August 30, 2014, 10:30:58 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 - CR Backup Admin

Pages: 1 ... 47 48 [49] 50 51 52
721
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III [CR1]
« on: January 07, 2011, 07:54:35 PM »
My point was that sometimes there are very large expectations for the 5D, which will probably never materialize, certainly it will not be a "Lord of Darkness" and will not offer MF DR (nor does it need to).

The 5d appeals to a large user base - which is perhaps its greatest selling point, and my expectation for the next gen camera is to offer greater improvements to the video oriented user, while offering smaller improvements to the stills user (since the camera is already very good in this category).

I wasn't disagreeing with you.  I hope there are improvements in video features like adding usable autofocus, but I don't really expect it.  I do expect improved DR and ISO, and perhaps a slightly higher pixel count. I also expect 7D type autofocus.

722
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III [CR1]
« on: January 07, 2011, 05:24:18 PM »
I am not saying that Canon would be (or should be) abandoning completely the ISO and DR (sensor) improvements, and we probably will see improvement in both areas, but that is probably not the greatest selling point.

Not the greatest selling point for whom?

They may not realize it, but even for the theoretical "video only" user, sensor improvements will probably benefit them greater than any other single area.

The reason I bought the 5D MK II was the low light performance and reasonable pixel density.  Certainly all the features are important, and everyone buys for a different reason or combination of reasons.

The only thing that would make me want to upgrade my 5D MK II would be noticibly better ISO and DR.  if everything else remained the same, I'd upgrade.

723
Canon EF-S and EF-M Lenses / Re: Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS
« on: January 06, 2011, 10:40:04 PM »
A few pictures taken on a cheap lens, in fact probably one most of the entry level cameras come with now, the Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS on a 450D.


Overall, very happy with the results, slight issues with fine detail when zooming into the images, in particular some colour fringe between contrasting colours, but on the whole, I'm finding it difficult to justify spending big money on moving up to a 17-40 or 16-35 as I had originally intended.  Great starter lens !

Excellent job.  Pretty much any lens will take excellent photos if the photographer knows how to take advantage of its strong points and work around its weak points.

I have a lot of "L" lenses, but am happy to use a consumer lens if thats what is available.

The photographer is by far more important than the hardware, IMHO. 

724
EOS Bodies / Re: Nikon Mirrorless to be launched in March?
« on: January 03, 2011, 01:43:21 PM »
NR thinks so, based upon an article in the German DSLR Magazine.  So with Pentax hinting at a mirrorless camera in development and Canon still "monitoring developments", perhaps "the first shall be last and the last shall be first" (apologies on my poor biblical referencing!). 

Have Canon missed the boat? In a way, it doesn't matter for anyone considering a puchase because using existing DSLR lenses via an adaptor is a poor solution to the lack of lens availability on current systems.  This is micro-4/3rd's greatest advantage over the current Sony/Samsung offerings (credit to Samsung and their comprehensive roadmap). 

Whilst mirrorless is currently not up to DSLR technology in performance terms, either it or Sony's SLT technology (ironically pioneered by Canon in the sixties) probably represent the future.  The 500lb Gorilla of the consumer electronics world is hedging its bets, while the old silverback of the camera world seems to be digging its heels (or its head) into the sand.

Canon does not generally leak informatioon about upcoming products, they hold the information very closely.  nikon, on the other hand does leak information.  Just two different philosophies. 

The patents that canon has filed in recent years usually give a mirrorless example in addition to the primary moving mirror implementation.  Pellicle mirrors are covered as well.  Obviously, they are and have been aware of the interest in mirrorless designs, but tend to be very conservative.  When they finally decide to release a design, they have a huge PR department who will make it seem like they were first, and will sell a ton of them based on their reputation and sales power.  Canon has always done this, and it seems to work for them.  Whatever they come up with will be among the best, not always the best,  but will be much less expensive to produce and will sell for a larger profit margin than the competition, thats Canon's stock in trade.

725
Canon General / Re: Canon 1st and 3rd in Japanese DSLR sales
« on: January 03, 2011, 12:44:03 PM »
I believe that those figures have both Canon and Nikon dropping their share of the market from 2009 due to the inclusion of mirrorless cameras. 

2010:  Canon 32.1% of the total, Nikon 26.8 % of the Total

2009:  Canon 37.9% of the Total, Nikon 28.1 % of the Total  http://www.radiantlite.com/2009/12/digital-slr-sales-in-japan.html


Nikon dropped a little, but Canon took a huge drop. That 32.1% is a 15.3% drop relative to 37.9% in 2009.    (37.9-32.1)/37.9 = .153 (15.3%), while Nikons drop is (32.1-26.8)/32.1 =.046  (4.6%)

I'm sure that this is not lost on either of them, and new systems are being developed.

726
Canon EF Zoom Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM
« on: January 03, 2011, 12:06:03 PM »
Has anyone used this lens with the new mark III 2x converter? What do think?

With a 2X extender, the lens becomes a f/11 and will not autofocus on any Canon camera (maybe at 100mm it might).  The new MK III TC's are supposed to give faster AF with the new superteles and might be a hair sharper.

There does not seem to be much point is paying a high price to use it with a f/5.6 lens and have to manual focus.

727
EOS Bodies / Re: all 18MP bodies
« on: January 03, 2011, 11:49:04 AM »
Nikon does the same thing, they share sensors accross as many cameras as possible.  The cost to make a sensor drops as the manufacturing process matures and bugs in the process are worked out.  The cost of developing a new sensor is extremely high, and Nikon  as well as Canon have been reducing costs, and sharing sensors is low hanging fruit.

728
Lenses / Re: EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS Review
« on: January 01, 2011, 09:31:48 PM »
I love the 100-400mm L on my 5D MK II and 1D MK III, but with a crop camera, I might go for the 70-300mm L.  There are more things to consider than focal length, and with a lighter camera, the 70-300 would balance well.

I don't think you could go wrong with either, I've used my 100-400mm on my 1D MK III at 1/25 sec handheld in a pinch, and the results came out much better than I hoped for.  Not totally sharp, but plenty good for normal sized prints.

729
Lenses / Re: Who do you trust?
« on: December 31, 2010, 06:12:36 PM »
A DPR reader once complained that a lens had a higher rating in DPR than photozone.  The DPR reviewer replied that the results were remarkably similar, its just that photozone is harsher than they are, but they are seeming the same results, just intrepreting it differently.  As long as you understand this, then differences between reviewers tend to become minimal.

I always check photozone, the digital picture, and other sites that have reviewed a lens.  If all but one agree, I can usually find a explanation for the difference.

I'm also suspicious of a site that seems to have very close connections with a lens company.  I'm not going to name it, (It is one of the ones named above) but I can't help thinking about the apparent connection when I see a high rating on that site and low ones elsewhere.  I even bought one of the high rated lenses once, it was horrible and went right back, so I tend to avoid that site.  Still, it might just be the luck of the draw that my lens was bad.  One bad lens does not really condem a company.

I had 5 Sigma lenses that would not work on Canon DSLR's, but did work on old Canon film cameras (a common story).  I  was able to get Sigma to rechip one of them (105mm f/2.8 macro) at my expense ($100).  I keep the rest that Sigma would not rechip to remind me that there is no guarantee that a 3rd party lens will work on tomorrows new DSLR.  I've never had a issue like that with Tamron or Tokina, just  older Sigma lenses, and those made by Sigma for other companies like Quantaray.  Except for the 105mm Macro, they came with old Canon film cameras that i had bought.

730
Lenses / Re: EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS Review
« on: December 31, 2010, 05:47:47 PM »
You do not get default out of camera settings with RAW, only the raw data. 

With jpeg, Canon cameras have different picture styles which give different looks, or you can setup your own.  All of them have settings for Noise, contrast, sharpness, etc.  If you use a picture style like Neutral, then it has minimal processing and that setting is considered to be for those who like to adjust the image later in the computer. It will look pretty flat, but then, it is probably not intended to be a finished image.

My definition of post processing is processing that modifies the picture to remove facial features or blur them, or to make other modifications that enhance the image, but also modify the content or look to be something different than what you actually saw.  Just adjusting color, sharpness, brightness, etc so it is a true representation of what you saw is just a basic part of developing a raw image.

Everyone is free to define their own meaning, but be careful with statements like out of camera with default settings, particularly as it applies to RAW, because different RAW processors produce different results at their default factory setting. 

731
Canon EF Zoom Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM
« on: December 31, 2010, 05:31:37 PM »
I like my 100-400.  It works well for small birds around the house.







Even with a 1.4X extender:


732
Lenses / Re: EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS Review
« on: December 31, 2010, 11:49:17 AM »
Enjoyed the review as this lens is definately on my mind for a future purchase.  One (well two) questions i do have to are regarding the photos posted with the review. In todays modern post processing era,  how much post processing has been done to the photos to juice them up ? and are the originals available if there has been post processing ?
Thanks, keep up the great work.

Digital is different from film. 

Processing of the image pulled from the sensor is always required.  When using jpeg, the processing to add noise reduction, sharpness, contrast, color balance, etc are done in camera according to the settings.

Same thing happens with raw, only its done by your computer according to your software settings.  You have more control over it that way, but its still the same thing going on as in the camera processing.

Processing tricks like HDR, splicing,  removal of unwanted items in the image, might be a example of extra post processing, but not noise reduction, sharpness, etc, but they are often done in camera by some manufacturers as well.

What does post processing mean to you??

733
I wouldn't be concerned about what you may see under difficult conditions, there can be any number of things stackiing up to make high resolution captures difficult. 

To determine the actual capability of the lens, you need good lighting conditions and a more stationary and frame filling target.  You want to eliminate as many things that are not under your control as possible. 

Once you can determine the best possible image the lens can produce, and are happy with that,  then determining how to achieve the goal of maximum IQ in the real world is a learning experience and takes a lot of expermentation.

734
EOS Bodies / Re: Shoot 2K, 3K & 4K on a T2i/550D?
« on: December 30, 2010, 12:33:17 PM »
These are good places to start looking:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_film

On other threads in this forum, it has been suggested that 4K video will become popular for consumer camcorders. And when are the 4K televisions being introduced? 4k is a production standard for making movies to be shown on movie screens that are 60 feet wide, but at lot of people I know are watching their movies at home upconverted from standard DVDs distributed at 720x480.

I don't expect to see real 4K camcorders for consumers soon.


We are still waiting for it on mid priced professional models.  Only a very few high end cinema cameras have 4K  at 4:4:4.  Most are 4:2:2.  The Red epic is likely the forrunner of medium priced 4K cameras, but it is stil way more expensive than a consumer camcorder.  Its modular, so you have to buy several pieces to get a working unit. Its estimated that it cost about $2 million for the Red epic, accessories, and lenses for Peter Jackson to shoot "The Hobbit"  The camera itself only cost about $58,000, but it is only a tiny part of the total cost.  This is cheap compared to other 4K 4:4:4 cinema cameras.

 http://www.geek.com/articles/gadgets/peter-jacksons-hobbit-films-to-be-made-on-30-red-epic-cameras-20101129/

You can buy a 4K monitor, but it might be more than your want to pay.

 http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/562026-REG/Astro_Systems_DM_3400_DM_3400_56_Professional_4K.html

or

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/676516-REG/Astro_Systems_DM_3410_DM_3410_56_4K_2K_Professional.html

735
When no video is needed, get the 500D.
Or if 720p @ 30fps (not 29.97) for short segments is your bag - granted it's not great in any but the best light, but it gets the job done.  The whole bumping up the framerate to 60Hz (59.94 but who's counting right) and apparently not leaving in a 30fps option baffles me, especially when clip length is so limited.


A little more about frame rates.

See see http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flash/learning_guide/video/part06.html

NTSC video is usually said to run at approximately 30 fps, and PAL runs at 25 fps. To be technically accurate, NTSC video runs at 29.97 fps.

The reason for the odd frame rate dates back to the transition from black and white television to color TV signals, where the 29.97 fps rate was chosen to ensure backwards compatibility with existing television sets.

http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flash/learning_guide/video/part06.html

Pages: 1 ... 47 48 [49] 50 51 52