March 04, 2015, 02:13:43 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 - mb66energy

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 32

Known disadvantages of next 85L being f/1.4 instead of f/1.2:
- 50% less light entering lens wide open
- 14% less DOF isolation capability wide open

Potential advantages of next 85L being f/1.4 instead of f/1.2 (using 50L f/1.0>f/1.2 design cues):
- Better protected rear element
- Lens barrel does not extend when focusing
- Weather sealed, easier to accomplish due to lack of extending lens barrel when focusing
- Faster autofocus, similar to speed of 50mm f/1.2L, due to lack of extending barrel and smaller lens elements
- Full time manual override, does not require camera to be powered on
- Lower weight
- Smaller size
- Potential minor increase in sharpness
- Potential minor reduction in flare
- Lower price as less expensive to make
- Overall "look" is similar, but not identical to the 85L f/1.2L II; like the 50L f/1.2L and 85L f/1.2L II, the lens design would be for portraits and hence not overcorrected/clinical.


I like the "full aperture stops" as max aperture more than sth. like 1.2 or 1.8 so the 2.0/100 won against the 1.8/85.
I like direct control of the focus ring much more than any "by wire"-system (really like the focus ring of the old chrome ring FD lenses!).
I like lenses which do NOT show longitudinal chromatic aberations because I like to shoot into the sun.

An EF 1.4/85mm IS USM with true apochromatic correction would be a great option. I like the idea of IS in high aperture lenses because the combination of high max aperture, high ISO capability (just with APS-C) + IS extend the usefulness of such lenses in dim environments.
Not to forget: good close focus capabilites welcome, sth. like 1:3.5 or 1:4 would be great!

Lenses / Re: A New Pancake Lens? [CR1]
« on: August 23, 2014, 07:01:34 PM »
Do people like these pancakes just because they are cute (no argument there)? What am I missing?

Many people bought the 40 mm just because it was 'cool' and then lost it somewhere between the padding of their camera bags and never realized it went missing  ::)

Funny idea! Just checked if my copy of the 40mm is in the lens drawer where it has to be ... it was there so I haven't lost it in the padding of my back packs ;)

But a real advantage is that at least an APS-C body with that lens fits in a lens compartment so it has solved the problem of carrying two bodies in a not too large photo back pack.

I tend to use 150mm equiv as MY standard lens. The 64mm equiv of this lens on APS-C is a moderate wide angel for ME. Two bodies with 100mm Macro and 40mm pan cake are a good combo for ME.

About a 24mm pan cake: I don't believe that it is possible to produce one at f/2.8 for full frame. Might be an EF-S - so not too interesting for me. I own the old EF 2.8/24mm and this one is at least very light and on the compact side.

Technical Support / Re: Question regarding sensor size and image quality
« on: August 22, 2014, 07:12:49 AM »
Tried to post this directly but the forum software told me that there is another message (good software!) ...

When comparing image quality between different sensor sizes, lets say aps-c and FF, all else being equal (FOV, DOF, noise, dynamic range, resolution), there is a subtle but visible difference in the way tones are rendered.

Comparing an APS-C and FF sensor with same MPix, same sensor tech and same readout circuitry will show at least one difference (same equiv focal length, same aperture):
If a APS-C sensors pixel gets 100 photons the error is sqrt(100)=10 - resulting in 10% non-avoidable error of the brightness measurement for this pixel.
The FF counterpart will "see" 256 pixels. sqrt(256)=16 resulting in an statistical error of 1/16 or 6.25%.

If pixel sizes are the same, the per-pixel-errors are the same too but during downscaling the FF sensor combines more pixel area into the same resulting pixel so this should provide a similar effect - transitions are softer.

The FF sensor will have a more precise mapping of the image of the real scene compared to an APS-C sensor. Perhaps this is part of the difference between both "looks". Shure, the images are downsampled if we view them on a screen but a more precise measurement might survive the process of downsampling if this is done the quick way. I have no FF camera so I cannot check it with a HQ downsampling via DxO SW.

But I see a similar difference between 40D and 600D where the 40D has approx. two times the pixel size of the 40D. Shure, the 600D gives more detail but the 40D has sometimes the "shinier", more realistic photos. More "brilliance" is a good description.

Another idea: EF lenses are more than good enough (most!) for 20 MPix on full frame, but stressed with a 70D those sensor - extended to full frame size - would result in 50 MPix might be too much for these (older) lenses. So it might come from the lens too.

I think we should keep in mind that our eyes/brain are very delicate instruments which are optimized to detect very small variations in our environment. E.g. a green snake in green grass - to build a camera that reproduces the shades of green exactly is a very tough job!

Technical Support / Re: Question regarding sensor size and image quality
« on: August 22, 2014, 06:49:58 AM »
Ok, so what exactly is this sensor size difference, how does it affect the image captured when all else is equalized?

The DOF with available optics increases for smaller sensors with the today available optics. A 35mm/1.4 on APS-C will deliver larger DOF than a 50mm/1.4 on 35mm format sensors.

Btw, if crop is becoming 'good enough' in good light, wouldn't FF still be better than good enough, and remain so as technology advances? So the threshold would move with the technology.

IMO it will always be better - or have higher potential. Think of a sensor tech as a film tech: The larger the film the more information can be gathered.
On the other hand everything might change if you need special characteristics e.g. extreme macro of insects where you want large enough DOF and miniaturized cameras to place them near the insects in a natural environment.

I see some disturbance in this discussion. Do not focus too much on the sensor- it is one part of the story. The whole story might be depicted with the following scheme:

My insect example needs perhaps a smaller sensor and a smaller aperture so you need more light => smaller sensor gives better images (not technical IQ!)

Stage photography has the light which is available. Often this is only a small amount of light so you need a larger aperture and a sensor with larger pixels to bring noise down at high ISOs => a larger sensor can gather more light than a smaller sensor given that you use the SAME APERTURE SETTING!

Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 17, 2014, 11:54:47 AM »
This has been a nice discussion about the durability of glass, but I have to wonder: what's the difference between the glass used for a touch screen and the glass used for the ordinary LCD display on the back of every DSLR?

If it is the durability of the glass that's an issue, how would it be any different if a touch screen is implemented versus the traditional display?

Good point.  I am also wondering about the durability of the capacitive touch capability.  I had a Samsung Impact phone (admittedly not a top of the line model!)--after about 3 years, the touch screen failed.  Not cracked or "damaged" mind you--it just stopped responding to touch, making the phone useless.  I've since replaced it with a Samsung S4 Mini which, being a miniaturised version of their top of the line phone, ought to have equivalent durability to the S4, so we'll see how long that lasts.  However, many users (most?) tend to replace phones far more quickly than I do, (some more often than they change their underwear, it seems!  :o) so the long term longevity of the touch screen may be less of an 'issue' in a phone. 

I'm speculating wildly here, but if there is a fairly short life span for the touch sensitivity of such screens in real world scenarios, that might be why Canon is willing to put it into consumer products like the T4i/T5i or even enthusiast products such as the 70D, but shy away from it for a "Pro" type body.   

Can anyone confirm or refute this hypothesis?  I confess that's all it is--I have no data to either back it up or contradict it.

Both of you brought up a good point - me too: to much focusing on the glass ...

I know that two touchscreen technologies are wide spread:
  - Capacitive tracking (works with fingers, small tomatoes, water filled ballons ...)
  - Inductive tracking (works with specialized pencils - WACOM is a well known company)

For capacitive touch screens I have only 3 years experience and the mobile phone has survived moderately hard treatment during thes three years.
For inductive technology I am using a 10 year old IBM/Lenovo X41 tablet/convertible - the precision including the pressure sensitivity of the pencil is very very good. Last adjustment made 4 years ago.

But I see no reason that a capacitive touch screen will not survive 10 or 20 years if properly set up. My first thought was that the layers which are able to detect capacity changes by the fingers might underlie some aging. But I think these are made from the same materials like the flat screen displays and these last 10 or perhaps 10ths of years.

Another idea is now emerging: Ever tried to use your capacitive touch screen during rain? On my (Motorola DEFY) smart phone I see strange effects when it is covered with several rain drops. This is a inherent problem of capicitive touch screen technology: A matrix of electrical condensators senses changes of surrounding material. This is done by the effect that material between/near a condensator plate changes it's capacity.
Why water? Our fingers contain a lot of water but many other materials like plastics, leather, jeans, etc. do not contain water. So they designed the electronics and the capacitor matrix to be sensitive to water. That's the reason for listing the small tomato as "tool" to operate a capacitive touch screen. I tried that because I wanted to know how touch screens operate - "What special material is in our fingers?-Water. What water filled object is availabl?-Tomato."

The guys at Canon maybe thought: We have designed a DSLR for harsh environments where water might play a role. It is contradictory to have controls which operate depending on the environmental condions where these controls might be used.

I think that we all mutate to amateur profilers which try to find out how another person thinks to guess it's next steps ... funny thing!

Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 16, 2014, 03:24:37 PM »


That being said however, I have see quite a few iPhones and Samsung (and other brands) smartphones with screens that were all but shattered after fairly trivial drops.  (Possibly this is a generational thing and the older models, from even a couple years ago were not as tough as the latest?) On the other hand, I've watched videos of various Canon and Nikon cameras (and not 1 series or D3/D4's either--semi-pro models like 5D and 7D) being dropped down cement stairs repeatedly without damaged screens--and still functional after the "test." 

Most full size display smartphones use the glass plate as structural component. I own a DEFY smartphone where the edge of the glass front is protected by 1 or 2mm of stiff plastics. I dropped it several times but not on concrete or worse material and it resided 3 years now in my left trousers pocket, some times with a 10 ct. piece rubbing on the front - not a visible scratch.

A DSLR protects the display more or less by its metal or plastic shell. In fact it is not easy to hit the display by flat ground or the edges of stairs.

Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 16, 2014, 12:05:24 PM »


Similarly, I can't see Canon giving up wi-fi if they could avoid it. Again, the lack of the feature will make the camera less attractive for a certain buying segment and I don't think they would do that without some solid engineering reason not to.

I don't know what to make of this, except that I think it does open up the possibility that this body will really be much closer to a 1DX in build quality than to a 5DIII.

No touchscreen and no wi-fi because the body is bombproof?

I don't see any reason to omit Wifi and touchscreen to keep the body "bombproof". There is not need to use metal to get "bombproof". Polycarbonate and Kevlar are materials used to protect people against projectiles ...

As stated before you need just 2 or three small holes to feed antenna cables from inside to outside and build them in the card compartment flap made of HQ plastics, the battery compartment lid and perhaps in the flash socket - to get omnidirectional connectivity.
Hardened glass or saphir glass are scratch resistant and withstand high forces before they break - a standard in mid end smart phones since several years.

I see two reasons:
  - Canon feeds us to think about 70D or 7Dii and a lot of us will get both as primary and secondary body
  - Canon will give the 7Dii a "sister modell" with movie oriented features meaning touchscreen for rapid focus point selection and Wifi to do exactly that without touching (and moving) the camera.

My camera would be a EOS 40D with the touch screen and sensor of the 70D - I love the joystick controller and the overall haptics of my 40D or otherwise: I would like a 80D with controls like the former xxD models (<=50D).

So my conclusion is - if the currently anticipated specs are valid - not to buy the 7Dii but to wait another round of camera models (since 2 or 3 years).

Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 16, 2014, 05:26:27 AM »


 Touch UI shouldn't be the thing people are whining about being deal breakers...not on the 7D II, not on a professional grade DSLR.

That's my point.

What is professional? For me the only difference between an amateur and a professional photographer is that the latter one makes money with photos.

Someone told me that the term "amateur" has its roots in "amare" ... to love. Who makes the better photos? The one who loves photography or the one who earns money with taking photos?
There is no definitive answer. It is not excluded that a good professional photographer CAN DO WHAT HE/SHE LOVES TO DO !

Now about the tools: I think both might need the same level of tools - you called it professional DSLR.
For me touch screens are an OPTION which makes setting the focus and exp. metering area very simple (on EOS M). This is very important for me to operate it one handed while securing myself with the other hand.

Let's try to come together: Your argument to add a touch screen optimized menu later via firmware update is a good one. But if the 7Dii has no touch screen, Canon omits that option from the start.
What about using the standard menu but activating direct access to the settings via touch screen without disabling the hardware controls to access the menu settings and change parameters? And a custom function which disables the touch screen for settings and/or image review ...

Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 16, 2014, 04:32:15 AM »
Actual Rumors in Japanese chat forums (got infos from an japanese girlfriend:

- 400.000 Yen (>2900€) (variying 300.000-450.000 Y, most rumors on 400.000)
- designed for sports photography. >10 pps, AF speed on miirrorless camera niveau, fast and accurate AF on moving objects (tracking a lot better than actual 7D)
- operationnal design and ergonomy focused on professional use
- IQ better than 7D, more ISO-range, lesser noise. But IQ/DR is not the main optimization goal ( MK4 5D will be designed as an semiprofessional goldenegglayingwoolmilksaw for an non-professional user)

This brings me down to earth. Not the price but the statement "IQ/DR is not the main optimization goal".

From this I see a 70D without Wifi, Touch, tilt/swivel display in a ergonomically well equipped package.

I am searching for a 70D sensor/functionality in an EOS 40D package but the 7D ii might head in another direction.

About the discussion:
  Wifi or no Wifi
  tilt swivel display or fixed display
Some people have not in mind that a lot of  photographers are in the need for a camera with
  HIGH image quality
  HIGH versatility
  HIGH precision
that is able to make 4 or 5 shots per second and
  has a PRICING for mortals (max. roughly 2000 $/€)
  is LIGHT (below 800 grams)
  is APS-C (because you can use good non-Ls and lower priced L lenses)
Please respect that some here are interested in a "goldenegglayingwoolmilksaw" (thanks for that word, daniela) with reasonable IQ or have their individual use scenarios for PHOTOGRAPHY where e.g. Wifi plays a role or the touch screen.

Just one reason for Wifi: After a long walk I tried to take a photograph of a small waterfall with tripod (and camera!). I had to put the tripod on an awkward place and the EOS M had the lens I needed. During trials to see the display I slipped a little bit but was able not to fall down roughy 10 meters. You can survive that but 12 hours pain are guarantied before someone finds you ... no handy network access, no people in reach ... wifi + handy would have been helpful to prevent (moderately) dangerous situations.

Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 15, 2014, 04:15:58 PM »

I think your premise here is that the Nikon has the lens mount fitted to the outer shell

Not quite.  The nikon mount seems to be connected directly to the internal magnesium chassis, while the Canon mount is connected directly to the composite mirrorbox which is then connected to the stainless steel chassis.  Neither are directly connected to the outer shell, although my suspicion is that the outer shell on the Canon is giving some structural support to the lens mount based on the lip from the lens mount that sits flush against the magnesium shell.

whereas the Canon has it fitted to the internal chassis. I bet there is a reason for Canon to fix it to the chassis, possibly accuracy, after all the sensor is fitted to the chassis, not the outer shell. I would very much doubt that a D800 is built 'internally' to the same standard as a 4D, and my experience with the Nikon 'prosumer' grade of camera is that they are not inherently built to the same standard as the equivalent Canon, in fact I'm fairy convinced they are a cheaper unit, and the mount affixed directly to the chassis may be part of this.

Whether it's better or worse is really something that only their structural engineers can really tell you, as there can be very real advantages to composite parts (precision, toughness, thermal stability) other than manufacturing cost.  As for them not being up to the same standard, I can believe that the internal sealing is probably superior on the more expensive bodies I'm not sure that the internal construction methods used will be all that different on the Nikon side.  On the Canon side, the 1D bodies look similar to the D800 internally so an increase in build quality for the 7D would probably involve using a more unibody like construction for the internal chassis and/or better weather sealing.

According to the german brochure of EOS 5D Mark III
( page 18):
WARNING: german -> english (hopefully) made by a non-native speaker :)

"Gehäuseoberseite, Rück- und Frontabdeckung
der EOS 5D Mark III sind aus
einer robusten und leichten Magnesium-
legierung gefertigt."
=> Top plate, back plate and front part of the EOS 5D Mark IIIare made from a robust and light magnesium alloy.

"Die Stahl-Bodenplatte
der Kamera wurde für den harten Alltag
des Profis ausgelegt."
=> The bottom plate (?) made of steel is optimized for professional use.

"Innen wird ein Aluminiumchassis
von geformten Kunststoffelementen
geschützt – das schafft ein sicheres
Gefühl von Zuverlässigkeit."
=> Inside an aluminum chassis is protected by moulded elements made from
plastic - this gives a feeling of reliability.
I think your conclusions are right, that the EF mount is mounted via a plastic (of high quality) to the inner frame  - just change from steel to aluminum for the inner frame. As I remember the EOS 20D has a steel frame - perhaps steel applies to the 5D mark I ?

The second red part of your comment:
WARNING: I am no engineer just a physicist. But basically you are right: Putting the mount, the outer shell and the inner frame with the CMOS sensor together has a strong disadvantage. Each hit against lens or shell accelerates the sensor and AF components directly and transports horrible forces.
A interlayer of plastics which are deformed temporarily decreases  acceleration by e.g. a factor of 10 and reduces the forces on components by the same factor.

The plastic components are made from polycarbonate (PC is the acronym which is visible in one of the photos) which is used for bullet proof windows or CD ROMs where high strength and "form stability" is essential. I just would not have problems with a well made PC shell - it absorbs more energy than a magnesium alloy shell during a hit ...

Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 15, 2014, 01:16:46 PM »
Multi layered sensor sounds tantalizing - perhaps a foveon style sensor but after thinking some time about it ... three layers of 20 MPix with a frame rate of 12 pictures per second or more, would need a Digic 9++ or similar.

What about a multi layer sensor which increases full well capacity allowing for higher dynamic range? I am not shure if it is hardly needed to go above 11 or 12 EV dynamic range. But with the increasing availability of larger OLED displays we will see display solutions which have 14 or 16 bit (EV) dynamic range. If the coming beast will last 5 years in the market (like the current 7D) it might be a good idea to make it future proof.

EOS Bodies / Re: How do reds come out in your 5d3 ?
« on: August 13, 2014, 07:36:52 PM »
I can't help you with the science of it all, but I wouldn't recommend filters with digital.  Canon's sensors tend to be slightly biased toward saturated reds and the way I shoot flowers is to make sure I'm in the RGB Histogram mode for image review.  If I see clipping in any of the channels, particularly on the shadow side, I will increase or reduce the exposure compensation to get a good exposure.  In post, the single best tool I've found to process flower photos is DxO.  It has a "Protect Saturated Colors" tool (see #4 towards the bottom of this tutorial page) specifically for this situation.  The auto mode is a little too aggressive, but the slider works extremely well.  You can do similar things in PS/LR with ACR, but it's not as simple. DxO's tool makes it so easy.

+1 for DxO's quality handling of oversaturated colors.

I would like to give you 4 comparisons between the "original raw" (whatever that means) and the changed colors.

Image 1: RAW untouched by DxO

Image 2: RAW corrected with the "Protect Saturated Colors"-slider - automatically determined by DxO

Image 3: RAW corrected manually by sliding the color temperature from approx. 5200K -> 3200K (This destroys the afternoon light in the green vegetation.) Have seen that I used a similar setting with DPP 2 years ago - 5200K -> 3800K

Image 4: RAW corrected manually by changing the color temperature from 5200K -> 4200K to preserve the "afternoon cast" but reduced the max. intensity of the reds (right toolbar, graph below)

Image 2-4 show good color reproduction on my monitor (non calibrated EIZO S2100) and this species of poppies is almost RED!

EOS Bodies / Re: Mirrorless vs DSLR Camera
« on: August 04, 2014, 04:49:36 AM »
I know the Sony A7R is a hit.  But I haven't seen any professional wedding photographers using this camera on location. Are they still prefer using the DSLR like the Canon 5DM3.......if this camera is light weight and good quality, why don't they use it ?   I myself is a Canon shooter with the 1DX.   Tried the Sony once just find it complicated LOL plus the LCD in the back can't turn off.  It bothers !

Is Mirrorless has faster focusing?

My wedding photography experience is restricted to roughly 10 weddings of friends who asked me to take photographs (with Powershot G2 ("worst case"), 40D and 600D).

If you want to catch precious moments you need a system that is very responsive - in terms of viewfinder, AF, exposure - and which is reliable to do the task right. I do not own the Sony or a similar camera. But extrapolating from my EOS M experience I see theses systems as slow and not well equipped with external controls to react instantanously. Using the EOS M was in the first time like using a mini tablet computer which produces images of stunning quality - IMO the wrong feel for a camera.

I see the Sony 7x or the EOS M as high quality walk around cameras for moderately fast or static subjects where you have the chance to repeat a shot. The main advantage is the very high IQ compared to the size of these cameras if you use compact lenses (no high aperture tele).

Reviews / Re: NIKON Releasing a Medium format DSLR 50MP
« on: August 04, 2014, 04:34:05 AM »
I have always thought that 6x7 Pentax should have jumped into the MFD foray by developing a digital back/camera for their excellent (and affordable) line of 6x7 lenses. Any one else have thoughts on why they chose not to? As far as the Nikon rumors go, don't really care one way or the other, but it sounds like a disaster in the making.

I see two reasons for extremely high prices of 6x7 sensors:
  - pixel defects on the freshly produced chips. Example: If you have a 10%
    probability for a 24x36mm sensor of having severe pixel defects it is
    roughly 50% for a 6x7cm chip
  - the silicon wafers which are used to produce the sensors have circular shape,
    the larger the sensor the larger the wasted area - in comparison to the still
    expensive 24x35mm sensors another 50% effect.

The production cost will at least
   5 times higher (area)
   2 times higher (waste due to pixel defects)
   2 times higher (bad wafer usage)
resulting in 20 times production cost increase.

That might be one reason not to design and produce these large sensors.

This rough estimate excludes effects from larger on-sensor signal lines (signals propagate roughly 0.2 metres per nanosecond) which limits sizes of e.g. CPUs and the related electronics - I know that a sensor isn't a CPU and it uses parallel readout but some problems are similar.

Just my 2ct

I discovered something really cool today. I was shooting some Fracking platforms and noticed how bad the heat shimmer is here during the summer. Unfortunately, a Daytime shot was required and the simmer was making it difficult to use longer lenses to flatten the subject against the sky.


Thanks for sharing your observations!

Years ago I observed that 1/400 second gave me much more detail than 1/30 second exp time - o.k., I had some shimmer showing regions of much detail, some regions blurred but the impression was as sharper image overall. 1/30 second integrated sharp and blurred regions into a mushy overall experience. But I have NOT tried to exaggerate exp time beyond a second.
Focal length was 640mm equiv. - I set my 40D to ISO 1600 to reduce exp time despite ISO 1600 for a 40D is its outer limit quality wise.

Your example shows - IMO - the same detail in both shots but the 30 second shot is undistorted which makes it more attractive. One remark: The left shot seems to be in full sunlight, the right shot doesn't show the bright contrasty light - was that caused by the 30 second exposure or did you have changing light?

Thanks again - Michael

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 32