Messages

1

EOS Bodies / Re: Patents: New 50mm, 85mm & 135mm Lenses

« on: June 16, 2013, 04:07:30 AM »

The mechanics are interesting.

The 50/1.4 is 37mm longer than the current 50/1.4.
The 85/1.8 is 45mm longer than the current 85/1.8.

That'll change how well they fit in various people's camera bags but I suppose this is what's required to add image stabilisation to each of these lenses.

Im not shure that "length of the lens" means the physical length of the real lens assembly - I think it is the length between front surface and the image plane. The values you have calculated are in the region of the flange-sensorplane-distance ...

I have made a simple overlay of the cut views of the current 1.4/50 and the proposed (in the patent) lens. Both scaled to the aperture which should be similar.

I do not see any dramatic difference between both - no IS elements, no retrofocus scheme - just small changes which allow to introduce additional lenses to correct aberrations. So it will not be a reincarnation of the Carl Zeiss 1.4 55mm ...

Best, Michael

2

EOS-M / Re: FF EOS-M?

« on: June 09, 2013, 06:52:06 AM »

Therefor for serious use I postulate some things which have to be happened until a Replacement of the mirror makes seriously sense:

- adequate electronic wysiwig-viewfinder
- permanent autofokus in the quality of the actual systems, incl. sensitivity under low ligh
- compatibility-bridge to the existing system
- new body-desing to bring serious advantage to the user.

Jörg

The fourth point is a good one - I would prefer a box like design e.g. a cube of 8 x 8 x 8 cm³ with a high capacity battery and direct controls dials for aperture (ring around bajonet), Time, ISO, EV compensation. Such a camera with the shorty forty is very compact and fits into a lens compartment. The omitted prism and mirrorbox gives space for the rest - like the above mentioned high capacity battery.

... like the classical Hasselblad or Rollei medium format cameras ... and I remember the Rollei 2000 which was a 35mm camera with exchangeable magazins.

3

PowerShot / Re: Camera for Granny

« on: June 08, 2013, 12:14:00 PM »

I would check if your grandma
  * will use an optical viewfinder or the display
  * needs a zoom or will prefer a prime lens
  * has problems with small (or tiny) buttons
  * want's to go the digital route (=data management) or
     can use a bunch of cards e.g. with a flat screen with card reader.

Perhaps the combination of a medium large camera
with a large Li ion battery and a bunch of 4GB cards
with mechanical write protection might be a good
solution. Cards can be used like film cardridges and
- if it is a 100D - the camera has a large capacity
battery + can be used in a full auto setup.

Just provide a little bit time to make backups of the
cards ...

My 2ct - Michael

4

EOS-M / Re: FF EOS-M?

« on: June 07, 2013, 07:34:24 AM »

...

I always chuckle when I see folk wanting full frame mirrorless.  They just haven't got the concept.  Big sensor means big lenses. big. big. Not small.

...

I am one of these folks ;-) ... because
  * it enables (r)evolutionary lens designs without retrofocus constructions
  * it reduces size, mass, complexity for the mirrorbox and the penta prism
  * it would help to reuse my FD lens collection with their great manual focus rings - for video e.g. - via an adaptor (if a FF mirrorless of canon hasn't a native EF mount).

But your arguments about image quality are very important: I am learning
to get out the most of the 40D sensor technically which has just 10 Mpix and is 6 or
7 years old (in terms of technology). So: APS-C is at least comparable to the
best 35mm film cameras/films if not a lot better.

Tool-wise I am well equipped - the largest "construction site" for me ist to
get out the most of a camera system in terms of technical quality and
creativity - I still have to improve the latter one!

5

EOS-M / Re: EF-M 11-22mm f/4-5.6 IS STM Announcement Soon? [CR2]

« on: June 03, 2013, 12:58:34 PM »

This one is really interesting FOR ME:
  * I don't like UWA to much but they are helpful occasionally
  * if the lower max aperture helps to keep that thing very small (compared to just a 10-22 EF-S) it might be a good all round camera (@22mm) with UWA capability)
  * the IS helps to shoot at equivalent light conditions compared to the EF-M 22 2.0 - so there is no need for that lens (except you need bokeh)
  * if the lower max aperture keeps the thing at lower cost and reduces flare by reducing the number of lens groups and leads to a very high quality (straight to the edges) - it would be a good trade off

Just the right EOS-M body is missing - sth. with a higher count of images per battery charge (500 or so) and a viewfinder for bright environmental conditions/video!

6

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: New Camera Sensor Eliminates Need for Flash

« on: June 02, 2013, 03:15:45 AM »

Sounds fishy to me. The current sensors have about 50% QE. This means that one can only increase it twice, not 1,000 times.

In principle, "sensitivity" is not a well defined term when it comes to digital sensors. They are photon counting machines, missing every other photon, roughly speaking.

 
Yes, your thinking mirrors mine.  Perhaps its a deeper electron well that holds more photons, but that implies a longer exposure.  The description of "Wang said the key to his new sensor is the use of "light-trapping" nanostructures that use graphene as a base. The nanostructures hold onto light-generated electron particles for much longer than conventional sensors." is a bit vague and does not explain the predicted usefulness for consumer imaging. 
I can see it useful for astronomy and night time imaging, perhaps even satellite imaging, but for a camera that is used to do high fps or video, I do not understand.

I agree with your statements - so I think it might be a sensor material which allows for 1000x the electrons per pixel increasing the dynamic range by 10 stops (8 stops for real products) - you will have perhaps a native sensitivity of ISO 400 - 8 stops lower sensitivity setting means ISO 4 (!!!) ...
For me it would be very interesting to have the freedom to choose very high DR or very long exposure times at high ambient lighting.

... perhaps "without flash" means that you can lift shadows due to the high DR without visible IQ loss? (this idea came up during writing ...)

The problem of durability could be solved by exchangeable sensors. Would be good idea just with CMOS sensors - I would like to convert my 20D to a B/W camera by removing the RGB Bayer pattern (and increase the sensitivity by a factor of two or three) but would like to have the chance to try the removal procedure on two or three sensors (not cameras).

7

Lenses / Re: Very Stuck Filter

« on: May 31, 2013, 10:26:05 AM »

Another method:

What is the material of the lens' filter thread? If it is plastic you might have a chance to cool down the METAL parts of the FILTER for 1 minute or so and you can try to remove it with your filter wrench. If the filter thread of the 70 200 mk ii is made of metal you can use the same procedure but you have to find out the timing when the filter thread is cool and the lens thread is warmer.

To cool down the filter thread I would suggest to cool down a thick sheet of aluminum (e.g. the base of a cooking pot) to -20 degree centigrade and keep the lens at 20 or 30 degree centigrade. To cool down the filter thread you put the lens with the filter thread onto the metal sheet and wait - let's say 60 seconds - before you try to remove it. Perhaps you have to repeat the procedure with different timings ...

This procedure is not too dangerous (as far as I see it, no guaranties!) for the lens  - if this doesn't work, I would send it to Canon - as a lot of contributors have said.

8

EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon Foveon Sensor

« on: May 22, 2013, 11:01:19 AM »

[...]

The Foveon has great potential and great flaws.

To fix the latter in a reasonable time, imho, a great deal of resources are needed - the sort of resources maybe only Sony and Samsung have.

The good thing is that manufacturers are understanding that the Bayer sensors (and the mechanical mirrors/shutters) are the bottlenecks of modern cameras' performance. However the Foveon is not the only solution. There's another prototype of sensor (can't recall the name) that uses the energy of the photons to translate it into wavelength and then into color information.

Why not Canon? AFAIK Canon develops sensors in their own company. O.k., they are behind others in some specs + IQ under different circumstances. But in 2005 when I decided to buy a 20D Canon had a great advantage: It's sensor reproduced great color and detail  - much better than other cameras from other brands and it was a Canon developed +produced sensor.
They have to do something revolutionary - evolutionary development of existing 18MPix sensors will not satisfy us and I think we will see some revolutionary sensor within 2 or 3 years.

@paul13walnut5:
Good remark about pixel quality instead of quantity. A 12 or 15 MPix FF sensor three layer sensor without antialiasing and high ISO sensitivity would be outstanding!

9

PowerShot / Re: Two New PowerShot Cameras Leaked

« on: May 13, 2013, 01:17:34 AM »

So the thing Canon needed to upgrade, the lens, is no different then the S100.  The camera also looks much more slippery then my S100.  I'm guessing the sensor is the same and the only upgrade will be the digic 6 processor which will be of no help because you'll shot in raw.

Yeah but it will have WiFi and facebook and GPS and other gizmos that people crave - who cares about the lens? I mean seriously?

ME! 
I really like my S95 for its reasonable IQ ... if it has plentiful of light. The lens of the S95 is at least o.k. if not good. The S9x-S1xx cameras are the best option Canon has in terms of IQ vs. pocketability with RAW capabilities in DPP (= I want only one SW for RAW processing).

10

Lenses / Re: Canon Tele lenses vs Nikon tele lenses ( both with converters )

« on: May 12, 2013, 08:41:41 AM »

There is a superstition that Canon, Nikon, etc. have patented solutions that make it one of the brand by far better, fluorite is one such example. All big companies has their own solution as Nikon, Pentax, Leits,Zeiss etc
I spoke with Per Nordlund Hasselblad lens designers for the new wide angels to Hasselblad down at Photokina some years ago  , Per had 21 different types of glass to choose from and analyze to the wide angle  lenses (if I recall it correctly). And the glass is made of Hoya,Fuji  etc etc

Shure? There are a lot of things that can be patented within lenses: Glass isn't the point I see - there are a lot of design features which affect lens combinations e.g. Patent texts are designed to protect a very wide area of design solutions to protect the own claim. Something like "front element with concave front surface to correct blabla" might exclude others from using a lens shape and there is no chance to circumvent such a design restriction by using other glass ... and just solve some glass issue isn't as simple as "going into the lab and creating a new mixture". Optical glasses are a product from something like alchemy ...

ADD: Just to avoid that I would like to see Canon in front of Nikon ... I am shure that a good photographer can take good photographs with Super tele lenses of both companies. But I have seen some emanations of patent wars in different fields and I have seen very often that there is only one way to solve a problem for decades. Think about rechargeable batteries for cars: Lithium since two decades and no other technically and economically feasible solution in reach ...

11

Lenses / Re: Canon Tele lenses vs Nikon tele lenses ( both with converters )

« on: May 11, 2013, 07:16:20 PM »

Perhaps differences between brands' technologies have much simpler reasons: Patents.
Canon holds patents which make their teles outstanding, Nikon holds patents which make their wides outstanding (at least the 14-24). Sony holds patents which make their sensors outstanding (at least in DR/dark noise).

Another thing I observed: Different companies' products have different tendencies. I observed 20 years ago that Nikon lenses made sharper images, but Canon lenses had a more 3Dish look with much better micro contrast and texture fidelity. Now I have no comparison because I know only one person who has a Nikon but uses Zeiss glass - the rest uses Canon.

This is a total myth, and why keep on  spreading it?
Nikon tele lenses are good as Canon, Canon can if they want make better wide lenses, they have also the physical conditions (larger bayonete)  that make  it easier to produce a wide angle better than Nikon can do with the smaller bayonet diameter.

And I repeat, the FOTO magazine in Sweden tested supertelen  300, 400,500,600 from both Nikon and Canon in mars  and let Hasselblads MTF Lab  measure this lenses by real MTF test (lenses only) , and  they where equal good, they have also tested Nikon 200-400/4 who is optimized in a range of 30-50m as a sport lens.

Myth? At least with a 2xTC:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=739&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=2&LensComp=650&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0

Bayonet diameter doesn*t help for wide angles if the rectangular tube between bayonet and shutter shades parts of the lens' back element.

Do you have a link of that swedish foto magazin test? Would be very interesting how they measured the data!

12

Lenses / Re: Canon Tele lenses vs Nikon tele lenses ( both with converters )

« on: May 11, 2013, 05:11:59 AM »

Perhaps differences between brands' technologies have much simpler reasons: Patents.
Canon holds patents which make their teles outstanding, Nikon holds patents which make their wides outstanding (at least the 14-24). Sony holds patents which make their sensors outstanding (at least in DR/dark noise).

Another thing I observed: Different companies' products have different tendencies. I observed 20 years ago that Nikon lenses made sharper images, but Canon lenses had a more 3Dish look with much better micro contrast and texture fidelity. Now I have no comparison because I know only one person who has a Nikon but uses Zeiss glass - the rest uses Canon.

13

Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?

« on: May 11, 2013, 04:46:28 AM »

Just my 2 ct.

• Adjusting an image before exposure by using the right focal lenth, position, composition, exposure values, film/sensor, LIGHT is photography.
  Adjusting what the negative/RAW contains to adapt it to what you have seen in a wet/digital darkroom is photography.
  HDR and focus stacking is sth. that recreates what we perceive - by our highly dynamic biological sensors (retina + brain) and adjusting focus by our eyes. So it is too photography.
• Everything else is no longer photography - in german language I would say "Montage" or composite. And I think it should be referenced as "Composite: Photogs Name" instead of "Photo: Photgs Name"

.
I would count each removal and addition of components to the category "Composite".
[/list]

Both are valuable contributions to art (at least in some cases - I produce a lot of non-art photos for the trash).

To sanj: Thanks for the thread, it was a good starting point to think about what photography is ... or might be.

14

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: dissapointed 6d 100mm f2 and 24mm 2.8 (non l)

« on: May 06, 2013, 01:41:36 PM »

Not enough info so far to give much useful advice beyond what Mt. Spokane offered. but one thing I've learned is never to take off on an important vacation with a brand  new camera.   I have sometimes needed a thousand or more exposures to figure out how to use a new camera body, even with my old lenses.

+1 !

I am just learning to use my 40D right and get the most out of it - I bought it in 2008 ! O.k., I am no professional shooter but I do reflect what I am doing deeply and have some extended knowledge about technical details of photography, electronics, etc. (as every physicist).
For me it is a joy to use an instrument over half a decade or a decade because I learn to master the tool - instead of being masterd by the tool ...

15

EOS Bodies / Re: The Future of EOS M [CR1]

« on: April 27, 2013, 03:16:18 AM »

I think that a compact EOS M with a FF sensor and EF mount would be a very interesting camera. Perhaps the cube shaped design of ancient medium format cameras will help to make it even more compact (not smaller in terms of volume) and help to stow away that  camera easily. I think about a cube of roughly 80 x 80 x 80mm³ which too is compact with the 2.8 40 attached and fits in lens compartments with e.g. a 2.8 16-35 lens.

An EF-M-mount system EOS M with the 2.0 22 might find a way into my hands if it has a EVF and a RAW mode with 10 or 12 MPix.