September 17, 2014, 09:46:06 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 ... 107 108 [109] 110 111 ... 300
1621
Quote
You have to weigh all these factors in the face of the 600mm lens' 2.25x greater magnification, though. Even if the Tammy isn't as sharp wide open at 600mm as the Canon is at 400mm, the difference is clearly NOT enough to overcome the increase in magnification. When your goal is to improve your reach, magnification is everything. Magnification accounts for the vast majority of the IQ increase, because it results in more pixels on subject.

suprisingly that´s hard to understand for some photogs.

i too know a few who think upsampling creates more DETAILS.
must be CSI and all this crap who makes them believe that. ;)

Yeah...LOL, damnable CSI and all their magical video zooming and resolution fabrication crap. :P It's like that  device from Blade Runner that allowed him to extrapolate content from within that one room by extracting detail out of tiny reflections and what not...the Infinite Resolution Device. Oh, but were it true!

1622
For the same sensor used at the same distance to subject, longer focal lengths will always produce sharper results than upscaled shorter focal lengths. No way around that.
The above statement is not correct, and now I can see you are agree. ;)

I do agree that the 100-400mm has to be very sharp @400 to outresolve the tamron which also has to be very soft @600mm
Now, DXO confirms this. 100-400 @400m wide open is very sharp in center. Tammy is very soft @600m wide open.
So the difference between an upsampled 400mm and 600mm dont need to be that big. I dont think the upscaled image would resolve more, but its not far behind, and maybe only visible at large crops.

You may be surprised but my 300mm+2xTCIII @F6.3 upscaled to 700mm outresolves my 500mm is mk1 + 1.4xIII. (Using my 7D)

I'd need to see evidence of that. Either your 500mm lens needs tuning to recenter a misaligned element, or your 1.4x TC does.

I found the high desnity sensor on 7d are able to pull out more details from the 300mm combo than the 500mm combo. I did the same test with my 1d4, but got the opposite results. Because it has a lesser demanding sensor (lower pixel density), hence the 500mm combo resolved better.

I'm sorry, but that's completely illogical. Resolving power is resolving power. A 500mm lens resolves more detail than a 300mm lens, because it's resolving it at a higher magnification, plain and simple. It magnifies your subject 2.78x more. That is even more than the difference between a 400mm and 600mm lens. Additionally, the 2x TC introduces more of it's own optical aberrations than the 1.4x TC. There is no way that the 300mm + 2x will ever outresolve the 500mm + 1.4x. Just plain aint going to happen.

I give you two examples: one from short distance (10meters), the other 948 meters from subject (according Google maps). Download and show in full size 1920x1080.
Short distance:

I'm not really sure what your saying about the distances. Were they at the exact same distance, or was the 600mm combo closer? If you normalized framing, then the comparison is invalidated, as the 600mm combo would effectively be putting the same number of pixels on subject...when the 600mm combo used at the same distance should be putting fewer pixels on subject. Either way, your own example shows the 500mm+1.4x is sharper than 300mm+2x. The 700mm combo is pretty crisp, you can clearly see the effect of the 2x TC on the 600mm combo.

1623
EOS Bodies / Re: Will the next xD cameras do 4k?
« on: February 12, 2014, 04:42:47 PM »
Canon's decision to put the 61pt AF from the 1D X into the 5D III was probably one of the best decisions they ever made.

Agreed. Which begs the question, for me at least, of why they didn't put the 19-point AF of the 7D into the 6D camera? Because if they had, I'd be sitting here with a 6D right now.

I can't disagree with that. I had thought the 6D would get the 7D's AF system before it was released. I've been baffled as to why it hasn't ever since.

Well, you at least seem interested in learning about how we view business.

Yes, I am very interested, because our two "cultures" have very different business models. And what you say about the relationship between business and government is very interesting. It makes me realise that us here in South Africa are pretty much better off than you, even considering all our other problems. Over here, government offers incentives and reduced taxes and all manner of things for all businesses ... from single-owner start-ups to multi-national conglomerates.

There is no question that America currently has a VERY business-unfriendly government right now. We've had a business-unfriendly government since Bush' second term, when democrats took over congress. Class warfare, corporate hate, job disincentivisation, corporate disincentivisation, etc. etc. have all been occurring at unprecedented rates, and only seem to be getting worse. It's no wonder we have an unprecedended number of people who have literally given up hope of finding a job (the "left the workforce entirely" rate is actually much higher than our "official" unemployment rate, by almost double), and it is also no wonder that we have an unprecedented number of highly skilled individuals working part time jobs, and that many of those jobs are for unskilled labor. Let America be a lesson to South Africa about how dangerous government meddling and disincentivisation can be to an economy...recovery? HAH! Recovery my ass...our recovery is all obfuscation collusion and agenda pandering. America's economy hasn't recovered. Stock prices have recovered, because people's hopes are more powerful than government oppression, but our economy is on just as unstable and sketchy ground as it's been for the last five years. And if some things don't change, and change dramatically, were headed for another economic disaster. (Obamacare alone, given how it levies unmanageable financial burdens on the middle class, the people who work most, work hardest, and least need a massive government-enforced expenditure, could bring our economy down if people actually comply with it...as it stands, I suspect the American people will simply ignore Obamacare, pay their yearly fine, and forgo health insurance now...it's simply become too expensive...however over the longer term, that could pose a problem for the health care industry, which could lead to an economic collapse down the road....etc. etc. ad. inf...you see how messed up economies can get when the buffoons in government stick their grimy fingers into private sector business? ;P)

1624
DxO rates the Tammy better than the 100-400 in the range where they overlap:
For bird/wildlife photo, I would look at other criterias than dxomark when rating a lens.

100-400 is clearly sharper in center wide open at 400mm. And is able to give really quality sharpness (green)
Tamron is not. And it is quite soft at 600mm, even stopped down to f8. A deal breaker for me.

You have to weigh all these factors in the face of the 600mm lens' 2.25x greater magnification, though. Even if the Tammy isn't as sharp wide open at 600mm as the Canon is at 400mm, the difference is clearly NOT enough to overcome the increase in magnification. When your goal is to improve your reach, magnification is everything. Magnification accounts for the vast majority of the IQ increase, because it results in more pixels on subject.

The Tammy would have to be deep red in all of those maps in order for it to perform worse than the upscaled 400mm...but it isn't red...it's yellow-green in most cases, and and even orange in one case. The evenness of those maps indicate that the 600mm has a pretty flat field and a fairly normal response center to corner. That's actually a good trait...means you know the lens will perform roughly the same midframe or even towards the edge as it does in the center. It also means that applying sharpening in post (a super easy way to increase acutance) will affect most of the frame in the same way...with the Canon, the center will end up oversharpened while the midframe and edge get sharpened the way they need to (which, as it turns out, is generally the case...I used the 100-400 for years before I purchased the 600mm f/4 II.)

When it comes to differences in focal length, magnification is the primary difference. All other differences are secondary unless they are particularly severe. This is the danger that relying solely upon DXO-type lens tests and measurements to compare lenses poses. There is a LOT more to a lens than how they compare on DXO (or any artificial lens test for that matter...DPR's test results aren't any different...they would tell you the same thing, and it would be just as incorrect.)

1625

I hope I have time to do a comparison between my 100-400 and 300mm +2x tomorrow, and see if that can make us any wiser.  :)

Download the following image and look at full screen (1920x1080).
You see four 100% center crops:
Top: from 7D iso 200   (My test shots from today)
Bottom: from 5d3 iso 640. (Alans crops)
Top left: Canon 300 f2.8 IS MK2 + 2xTCIII wide open.
Top right: Canon 100-400mm @400mmf56 and upscaled to 600mm.
Bottom left:  Canon 300mm f2.8 is mk2 + 2x TCIII wide open
Bottom left: Tammy @600mm f6.3

Can an upscaled (to 600mm) 100-400mm wide open  shot give same details as the Tammy?

Um, simple answer is, NO! Your upscaled 400mm sample is soft all over. You can CLEARLY see it in the text, in the gray watermark, in the ACE logo, in the black box with text in it. There is absolutely no question, the upscaled 400mm shot doesn't compare to the 600mm shot.

There isn't any way to slice this such that a 400mm lens could win, not when the Tamron resolves as well as it does at 600mm. If the Tammy was particularly BAD, then maybe, but the Tammy is NOT bad...it's quite good for it's relative position in the broader scope of DSLR lenses. At non-diffraction limited apertures like f/5.6 and f/6.3, even the EF 400mm f/2.8 L isn't going to outdo the Tamron. At this point, thanks to the Tamron's good resolving power, it all boils down to pixels on subject. For the same sensor used at the same distance to subject, longer focal lengths will always produce sharper results than upscaled shorter focal lengths. No way around that.

The only way the 400mm could compare to any 600mm, when they all offer decent resolving power, is when you normalize framing, rather than maintaining subject distance. If you move the 400mm setup closer such that the credit card fills the frame in exactly the same way as a more distant 600mm, then your putting the same number of pixels on subject. If the two lenses offer similar resolving power, the results should be largely indiscernible. But if you can get closer with a 400mm, you wouldn't need a 600mm...so it kind of defeats the point of the argument. In reach-limited scenarios, more optical magnification is pretty much always going to be better unless the longer lens is of radically poor design or uses particularly poor quality glass.
I do not deny that the upscaled 100-400mm is soft all over. Compared to the excellent 300mm+2x combo it is bad. But is it more soft than the tammy wide open as shown in the lower right side?

I don't believe it is valid to compare the upper and lower left. Two entirely different scenarios. You can only compare results when the results are produced under identical circumstances. This is made clear by the fact that the Top Left is CLEARLY sharper than the Top Right, and both of those examples were shot under the same circumstances. You cannot dismiss the clear advantage of the Top Left Tammy because the Lower Right Tammy is an entirely different setup...the Lower samples are comparable to each other, but not to the Upper samples.

A very sharp quality lens can outresolve a lens with longer FL. Of course it can! Or do you say that a sharp 590mm never can outresolve a soft 600mm lens? And if thats possible, is it any magic limit where this is not possible anymore?

If the 600mm lens had really bad optics, yes, a 590mm lens could outresolve it. I actually said as much. But that isn't the case. Both the Tammy 150-600 and Canon 100-400 have good optics. Neither of them are bad, they are on par with each other, the Tammy actually has the edge. So no matter how you slice it, the 400mm lens isn't going to be outresolving the 600mm lens.

Lets assume that 600mm had worse optics than the 400mm lens. The difference in focal length is 150%, however when it comes to magnification, a 600mm lens enlarges subjects 2.25x more than a 400mm lens. The difference in magnification is the square of the ratio beetween the focal lengths. That means that, for a 600mm lens to perform WORSE than a 400mm lens thats been cropped and upsampled...it would have to perform SIGNIFICANTLY worse. Such a circumstance is highly unlikely.

Have you tried digiscoping with a cheap telescope (800mm) and compared the results with a 600mm? What do you think resolves best?

Your comparing dissimilar lens designs now. A spotting scope is designed for optical use. Field curvature, spherical aberration and other optical aberrations are usually not corrected, or corrected to a far lesser degree than with photographic lenses.

I'm assuming we are comparing similar lens designs...to be precise, photographic lens designs. To be even more explicit, Canon EF mount lens designs, although the same rules would apply if you compared Nikon brand and offbrand lenses for the Nikon F mount, etc.

We aren't talking about digiscoping. Were talking about DSLR camera lenses. Mathematically, a 600mm lens puts 2.25x as many pixels on subject as a 400mm lens. Your 600mm lens would have to be so bad as to completely counteract that 2.25x magnification advantage to produce worse results than an upsampled 400mm lens. The chances of that occurring are very low, especially in the increasingly competitive marketplace that exists for DSLR lenses.

You may be surprised but my 300mm+2xTCIII @F6.3 upscaled to 700mm outresolves my 500mm is mk1 + 1.4xIII. (Using my 7D)

I'd need to see evidence of that. You claim the EF 100-400mm outresolves the Tammy 150-600mm, when it clearly does not. Either your 500mm lens needs tuning to recenter a misaligned element, or your 1.4x TC does.

1626
EOS Bodies / Re: Will the next xD cameras do 4k?
« on: February 12, 2014, 04:05:17 PM »
I really don't know if your being sarcastic or not...

Not.

...

Interesting observation.

However, from a totally different angle regarding the failure of the EOS-M ... and ignoring the fact that both Panasonic and Olympus in all probability have the worst marketing dept.'s ever in the history of marketing dept. The Panasonic G/GH line has always sold very well, within the confines of the microscopic market segment mirrorless occupies, in the USA and Europe. Olympus has recently decided to put the PEN series on the old back-burner and concentrate on the OM-D line, specifically for growth in Europe. Conclusion? SLR designs sell. Even Fujifilm picked up on that with the X-T1 ... and the X-Pro2 on hold.

So, in my opinion, the EOS-M "failed" in the USA and Europe because it was packaged wrong for that particular market, and not because it was mirrorless per se.

Up through here you were fine...

How does this fit into my critique of Canon? Well, in my opinion, Canon is so stuck in their conservatism that they, due to human nature, are rigidly thinking along predictable pathways. Problem is that these pathways lead to the same errors others have made previously. For example ... Olympus made the PEN series and it fizzled out; Canon made the similar EOS-M and it fizzled out. Olympus made the detachable EVF and it sold rather iffy; Canon has now made a detachable EVF and it will sell rather iffy. But ... if Canon jumps ahead now and makes a DSLM now, it will sell sufficiently ... because the Olympus E-M1 sells sufficiently and the Sony A7 sells sufficiently and the Panasonic G6 sells sufficiently and the Fujifilm X-T1 will sell spectacularly. Just my opinion.

Here is where your argument breaks down. First, I wouldn't call Canon predictable. They are actually rather unpredictable...NO ONE knows what's coming. We are all still completely in the unknown about the 7D II, and no one has any idea what the big megapixel camera will be or when it will hit, if it hits. Being conservative doesn't make them particularly predictable. It makes them patterned, but that just means you have a general idea of when Canon will likely release their next major camera...it doesn't tell you what they will do with that release, though.

All of the cameras you mention, sell spectacularly...in Asia. None of them sell particularly well in western markets. The mirrorless market in total is less than 25% of the digital camera market overall. Of that 25%, only 20% of sales are in Europe. What your talking about aren't significant sales, regardless of the manufacturer. RELATIVELY speaking, Olympus and Panasonic sell better than the rest, but they are selling better in a quarter-market segment. And a segment that will probably be shown to have shrunk, once full reports on 2013 sales finally trickle out.

In a sketchy and potentially shrinking market, it's tough to say whether an SLR-styled body for mirrorless cameras is really better or not. Ultimately, it doesn't matter when ACTUAL DSLR cameras are selling like hotcakes in comparison. Canon will sell what sells, and right now in western markets DSLRs are selling. If time demonstrates that the Sony A7r sells really well, Canon might build something similar, but I think that's a big if. Sony has a long way to go before their bodies, SLR-like or not, compare to the functionality and ergonomics of Canon bodies...and for photographers (vs. gearheads), that functionality and ergonomics are of key importance.

1627
EOS Bodies / Re: Will the next xD cameras do 4k?
« on: February 12, 2014, 03:55:35 PM »
...

You misunderstood ...  :'(

Well, your comments were pretty short and direct...if the below is what you meant, a few extra words would have helped clarify.

Yes, Canon cameras have great ergonomics. But they've had that from the very start, as I said. It's already there. It's not new. It stopped being a feature twenty years ago. Now it's just part of the design which we take for granted.

I don't really agree. I think Canon has had good ergonomics for a long time, but they have continually refined their ergonomics over the years based on customer feedback. Starting with the 7D, they REALLY started to get their button placement nearly PERFECT. The 7D button layout around the top LCD screen is sublime...everything is reachable by your shutter finger, and the way those functions operate allows photographers like me, who basically live and die by the OVF, to control almost every function of the camera without ever taking our eyes away from the viewfinder. The only real improvement would be a histogram in the OVF hud.

One of the best 5D III upgrades over the 5D II was getting the same overall ergonomic design and button placement as the 7D.

There is always room for improvement, and over the last couple decades, Canon has taken every opportunity with their ergonomics. They have maximized it's potential. It hasn't been big changes to body design and button layout, but rather small changes here and there that just make a HUGE difference. I believe Canon achieved the pinnacle of DSLR body design with the 5D III...moving the DOF preview button from one side of the lens to the other, as small as that may seem, was a MASSIVE improvement over the 7D. There may be a few more small things here and there that Canon can do, but they certainly didn't have this level of ergonomics back in the late 80's, nor did they have it in the early 2000's.

I specifically did not dish the AF system of the 5D3 or the 1D series or the 7D or the 70D. I dished the AF system of the 5D Mark II, specifically in relation to the cost (new) of the camera. I went from an EOS 3 with 45 AF points to an EOS 30D with 9 AF points, and the 30D wasn't exactly a cheap camera back then and nor was it bottom of the rung entry-level either. Plus, I believe, at that time only the 1D series offered more AF points. No, I couldn't afford a 1D camera when I bought the 30D. I bought the 5D secondhand from an upgrader, because the 5DII in fact offered less in terms of AF ... it doesn't have those extra "invisible" points.

Well, if you were bashing only the 5D II AF system...then I totally agree. The 5D II AF system was sorely in need of replacement. Canon's decision to put the 61pt AF from the 1D X into the 5D III was probably one of the best decisions they ever made.

You've officially joined the ranks of dilbert, AvTvM and friends. Have fun.

Thanks. And I'm sure we will.  :P

Well, you at least seem interested in learning about how we view business. That's certainly a step up. Businesses in general, and larger corporations specifically, get FAR too little credit and FAR too much hate these days. It speaks to the general decline in some rather basic understanding about WHY businesses work the way they do, which is honestly rather sad. It isn't good for the people to demonize business, when it is business that employs everyone. It's business that innovates. It's business that fuels progress and growth. The predicament of the modern economic world has been fueled by increased corporate hate, increased class warfare that is really unnecessary and detrimental to corporate growth and job growth, reductions in incentive and increases in corporate tax rates (which sap available funds, reducing the ability for businesses to either grow or higher more employees), and increased regulatory burdens that further sap funds for growth and employee pay.

Economies are not supported by governments. They are dragged down by governments. Economies are built and run by businesses. Corporations and billionaires. Yeah, billionaires. Ever actually read about them? Men like Ichan, Buffett, and Gates manage corporate restructuring that saves companies from bankruptcy, invest essential funds that fuel growth and expansion, and fund the largest charities in the world that support some of the poorest people on earth. Businesses, particularly small, as well as giant corporations employ the working populace of the entire world. Businesses face three primary costs: Salary, Tax, Regulatory Burden. To increase any one of those three things, one or both of the others must shrink. To increase salary through promotion and additional job positions, taxation and regulatory burden must decrease. When taxation or regulatory burden increase, the first things to go are merit increases in wage. When taxation AND regulatory burden increase (which seems to be the staple of all major governments these days), salary must contract...that means a loss of jobs, employees working fewer hours, fewer benefits, etc. When it comes to corporations that innovate, increased tax and regulatory burden tend to eat away at that as well.

In general, businesses, corporations, are not greedy. They are just businesses...they are IN BUSINESS to make money, because making money is what pays salaries, pays taxes, fuels R&D and funds innovation. Making money is what allows companies to higher employees, give their employees raises, and support overall economic function and growth by ensuring their employees have not only enough money to survive, but also enough money to enjoy life.

Greedy and self-serving corporations like Lheman Brothers and Enron are not the exemplars, they are the outliers. They are the RARE cases of unfettered corporate greed and lying, self-serving executives. And, in the end, such corporations usually get what they deserve.

1628
EOS Bodies / Re: Will the next xD cameras do 4k?
« on: February 12, 2014, 03:20:08 PM »
...

Again, thanks for the insight into American (and Japanese) business thought. Much appreciated. BTW, I come from a British/European school regarding business, so find your way of thinking very fascinating, in comparison.

I really don't know if your being sarcastic or not... Anyway...


Question: Why is Canon viewing mirrorless as an unnecessary risky venture at this time? I mean, according to your explanation, if Canon felt that mirrorless was viable right now, they'd be all over the place kicking Olympus and Sony in the groin with simply better products and doing it right now. They do not, however, have products similar to Sony, Panasonic and Olympus on the market right now, so the logical inference is that they deem mirrorless as too much of a risk now and at this stage. Why do you think that is so?

I am simply observant, like many others on this forum. And, to be frank, mirrorless weakness in the US and EU markets isn't just a Canon thing. It's a thing for all mirrorless manufacturers. Western markets constitute less than a third of the mirrorless market. Canon TRIED EOS-M in the EU and the US. Their first entrant wasn't bad. It got particularly bad reviews for it's AF, but overall the original EOS-M was a pretty good, well built little camera. People who did buy one like them, some love them. It's eminently portable. It certainly fit the bill for many people who were buying Rebels. They quickly followed up with a firmware update that solved the AF slowness. When the price dropped to astonishingly low levels, they sold a good number of them...not on the same level as their popular DSLRs, but more than they did before, but at those levels Canon clearly wasn't making enough revenue to sustain the product line in these markets. When Canon started releasing new lenses to the Asian markets alone, and stopped releasing new EOS-M products in the US and EU markets, and given the official stance of Canon USA that they weren't going to be pushing EOS-M in the US for now, it was rather obvious that they were scaling their current mirrorless options back to mitigate potential losses and a long-term drag on their manufacturing capacity.

EOS-M in the western markets was a risk, because it wasn't selling at a price point that allowed Canon (or their distributors) to continue investing in it, and it also appears that western markets are more interested in much higher end mirrorless options than lower end mirrorless options. Canon, again being a conservative company, clearly hasn't designed a high end mirrorless product yet that they think westeners will buy in large quantities, and they aren't interested in wasting resources pushing a lower end product that the consumers here simply don't want at the price point Canon can bear.

I have also observed that most of the non-photographers I know who use P&S cameras and their smartphones a ton have been blocking to the Canon Rebel line in droves over the last couple of years. They found they like taking pictures with their smartphones but didn't like the quality they were getting, and wanted a better camera. For whatever reason, this fast growing group of consumers prefers cameras like the Rebel series to the EOS-M.

I would also point out that this greater interest in DSLRs vs. midrange mirrorless offerings isn't limited to Canon. Nikon's 1-series of MILCs hasn't fared well in either the US nor EU markets either. Nikon was ahead of the curve on the mirrorless front compared to Canon, has many more offerings, AND offers more lenses for the 1-series. Olympus and Panasonic were even farther ahead of the curve. All of those offerings still haven't been selling as well in western markets as it has in Asian markets. The Asian market, particularly the Japanese market, is the single largest market for mirrorless cameras across the board...that includes Olympus, Panasonic, Sony, Nikon and the rest. The US and EU each account for less than 20% of the market, in total they cover less than 40% (closer to 30% actually). A don't even think Africa has landed on the map for mirrorless offerings to any meaningful degree...Africa, as much as they have advanced in the past decade, is still so far behind the other established markets of the world that they don't rank all that high in many markets at all...cell phone usage is probably one of the key growth areas in Africa. Mirrorless is 70%+ an Asian market thing, and mirrorless seems to be getting more wildly popular in Japan with DSLR's fading into the background, where as DSLRs are concurrently becoming more popular in western markets and mirrorless is struggling.

So, yes, based on market statistics and my own observations, I think putting a lot of time, money, and effort into pushing mirrorless in western markets (namely the EU and US) is a risky move, and a risky move that is not likely to pan out over the next five years. Not enough such that Canon would have a completely self-sustaining market for mirrorless cameras and lenses like they do with DSLRs. Until such time as mirrorless, at both the consumer level as well as the professional level, comes into much greater and consistent demand, I don't foresee Canon taking the risk. If you read some of the older threads on mirrorless technology on this forum, you'll find split sentiments...many people love the idea of an EVF, just as many if not more are unwilling to give up their OVF. Many like the smaller form factor for portability, just as many if not more prefer the larger DSLR bodies from an ergonomic standpoint. Mirrorless isn't cut and dry in western markets yet...there are some very few professionals who have written raving reviews that catch the eye of a lot of readers, but the general consumer sentiment still seems to favor DSLR more.

Something like the Sony A7r might change that...but the A7r has a stupendous sensor in a relatively mediocre package...it isn't quite the kind of groundbreaking camera it really needs to be to spur some kind of radical change in sentiment. I see the A7r finding its way into a good number of Canon photography kits...but as an augmentation, rather than a fundamental brand shift. Landscape photographers in particular will probably pick up an A7r for the interim, until Canon releases a high megapixel, high DR body of their own...in which case unless Sony has a particularly compelling complete package deal (great AF, high frame rate, improved body ergonomics, MUCH better menu system, etc.) with the A8r, Canon users will probably shift back to using Canon bodies for their landscape work.

1629

I hope I have time to do a comparison between my 100-400 and 300mm +2x tomorrow, and see if that can make us any wiser.  :)

Download the following image and look at full screen (1920x1080).
You see four 100% center crops:
Top: from 7D iso 200   (My test shots from today)
Bottom: from 5d3 iso 640. (Alans crops)
Top left: Canon 300 f2.8 IS MK2 + 2xTCIII wide open.
Top right: Canon 100-400mm @400mmf56 and upscaled to 600mm.
Bottom left:  Canon 300mm f2.8 is mk2 + 2x TCIII wide open
Bottom left: Tammy @600mm f6.3

Can an upscaled (to 600mm) 100-400mm wide open  shot give same details as the Tammy?

Um, simple answer is, NO! Your upscaled 400mm sample is soft all over. You can CLEARLY see it in the text, in the gray watermark, in the ACE logo, in the black box with text in it. There is absolutely no question, the upscaled 400mm shot doesn't compare to the 600mm shot.

There isn't any way to slice this such that a 400mm lens could win, not when the Tamron resolves as well as it does at 600mm. If the Tammy was particularly BAD, then maybe, but the Tammy is NOT bad...it's quite good for it's relative position in the broader scope of DSLR lenses. At non-diffraction limited apertures like f/5.6 and f/6.3, even the EF 400mm f/2.8 L isn't going to outdo the Tamron. At this point, thanks to the Tamron's good resolving power, it all boils down to pixels on subject. For the same sensor used at the same distance to subject, longer focal lengths will always produce sharper results than upscaled shorter focal lengths. No way around that.

The only way the 400mm could compare to any 600mm, when they all offer decent resolving power, is when you normalize framing, rather than maintaining subject distance. If you move the 400mm setup closer such that the credit card fills the frame in exactly the same way as a more distant 600mm, then your putting the same number of pixels on subject. If the two lenses offer similar resolving power, the results should be largely indiscernible. But if you can get closer with a 400mm, you wouldn't need a 600mm...so it kind of defeats the point of the argument. In reach-limited scenarios, more optical magnification is pretty much always going to be better unless the longer lens is of radically poor design or uses particularly poor quality glass.

1630
EOS Bodies / Re: Will the next xD cameras do 4k?
« on: February 12, 2014, 02:34:13 PM »
LOL... "focused...on other features"...you don't get the hint from that?

AF systems (think 5D3, 1Dx, and dual pixel developments), ergonomics, ecosystem, user interface, service, just to name a few.

You two call the AF system Canon is currently putting in most of their DSLR's a feature? Heck, it's basically twenty year old technology. An EOS 3 from 1998 was already as good as it gets and it could do heaps more! The AF system in the 5DII is a joke for what that camera cost and it was only due to Nikon upping the AF systems in their mid-end models that drove Canon to do likewise.

Dual pixel AF ... only applicable when you assume the wet diaper stance for LiveView photography. Useless to a stills-only photographer like me.

Ergonomics ... right from the start ... 1987 ... EOS 650 perfect. Nothing new. BTW, for me personally, the ergonomics of the 1D series suck. But that's just a personal opinion.

Ecosystem ... yes, heaps of lenses ... most of them junk kit stuff; most of it discontinued.

User interface ... yeah, like button reassignment and such ... not. Well, OK, on the 1D series ... I hope.

Service ... maybe in the USA and Europe and Asia, but here in Africa ... not a chance.

Just to name a few ... please do go on, as I'm really having fun here.

I really suspect your arguments now. You really don't seem to know the Canon EOS system at all. Button reassignment, for example, has been present on Canon cameras for many years. I can do button reassignment with my now rather ancient 7D! Your personal opinion about 1D series ergonomics is certainly niche, as Canon  evolved their ergonomic design for the 1D series over years based on the feedback of their customers. Today, most customers love the 1D ergonomics. The only real complaint some have is the weight due to the integrated grip...and often those people step down to the 5D line to get a lighter, smaller body. The 5D line ergonomics? Probably one of the single biggest reasons Canon maintains such loyalty...people love it!

As a wildlife and bird photographer, THE SINGLE most important feature of a DSLR for me is the AF system. Hands down, no question. More important than sensor or anything else, the AF system has to nail it as often as possible. The 7D, back in the day, offered the best AF system for APS-C, and reach-limited as I was back then, APS-C was a must. Today, the 5D III and 1D X offer a VASTLY superior AF system to anything else on the market. Despite the lower frame rate, the moment the 5D III goes on sale again one will be replacing my 7D, and by and large primarily because of the AF system.

It blows my mind that you downplay it, but that is probably because you simply don't understand it. If all you do is shoot landscapes, then that really isn't a surprise, but just because you personally are part of the niche doesn't mean that Canon's phase-detect AF system isn't a feature. The fact that AF systems were first introduced in the 80's does not diminish the fact that Canon's 61pt AF system is packed with advancements and innovations that, at the moment, no one else has. Things like multiple double-precision double-cross type points, the widest point spread ever achieved for a 35mm frame, the highest cross-type point count in any PDAF system, the highest point count period in any PDAF system, etc.

The EOS 3 had eye-controlled focus. Not everyone likes that, and that doesn't mark the pinnacle of AF technology.

To downplay Canon's AF system and pretty much every other aspect of Canon's products and service that are the primary reason Canon maintains such a loyal customer base simply speaks to your naiveté. You've lost the dwindling amount of credibility you had. Probably should have played your cards a little closer. You are clearly one of the hyperniche photographers who demand every fringe feature imaginable packed into a single camera model that sells at rock-bottom consumer-grade prices because you simply don't understand how businesses work. You've officially joined the ranks of dilbert, AvTvM and friends. Have fun.

1631
EOS Bodies / Re: Will the next xD cameras do 4k?
« on: February 12, 2014, 01:43:41 PM »
The gauntlet was also thought to be thrown down when the D800 came out and yet we are still here with our puny 20ish megapixel sensors and measly sub 12 stops of DR being forced to use inferior equipment to make images. Canon better do something now or they won't sell anymore 5D3s or 6Ds (oh wait, that was last year's BS from the NICHE of people on the internet).

Despite what everyone might like to think. Canon cannot respond to a new product such as the D800 in less than 3 years. There's just too much R&D required. Well maybe 2 if they were really in a hurry.

Canon already made APS-H sensors with 120 MP in 2010, surely it can make 40 MP FF sensors at 1/5th the pixel density. Canon makes enough money to prove it's management is smart enough to ask "can we make a profit selling this or similar technology to consumers", and if we haven't seen it in 3+ years, the answer is probably no.

They probably could sell it, I think it is just ahead of it's time. A 120mp RAW image is going to be ~220Mb. That's PER IMAGE. That's in comparison to the ~25-30Mb of RAW images today. That's a big file for photographers to swallow, let alone edit. I hear people have enough problems editing D800 files, which are about 70Mb...could you imagine editing a 220Mb image?

That's nothing to say of the write speed to memory cards. One single photo would take as long to save at today's write speeds as 6-8 current RAW images. MUCH faster memory cards, faster even than the first couple rounds of CFast 2.0 cards will allow, are needed before 9.5FPS 220MB RAW shooting can be a possibility.

Once computing technology has caught up, both in terms of DSLR buffer memory and sizes, memory card sizes and speeds, as well as the average desktop computing speed for photographers, then I think a 120mp sensor would be more viable. That's still a few years away at least at the earliest.

1632
EOS Bodies / Re: Will the next xD cameras do 4k?
« on: February 12, 2014, 12:54:23 PM »
But for the majority of buyers, the IQ of current Canon sensors is satisfactory, and they're focused ... on other features.

Like what?

LOL... "focused...on other features"...you don't get the hint from that?

1633
EOS Bodies / Re: Will the next xD cameras do 4k?
« on: February 12, 2014, 12:47:03 PM »
Er, what? Do you have some kind of evidence for that?

The economic rebuild of Japan after the Second World War by American economists. It's in the history books. Look it up. (It's probably also on Wikipedia.)

That is an extremely broad stroke there. What evidence do you have that America's assistance in rebuilding Japan had a direct impact on the behavior of Canon as a business? From what I remember, America's help with Japan, at least regarding their economy, occurred more at a governmental level. It was tax breaks and incentives that helped spur economic growth. I don't think that really has anything to do with a fundamental underpinning of how the Japanese people behave, though. That careful, precise, intentional pursuance of perfection has been a trait of the Japanese people for millennia. That's in the history books as well.

Supply side economics, the same kind of economics that spurred growth in the 80's, is pretty much guaranteed to spur growth in any economy. If you give people more money to spend, they are going to spend more money...especially if that money's expenditure has the potential to mean they have even MORE money in the future. THAT is what American's gave to Japan in the 60's.

Conservative companies are actually kind of a hallmark of Japan.

And yet in 1987 Canon bet the whole farm on the EOS system, instead of sticking to the FD system. And that was after they had spent all that money on promoting the FD system at the 1984 Olympics, only three years previous. Sounds kind of reckless to me. Oh, and wasn't the 1980's also a time of great uncertainty in the economy, with all those major American companies nearly going belly-up?

Actually, the 80's were a major boom in the economy. Reagan created some 25 million jobs, by doing the same thing the Japanese did after WWII: Incentivised business by reducing their taxes. By enacting supply side economic practices. That came after the economic slump of the 70's. We actually have a term for all that: Reaganomics!

Canon had no option but to create EOS. The FD mount, as much loved as it was by their customers at the time, was preventing them from making the kind of progress they really NEEDED to make in order to grow their photography division. Electronic focus was the primary driver. Canon tried AF with FD, and it didn't pan out. As I said (which you did not quote), the Japanese have long been known for their ability to take risk, big or small, when it is most essential. Canon took a risk with EOS, but they knew it was an essential risk. And look at the result? It gave them dominance over the SLR and DSLR markets for decades. That dominance still holds.

Risk taking for the sake of risk taking, and risk taking because it is truly essential with potential returns orders of magnitude more than without taking the risk, are different things. Nikon and the Df? That's a risk just to take a risk. It's actually something Nikon is known for. Remember the 24k gold plated SLR with real lizard skin grip? Those puppies sold for about $12,000 each! Was THAT a worthwhile risk? I mean, it's certainly an interesting novelty piece, but even at $12,000 each, it was a drag on their resources to manufacture. Similarly, the Df has a long-term DRAG potential on Nikon's bottom line, because there is no question it's a niche product, which means they are expending manufacturing capacity building it, capacity that has to be taken away from building other more lucrative bodies that more people want more often, such as the D800 and D600. The Df is a small thing, but it is still a thing that affects the companies operation as a whole. It affects their bottom line. It took resources to design, and it will continue taking resources into the foreseeable future to manufacture and ship.

Canon EOS, on the other hand, was the moments turning point for Canon that made it possible for them to be the massive, dominant photography force they are in the world today. Canon made the wise decision with EOS, and it wasn't a random or il-considered decision. The fact that Canon made EOS doesn't change the fact that they are a conservative company. You still don't seem to understand what that means, even though I gave you an explicit meaning before: Canon is a wise business. Being wise does not mean taking no risks whatsoever. It means taking the risks that have a meaningful payback over the extended long term. It means taking the BIG risks at the RIGHT moment that are GAME CHANGING for DECADES. That's what I'm talking about. The Nikon Df? That's a risk that has no long term beneficial potential. Not only that, it was a risk that was increased because the product was rushed...it clearly has a botched control design, and that will mean it sells fewer models to that niche crowd than it might have if they didn't botch the controls.

Anyway. This is the debate I get into over and over with people who don't understand business. There are wise risks, and there are stupid risks. Canon, being conservative, generally only takes the wiser risks. They won't take risks, or they will scale back risky projects, if the potential return is low. Nikon, on the other hand, seems to take a while range of risks, some of them have the potential to be greatly beneficial, but they squander that potential with stupid risks. Nikon is a more reckless company than Canon, as they don't seem to know how to balance risk with long term return.

1634
Animal Kingdom / Re: BIRD IN FLIGHT ONLY -- share your BIF photos here
« on: February 12, 2014, 12:11:27 PM »
Ferruginous Hawk in flight:


1635
Here are the relative aperture sharpness plots from FoCal for the Tamron at 600mm on the 70D (Top) and 5DIII (Bottom). You can see the 70D, if anything, retains its sharpness with aperture better! I did the 5DIII measurements 3 times and got optimal values of f/9/, f/10 and f/11. Keep between f/8 and f/14 for maximum sharpness.

You know, I've noticed that with my 7D and FoCal. There sometimes seems to be a jitter, where as FoCal moves through the apertures, it doesn't exhibit the kind of smooth curve you would expect. If I retest a few times, then it will usually get back to normal, and finally produce the smooth curve I'm looking for. I don't know why that happens...always bugged me about FoCal.

Pages: 1 ... 107 108 [109] 110 111 ... 300