April 20, 2014, 09:31:13 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 2 [3] 4 5 ... 217
EOS Bodies / Re: 1d IV vs. 7D II
« on: April 17, 2014, 05:49:22 PM »
Jon, do you see a market for the 7DII except for those high-end shooters looking for reach?
If they want quality they have the 3 FF cameras.
If they are looking for value they have the 70D.

First, there is more to IQ than what the sensor does. I've said this a lot before on these forums, as had Neuro. Sometimes the focus capabilities and frame rate of a camera are VASTLY more important than how good the sensor is. In that respect, there aren't three FF options...there is really only one: The 1D X. The 5D III has a decent frame rate, but if the 7D II hits the streets at 10fps, the additional 4fps over the 5D III is going to be very significant. Were talking about a 67% increase relative to the 5D III. The 6D, while it has it's advocates, and it definitely pounds out the High ISO IQ, is definitely lagging in the AF area. That is not to say the 6D AF is bad...however it's no 61pt AF system either.

If the 7D II hits the street with 10fps, a comparable APS-C optimized AF system to the 61pt system (say 41pts?), and a 20-24mp sensor, then I absolutely think it will have a market, and I think it will sell like hotcakes. You definitely cannot compare that to the 6D. The only benefit the 6D has going for it is the larger sensor...but that is one out of many factors that affect IQ. The 5D III, in circumstances where frame rate is not critically important, will probably still give the 7D II very solid competition, but in the cases where frame rate is critically important, the only real full-frame counterpart to a 7D II with such specs would be the 1D X.

So yes...it will definitely have a market. I suspect they will fly off the shelves, despite the existence of the 6D. I suspect many a 5D III owner will buy one as a backup. I know for sure that a lot of aspiring amateur bird photographers will be picking one up, especially if a new 100-400 hits the streets along with the 7D II.

The reasons the 7D was a success have not changed. Nothing has really changed. The only thing that would kill the 7D II is if it hit with a MSRP over $2500...then I think that would kill off early adopters and slow sales until the price drops below $2500 at least (I think a price around $2000 is most likely.)

If Canon wants to replace the 1D (and IMO that's the only reason for 7DII to exist), Canon will try to replicate the IQ as close as possible. And that will mean lower MPs.
Note that Canon was pretty conservative with increasing megapixels on their 1D line.
They must have noticed people who want reach are wiling to sacrifice resolution for light sensitivity.
Mind you, the difference between APS-H and C isn't as much as with FF, so innovation in sensor light-sensitivity might well allow the newer APS-Cs (maybe not 7D though, if it still has the 70D sensor) to trounce the 1D line.

Why would you think the 7D II is a replacement for the 1D? The two lines are designed for completely different groups of buyers. The 7D II is not, has never been, and will never be a replacement to the 1D X. Your completely ignoring the price difference here. The price of the 7D II is likely to be less than 1/3rd that of the 1D X. It doesn't really matter how good the 1D X is, or how good it's potential successor is...price is the real segregator here. The 7D II will sell because it will fall within the realm of generally or eminently affordable to the majority of middle class buyers. At $6800, the 1D X does not fall into that class, not even close.

Regarding the megapixels of the 1D X, Canon didn't get away with anything, nor were they conservative with anything. It's so funny how short peoples memories are. :P I remember, very very clearly, the loudest and most vocal outcry from Canon customers before the releases of the 1D X, D800, 5D III, and D4. The loudest demand, by a very LARGE margin, was: "Fewer megapixels! Better high ISO!" That was what people wanted, was VERY MUCH what people wanted from the 1D IV/1Ds III successors. Canon didn't skimp, get away with, nor was conservative with the 1D X. They delivered EXACTLY what their customers literally demanded. For those who can afford it, it seems to be a raging success as well. It's converted more than a few pro Nikon shooters to the Canon camp, and has made raving fans of existing Canon 1D/1Ds users.

There is no chance the 7D II is ever, ever, ever, ever, EVER going to "trounce" anything with a larger sensor. Just not gonna happen. Again, outside of the one caveat I mentioned, the IQ you get from a sensor really has nothing to do with the pixels. Improvements in pixel technology are primarily going to reduce read noise, which is already a very small factor in the deep shadows, and secondarily improve sensitivity. The quantum efficiency, Q.E., of the 7D is already at 41%. To double the noise performance, Canon would have to achieve 82% Q.E. I know of sensors that can achieve 82% Q.E. at around 650-600nm, but all of them require significant cooling to do so...usually a Delta-T of -50°C or more. That kind of cooling requires a lot of power (for example, most high Q.E. Astro CCD cameras use two- or three-stage peltier cooling...a peltier, or TEC is a thermoelectric cooling device that uses a P-N transistor matrix to create an electronic heat pump...they draw significant amounts of energy.)

Now, assuming Canon did somehow manage to improve the Q.E. of their sensors to 82% at average operating temperatures (pretty much not possible, dark current is going to be very high at operating temperatures of 60°F and above) but just for the sake of discussion, let's assume they do. At 82%, they can double their noise performance (reduce noise by half). That still doesn't cut it. The 1D X has a total sensor area that is 2.6x greater than the 7D (and any potential 7D II), so you would at least need to increase the 7D II's Q.E. by 2.6x instead of just 2x. Well, that isn't actually possible. To double Q.E. again beyond 82%, you would need 164%...but you can't have better than 100% Q.E. (quantum efficiency is the ratio of conversion of photons to released electron charge in a photodiode...you cannot convert more than 100% of the incoming photons.) You can't even get that .6x better than 82%, because that would require another 50% Q.E....or 131%.

All that matters in this particular area is total sensor area. So long as Canon does not make the 7D line use at least a FF sensor, it will never be able to "trounce" the 1D X in terms of equivalent IQ. In terms of reach, all that matters is how big the subject is reproduced on the sensor...in which case smaller pixels mean more detail, but total light gathered for your subject is roughly the same regardless of sensor.


 Comparatively, it has the same resolution, better transmission, less distortion, and less CA than the Otus.

Sigma is 1.7 T stop vs Otus at 1.5 T stop.

Ah, you are right.

Regardless, the Sigma looks like an excellent lens, and at only a quarter the cost of the Otus.


DXOs Lens test results are so useless. They rate it less than the Otus, as they should, however all of the measures they choose to exhibit would otherwise indicate that the new Sigma 50 should be the better lens. Comparatively, it has the same resolution, better transmission, less distortion, and less CA than the Otus. Only in a footnote do you actually learn why DXO rates the Otus higher: It has sharper corners.

Bleh. DXO. Bleh. It's like they just barf up test results and let the chunks & giblets remain where they plop.

I think the world would be well-served if DXO just gave up on lens tests alltogether, nuked their lens tests database, and just stuck with sensor tests. (And furthermore, I think the world would be better served if DXO did away with scalar test "scores"...just as useless as the chunks and giblets that is their lens tests.)

EOS Bodies / Re: 1d IV vs. 7D II
« on: April 17, 2014, 04:24:11 PM »
Thanks, Jon Rista for trying to put this back on track.

Apparently some don't get why this matters. If physics really does limit how well an APS-C sensor can perform at higher ISOs (and I have no reason to doubt you on that), then the direction Canon decides to go with the 7DII sensor will tell us much about what the company thinks about the future of high-end crop sensor DSLRs.

If Canon were to release a 16mp 7DII, they are saying something quite different than if they release a 22-24 mp 7DII.

The relevant question for Canon is most likely to be – which one will generate more demand in the marketplace?

Many would say the 16mp sensor, which should have better high ISO performance than the current 18mp sensor. In effect, Canon would be following the same path with its flagship APS-C body that both they and Nikon have followed with their flagship full-frame bodies.

But, what really would be the demand for such a body – a good, maybe even great all-purpose crop body, but still not as good as the almost identically priced 6D in terms of high ISO performance. The 6D would be a better all-purpose body; and would there be sufficient differentiation between the two in the marketplace?

Or Canon could go the other way and release a 24mp crop sensor body -- essentially conceding the high ISO niche to full frame. Would this camera find a bigger market?

While the relative advantages of a crop sensor for reach have been much debated, almost everyone concedes that in cases where the shooter is distance limited and significant cropping is required, pixel density does matter. You will always reach some point where there simply aren't enough pixels to give you a usable image.

So, why the reference to the 1D IV? Because that was the point at which Canon abandoned the sensor that many argue passionately was the ideal compromise between size and reach.  We can't assess or intelligently speculate without first knowing what the constraints are.

If the ISO performance of the APS-H sensor can never be achieved with the smaller APS-C sensor, then Canon must decide which path to go down.

So, unlike the many, many threads where individuals focus solely on what they want and assign human motives to a large corporation (Canon doesn't care...Canon doesn't listen...Canon had better do this...) this is simply an effort to explore what the reasonable expectations may be, so that it gives us a better idea of what choices Canon is facing and, when they announce their decision, we have a better idea of where the market is going.

Thanks for the detailed thoughts. I understand where your coming from now, so maybe I can provide a clearer answer.

For all intents and purposes, all else being equal, the only thing that actually matters when discussing IQ is the size of the sensor. The size of the pixels does not actually matter. You could have an FF, APS-H and APS-C with the same size pixels, to eliminate pixel size as the ultimate determining factor here. Assuming equivalence (same framing, same depth of field), per-pixel noise will be the same, however the FF will always be better than the APS-H which in turn will always be better than the APS-C. ALWAYS. Note the factors here: Same framing, same depth of field.

So, why? Why is it that the IQ edge will always be FF > APS-H > APS-C > 4/3 > Small Form Factor? If we dive into what is necessary to achieve identical framing AND identical DOF, you'll understand why.

Identical Framing

To achieve identical framing, you either use a longer lens, or get closer. It's pretty much as simple as that. However in achieving identical framing, you are changing the total amount of light, for your subject, that falls on the sensor. It really doesn't matter if the sensors have the same pixel pitch, or the same total pixel count, either way, the larger sensor is going to be gathering more light in total when you normalize framing.

Identical DoF

Now comes the part that everyone usually assumes is the caveat that somehow lets a smaller sensor achieve better results than a larger sensor. To achieve the same depth of field with a larger sensor, you need to stop down the aperture. By stopping down the aperture, your negating the benefit of gathering more total light. The caveat stops there, however. At worst, you'll simply normalize the results...the FF sensor will have the same amount of noise as a smaller sensor. The Identical DOF factor is not a magic bullet that can ever allow a smaller sensor to perform better than a larger sensor.

Let's take two sensors that have the same number of pixels. The 1D X and 7D are pretty ideal examples, since they both have exactly the same pixel count. Take the same shot with both cameras, and in not a single case will the 7D image ever be better than the 1D X image. The larger pixels trounce the 7D, at all ISO settings.

Assuming your aiming for the same depth of field, then the 1D X image will at worst look the same as the 7D images, however there are actually technological improvements that make 1D X images always look better than the 7D, even when using significantly narrower apertures.

Everyone always talks about the "equivalent" cases, however in my experience, in practical scenarios equivalence is rarely ever actually desired. One of the big reasons for buying a camera with a larger sensor is to get a THINNER DOF. The moment you open the aperture up on a larger sensor, all hope for the smaller sensor is gone. Not only are you gathering more total light simply by virtue of greater sensor area, but now your allowing more light through the lens. As is also always the case these days, the pixels of FF sensors are larger than the pixels of APS-C sensors...so you have more total light with larger pixels along with the use of a wide aperture (at least as wide as the one you were using with the APS-C).

There is also often another benefit with larger sensors. They usually have more pixels than smaller sensors. For example, if you fill the frame with your subject with both a 5D III and a 7D, the 5D III is not only putting larger pixels on the subject, it is not only gathering more total light...it is ALSO putting more pixels on the subject. If you then downsample your 5D III images to the same dimensions as native 7D images, the extra pixels of the 5D III provide more source data, such that when interpolated, the 7D-normal outcome is even better, sharper, less noisy, more accurate.

This is not always going to be true anymore...especially if Canon moves to a 24mp 7D II. However that does not negate all of the other advantages of using a larger sensor. The more total light is always going to be the case...larger sensor, more total light...more total light, higher SNR, less noise.

Finally, there is the one caveat that actually does give smaller sensors the edge. Or rather, to be more accurate, the caveat that gives smaller pixels the edge. Reach. The much-vaunted reach factor. The only case where a smaller sensor can give you a performance edge is when you are literally reach limited. You cannot use a longer lens, and you cannot physically move closer. You are either blocked by some active barrier, at the shore of a body of water, or moving closer would scare away your subject.

In this case, and pretty much only in this case, we are actually NOT talking about an equivalent set of circumstances. Equivalence requires identical framing...however the larger the sensor, the less total area of the frame your subject is going to take. We now have identical subject size. Assuming that your FF sensor has larger pixels than the APS-H, and that in turn has larger pixels than the APS-C, then the APS-C is actually going to perform better. Some would argue that the larger sensor is still performing better...after all, it still has larger pixels. If one is willing to completely ignore the level of detail being resolved, then indeed, the larger pixels will still be less noisy. But were talking about reach here...the level of detail being resolved is exactly what matters. In this case, as the facts of physics would have it, your actual subject is getting the same amount of light in both systems. It's a matter of area, and the absolute area of the sensor is the same, even though relative area (to the frame) is different. The key difference is the amount of detail...larger pixels resolve less detail, and blur the edges of your subject with nearby background (and/or foreground) detail.

In reach-limited scenarios, with identical subject size at the sensor, smaller pixels perform better.

There is a lot of value in smaller sensors with smaller pixels. For the less skilled, it means you can get some detail and ultimately end up with a good composition without having to have other skills to get close, or compose right in camera, etc. With more pixels, you can always crop to enlarge and compose better.

If you have skill, and tend to photograph things that need reach...wildlife, birds, airplanes, even sports, reach is a very valuable tool.

Even more so, it is a valuable tool to those with limited budgets. To achieve equivalence with a larger sensor, you need bigger lenses. To justify the cost of full frame, especially a high end full frame, you need to be able to produce better images, so you need bigger and better lenses. A crop sensor with lots of pixels means you can get an order of magnitude more bang for your buck, and often in a smaller, more portable and manageable package. More pixels doesn't really hurt you, either, as in a reach-limited scenario, your subject is still covering the same absolute area of the sensor...more pixels simply means more detail...and you can always downsample.

EOS Bodies / Re: 1d IV vs. 7D II
« on: April 17, 2014, 11:21:13 AM »
On the basis of better IQ and lesser noise at high ISO, there's a good chance the 7D II will be at least as good as the 1D IV. In there last few years, there have been great strides made in sensor technology. Let's hope the camera that finally comes to market doesn't have too many, hence smaller, pixels to negate that virtue.
On the other hand, the reliability and durability of the 7d II will likely not come close to the 1D IV (nor any others in the 1D family) unless it's sold at a price point above the 5D III. Since it's being billed as a prosumer camera, we can  be pretty certain THAT's not going to happen.

There have been strides in sensor technology, however pixel size still dominates the determination of how much noise you have. Smaller pixels will always have more noise, that's a simple matter of physics. We have improved READ noise with better sensor technology, but read noise is only a small contribution to total noise (especially at high ISO)...photon shot noise is the primary source of noise in images. The larger pixels of the 1D IV will always win out against smaller pixels of APS-C sensors. The only way the 7D II could do better is if it had larger pixels than the 1D IV, however that would make it something like a 10mp sensor...highly unlikely.

Lenses / Re: Teleconverter advice
« on: April 17, 2014, 09:29:22 AM »
I do not own one myself, however there are plenty of comments around the web about the MC4. There are a plethora of comments about strong vignetting on the MC4, especially on FF but even when used on APS-C. IQ is better in the center, but commentary also seems to indicate that IQ is still not generally as good as the Canon 1.4x TC III (despite what the german article indicates).

I got a 300 DGX Blue Dot, however if the MC4 had been available for purchase at the time I purchased, I'd probably have one of those, despite the vignetting. At the time I bought, it simply was not in stock at any of the major distributors (Amazon, Adorama, B&H...I generally don't like buying from anywhere else, had too many problems.) I waited for a while, and eventually got the 300 DGX.

From what I've read, I am honestly not sure that the core IQ issues that I experience with the DGX are fixed with the MC4. My primary issue with the Kenko I own is not really with vignetting or corner sharpness...it's with the way it convolves detail, and especially the way it renders out of focus blur. The MC4 might be a little better than the 300 DGX in the center for the focused target, but the "scratchy" background blur, the warped and spotty highlight blur circles, and "rough" detail (it can be sharp...but there is something else going on with it that makes images produced with the 300 DGX just not as appealing as those produced with the 1.4x TC III), as far as I can tell based on commentary and sample images those issues exist with the MC4 as well (and probably most/all other Kenko TCs).

If you don't really care about your background blur, the MC4 should be sharp enough, but it still doesn't seem to give the same kind of aesthetics to it's IQ as the Canon 1.4x TC III does.

EOS Bodies / Re: 1d IV vs. 7D II
« on: April 17, 2014, 09:06:52 AM »
Okay, I know one is discontinued and the other is non-existent, but this is mostly for fun and a bit of learning.

Do the experts here think that the overall image quality of the 7DII will match or at least come close to the APS-H 1D IV? Why or why not?

It would really depend on what aspect of IQ is most important to you. Do you need to resolve the finest possible detail, or is low noise the most important thing?

I don't think IQ is some rigidly definable thing. There are objective traits of IQ, and there are subjective traits of IQ. If you require the ability to resolve fine detail, especially at a distance, the 7D II will probably fare better. If you expect the lowest possible noise and need to use higher ISO settings, then the 1D IV will be the better option.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: How to Annoy a Photography Snob
« on: April 17, 2014, 12:54:37 AM »
Just to be clear, my last post was generalistic, not to anyone in particular (if it was I would have explicitly addressed it.) Just offering a different point of view about professional photographers and their mannerisms.

Oh, also, my last post was not about me in any way. I am no pro, at best an avid hobbyist. I am simply trying to give credit to highly skilled pros who both freely offer their knowledge, and those who offer the opportunity of on site, interactive, personal instruction. I don't think it is fair to lump pros into a stereotype of arrogant, stuck up, condescending jackasses who only like to belittle and shame "lesser" photographers.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: How to Annoy a Photography Snob
« on: April 16, 2014, 10:42:26 PM »
Another way to look at things, instead of thinking about a "matter-of-fact" way of delivering knowledge, is to look at an instructional pro as someone who does indeed have a lot of experience, garnered over a very long period of time, who has done and tried a LOT of ways of doing things, and has a very firm grasp of what works and what does not.

Here is an example. I love Art Morris' bird photography. The insight and knowledge he FREELY disseminates on his blog and on some bird photography forums is utterly invaluable. His delivery method is blunt, directly to the point, matter of fact, and often somewhat shocking or startling in it's delivery. However, I don't complain about that. The guy has been doing bird photography for longer than I've been alive. He KNOWS what he is doing, he KNOWS his stuff, and every time I listen to what he has to say...regardless of his method of delivery...I learn something, something invaluable, something that improves my skill and changes my photography.

If all you ever do is look at the method of delivery, you miss what's being delivered. I think Art Morris could be a little less blunt in the way he delivers his insight, but I honestly don't care that he's blunt and direct...THE GUY KNOWS HIS S___!!! The fact that he freely shares his knowledge is amazing, and I'm a better photographer for it. If/when I scrounge up the $12,000 or so for one of his IPTs, I'm going, I have no doubt in my mind that it would be some of the best $12,000 I'll ever spend. And to be quite frank, I would rather have someone shut me down when my own thought processes are going down the wrong path, and correct my understanding of a concept or theory immediately, than allow me to continue thinking about something incorrectly. By allowing me to keep my own incorrectly formed opinion, they aren't doing me any good, and rather could be doing me a disservice. You learn from your mistakes, no? Well, you have to know what your mistakes are first, before you can learn from them.

Sometimes what may seem like arrogance may simply be the consequence of having a great depth of knowledge. It isn't arrogance or rigidness and a lack of willingness to change one's opinions. It's a confidence that one's opinions are most probably right, a confidence backed up by years or even decades of extensive first-hand experience, and justification to put the burden on the other guy to prove them wrong. Granted, there are exceptions to the rule, but those exceptions usually tend to out themselves quick enough, with either too much arrogance or not enough knowledge...ignore the exceptions, listen to the experts.

As much as I think I may know something, if it's Morris or Murphy or any number of other highly seasoned bird photographers, or Andy Rouse or other world-renown wildlife photographers, or one of the juggernauts of astrophotography like Robert Gendler or Russel Croman, I bury my own opinions, shut the hell up, and let them teach me. ;-) As a small example, I thought I understood exposure. Then I bought and read Art Morris' book "The Art of Bird Photography", and learned not only that I knew nothing about exposure...but I also LEARNED about exposure!

Anyway...thought that needed to be said, in general, for anyone who would listen. ;)

EOS Bodies / Re: 1d IV vs. 7D II
« on: April 16, 2014, 08:48:40 PM »
And now I feel all proud and geeky and self satisfied that I have go through the time and effort to attempt to make an absolutely meaningless point about something completely unrelated to the original topic.

In other words, a job truly well done!!   ;D

Well done indeed!

EOS Bodies / Re: 1d IV vs. 7D II
« on: April 16, 2014, 08:47:10 PM »
Do the experts here think the overall land speed of the unicorn will match or at least come close to that of the dodo? 



Lenses / Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« on: April 16, 2014, 03:26:56 PM »
@Dilbert: I refer you to Neuro's answers for all the spherical aberration stuff. Canon DOES purposely leave in spherical aberration by design, as it is a desirable effect in many circumstances.

As for your assuming, you assume that people are trying to justify what Canon does, when in actuality people are simply explaining what Canon does. You assume that people here "worship" Canon, when in fact some people are simply fans, others are simply customers and might otherwise not care about the brand. You assume a whole hell of a lot about people here man, and then you lash out at them with thinly veiled hostility and nasty words based on your INCORRECT assumptions.

All I'm saying is...might not want to assume, you would look like less of a donkey's rear end in the end.

Lenses / Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« on: April 16, 2014, 12:15:32 PM »
There. Is. No. Such. Thing. As. A. Perfect. Lens.

There. We have that settled.
Well said :)

Oh, if one could wish... These debates are never settled...closed minds cannot handle alternative points of view. :P

Lenses / Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« on: April 16, 2014, 11:45:19 AM »
My 35 Art´s AF is drifting again (a third AFMA with Focal showed a further 4 step adjustment, on top of the 7 steps I got between the one I did when I got it and Christmas), so I must admit I am a bit skeptical to that part of sigma. But since so many are happy with it, I hope my AF problem is a one-off.

I have a technical query here:

As far as I understand, the purpose of AFMA is not to 'fix' defective lenses, but calibrate a specified lens to a given camera to account for manufacturing tolerances.
Once the AFMA is done, the camera knows how much to compensate for this lens, and everything is hunky-dory.

But in what condition can AFMA drift as is happening in Eldar's case? Is it because something is moving within the lens and a gap is getting bigger or a cog is becoming more loose?

I am particularly interested since I just acquired a 35A (so far it looks like it is focusing right on target as shown below- spot focused on "6" using a peripheral point and center point respectively), I haven't run it through FoCal yet.

AFMA is purely a camera body firmware thing. It only reconfigures the body, it does nothing with the lens. Drift is a pretty odd thing, but I'd like to know more. Spherical aberration can result in the focal plane shifting when you stop down or open up. Since lenses usually focus wide open, then stop down for the shot, spherical aberration can result in your focal plane ending up in an unexpected place.

The Canon 50mm f/1.2 and Canon DSLR bodies include firmware that compensates for this. There is a known component of spherical aberration in that lens (by explicit design), so the focus shift caused by it can be mathematically compensated for. When you have your aperture setting tighter than f/1.2, the firmware will focus the lens with a compensation shift to ensure that once stopped down, the focal plane is where you want it to be.

If the Art 35 has some spherical aberration, it is highly unlikely that such a focus shift is compensated for. That would require paired firmware between the lens and body. Assuming that is actually the problem. If the focal plane is shifting at the same aperture, then that is a different problem, and likely due to the lens, rather than the body.

Lenses / Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« on: April 16, 2014, 11:38:05 AM »
I'm pretty sure that you can introduce spherical aberration through plugins or other software components if you really so desire. What you can't do is correct for poor image quality at capture time.

Actually, spherical aberration is an effect in three dimensional space. You can simulate some aspects of soft focus in post, however those effects never fully replicate a TRUE soft focus. Neither can you change the nature of boke blur circles in post. Blur circles created by a lens with spherical aberration have a very specific aesthetic (brighter outer ring, with a clear spherical gradient to the center...it's a highly desirable trait for many photographers and cinematographers.)

The aesthetic effect caused by a lens with spherical aberration is not one that can be fully or easily replicated artificially in post. You can approximate some aspects of it, but for someone who likes the effect, those approximations NEVER measure up, and it is always obvious when it is a post-processed effect vs. a real optical effect.

Anyway, in the main the comments above about justifying Canon's current design and product are more about trying to ensure that people who worship Canon find a way to present Canon's offering as good and justified so that they feel good about owning Canon products. That's it. I'm sure someone will argue here that this comment is wrong, but you don't see anyone saying that they wish the 70-200/2.8 II had soft focus like the 50/1.2L and so on.

It has nothing to do with justifying or worshiping Canon. Your assuming something, then using your assumption to put words in peoples mouths as an attempt to win an argument. That's kind of you staple there, Dilbert. :P Why not try to put up a legitimate argument sometime, eh?

It simply has to do with exposing people to opinions other than their own. There is more than one way to design a lens, and there are reasons for designing lenses differently.  I honestly do not think it would be good for every 50mm lens on the market to have exactly the same specs, offer the same exact IQ, produce the same aesthetic. It's better to have a diversity of options, because not everyone photographs the same things in the same ways that you do.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 217