January 30, 2015, 06:19:03 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 - mb66energy

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 30
EOS Bodies / Re: High Megapixel Camera Coming in 2015 [CR3]
« on: January 29, 2015, 12:49:47 PM »
I'd go for a high megapixel Canon only if:

1. It had a M-Raw or S-Raw setting, that when used produces a lower mega-pixel image that has equivalent image quality to a sensor that is native to that megapixel size. Example, if it is a 52mp sensor, on M-Raw it produces say a 26mp image, that 26mp should be the equivalent IQ as say a 5D3 or slightly better.

2. Using the smaller Raw settings does not slow down the camera in FPS.

If it can't do that, I'm not interested in higher megapixels. Already with 20+ megapixel cameras, I can produce razor sharp albums over 14". In fact, can make high detailed, razor sharp posters.

If it can do the above, I'd purchase one and use it on M-Raw for most of my shooting, and use the full megapixels for the occasional landscape or architecture shot. I don't even want more than 24mp for portraits. Most of the time skin is being softened anyway. What is the sense in having resolution that can see INSIDE of a pore, only to then soften it down in post?

There is also the work flow issue. Last weekend I shot an event and my partner and I shot just under 2,000 photos. It was over 45 GB of files. I wouldn't want to double that or more with a high megapixel camera.

Most of this megapixel stuff doesn't translate to print or internet. It is great though for the personal satisfaction of pixel peeping. That is about it.

I agree 99% with you but I would like to use another procedure:

Taking all pictures at max resolution &
using DPP (or whatever) to downsample the RAW files into e.g. 1/2 native or 1/4 native resolution
and store them as mRAW or sRAW (or DNG or ....)

I really don't like to change image quality/format settings after one bad experience: sRAW with the 10 MPix EOS 40D resulted in 3 MPix files and that translates into print! - I had some luck because the landscape and weather were the same 2 days later and I had to drive just 10 km for the shot!

EOS Bodies / Re: A Sony & Canon Sensor Partnership Mentioned Again [CR1]
« on: January 28, 2015, 06:05:06 PM »
If, IF Sony had a 50mp sensor, why haven't they put it in any of their own cameras yet?

I find it incredibly unlikely that Canon would use an outside firm to design such an important sensor for such an important camera. On a point and shoot? Sure, nobody is really going to care. But people that buy those high end Canon cameras are going to want Canon tech.

For me it doesn't matter if they use a Sony sensor - if the final image delivers the technical qualiry I want. Most important to me is compatibility with my lenses and good ergonomics of the camera ...

Lenses / Re: Prime vs zoom for landscape?
« on: January 25, 2015, 08:30:42 AM »
What do you guys prefer? The IQ of a prime is hard to beat, but the flexibility of a zoom seems more practical, especially since it's harder to zoom in and out w/ just your feet in the wilderness. Is the IQ of a wideangle prime worth it vs the flexibility of a wideangle zoom?

Primes educate to have a vision of a photograph before you look through the viewfinder / change lenses.
Primes deliver - if well engineered - superior quality in contralight situations. The smaller number of lens groups helps here.
Zooms help to take photographs if your stuck on a small path and using your feet is dangerous/impossible.

Primes and zooms coexist peacefully
in my drawer and backpack and a good combination is the best solution for ME   (Info: I use APS-C bodies only):
A very flexible setup FOR MY STYLE is
EF-S 10-22 / EF-S 60 Macro / EF 70-200 with 2 or 3 bodies, lenses mounted on bodies
Add the excellent EF-M 22 mounted on EOS M and you have your moderate wide angle high aperture prime ... for optimum (contralight) qualities.

Usually I just use zooms as a multi-focal-length-lens: From my vision I try to estimate which focal length I need. Then I set the zoom to the selected value and try to compose. If my position is fixed I use the zoom ring, otherwise I use my feet. I would like to have selectable "click stops" on my zooms - let's say 10-14-17-22 for the ultrawide and 70-85-100-135-200 for the tele zoom!

EOS Bodies / Re: 2015 wishlist
« on: January 25, 2015, 07:08:37 AM »
5D MK IV would be nice....
Despite not being a big 50mm fan, my 50mm 1.8 is starting to be a weak link! so Maybe an upgrade...  not fussed!

Zeiss OTUS might give you a little bit of improvement ... :)

EOS Bodies / Re: 50mp Cameras Coming in March [CR1]
« on: January 25, 2015, 07:07:19 AM »
How hard can it possibly be to use a non -Bayer pixel pattern like Fuji does?  My understanding is Fuji just made the pixel pattern less simple than the little repeating 4-pixel blocks in a Bayer pattern that give us this problem with screen doors/fabric/etc., and this makes the low pass filter unnecessary. 

It seems fairly straightforward and not subject to any patent issues vs. Fuji. How could anyone patent "any pattern in the world other than Bayer"?

Note that as a result of using a non-Bayer array, Fuji's cameras have more limited 3rd party support for raw image development than do Bayer array sensors.

That is a good point. I had not thought of it. 

HOWEVER, Fuji is Fuji.  Canon is Canon. Adobe always does the quickest updates for Canon cameras.

Probably because each Canon camera is so much like the previous one in terms of IQ, there is very little for Adobe to tune!

Maybe but the Fuji-specific pattern is on the market for years, as far as I know. If you have the basic programming for the pattern the rest might be minor adaptions.

I think it doesn't matter if you have 18 (magic number) or 24 or 36 MPix / 11 or 14 bit of DR for the basic conversion from bayer pattern -> rgb pixel. Changes in spectral sensitivity distribution for R, G and B pixels might be much more complicated to adapt!

If Adobe has lens distortion correction algorithms/data for sensor-lens combinations Canon has much more to do than others to supply the data for a new sensor - something like 120 datasets to measure and evaluate ...

EOS Bodies / Re: 50mp Cameras Coming in March [CR1]
« on: January 25, 2015, 03:56:10 AM »
How hard can it possibly be to use a non -Bayer pixel pattern like Fuji does?  My understanding is Fuji just made the pixel pattern less simple than the little repeating 4-pixel blocks in a Bayer pattern that give us this problem with screen doors/fabric/etc., and this makes the low pass filter unnecessary. 

It seems fairly straightforward and not subject to any patent issues vs. Fuji. How could anyone patent "any pattern in the world other than Bayer"?

Yes, I am bumping my own question.  I don't oftrn do that but I really wonder what others think of the question.  If they omit the filter, there are compromises.  Why not go the Fuji  x-trans route and use a less simple pixel pattern?

If it is a question of patents it depends what Fuji has stated in its patent.

If they patented a "non-rectangular and non-aligned sensor pattern" you have no freedom to move from the standard pattern of current Bayer sensors. If you write down a patent it is always a good idea to block as much alternatives for others as you can. Large companies are experts on that - I think.

EOS Bodies / Re: 2015 wishlist
« on: January 25, 2015, 03:47:37 AM »
  * EF-M 2.0 50 IS macro with ultimate IQ (would be my standard lens)
  * EOS M-P(rofessional) with larger batterie in hand grip, much better direct controls (two wheels incl. one wheel around mount base), EVF
  * EOS M-A(rt) with FF sensor, tiltable/shiftable EF-Mount and EF-X-lenses (like EF-S for better wide angles by lens elements deeply behind flange distance)

EOS Bodies / Re: 50mp Cameras Coming in March [CR1]
« on: January 24, 2015, 10:37:39 AM »
So I should wait before I buy a 5D classic until I know the prices and the specs ...

After owning a 4k TV (to view EOS 20D images near their original resolution) I am interested in more pixels and waiting for a 10k Display ...

Lenses / Re: Would you buy this lens? Small, lightweight, 17mm/2.8
« on: January 19, 2015, 01:20:40 PM »
I am interested in something like 17mm, compact, not too expensive.

I think f2.8@17mm for full frame is not possible to produce for 500$ but f4.0 might be possible - I just think about the FD 4.0 17 I own: A little bit soft, roughly 700 german mark 20 years ago might transform into a 500 EUR high quality lens with plastic housing but (more or less) current lens technology (like e.g. 10-22 EF-S).

I like high quality in the corners so I wouldn't be satisfied with the IQ of the 17-40mm - but with f4.0 a better correction is possible IMO.

I had the same decision to make 2 or 3 years ago:

IS would have been nice but the L grade macro lens
was at least 2x the price (420 vs. 899 Euro at the time).
The wonderful EF 2.0 100 was in my bag before. This
lens has some advantages compared to both 100mm macros: very compact,
high max aperture, very fast and reliable AF, and last but not least:
great image quality.

The center sharpness of the L lens is better,
but corner sharpness isn't after different tests,
at full aperture and f/4 - I very often use near open
aperture and place objects far from center/need the
full frame sharp (landscape etc.).

CAs are better for non-IS lens ...

Less flares for non-IS lens with similar contrast in contralight situations ... perhaps the less
complicated design without IS system/elements.

non-IS has some distortion - IS-version has practically none but has not mattered to me
(landscape, macro, - in case of architecture might be managed in PP)

Vignetting is less visible in the non-IS version ...

I skimmed the following tests/pages:
Lens qualtity at the digital pic:   http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/458-canon_100_28is_5d?start=2
Flares at the digital pic: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Flare.aspx?Lens=107&Camera=453&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3&LensComp=674&CameraComp=453&FLI=0&API=3

Review of photozone (24 x 36):
non-IS: http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/489-canon_100_28_5d?start=1
IS / L: http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/458-canon_100_28is_5d?start=1

If I hadn't had the EF 2.0 100 before I might have bought the L version (with IS compensating
some aspects of larger aperture) and welcomed the weather sealing.
But for my situation it was (up to now) a good choice.

PowerShot / Re: Convert the PowerShot N into a Rolleiflex Style Camera
« on: January 13, 2015, 12:58:21 AM »
Love to see a EOS M mount camera in this form factor, that would be golden.


Add a 36x24mm sensor model with EF mount and a new lens series that can use this EF mount and the volume between flange and sensor. These weren't compatible with EF SLR's ... o.k., but very interesting for high quality wide angles.

EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: CN-E 35-260mm f/2.8 Soft Focus Lens
« on: January 11, 2015, 08:14:52 AM »
IMO it is always a good idea to see immediately what you get - and if I think in "4k" + "movie" I see hardly a good method to do some on the fly high quality processing to get images consistently soft. We speak about calculating soft focus effects for 24 x 8 MPix frames per second resulting in 192 full color MPix per second which is roughly 1.2 GByte per second.

Another reason for the existence of such lenses might be the fact that "hardware softening" changes the bokeh differently from the main subject - this would be a hard job (if possible) in post.

Just my 2ct ...

Canon General / Re: RTFM. Do you?
« on: January 11, 2015, 04:03:12 AM »
pre buying:
1. Check a PDF file with search feature - to see if the things I want are possible

after buying and before first use:
2. Check PDF file for warnings/precautions and similar stuff

after that:
3. Use the camera and profit from the heavenly situation that I can check the results of settings/procedures immediately.

Best manual ever: The manual of the 1973/4 Canon EF I bought 30 years ago ... some chapters about the use of different focal lengths, right exposure of darger or brighter than average objects, etc.

Canon General / Re: Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path
« on: January 11, 2015, 03:54:32 AM »
An upgrade path usually has alternatives. I added my gear list to give others an idea what a moderately priced but very flexible lens set might be.

The big plan (experience with FF like Canon EF, Ftb, later F-1n) was to use the following focal lengths with FF:
24 f/2.8 - 50 f/1.4 - 100 f/2.0 & 100mm macro - 200 f/2.8 - 400 f/5.6
At the photokina in 1990 (?) I fell in love with the EF 100 2.0 - bright, very compact, very responsible and silent AF operation.

In 2005 I started with the 20D and the EF-S 60mm macro and -  months later - the non-IS f/4 70-200mm joined the bag. Image quality was great just compared to what I achieved with Kodachrome 25 and very good FD lenses. And the possibility to check images on location for quality (technical + artistical) was a great gain which brought me back to photography.

After using the 60mm and mostly the 200mm of the zoom with the 20D I saw it as a perfect walk around lens and the old focal length-list was fine just for the crop format so I decided to
  - use the EF-S 60 and wait for a compact high quality 50mm lens - the EF 40mm with excellent flare resistance is FOR ME one of the gems that might work until I really need f/1.4
  - use the very good EF 4.0 70-200 until I really need a higher aperture lens with 200mm

I am always open for FF lens wise but there has to be a need for FF to go that path. Maybe with a 5D mark i to collect some experiences or maybe with a slower 52 MPix body (2 fps are sufficient for me).

But my biggest upgrade of the decade will be presumably the 4k TV I bought 2 days ago: now I can view my 1ß year old EOS 20D photos near their native resolution and ... it is BREATHTAKING! Zooming by head motion is very natural and it is a joy to view landscape or macro photographs in their full clarity and dynamic range (of 11 EV what the TV panel delivers) on a screen with size and resolution of a very good 20x30inch print ... APS-C delivers to me with good lenses and good technique (after a lot of trial and error) ...

Software & Accessories / Re: Two monitors vs ultra-wide one?
« on: January 10, 2015, 06:16:37 AM »
After fiddeling two hours to connect my just 11 years old DVD player with a cheap Full HD monitor I decided to buy the mentioned Samung 40 inch UltraHD monitor and ...

Viewing of high res images is done by the on board OS/Software of the TV, reading files from USB:
+ Viewing EOS 40D images at 7 MPix (3240 x 2160 screen pixels at 3:2 aspect ratio of the images) is ... BREATHTAKING!!! (Distance to the screen roughly 50 cm, pixels not visible to me)
It is like looking at a very good and well lit print in 50 x 75 cm with great color reproduction and high contrast. From reviews I remember contrast values between 1000 and 3000 meaning 10 - 11,5 EV.
It is more "beeing there" than "looking at a photo of" ...

Usage as Desktop:
Cannot report about it because the graphics card of my PC is to primitive for that display. I like fanless graphics cards so I have to find a fanless card for 3840x210 resolution @ 60Hz.
UPDATE 2015-01-16: After several hours of image watching I am not shure if that TV/display is a PC monitor replacement: At 50cm distance you are off axis by 45-60 degree. In that case a curved display might be more efficient - and some improved panel technology like OLED. But I will do the relevant "tests" soon.

Mirroring a tablets screen:
Works after easy setting up the connection. Resolution is only 1280x720 (800) what the mini tablet can do but it is absolutely sufficient to bring readable content to the screen or to view a you tube video via the tablet on the screen.
There is a lag between user input and response of the TV screen but for the use from time to time it is no problem.
Just thinking of camera with life view engaged + tablet with EOS Utility to mirror the camera view to a larger screen ...

Common remarks about the display:
+ Viewing angle isn't the problem. @60 degree off center axis colors & contrast are flat, but at normal wide viewing angles colors are at least good.
+ Very good color reproduction out of the box but I read some reviews that showed very high color precision after calibration (cannot do that at the moment)
+ Good brightness - reviews report up to 450 cd/m² are possible
+ good black levels - good for me as SF fan. Space has to be deep black ....

o Motion reproduction is IN MY OPINION absolutely o.k. The simple upscaling of the TV set is mentioned in some reviews resulting in harsh detail loss for fast moving objects. I haven't observed these effects but I only used FullHD content via USB and DVD via SCART (1k resolution or less).

- A little bit cloudy but visible only in special situations e.g. the blue background screen of the satellite receiver I will use furthermore.

The panel technology is PVA which I have used with a very good EIZO S2100 computer monitor in the last 5 or  years.

Usually I am NO early adopter but in this case I hurried because
(1) I want resolution - a dream of mine came true: looking images near the resolution they have in a singel view.
(2) some sharpness loss in TV/video mode is acceptable for me
(3) I see no longer too many problems in high resolution displays: proven technology
(4) There is some risk that 40 inch Ultra HD displays will vanish from the market soon because "it is to small for the resolution" and
(5) 40 inch for Ultra HD seems to me ideal as computer screen used for image editing but also for text writing, drawing, programming, etc.
(6) 4 x HDMI 2.0 and 3 x USB (1x USB3.0) gives some options for future extensions - future entry models might be less well euipped after Ultra HD is adopted by the masses.

The Samsung UE40HU6900 has visible brightness variation with the viewing angle but colors seem stable. Reviews show that this display gives good color reproduction, contrast and brightness. The week point seems to be motion reproduction for movies, but this might be solved by using a high quality external tuner.

My usage scenario is at the moment
  * replace the defect DLP beamer (50 white pixels within 2 weeks after just 1750 hrs of operation)
  * have a device to display photos near their native resolution
  * plan to use it as computer screen in my living room with a PC in the room above (need a new graphics card for that purpose)
  * view contents of my tablet via Miracast wirelessly.

At 500 Euro it seems a bargain ....

If I buy that display/TV I will give feedback!

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 30