Canon had designed and finalized the design of the sensor, and was probably well into mass producing them, by the time they announced the product. There is no chance they reengineered it after that point...not in time for release.

That means Canon released a highly competitive sensor out the gate WITHOUT the need to reengineer it to "match" the capabilities of the competition.


The Nikon D800 forced Canon to accelerate the process of perfecting and releasing 
the 5D III before they actually were ready to launch their next sensor.

Again, false. This is a 100% pure fabrication.

The 5D III was in the same boat as the 1D X. It takes a good six years to engineer, debug, and release the kind of technology found in cameras like the 5D III and 1D X. By the time these cameras releases rolled around, it was WAY past any time when Canon would have had a chance to make any significant changes to their sensor technology.


The big problem was that we all (including Canon) predicted and expected the 5D III to 
be the best ever video filming DSLR camera. With the heritage from 5D II the demand
for better inner quality in the filming department kind of forced the developers to go for
a sensor with less moire. Exactly how this is done is something I haven´t read or heard
about anywhere. But I suggest the inside software had to be designed to deal with much
softer images from the sensor and apply a radical up sharpening. This would explain why
the lo ISO performance is worse than expected. Readers here will surely share their opinion
on this. Please add comments.

Again, false. The 5D III is a sharper camera than it's predecessor. It's AA filter is slightly weaker than the 5D II's. Canon binned the pixels to produce video, which is where some of the "softening" came from, but binning concurrently reduced noise. Tradeoffs.
 
My point is that I feel Canon does not want to make the same mistake again. They will
release the next tech when they are certain the 4K video standard is on pair with what
the other companies will be able to deliver in the next years to come. And they will have
to make the sensor output sharp and noise free for stills as well. Expect the 7D II to
be 20 megapixel with 4K video at 60p. That would be a well balanced step forward at
this moment I think.

Speculation. As much as people like to use DSLRs for video, video is still the secondary purpose of this kind of camera. I don't think Canon is focusing solely on improving the video capabilities of the 7D II...especially because it's an APS-C camera. It is simply incapable of the same kind of thin DOF cinematic look and feel that the 5D II became famous for due to it's cropped sensor. I don't think the 7D II will be a particularly popular video DSLR. It might be somewhat popular, especially if it has some enhanced video features, but it isn't going to be the cinematic DSLR powerhouse that gave so many movies and TV shows reason to use it for professional prime time/big screen productions.


The new sensor has to be able to read out a huge amount of data or pre process
it on chip before entering the processor.

Assuming it hits at around 20-24mp, it actually won't need to read out much more than the 5D III. I've already demonstrated mathematically on multiple occasions that the DIGIC5+ chips in the 1D X are more than capable of handling 10fps @ 24mp 14-bit.

I predict the suggested quad pixel tech to be used in a way no one has talked about here.
This tech allows not only for fast live AF, but also for reducing the sensor noise by using
the well known multi exposure technique. Instead of taking four separate images and sandwiching together for lower visible noise, Canon will be able to make one exposure  with four separate channels of the same pixel read. This makes it possible to get a  much better ISO performance. The potential for reducing and minimizing artifacts is huge, I would say. 

Again, speculation. This is not a proven fact. It is a regurgitated assumption that people all over the net are spewing. There is no magic about the DPAF technology (which, BTW, is DUAL pixels, not quad pixels...all the patents and other evidence about the 70D clearly indicates the photodiode is split once, into two halves. The next refinement changes the sensitivities of each half. There is no quad pixel AF patent from Canon as of yet.) The photodiodes are split UNDER the color filters. Again , I've demonstrated mathematically on multiple occasions that dual-ISO reads of split photodiodes results in a net-zero result...you neither really gain nor lose anything. Dual-ISO with half-pixels is not the same as the dual-ISO with Magic Lantern, which utilizes FULL pixels and takes advantage of Canon's off-sensor, downstream secondary amplifier to do it's magic. Dual ISO with half pixels means your working with half as much light as what ML is working with now, which effectively nullifies any benefit you might have otherwise gained. Assuming Canon DOES eventually come out with QPAF, then each sub-photodiode is only receiving 1/4 of the light for the whole pixel. Same deal...Dual ISO with such a setup results in a net zero outcome...you cannot use less light to create a better result, no matter what ISO settings your using.
 
And not only can you compare differences between four reads of the same pixel. 
You can compare the adjacent pixel reads or all pixels on the sensor and identify
noise introduced by the power supply much easier. Four separate reads of the
single pixel allow you to step into the zero time domain where the processor will
have the optimum working space for computing errors in signal transfer.

Again, incorrect. It is not four reads of the same pixel. It is four reads of 1/4 of the pixel! It is four reads that result in 1/4 the light each (or, as the actual facts would have it, since it's DUAL pixel technology, two reads at 1/2 the light each). You cannot read a single half or quarter of a split photodiode, and assume it is the same as reading the whole pixel. That's WHY Canon bins the two photodiode halves in DPAF sensors when doing an image read (vs. an AF read)...because otherwise, they are just reading smaller pixels with less light. There is no magic here, no special capabilities. Smaller photodiodes are smaller photodiodes...they have less charge capacity, less total surface area for light to strike.

Four separate reads also mean more time to read out the sensor. It's more information, like going from a 20mp sensor to an 80mp sensor. I don't see how that allows any optimization of any kind...it's exactly the opposite. It's a factor of four increase in "pixels" to read, meaning at least that much more processing power would be required...more, really, if you factor in overhead.

It will be a matter of computing power to take the full advantage of the quad pixel
tech and I guess this is why we are waiting for Canon to present the next generation
of DSLR sensors. If they get it right I think we will se images and video with much
less noise and improved color fidelity.

Assuming Canon ever creates a quad pixel sensor, yes, they will need significantly faster processors. Good thing they only do reads of each separate photodiode for AF purposes, and use hardware binning built into the sensor itself for image reads. That means they are still only reading out 20-24mp worth of "pixels", regardless of how many photodiodes there may be on the sensor.

Another question is if Canon would prefer to introduce the next generation of sensor
I suggest on the 7DII or not. I suppose a demand for higher frame rates on this model
makes things more complicated.
 
The possibilities are just as overwhelming as the challenges. Canon will most likely
make sure they use the new sensor tech to the full extent before releasing it.

This is my guess. What do you think?

I think you've made a lot of wild guesses, assumptions and crazy speculative leaps. You make the assumption that Canon has QPAF technology, they do not. (Based on current patent filings, no one does...some competitors are finally developing their own DPAF-like patents. Canon's own subsequent patents to DPAF, some only a few months old, still indicate DUAL photodiodes, not quad. The changes have to do with sensitivity alone, and those sensitivity changes have to do purely with AF technology, the image readout technology is still exactly the same...binned.)

I'm really not sure why everyone things that Canon's DPAF tech is actually QPAF tech, or why everyone thinks that somehow this dual PHOTODIODE/pixel technology is somehow going to mean better dynamic range. I keep debating these mistaken points...they just don't seem to die. Every time you split a photodiode, each resulting smaller photodiode is less sensitive to light...it has a smaller area. Concurrently, it increases the number of photodiodes that need to be read. There is no way to construe less light and more photodiodes as some kind of magical optimization that suddenly somehow gives Canon either a performance edge or a dynamic range edge or a noise management edge.

There are only two things that affect REAL sensitivity as far as sensor design goes (three if you factor in downstream readout logic): Total sensor area and quantum efficiency. If you do throw in downstream read logic, then read noise also plays a role, but in Canon sensors readout logic is primarily off-die, so not actually a function of the sensor. Increase sensor area, increase sensitivity. Increase quantum efficiency, increase sensitivity. You can split photodiodes to your hearts content...so long as they are contained within the same total sensor area, splitting them really doesn't to jack to improve anything. A given amount of light is a given amount of light. Nothing done after you've gathered that given amount of light is going to change the original amount. Pixel size is largely irrelevant until you are reach limited. Only in reach-limited situations does pixel size matter, however have no illusions...smaller pixels mean more noise, less dynamic range. Always. The benefit of smaller pixels in reach limited scenarios is resolution, not better overall IQ.

1027
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7d2 IQ thoughts.
« on: May 26, 2014, 09:55:11 PM »
So yeah, when everyone has a 4K monitor on their desks, can you imagine the level of pixel peeping that will go on?

Actually, since the pixels in 4k screens are about 1/4 the size of pixels in 1080p screens, and are that much harder to see, pixel peeping will actually be much more difficult to do. Not only that, the increase in density should improve sharpness on-screen, so pixel peepers should be seeing better results...and might finally stop bitching. :P

1028
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7d2 IQ thoughts.
« on: May 26, 2014, 04:28:29 PM »
I would say yes for two reasons.

First, we can expect the sensor to have better quantum efficiency and lower read noise.... but expect the change to be a few percent better... something that can be noticed in a laboratory but will probably be invisible to even the most dedicated pixel peeper.

Second, we can expect a better AF system. I think this is where the real differences will come from... more accurate focus give less blur and a higher keeper rate.... I'd love to see a camera that could AFMA itself.... As I am fond of saying, nobody cares what the DR is of an out of focus picture :)

I agree that from a technical standpoint in terms of technical specifications, the difference is likely only to be a few percent, maybe 10% at most.

However, there are some things Canon can do to make the PERCEPTUAL results better. One of the things I've noticed when I mess around and compare sample images from new cameras from all the review sites is that sharper images, even if they have the same absolute noise as a less sharp image, are PERCEIVED as having less noise. Softness makes noise stand out more. It's why noise is so visible and annoying in the soft blurry background boke, but not as visible in foreground detail. The sharper a camera and sensor are, the less impactful noise in the important detail is going to be.

Canon certainly has some sharp lenses, and I think that REALLY goes to their benefit in this area. If they can improve their overall sharpness, which probably means using slightly weaker AA filters (which will mean the potential for more moire, but maybe a worthwhile cost), then I think the 7D II is likely to be considered a visibly superior camera to the 7D and 70D.

The next biggest thing would, of course, be an increase in true sensitivity, in quantum efficiency. I'm really hoping Canon gets up to around 55% Q.E. or so, as that would offer some meaningful improvements in high ISO performance. It probably wouldn't be readily visible, but in the case of background boke, it should help.

A reduction in read noise is obviously going to be important, but only at lower ISO settings. ISO 100 and 200 would gain the most by far with a reduction in read noise. I know Canon has the technology to move ADC on-die, to hyperparallelize it, reduce operating frequency, and I know they have various patents for reducing noise in other ways, such as a power source disconnection during readout (which should effectively eliminate or nearly eliminate dark current noise, which can be a problem at higher ISO settings.) The biggest question in my mind is:

Will Canon ACTUALLY EMPLOY the technology they own...are are they once again going to just let all their sensor patents sit and rot.

They have been letting their CP-ADC patent rot since they released the 120mp 9.5fps APS-H sensor prototype. That was years ago now. They HAVE the technology. The technology is apparently quite good, if it allowed 120mp frames to be read out at 9.5fps. But...it's gone...nowhere........... That's the one thing I don't understand about Canon. According to their patents, they are sitting on some pretty bad-ass sensor tech, and it doesn't exist in any of their actual commercial equipment. It's just technology ideas rotting in a corner somewhere, apparently... :'(

1029
ISO 3200 as clean as 1DX in 6400 (the most important).

Not gonna happen. Won't even come remotely close. The biggest difference for full-frame images is that the 1D X has a larger FRAME (the larger pixels are irrelevant). Total sensor area is the biggest factor that supports better high ISO performance on F cameras.

The 7D II would need a multitude of significant improvements in multiple areas to come within a literal 1-stop noise performance of the 1D X. The most important of which would be doubling Q.E., and there is just no way that would happen. Even the highest end, high grade CCD sensors for astrophotography, including those from Sony, only reach around 77-82%. There are maybe one or two $10,000 sensors that reach 90% Q.E.

I think ISO 3200 on the 7D II will certainly look better than it does on the 7D, and hopefully better than on the 70D, but it won't ever look as good as the 6D, 5D III, 1D X, or any subsequent FF cameras. In terms of area, an APS-C sensor has 2.6x less than an FF sensor. Throw in increased losses in light-sensitive area to a greater amount of wiring and logic transistors (due to smaller pixels), and the difference is even greater, which means there will always be more than a 1-stop difference in noise, likely more along the lines of a 1 1/2 stop or more difference.

1030
I could see them updating the existing 45p AF system of the earlier 1D's and integrating it here, but I had read an article earlier regarding the future of DPAP that suggested that we would be seeing significant improvements in that technology.  IF that is the case for this rumored camera, it wouldn't be that far fetched to see a camera with high FPS as an optical view finder would not necessarily be needed anymore.   I do not have a 70D, but can someone comment on using live view to track moving people?   I would think it would be a sports photographer's dream to use live view, touch the screen on the player they want to track, then let the camera keep them in focus as they play while clicking away.   

I'm probably speaking crazy talk, but I think that would be awesome.

Live view is NOT conducive to photographing action. It just presents a clunky use case, because your head has to be back from the camera in order to see the live view screen. With the OVF, your face is pressed up against the camera, which gives it a SIGNIFICANT amount of stability. This goes for hand-held or mounted on a tripod.

There is also an intrinsic lag between when action actually occurs, and when it can be presented on a screen. It's only a few tens of milliseconds, but that is enough that you can miss the moment of action your waiting for, because in many cases, especially with higher frame rates, a few tens of milliseconds can mean several frames have been missed.

There are also a lot of things that dedicated PDAF sensors do that DPAF doesn't do, and won't be doing for a while. At the moment, DPAF essentially turns the entire sensor into one giant line sensor. A dedicated PDAF sensor has selectable points, and each of those points can sense in the horizontal, vertical, diagonal, or even a cross or dual cross (horiz/vert + diag in two directions 90° perpendicular). The ability to use cross type or dual cross type AF points gives dedicated PDAF sensors a significant edge in terms of speed, precision, and accuracy. Even with the 7D's jittery 19pt AF, when using the center cross point with my EF 600mm f/4 L II, AF is extremely fast. With the 5D III, it is effectively instantaneous. DPAF, while it is certainly an improvement on previous FPPDAF systems, it is still relatively slow compared to a dedicated PDAF unit that requires a mirror.

As an action shooter myself, I hope Canon has no plans to ditch dedicated AF units for a LONG time. They are tried and true, they have reached their pinnacle with dense reticulated point grids, and they are extremely, extremely effective, especially for situations where your eye is pressed up against the viewfinder. At some point, after several more iterations of refinement and enhancement, DPAF MIGHT be ready to replace a dedicated AF unit, but now is not even remotely close to the time.

1031
It's been rumored before on multiple occasions, so I also expect the 7D II to have a lot of video feature enhancements. The video on the 7D is pretty lackluster. I don't quite know if the new video features will be 7DC level, but they should be of a higher level of quality and capability than any other models except the 5D III, and still maybe better than that.

Yep I suspect it's going to marketed with video features, however still photography wise...I don't see these marginal upgrades such as +1-2 fps (from 8fps) being upgrade worthy though?

It's a prosumer ergonomic design+materials (solid top component over entire plastic) + the AF system that are the sell over the xxD and rebel lines.

What you call "marginal" is actually a 25% improvement (I don't see it being 9fps, it'll probably be 10fps). A 25% improvement in anything is far more than marginal. Besides, the next step up would be 12fps, and I really don't see Canon pushing that kind of frame rate from the 1D X down to the 7D II, regardless of how the two cameras are classified. A 41pt AF system with the same kind of performance/precision/accuracy of the 61pt AF system would be a MASSIVE improvement over the 19pt AF system, so that's certainly not marginal. You also get more custom functions and configurable options with the 7D line than xxD and lower lines, along with C1-3 user configurable dial options. There is also the very strong likelihood it will get dual memory cards (I TRULY hope for dual CF/CFast2, but I suspect the 7D II will be gimped just like the 5D III with a CF and SD slot...in which case the feature is largely useless.)

There is also the high likelihood it will be getting a new sensor (I think it is extremely remote that it would get the 18mp or even the 20mp APS-C sensors...Canon KNOWS they have to really break new ground with the 7D II).

These are all benefits that lower cameras don't get (although the 70D does have one single configurable C user mode dial option). It isn't just one feature or another, it's the complex of features packaged into a single camera. Same deal as with the 5D III...people cherry pick one feature or another to talk about, and no single feature of the 5D III is particularly significant over the 5D II (with the exception of the AF system)...but the camera as a whole, all the features of the 5D III put together, make it a VERY radical upgrade. I think the 7D II will be the same kind of release.

1032
If I recall, the main selling point of the 7D when it was released was it's superior redesigned AF system and FPS over the XXD. Here was a solution to those in the prosumer segment that couldn't afford a 1D series to afford a better AF system and were complaining about the old 9 point AF system. It was definitely a more action/sports/wildlife kinda camera. Right now, I would say Canon's AF offerings are on-par - so really is a 7d mark II even needed?

My question is what "big" photography related improvements could they do to an already fine piece of equipment

I don't want to sound cynical, but I hope the 7DII isn't just a 70D with the 'top end' ergonomics, just as the xxD line had up until the 60 and 70D combined a rebel interface with the larger body.

A little faster, gain a proper rear wheel + joystick, maybe lose the pop up flash.....

I don't know about losing the popup flash. That has always had the ability to remotely control other Canon flashes. You don't actually have to flash the popup, but you can use the IR comm. capabilities to trigger other off-camera flashes. That's a nice, pro-level feature. I would expect the 7D II to still have a flash, but have on capable of communicating with Canon's new radio line of flashes.

I expect the 7D II to also get a higher frame rate than the 5D III, at least 8fps if not 10fps, and I also expect it to get an improved AF system worthy of Canon's current pro line. I'm not sure the 61pt AF system will fit and APS-C frame, and I'm not sure it can be scaled to work with an APS-C frame. I do hope for something along the linesof a 41pt system, though.

It's been rumored before on multiple occasions, so I also expect the 7D II to have a lot of video feature enhancements. The video on the 7D is pretty lackluster. I don't quite know if the new video features will be 7DC level, but they should be of a higher level of quality and capability than any other models except the 5D III, and still maybe better than that.

1033
so are they already in the hands of some sport photographers?

i guess so... canon don´t give them new cameras a few days before the world cup and expect pros to use them for making their living.

but still no specs?
not a single source who has something solid to say?

even the NSA has more leaks...   ::)


Hmm...maybe the NSA should hire some Canon security execs to plug their holes... ;P

1034
Lenses / Re: The Next
« on: May 22, 2014, 12:55:37 AM »
That's the classic rubbish line about the 3rd party. You can just as easily get a dud Canon or Nikon. You could make a fuss with the exact numbers but unless there is something inherently wrong with the design then "in practice" it is not particularly more likely than the other.

It is not just a question of a good or bad design, although any designer of volume products worth his or her salt will try to minimize the sensitivity of the design to manufacturing variations.  The extent to which the manufacturers are able to optimize their process control will play a big part in how likely you are to end up with a dud.

A company which maintains tight control over the materials, assembly equipment, manufacturing processes and externally sourced components will be able to minimize the percentage of out of tolerance products coming off the line.  By controlling their test processes they can also ensure that most of the duds get rejected.  This is what the science of process control is all about, and big companies like Canon take this very seriously.  Not only does it improve the quality of their products, allowing them to charge higher prices, it also saves them money in failures and rework.

Even if two companies share a design, the quality from one may be very different from the other.  An example which was quoted in a marketing class I took many years ago featured a gearbox that was built by both Mazda and Ford, who had (and I think still have) significant design sharing agreements.  According to the class, Mazda's quality metrics were 8 times better than Ford's for the manufacture of an identical product.  (I'm not bashing Ford by the way - this example is several decades out of date, so has little relevance today.)  I don't have any hard data to compare Canon's quality with Tamron's, but I would disagree that the quality of the design trumps the manufacturing methods used to build it.

I recall that once upon a time Leica was kinda trashing Canon, saying yeah they may have great theoretical MTF charts for many designs, but look at the designs, no way they can get a decent enough number of copies come close to the ideal chart build, their designs for a number of lenses require way too fine tolerances, especially for Canon who doesn't test each piece and lens individually.

Only a lens bench test is going to tell you for sure. In that respect, LensRentals tests of Canon lenses indicate that for Canon's more recent lens designs, the quality of each model tends to be tightly clustered towards the highly performing end. There are outliers, but they tend to be pretty rare and far between. That indicates that Canon's manufacturing for lenses DOES keep most copies within tolerance. That goes not only for optical performance, but for AF performance as well (which LensRentals has also tested.)

Leica can *say* all they want. Maybe before the current generation of lenses, it may have been true. Empirically today, however, Canon lenses generally live up to the hype.

1035
Lenses / Re: The Next \
« on: May 20, 2014, 12:01:38 AM »
$3499....same IQ as 200-400mm

There will be a lot of 200-400f/4 Lenses going cheap if this was the case   ;)

I think the 3.5k price Tag is pretty well ballpark though, the Nikon 80-400f/4.5 is selling for around 2.7k so you can safely bet the Canon will be close to 1k more expensive, be worth it as well if they can maintain a constant f/4.

Would work perfectly on the 1DMK IV.

The 70-200F4IS has about the same IQ as the 70-200F2.8IS
The 24-70F4IS has almost the same IQ as the 24-70F2.8

So a 100-400F5.6 (no internal teleconverter) could very well have the same IQ as the 200-400F4....

But however you slice it, it will not be inexpensive.

Your comparing midrange L lenses to each other. The Canon great white superteles are in an entirely different class, there isn't any kind of comparison to be made between any one of the 70-200's and even the 200mm or 300mm great white Ls, let alone the 100-400 L II and the 200-400 L.

It's highly unlikely that a midrange L-series lens that costs anywhere between $2000 and $3500 will have the same IQ as the $10,000 200-400 L. It just ain't going to happen. The longer zoom range alone is going to dictate that it won't happen. The extra 100mm of focal length is going to put additional stress at some other focal length (it's all tradeoffs, either less zoom range but better IQ across the range, or more zoom range with IQ losses somewhere), and for Canon to make it true "supertele" quality would mean it would HAVE to cost at least as much as if not MORE than the 200-400 (even without a built-in TC).

Pages: 1 ... 67 68 [69] 70 71 ... 298