August 29, 2014, 06:33:21 AM

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 ... 87 88 [89] 90 91 ... 272
1321
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in Q2? [CR1]
« on: February 04, 2014, 09:20:02 AM »
Jrista,

Art Morris would not have kept the image you captured.

Oh, that's not true at all! I've been a reader of Morris' blog for a couple years now. There are many occasions when he keep images that aren't ideally exposed, and he'll often put a fair amount of work in post into them in order to preserve as much as he can. Sometimes he'll turn poorly exposed birds like that into silhouettes, other times he'll use the diversity of tools at his disposal, like Nik Software's tools, to do what's necessary to correct exposure.

I think if he had an exposure with a bird as dark as mine, he'd have found a way to make it a silhouette, I chose instead to recover the bird.

Quote
Not that there is anything wrong with it, but nithing came together for you except pose and nailed focus. Really tough lighting. (Helps to illustrate your point with the other poster) Your right on the principal to keep the sky from blowing out, but you were really handed a horrible shooting situation and made the best of it. No camera would have done well in that situation.

Personally I would have preferred a blown sky to get better details on the bird, but neither scenario is a win in this case.

I'm not attacking your image, just discussing the technicals.  I hated shooting above ISO 400 with my 7d but I would always opt for higher ISO to attain proper exposure on my subject. Again,  you did well and I am impressed that you pulled as much as you did out of that raw file. Also, I find that the histogram lies by about half a stop on blown highlights. The in camera jpeg will show a blown highlight but the raw file retains about half a stop beyond that.

Personally, I find the 7D does well up through ISO 1600. It's when I get above that that I really hate it, and it is really tough to find keepers at ISO above 1600. That's where a 5D III really comes in strong...it has almost twice the high ISO capability of a 7D, and it's noise tends to clean up better. If I needed a really excellent low-light performer for wildlife, it would be the 5D III: Excellent high ISO plus awesome AF.

1322
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in Q2? [CR1]
« on: February 04, 2014, 07:29:46 AM »

You seriously call that "the right light"? That's terrible light. It's exposed properly, the histogram was about 1/2 way into the right-most histogram bar...but to actually get contrast exactly on the eye, where you want focus to occur, is difficult when the subject matter around the eye is all shadows. I had to process the image to bring up the detail in the bird such as you saw it in the previously posted version.

The only benefit of a scene like this is for tracking, really...the strong contrast between bird and sky makes it easier for any camera to track the subject...it just doesn't do anything to help you lock AF on the part of the subject you want (yet the 7D did quite well in that respect.)

This image is not properly exposed.  Your histogram is displaying the exposure of the entire image. The raptor is way under exposed. Your final image would have been much cleaner if you had pushed exposure to the right a couple of stops. But I do agree with your point regarding the 7d as a much better AF performer then the 6d and with the 5diii being king (never owned a 1dx due to the cost). 

I personally had a love-hate relationship with my 7d and a love-love relationship with my 5diii.

If I had pushed exposure to the right "a couple stops", the sky would have been completely blown. Additionally, my shutter speed was already getting rather low...I wanted it low enough to produce blur in the birds wings, but if I let it get any lower, it would have resulted in the entire bird being motion blurred. Personally, I don't really like how bird in flight photos end up looking with a blown sky...and when you process to lift the deeper shadows (which would have still been fairly deep), you end up with a funky noise halo around the subject (not exactly sure why...seems to be a 7D thing...right where the sky meets the bird, that little border of ever so slightly blurred pixels, there is a sudden tonal drop from 255 to 245-250...looks nasty). For the scene, in order to preserve the sky, the exposure was dead on. The histogram was all the way to the right-most bar in the histogram chart. I may have been able to eek out another third stop, however when your primary task is to zero in on and track the bird, you stick with what you originally chose on the exposure.

Also, the post-processed version of the raptor:



Turned out pretty well in the end. Exposure with a digital camera is as much about knowing what you can do in post, as it is knowing how to use the histogram and where your highlight cutoff is. The shot was at ISO 400. At that ISO, you actually have pretty good DR (still around 11 stops), but you don't have nearly as much banding noise. So you can lift the shadows by quite a bit (in this case, I think I lifted them almost two stops). The whole entire exposure was increased (including the sky a little)...there was some slight banding visible originally, but after boosting the exposure the banding in the sky faded. There is still some noise at full size on the raptor's underbelly and in the lower tail...but overall it is pretty clean. I also really like the fact that the sky is still a pale blue, rather than a blown white! But, that is also somewhat personal taste...if you don't care about the sky, you certainly could have exposed more.

(BTW, check out Art Morris' book "The Art of Bird Photography", read the chapter on exposure, and let me know if you think Art would have chosen anything different. ;P)

Quote
I'm with you on the 7dii. If it is almost as good as the 5diii at high ISO (with easy to manage luminance noise) and has a new generation AF system with 8-10 fps.... It will be the perfect nature photographer compliment to the 5diii. My hopes are high and I don't think canon will let me down.

I don't know that I said the 7D II would be almost as good as the 5D III. I did say the gap between the 7D and 5D III could be closed with the 7D II. There will still be a gap, but I don't see any reason why it would be as wide as between the 7D and 5D III today. Even if we assume that Canon doubles Q.E. to 80% (unlikely), moves to black silicon (probably also unlikely), that might bring the 7D II's FWC at ISO 100 to ~60,000e-. The 5D III would still be ~68,000e-. The 7D would need even more technology to close the gap any farther than that. Color splitting along with BSI, on top of double the Q.E. and black silicon, might actually put the 7D II over the top with 70ke- or so...but that is honestly a LOT of technology to pack into a new generation APS-C sensor.

I think Canon is an innovative company...but these innovations have already been made, many are patented, and Canon is conservative. I think we'll see a jump in Q.E. to somewhere in the 55% range at best, maybe lightpipes, and a slightly weaker AA filter. I think that will really do wonders for 7D-class IQ...the 7D II will be a lot better than the 7D. It will close the gap in terms of high ISO IQ. But, realistically, the 7D II is probably at most going to have an ISO 100 FWC of around 30,000e- tops unless they reduce pixel count to ~16mp. There would be a very noticeable improvement in 7D II IQ over 7D IQ, and instead of an approximate 2-stop difference in high ISO performance with the 5D III/6D there would only be an approximate 1-stop difference. There won't, however, be any situation where the 7D II high ISO performance is actually "almost as good as" the 5D III or 6D. Nothing can really beat bigger pixels in that sense. Maybe layered photodiodes, but I've only read theoretical papers for non-foveon type layered photodiodes, and I don't even know if it is really a viable option...it's just a theory.

So, you can get your hopes up for increased 7D II IQ relative to the 7D. Just don't get your hopes up for "nearly 5D III level high ISO noise". That is highly unlikely.

1323
EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon Answer the D4s? [CR2]
« on: February 04, 2014, 07:08:52 AM »
Let me be more precise: i dont' consider canon to be greedier than other corporations. I perceive them to be more shortsighted with greed. All they only offer is what is absolutely required to not loose out to competitor's products immediately. Sometimes they undershoot that threshold. E.g. Eos-m.

And even when canon comes up with a new feature like switching from line-of-sight-triggering to radio-wireless that is hugely useful to many customers and leapfrogs the entire competion, they are held back by shortsighted greed. Only offering rt in one expensive top of the line speedlite and one commander that lacks in other features. And they design the system to deliver the goods in combination with the latest cameras only. Rather than really pushing the feature unto rheir huge installed base (of pre 2012 eos models and 580/430 speedlites) by offering a 450ex-rt and a cheap little transceiver for existing canon speedlites. Of course canon gets punished for this behaviour by amateurs like me who do not need to have the rt system to earn money.

So many amateurs like myself have held off totally from paying canon 1.5k for  3 600ex-rt and an st-e3. Any day now i will be able to pick up a yongnuo ste of rt-commander plus rt-flashes and transceivers offering more functionality for about 1/4 of the money. And it will work nicely even with our pre-2012 cameras - even across makes.

Now who is the winner here? Certainly not canon, who have invited 3rd party competitors in and have not leveraged their technological improvement to really create a full-sized USP against their direct competition. Nikon or sony have gained valuable time. Canon has no killer instinct. They may lead in sales at the moment, but they dont lead the market. They don't ever try to exceed their customers expectations the way nikon or sony do ... On occasion. Canon really is a follower company. They will not win the game long-term with the attitude they have been showing over the last 5 years. They are trying to nickel and dime their customers exactly in the same way gm and ford have tries to. Withholding even small and cheap pieces of technical progress like give me a break - wifi connectivity in a digital camera. The strategy will not work for much longer.

Due to canons decisions i have also held off buying a 5d 3. and the 24-70 ii that i would take to go with it. I am continueing with my 7 d for the time being, and will sell the 10k canon glass selection (ef, l, ef-s) as soon as i get a 5d 4 type camera as a solid state milc. By whomever.

And no, its not just me. Its many other "enthusiast/amateurs" too. :-)

what i don't get about this whole argument here is this ---There IS and HAS been a thriving third party radio trigger business for quite some time now. 

Think about it, what is the industry standard for triggering strobes (not just speedlights, but all forms of strobes) - its Pocket Wizard.   That may be why canon isn't pulling out all the stops on this....

Also, come on guys, have some patience here.  An RT  receiver may very well be around the corner.  Or, it may not be!!!  The problem is this, and this is where i get the idea of testing the waters.   As said above, the industry standard is pocket wizards.   Canon not only knows this, but, they also know there's more than one way to trigger a flash.  A lot of shooters pick and choose where they need the latest tech, and many do prefer the simplicity of manual flashes.  Manual flashes are generally a lot cheaper and pretty reliable because it's not packed full of tech.  Then there are others who choose the cheaper option because they can't afford the switch to more complex systems.

For like  just shy of 2 years now i have been using the cheap triggers...cactus v5's.  Basic, simple, BUT reliable!!!  I had one that took such a bad fall it tore the top hotshoe off.   that one still works!!! not as a receiver of course, but the bottom shoe is fine.  when i got them i got a batch of 5...one of them has died, but, for $35 a pop I'm really surprised more of them haven't died....

And there are a ton of other pretty reliable cheap options, and you can scale it up even too to less cheap options until you get to the odins and PW Flex and radio poppers. 

So, I think it is actually a VERY wise Business decision to do what they have done with the RT system.

If your buying into the RT system, it means you want more than basic manual functionality.  And if you want that, you know your spending  more $$$ to get it.  It's just the nature of the beast.  Canon knows this.  So they introduce it in their flaghip flash.  It's sensible. those that want what the new system can do will buy it.  Canon does not need to make a work around because ---most of the people buying into this system already have a way of triggering flashes!!!!!!

I use myself as a test case...as I said, i have my 4 cactus v5's.  They are old and i want to replace them, or maybe move to the phottix strattos ---- or, make the leap to the RT system.  Flash history.  I had 2 580's and a 430.  But one of my 580's got stolen.  Ended up replacing it with another 430.  Then, the night before shooting a wedding my last 580 died.  No time to find another 580 on ebay, or order anything cheaper, so i snagged a 600. 

the sale has me tempted, but, I know I could replace my cactus's with strattos for less than it will cost me to buy 1 ST-E3.  I have grown used to manual settings so I don't know if I really need ETTL.  That, and, I kind of like being able to have an on cam flash as well as off cam (just for a little fill).  So, the new system for canon may not be best suited for me. 

There are tons of options out there, and canon knows this. They made something unique and those that have adopted the system like it enough to say great things about it.  Hell, great enough to even temp folks like me who like me!  Hell, I may even buy  the strattos but still get the ST-E3!!!  LOL

I think your starting to get it. If we continue on from where you've started...a market that is fairly saturated with both cheap wireless options (Cactus v5) as well as expensive wireless options (PW). Think about what Canon has to do in order to make a dent in that market, especially with the way people's loyalties work.

Their product offerings in that market have to be at least as reliable as the cheap Cactus v5, and they have to be at least as capable as PocketWizard. They really have to be more reliable, and more capable. They have to live up to the Canon brand, and the Canon brand is extremely powerful and garners a hell of a lot of loyalty. Canon can't miss a step...I mean, look at EOS-M. Personally I don't think that EOS-M was a missed step, but it was close enough to one, and Canon ended up pulling it out of the US and European markets for the foreseeable future. Canon can not miss a step! It's their reputation riding on it.

Now, what's worse for Canon? Rushing some kind of PW counterpart for the RT system that, due to the fact that it wasn't fully and properly designed and tested before hitting the market, somehow fails? Or, holding back, risking pissing off a very few people in niche groups who really WANT a Canon RT counterpart to PW, are dissatisfied that Canon didn't rush one out, but are probably still ok with waiting, because hell, what else are they going to do?

Canon is going to take the safer rout. Holding back and not releasing a product that may not be ready, or that may otherwise affect their ecosystem in ways we cannot know or understand, is the only logical course of action for Canon. They my piss a few people like AvTvM off along the way, but there isn't anything he can really do, and when they finally do release the product he's looking for, he'll clearly be all over it.

There could be a myriad of other issues that Canon has to deal with before they could release such a product as well. Who knows what kind of regulatory pressures and issues Canon might be having to deal with for such a product, not just in one locale, but in multiple locales around the world. Coordinating R&D with multiple local regulatory bodies is no small feat. And if you know anything about regulation, it can be the most boneheaded legislation any country ever creates...a 600-RT, because of it's "class" may apply under one set of regulations, where as a stand alone radio trigger could fall under an entirely different device class, and apply under an entirely different set of regulations. And that may be the case in multiple markets! Regulation can be as much a nightmare as working with the dreaded "third party".

Let's not forget that many markets are controlled by regulatory bodies that frown quite gravely on anti-competitive behavior. The EU in particular. The US is a tossup...sometimes they decide to prosecute vehemently for anti-competitive behavior, and other times they ignore it entirely...depends on the political blob's mood, it seems. Canon could, theoretically, entirely undermine an entire third-party market segment for radio flash triggers. I believe it is MORE than conceivable that these parties, particularly the likes of PocketWizard, are doing everything they can to protect the market they fundamentally rely upon for continued existence. If Canon released a particularly compelling radio trigger for RT with backwards compatibility and that same rich featureset, they could undermine a massive segment of PocketWizard's market, and disrupt their financial stability. There is no knowing for sure, but PocketWizard and many of their counterparts could very well be putting legal pressure on Canon not to release such a device, and their threats may be part of what has held Canon back.

As I've said many times before...nothing is ever simple. People have a tendency to radically simplify the insanely complex natures of human economies. (Well, people actually have a tendency to radically simplify pretty much everything...guess that's just human nature.) Anyway, there are so many unknowns when it comes to what Canon can or cannot do, will or will not do, and the reasons behind those decisions. It's a massively complex system. Only Canon's executives have a handle on it, and even then, Canon's executives delegate the bulk of that understanding to various underling groups and legal groups to deal with the specifics. We can't know why Canon hasn't done something. Trying to make up reasons why is just an exercise in futility. When you take it as far as AvTvM did, it just gets inane, fabricated stories based on assumption and maybe a little bit of overactive imagination, and you really begin to wonder what in the world is going on in their head.  :o

Well, that exhausts my contribution to the debate.

Simplicity is a lie. Nothing is simple. See the complexity, and you will be sane! :P Later dudes.  8)

1324
EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon Answer the D4s? [CR2]
« on: February 04, 2014, 06:47:31 AM »
I bet if you give Canon the benefit of the doubt, rather than trolling through CR calling them greedy and just another dumb corporation, you might be surprised... Demonizing Canon here on a forum is unlikely to really attract their attention

I have never called Canon greedy. Never will. They are a company. I think it's silly to anthropomorphize companies and assign them human traits. I merely expressed the opinion that I think in this case someone made a bad business decision. You don't think they did. Fair enough. No need to demonize people for having a different opinion and stating the reasons for their opinion.

Oy. You know I wasn't referring to you specifically, but you did lump yourself in with AvTvM, and he most definitely called Canon greedy. Now were just getting into the realm of playing games, when you ignore the context within which the conversation exists. I hate it when people conveniently ignore context. (Or is it just that most people are never really aware of context...?)

1325
Lenses / Re: Not likely
« on: February 03, 2014, 07:58:22 PM »
Hah! Interesting topic! I never thought to check if any of my lenses were radioactive. Most of my lenses were purchased before the Fukishima incident, and I don't know that Canon was manufacturing anything close enough to that for any of them to become irradiated.

The only potential lens would be the EF 600mm f/4 L II...I purchased that only 8 months ago...
http://www.canon.com/news/2011/mar13e.html
Canon only has one factory in Fukushima and they make printers there. Canon facilities were nowhere near enough to get irradiated. The scope of the earthquake was larger than the scope of the resulting nuclear accident.

Alas, you have no radioactive lenses! Now you'll have to buy a night light or flashlight separately if you need light in the dark. :)

I've got me my handy little headband light, with a red mode for when I'm stargazing. Best flashlight ever! (Although I'm not sure if it's irradiated...better if it ain't, for my addled little brain.)

1326
EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon Answer the D4s? [CR2]
« on: February 03, 2014, 07:47:29 PM »
Canon's R&D team for flash: "Good grief! Those two guys over on CR forums are at it again. Callin us a bunch of greedy nitwits. Let's sit on this technology for juuust a little longer, see how long they last. *chuckle*" Would YOU want to deliver a new product to a bunch of guys who think your just a greedy idiot? I wouldn't! I'd have just a little spiteful fun at first, before I finally took your money. ;P)

Waste time before taking their money when you could take their money for a long time if you calculate the best time to release a product? Canon is Asian, Asian business decisions aren't so flimsy and emotional. That is a silly idea.

Um, yes...it was meant to be a silly idea. It was a joke! lol  ::)

1327
Lenses / Re: How many radioactive lenses do you own?
« on: February 03, 2014, 06:50:20 PM »
Hah! Interesting topic! I never thought to check if any of my lenses were radioactive. Most of my lenses were purchased before the Fukishima incident, and I don't know that Canon was manufacturing anything close enough to that for any of them to become irradiated.

The only potential lens would be the EF 600mm f/4 L II...I purchased that only 8 months ago...

1328
EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon Answer the D4s? [CR2]
« on: February 03, 2014, 06:29:34 PM »
Private and Jon,

I have the greatest respect for your knowledge, experience and opinions. I just happen to agree with AvTvM on this one issue and I don't get why it is so hard to accept that he may have a point or at least a fair perspective on one issue.

I don't necessarily disagree with the core kernel of real-world issue AvTvM brought up. It's all the extra...junk...that he wrapped around that core kernel that comes off as a bit childish...the dumb, greedy Canon "evil corporation" kind of stuff. That really just muddies up the issue, clearly, as it's what people (including myself) have been noticing most.

As I said, if you don't want to spend money on Canon's new 600-RT flash for a legitimate reason, and wish they would add another product, more power to you. Be vocal about it. But being vocal while badmouthing Canon as a dumb greedy corporation that just simply doesn't get it...well that's no help to anyone. Including yourselves.

Quote
This is not a lens. This is not a camera body. This is a case where the top-of-the-line accessory was replaced by another top-of-the-line accessory and Canon made a business decision not to offer a simple and inexpensive component that would have allowed buyers of their previous generation of top of the line Speedlites to have full or partial functionality of this new feature (radio triggering).

Aye. I understand that part.

Quote
I simply think that was a bad business decision.

Assuming such a business decision was made. That's not necessarily the case.

Sometimes it takes more time to develop a complete ecosystem when you develop something new. Especially when you first release it...you don't necessarily know if people will actually latch onto it and love it, or whether they will stick with what they already have. I guess I see the 600-RT as sort of Canon testing the waters. Remember, they are a conservative company. They don't just go balls to the walls and crank out any and every crazy-ass idea they have (like, *cough*Nikon*cough*Df*ahem*).

I bet if you give Canon the benefit of the doubt, rather than trolling through CR calling them greedy and just another dumb corporation, you might be surprised. If you guys have thought of it, and think it would be a goldmine for Canon to create radio transmitters that can be used with their older flash gear...you have to figure the innovative machine that Canon is has thought of it as well. Even if they have thought of it and are not sure whether to release it, you could be CONSTRUCTIVE about it all...contact them, officially, and let them know that you guys want such a thing. Demonizing Canon here on a forum is unlikely to really attract their attention, at least not in the way you guys want to attract it. (I can see it now...Canon's R&D team for flash: "Good grief! Those two guys over on CR forums are at it again. Callin us a bunch of greedy nitwits. Let's sit on this technology for juuust a little longer, see how long they last. *chuckle*" Would YOU want to deliver a new product to a bunch of guys who think your just a greedy idiot? I wouldn't! I'd have just a little spiteful fun at first, before I finally took your money. ;P)

Having some long years of experience with product planing for software projects, when you go into a big fishbowl of a meeting room to start talking about the potential features of a brand new product, you initially throw out ideas like ideas themselves are pure gold. You hash them out, refine them, log it all, sort it all, filter it all, and rank each idea according to feasibility, applicability, market demographics, and project phase. Not every idea makes it, and certainly not every idea makes the cut for the first phase of product development, testing, and release. Some ideas, even if they are excellent ideas, have to be ranked according to what the company can do within the deadlines they must set for themselves. Even if an excellent idea does make it to the top and ends up originally slated for development and release with the first phase, once the true scope and cost of a project is better understood, many things will bet pushed to the backburner for implementation in a later phase of the project.

To me, it isn't so much a bad business decision, as potentially a business decision yet to be made, or simply a product feature that didn't quite make the cut for Canon's first round of radio-triggered flash accessories for the EOS line. It's too short sighted to think the concept hasn't even crossed Canon's collective mind, and premature to assume it was a "bad" business decision that has so far prevented it's production and release.

Quote
I'm not mad. I'm not pouting. I like Canon. I have been a loyal Canon customer since the days of the F1. I would never consider buying another brand of interchangeable lens camera. (I do own a Fuji X20).

But, in this one instance, it seems that Canon had a very inexpensive option available that would have offered the buyers of its top-of-the-line strobe an upgrade path. Ironically, they could have done so in a way that I believe would have increased their profits. The ST-E3-RT sells for $300. Yongnuo 622-C transceivers sell for about $45 each. It's certainly rational to believe that Canon could offer a Canon brand receiver or transceiver for two, three or even four times that amount and still make a healthy profit. It's also very likely that offering such a receiver would have actually boosted sales of the 600 RT.

Again, you guys talk as though the opportunity has come and gone, never to be an opportunity again. To me, I don't see why Canon couldn't take advantage of this opportunity at any time and rake in the cash from the cow, or cows, as it were, in the event that receivers/transceivers sell like hotcakes and the 600-RT benefits all the more from them as well. I don't see any reason why the window of opportunity has passed, or that it even "can" pass. As has been mentioned, this is a closed system for Canon cameras. Whatever Nikon or Sony might do, they can only do it for Nikon and Sony. Their system would be meaningless for Canon shooters. And as much as people like to talk about switching brands, I think in reality it is a very rare breed of individual who actually dumps one brand to jump ship to another. At worst, some people might add Nikon to their extended kit. In general, I think most people will just stick with Canon and use what they have, and buy what's available. If at some point in the future transceivers for older Canon flash units become available, I'm sure people will jump on them just as enthusiastically then as they would now. Even if third parties swoop in and somehow fill in the gap in the interim, it seems clear that people are more than happy to jump ship to Canon's official gear when it arrives...so I'm not sure third-party alternatives are really a huge concern for Canon.

Quote
You like to use the example of FD lenses. But in that case, Canon did everything they possibly could have until they finally and reluctantly came to the conclusion that they had to change to mount in order to remain technologically competitive. This would only be an analogous situation if Canon had available at the time a $35 adapter that would have allowed all FD lenses to autofocus and access the full functionality of new bodies and then made a conscious decision not to implement it.

However if Canon DID make a conscious decision not to implement it, they had very good technical or business reasons for doing so. The development of EOS and one of the first AF sensors was a pretty massive undertaking back in the 80's. The ultimate outcome of that undertaking was that they needed a whole new mount to support their long term goals. The other outcome of that undertaking was a hefty R&D bill. It isn't surprising that for EOS, Canon NEEDED to push people into the new lens system first and recoup some of those upfront costs, before even thinking about attempting to make an adapter to support focus confirm. (BTW, as far as I know, there are only four FD lenses that actually had autofocus...so were really talking about enabling focus confirm with FD lenses, not autofocus, since most weren't autofocus.)

FD had a 42mm registration distance, where as EOS has a 44mm registration distance. That means any FD to EF adapter would require optics to maintain infinity focus. That means greater potential for a loss in IQ, potential for incompatibilities, etc. It would have been a bad technical and business decision to try and support FD focus confirm, and in the case of those four FD AC lenses, full AF, right out the gate with EOS and EF. That would be adding interoperability for a legacy system to a brand spankin new system. The potential for conflicts and other issues would be high. Releasing an FD to EF adapter right out the gate is one of those situations where your potentially just asking for a massive rash of problems that flood your support centers...and for a LEGACY product, no less!

Sorry, but I don't really agree that your FD example actually supports your argument. LOL, on the contrary, I think it supports my argument. Canon is a conservative company. They bite off what they KNOW they can chew, and they never take really big bites. They are careful, methodical, and ordered to the way they do things. I think FD to EOS/EF is a much more complicated endeavor than bringing radio transceivers to existing EOS flashes. There were hundreds of FD lenses, all of which would have had to have been tested for compatibility before any such adapter could have been released. There are, what, barely more than half a dozen EOS flashes on the market right now? That's a much simpler feat, to create an adapter and test it with all half dozen and some flash units.

Quote
Canon is a great company. But, sometimes even great companies make shortsighted decisions. Unfortunately, they've done this before with their speedlites (crippling the 5D3 so that it cannot work with the Yongnuo ST-E2).

First, again with the assumption that a decision was made. We don't know that a decision has been made, at least not anything beyond the fact that legacy flash adapters for RT have not YET been released. Canon could be cooking them up in a back room right now, as we...type.  ::)

As for the Yongnuo ST-E2 incompatibility, again I think your approaching the problem from the wrong angle. Canon updated their internal specifications to support enhanced functionality with the 5D III. The Yongnui ST-E2 did not support the new protocols, hence the incompatibility. Canon has a right to do whatever they deem necessary to progress THEIR technology. If that breaks third party products, and the third party makes the decision to not update their product, that's on the third party. (BTW, I looked, but only found hearsay that Canon supposedly "did not allow Yongnuo to use the new specs"...however there was no actual concrete information that was the case...when there was mention that someone contacted Yongnuo and THAT company did say they were choosing not to update their ST-E2 for compatibility.)

When push comes to shove, it's CANON'S ecosystem. Canon has the right to do whatever they feel is necessary to advance their own technology. It isn't their prerogative to make sure that every third parties products built to support their ecosystem works every time they need to make changes to support Canon's progress. That would be an impossible task and delay products indefinitely (have you EVER tried to work with the third party guy? I have, as a web service integration guy or public API guy...working with the third party is an endless NIGHTMARE...they are never around, or they don't understand, or they don't have the time and refuse to update, or they decided to make changes that weren't compatible without telling you, they have to get authorization from that guy who is perpetually on vacation in some god forsaken scab of the earth forever out of contact...ugh, NIGHTMARE!!!)

Ever since I first started doing photography with a DSLR, the first piece of advice I was given still rings true:

"Always go with the brand! If you go with a third-party, your never guaranteed those products will work when the brand makes a change!"

I took that to heart. I own only Canon brand equipment for my DSLR, with the exception of my cable release (it's apparently just a pair of control wires for a switch...power on & ground, and it's been that way for decades, and it seems to be a rather universal approach amongst DSLR manufacturers). I don't have any fear that someday, suddenly, my third-party lens or flash will stop working...because I heeded good advice and stayed within the brand's ecosystem. Anyone who choses NOT to heed that advice, and buys outside of the brand, implicitly accepts the potential risks. That's on the customer and the third-party...not on the brand.

Quote
Now, I don't demand that you agree. I simply suggest that you might want to at least acknowledge that there can be a valid perspective different from your own, even if it comes from AvTvM.

I acknowledge that there can be a valid perspective different from my own. I don't yet conceed that I've found that alternative valid perspective yet.  ;D :P ;D ;)

1329
EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon Answer the D4s? [CR2]
« on: February 03, 2014, 03:42:02 PM »

That is farcically ridiculous and failed logic.

If I had been given the option of getting a $50 Canon made RT compatible trigger to work with my 550EX's instead of getting $450 600-EX-RT's I'd have done that, I wouldn't have got as integrated a system as I have, and Canon would have made $200 off me rather than $2,000. This way we are both happy. I am no Canon whore either, I have been running the 550's via Yongnuo RF 602's for years.

I paid $220 for most of my 550EX's new, I am getting around $150 for them now nearly ten years later secondhand, I wrote them down to nothing by 2008, they own me nothing yet they have given me ten years faultless service for $70. I expect similar figures from the 600's.

well, if I'd be coming from 10 years old written-off 550EXes, I'd also see much more sense to upgrade them to 600EXes. But in my case I got a pre-2012 camera model and Canon speedlites that are either still current (430EX II) or were current (580EX II) when I purchased them only about 2 years ago. Plus a 430EX which is maybe 5 years old. All of them used rather sparingly. Would you jump to an all 600EX-RT setup? btw. where I live, the ST-E3 retails from 270 € (=USD 365) and 600EX-RT runs from € 485 (=USD 650) a piece. The Yongnuo trigger is € 100 and I expect their YN-600EX to come in at maybe € 200 ... just to give you an idea, what I am looking at.

Anyway to me its a very minor problem: a few more weeks of occasional optical triggering until the Yongnuos become available.

Canon however has a bigger problem ... they spent R&D money and managed to create a highly beneficial technical advantage for many (potentially all) users of their ecosystem ... and then they don't distribute the goodness (against reasonable charge of course) to as many of their users as possible, but only to some ... 2012-Camera-model owners and 600EX-purchasers - rather than fully leveraging that USP against all their competitors. And driving nice synergies of scale. That's all I am saying.

So basically, your bitching about the fact that Canon created this really kick-ass new technology that you really really want, but you can't afford it, so you go off on a name-calling binge and try to paint Canon as some greedy company run by a bunch of idiot-buffoons who apparently wouldn't know a gold mine if it collapsed around them...because they aren't selling the 600-RT at a price point you can afford to refurnish your entire collection of flash right now.

Can you really get more childish than that? Seriously.

Oh, don't worry. I could afford more speedlites than I could carry, even at Euro prices.  ;D
I just refuse to throw money at Canon without getting *exactly what I want*.
And I do point out that some of Canon's business decisions don't seem to make a lot of business sense. Even though they manage to sell more cameras than other makers. Today.  ;-)


btw: I would again ask you to please watch your wording and refrain from personal attacks on me. I do respect you and your profound technical knowledge you share in many of your posts. Feel free to criticize my opinions/posts, but please do so in a civilized manner, Thanks! After all, we are only discussing Canon stuff and economics 101, not even world politics or religious topics [heaven forbid!]. :-)

I'm sorry. It's just that your arguments have gone so far into the realm of...absurd...I'm honestly having a hard time comprehending. A lot of what you've said over the last 8 posts or so honestly sounds a little insane to me. It sounds like a LOT of assumption about the inner workings of a company you do not work for, and have no internal insight into. It sounds like your somehow turning what you think might possibly be true about Canon's inner business workings into fact in your head, then, with the assumption that your assumptions are actually indeed fact, you proceed to fabricate these wild stories... (At least...thats what it looks like from the outside...)

It's all well and good to not want to give Canon your hard earned money until they produce a product you want to spend that money on. That's entirely your prerogative, can't fault you for that.

It's another thing to concoct a rather cockamamie idea about how Canon is greedy and stupid and missing out on a supposed goldmine. I'm not a billionaire CEO, however I've spent more than enough time reading C-level management profiles for companies as a stock investor to know that you don't get to be a head honcho at a corporation like Canon unless you have incredible credentials and a ridiculously friggin CLEAR picture of what the markets your company caters to are, exactly what they want, exactly what kind of price burden they can bear, and exactly how to leverage the balance between product diversity, flexibility, technology, service and price in order to keep the vast majority of your customers happy while sustaining the bottom line.

I'm a reasonably intelligent guy. I know a some stuff about photography, some stuff about astronomy, a whole hell of a lot of stuff about software engineering, and a bit about a bunch of various things here and there. I would bet really good money, however, that every single C-level honcho and all the presidents and vice presidents and what have you of the various departments at Canon could RUN CIRCLES around me. They all tend to have rich, classical educations, so their knowledge is deep and wide (kind of a necessity in their business.) I've listened on financial report calls of a number of corporations I've been interested in buying stock for, in sectors ranging from energy (oil and gas drilling) to precious and rare earth metals mining to tech to finance. I don't even need to bet, I'll just pay up, the CEOs of all those companies are far smarter than I am.

A lot of people complain about the wealthy being wealthy, how unfair it is, how greedy they are. Man, if you spend just five minutes talking (or even just listening to) to a good, creative CEO, you'll understand why they are all millionaires and billionaires. You'll think they deserve their riches too...most are unbelievably hard working individuals who spend far more time than the average joe working, wheeling, dealing, funding and building economies. Most of the good CEOs are empowering and enabling individuals (although yes, there are some CEOs who just don't get the job, but I'd say they are a small minority). They are incredibly smart people, and they surround themselves with people just as smart and in many cases even a hell of a lot smarter (usually the case with engineers and the like...creme of the crop there.)

I'm just sayin...it's all well and good to wish for and rumormonger about a potential flash product you hope Canon will make in the future. As a matter of fact, its about the most encouraged thine here on CR. But your just digging yourself a hole calling them greedy and stupid and missing the ball (and otherwise, yes, sounding childish...it isn't really an insult, more an observation) on what you personally believe is a gold mine. Trust me, if Canon thought your idea would turn into a pile of gold for them, they would have already been all over it. They are already 15, 20 moves ahead of you. If the idea has merit, and will make a giant pile of silver, they are already working on it.

1330
EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon Answer the D4s? [CR2]
« on: February 03, 2014, 03:13:29 PM »

That is farcically ridiculous and failed logic.

If I had been given the option of getting a $50 Canon made RT compatible trigger to work with my 550EX's instead of getting $450 600-EX-RT's I'd have done that, I wouldn't have got as integrated a system as I have, and Canon would have made $200 off me rather than $2,000. This way we are both happy. I am no Canon whore either, I have been running the 550's via Yongnuo RF 602's for years.

I paid $220 for most of my 550EX's new, I am getting around $150 for them now nearly ten years later secondhand, I wrote them down to nothing by 2008, they own me nothing yet they have given me ten years faultless service for $70. I expect similar figures from the 600's.

well, if I'd be coming from 10 years old written-off 550EXes, I'd also see much more sense to upgrade them to 600EXes. But in my case I got a pre-2012 camera model and Canon speedlites that are either still current (430EX II) or were current (580EX II) when I purchased them only about 2 years ago. Plus a 430EX which is maybe 5 years old. All of them used rather sparingly. Would you jump to an all 600EX-RT setup? btw. where I live, the ST-E3 retails from 270 € (=USD 365) and 600EX-RT runs from € 485 (=USD 650) a piece. The Yongnuo trigger is € 100 and I expect their YN-600EX to come in at maybe € 200 ... just to give you an idea, what I am looking at.

Anyway to me its a very minor problem: a few more weeks of occasional optical triggering until the Yongnuos become available.

Canon however has a bigger problem ... they spent R&D money and managed to create a highly beneficial technical advantage for many (potentially all) users of their ecosystem ... and then they don't distribute the goodness (against reasonable charge of course) to as many of their users as possible, but only to some ... 2012-Camera-model owners and 600EX-purchasers - rather than fully leveraging that USP against all their competitors. And driving nice synergies of scale. That's all I am saying.

So basically, your bitching about the fact that Canon created this really kick-ass new technology that you really really want, but you can't afford it, so you go off on a name-calling binge and try to paint Canon as some greedy company run by a bunch of idiot-buffoons who apparently wouldn't know a gold mine if it collapsed around them...because they aren't selling the 600-RT at a price point you can afford to refurnish your entire collection of flash right now.

Can you really get more childish than that? Seriously.

1331
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in Q2? [CR1]
« on: February 03, 2014, 02:32:05 PM »
Even with the increased FPS and burst, the 7D had too many misses. Even though I used it on and off for days, I will not post the images, even though some contain smashing horns. Just too grainy, with the detail chewed away, and strange colors. But, when the light is right (such as your bird shot) the 7D can perform very well.

Sigh. You don't quite seem to get it. This is the ORIGINAL of my bird shot:



You seriously call that "the right light"? That's terrible light. It's exposed properly, the histogram was about 1/2 way into the right-most histogram bar...but to actually get contrast exactly on the eye, where you want focus to occur, is difficult when the subject matter around the eye is all shadows. I had to process the image to bring up the detail in the bird such as you saw it in the previously posted version.

The only benefit of a scene like this is for tracking, really...the strong contrast between bird and sky makes it easier for any camera to track the subject...it just doesn't do anything to help you lock AF on the part of the subject you want (yet the 7D did quite well in that respect.)

1332
EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon Answer the D4s? [CR2]
« on: February 03, 2014, 12:45:51 PM »
With Canon I mean the corporation, run by its executives.

Just to stick with the example of radio wireless ETTL speedlite triggering for one more moment:
Canon could technically crack the Pocketwizard stronghold and some technical challenges to inmplement the RT system. Against what many naysayers her said before, Canon could do it on the 2.4 GHz band [fast enough for 2 way communication flash-triggering] and they can market it globally with only 2 product variants in all important and civilized markets on earth, despite differing radio communications regulations and standards. Yes, there are some markets with such absurd regulations, that the only get 600-EX without RT. I am sure fanbois there will be also to happy to buy those.  ;D

I am convinced, Nikon and Sony were not ABLE to get wireless ETTL speedlite triggering implemented. If they had been able to, they would have done so by now. I am quite certain, that they are working on the issue and will eventually bring it to market. Canon is squandering precious lead-time to get their system universally established.  Becaue their short-sighted greed only lets them think of "potentially lost 600EX-RT sales" for any 100 successful 450EX-Rt sales and for any 1000 successfull RT-transceiver sales that would expand the RT-ecosystem to all existing and still "semi-current" 580/430 speedlites. And possibly even allow their customers to radio-trigger monolights mixed with (ETTL-) speedlites ... all from one and the same RT-master.     

To me that is shortsighted with greed.


1333
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in Q2? [CR1]
« on: February 03, 2014, 12:16:28 PM »
I didn't forget about anything. I remember the image. Let me counter. Sun sitting just below the horizon, I had to focus on a dark bird in dim diffuse light to get this:



Bird in fast flight, hunting post-sunset, flapping it's wings. This is one shot out of a sequence of about 28, which represents a mere 3.5 seconds total time. I had to not only AF, but maintain good AF lock the entire time, while hand holding a lens and panning.

This was taken with a 7D. At the perfect moment. The 6D would have captured 15 frames, rather 28, a difference of  86%! I was able to capture nearly TWICE the number of frames, in bad light with continuous AF tracking...with a lowly 7D.

Sorry, but honestly, I could have nailed that same exact bighorn shot with the 7D. The background would have been slightly noisier...but I have the skill to completely nullify that in post with one of the numerous tools I have at my disposal, or even just a bit of careful layer masking, basic NR and gaussian blurring in photoshop. The sheep themselves would be just as sharp and detailed (if not more detailed), since noise perceptually affects softer OOF areas and flat tones or gradients more than sharp detail.

This isn't about camera capabilities anymore...it's really gotten deep into the realm of personal preference. Honestly, I don't fault you in any way for personally choosing a 6D. If that is your preferred camera and you know how to make it work for you, more power to you! But to claim the 7D couldn't get that shot really only speaks to a lack of skill with it, not a lack of capability of the hardware. The 7D is and has always been an eminently capable camera. It DOES have its one drawback, that jitter between frames that sometimes crops up and costs you some frames...but only if you intend to print them. For web-size images, anything scaled down 2x or more, it's still a no-brainer to capture a consistent 8fps keepers with the 7D, even in lower light.

And thats the 7D! When it comes to the 7D II, no one in their right mind thinks it will have the same problems as the original 7D. Canon started improving the 7D's problems with the first rebel that used the 18mp sensor. By the time they got to the 650D, the 18mp sensor on that actually had solved most of the 7D's problems. Canon won't just drop some crappy sensor into the 7D II. As I said before...too many people have too many high hopes for the 7D II, too many people look to the 7D line to provide them with reach, frame rate, and good AF so they can do their action photography without having to spend untold thousands, for Canon to botch it. Canon CAN'T botch it. Canon MUST do something pretty radical with the 7D II. And it sounds like the chances of the 7D II arriving this year are fairly good, so it isn't like were going to be waiting some untold number of years before we finally see it...that theoretical wish list, or at least parts of it, could come true within months.



If I had to pick a camera today to do wildlife with, my personal choice would be the 5D III. It would really be the 1D X, but there is too much cost involved there for the primary benefit of frame rate, so it's the 5D III. To me, low noise isn't the end all-be all of IQ. IQ is a conflation of multiple factors: Sharpness, detail, subject pose (i.e. getting the right frame out of a sequence), and noise. Sharpness when it comes to fast action requires an excellent AF system. Neither the 6D nor 7D hold a stick to the 5D III when it comes to locking and tracking focus. Detail requires pixel count. If you don't have big long lenses, the cheapest way to put pixels onto subject is with an APS-C sensor. Subject pose...this one relies on two things: AF system and frame rate. Personally, I think an ideal frame rate is between 10-12fps, leaning towards 10fps (balance between the right moment, and not having to deal with too many files). Subject pose relies on the AF system because the more options you have to compose in-frame, while tracking, without having to bother with recomposition, the better. Again, the 6D doesn't hold a stick. The 7D is better...but it still doesn't compare to the 5D III. The 5D III is king here. (I like using off-center points so much I even trained myself to move the AF point WHILE TRACKING BIF...and the off-center points in the 7D work well even after sunset.) Even more important is the number of cross-type points you can use in lower light. The 7D and 6D? One. The 5D III? The full 41, so long as you have an f/4 lens! And you still have 21 high precision cross type points at f/5.6! That's probably the 5D III's single most significant edge as a composition-friendly wildlife body over the 7D and 6D. Noise, no need to explain anything here, except to say background noise is a BREEZE to clean up, and some noise in sharp detail areas isn't a problem to start with.

In all of that above...sensor only really came into play once...noise. But noise is the easiest thing to clean up in post with good tools or a little bit of technique, so it isn't the most important thing. AF system and frame rate come out on top as the most important factors for serious high action photography...bighorn clacking horns, deer in the rut, birds in flight...I'll take AF and frame rate over noise any day. I guess the one thing I'd change with the 7D, besides the AF jitter, is the hazy low pass filter. I don't mind having a strong low pass filter, I prefer it actually for bird photography. But you are right...it does have that somewhat ugly tone to it. I'd certainly trade that if I could. I expect the 7D II to have a slightly weak OLPF given the trend with Canon's other recent APS-C cameras, so I suspect noise with a 7D II will be easier to clean up and more sightly than the 7D.

1334
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in Q2? [CR1]
« on: February 03, 2014, 11:27:21 AM »
Quote
I'm a bit perplexed at the excitement for a 7D II at $1999. At that price point, you could have a 6D, which IMHO, is a superior wildlife camera.

I don't get this statement unless you know something you're not telling us.  You're making a decision on the 7d II based on performance of the 7D.  This is just faulty logic.  No one seems to know what the 7D II will be or if/when it will actually exist.  You're comparing 4 yr old tech to current tech.  I would hope the current tech would be better.

I'll assume you expect the 7d II to be an incremental improvement, similar to how Canon manages the x0D line.
If this is the case there will be a lot of very disappointed people.  The 7D was a huge improvement over the 50D and I expect the 7d II to be a huge improvement over the 70D.

The only thing that seems to be certain is that either you'll be surprised by the 7d II or I'll be disappointed.

True... 7D was a huge improvement over the 50D, but... 7D was a new line altogether from the x0D line....
7DII is not a new line... its a improvement from the 7D... an existing line.

...

5DII to 5DIII - modest improvements

What the? The 5D III was a MASSIVE improvement over the 5D II!!!! What are you people smoking??!?...this thread has gotten really weird. The 5D III was such a significant improvement across the board over the 5D II, so much so that it still sells like hotcakes. 6ave sold 60 copies in less than two days just two days ago! Even for a sale, that is some serious product movement...

Wow...some of the comments on this forum lately are just out of wackjob field...  :o

If we assume the 7D II is similarly upgraded as the 5D III was, and given that sensor IQ is the single most requested improvement with the 7D II, regardless of whether that means more megapixels or fewer megapixels, and given Canon's propensity to deliver on their customers key requests...I expect the 7D II to get a better sensor. A meaningfully better sensor.

1335
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in Q2? [CR1]
« on: February 03, 2014, 11:17:29 AM »


I think this statement is radically premature: "don't get yesterdays sensor tech." The 7D II isn't even out yet. Regardless of what it ultimately is, it certainly won't be "yesterdays sensor tech". If it fuly lives up to the few things Canon has said about it, it should be a pretty amazing sensor. You can't write it off before it's even arrived!


Basing a statement on proven physics isn't premature.  There are a couple guide posts here as well:  Canon continuing to lose the sensor IQ race, and the work they did on the 70D.

I hope the 7D II sensor is an improvement on the 70D sensor (which isn't impressive at all).

Hmm, your not giving Canon enough credit. The 70D has a 32% larger full well capacity than Canon's prior 18mp sensor. That is actually quite impressive, given the age of Canon's fabrication technology! Quantum efficiency jumped about 5%, which further helps higher ISO settings. The 70D is a quarter to a third of a stop better at all higher ISO settings than the 7D, thanks to lower read noise. The DPAF is certainly quite impressive! Even if you don't care for video, DPAF is still an impressive innovation.

The 70D, however, was never going to be the APS-C sensor that Canon used to introduce a whole bunch impressive new technology with. The 7D II is the most likely camera that Canon will introduce impressive new technology with, given that the 7D was the first to bring the (at the time "new", now much loathed so many years on and overused) 18mp APS-C sensor, the new-at-the-time 19pt AF system, and the new-at-the-time 63-zone iFCL metering sensor. The 7D was packed with new technology from Canon. Canon's customers put the 7D line on a pedestal, and expect great things from it. If Canon misses that ball, it'll hurt them.

Given the historical facts, and the position the 7D holds among Canon fans who don't have the near seven grand to shell out for a 1D X, but want the extra reach and need the higher frame rate and better AF system, it is very much premature to call the 7D II sensor "old technology". It can't just be some mediocre evolution of the old 7D sensor...that would cost Canon some customers for sure.

As for physics...there is still plenty of room to push things without necessarily innovating radical new technology. And, there is plenty of radical new technology to apply to the 7D sensor. Canon could use new silicon fabrication techniques to double or triple quantum efficiency using black silicon, which effectively eliminates photon loss due to reflection off the silicon itself. They could employ light pipes to reduce reflection off the wire etching around each photodioe. They could move to BSI. They could layer photodiodes to increase FWC. They could use color splitting rather than CFA to capture nearly 100% of the incident light at every pixel.

Sorry, but proven physics have achieved a hell of a lot more than you seem to be aware of. All of these technologies exist. Most of them have been employed in high sensitivity video sensor technology for a few years now. Some of them have been prototyped and proven to work (i.e. color splitting has doubled or more the low light performance of Panasonic prototype sensors, black silicon has reduced read noise to less than 2e- at room temperature and increased quantum efficiency several fold over standard silicon fabrication.) It's a long way to go before physics stops progress, ESPECIALLY at the relatively huge pixel sizes of the 7D or as proposed for the 7D II. Were still in the 3-4 micron range...researchers and small form factor manufacturers are doing amazing things at 1.1 micron, and are now moving into the 0.95µm scale.

The 7D II, if it employed even some of these technologies, could be really amazing as far as APS-C sensors go. It could close the gap quite a bit with the 5D III. Sometimes noise doesn't matter if eliminating it costs you too much in overall detail. The key strength of the 7D line is its higher pixel count, smaller pixels, and higher spatial resolution. That's where the true reach factor comes into play...and a lot of people put more value on reach and frame rate than they do on noise levels. (Not to mention the fact that noise is pretty easy to clean up in post once you know how...as my example images can attest to.)

Pages: 1 ... 87 88 [89] 90 91 ... 272