November 28, 2014, 10:05:44 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 ... 28
Lenses / Re: Question about Canon Lens Quality, Sir
« on: January 09, 2014, 09:08:17 AM »
I am too impressed with the quality of that "kit lens". I see two reasons why it has very good percepted sharpness:
(1) For a mirrorless system you can place the last lens where you need it. Most SLR wide angle (zoom) lenses are strong retrofocus constructions to keep the mirror area clear. Having more freedom in lens element placement gives you more options for a good overall correction of aberrations.
(2) A lot of aberration correction is done in camera or used as a preset for e.g. DPP. Perhaps this lens was developed with post processing in mind to correct aberrations.

Just my 2ct. Best - Michael

Interesting lens - which has overall a similar construction like the Zeiss OTUS - Retrofocus like basic construction, an aspheric last element and the use of 4 SLD lenses in a 50mm (Zeiss has 6 lenses of different glass types with anomalous partial dispersion).

I expect a pricing near 1000 $/EUR, a lens sharpness which is close to the OTUS and the main difference between them will be the general rendering of images.

Very interesting lens!

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Aftermarket upgrading of cameras?
« on: January 04, 2014, 09:16:12 AM »
I suppose it maks sense that everything is soldered onto the board, to deter "improvements" by people.  [...]

That's not the (primary) reason to solder things on a board. The primary reason is that only soldering chips on highly optimized boards allows for the large bandwidths needed for fast signal processing. To read out 10 million pixels 6.5 times a second means very high data throughput for ANALOG signals from the sensor to the analog to digital converters.

Not really.  You can easily handle high-speed data with socketed chips.  Just look at the CPUs in a modern desktop computer.  And the data rate inside a DSLR isn't really all that high.  At 14 bits per pixel, using the numbers, you're only talking about 910 megabits per second—less than twice the maximum data rate for USB 2.0—and that's if you read the entire sensor's output serially through a single data line (which AFAIK none of the high-MP sensors do).  If you break the data up across several parallel data channels... well, it isn't a trivial amount of data, but it pales compared with the video RAM used in a modern GPU—at least three orders of magnitude slower, IIRC.

No, the primary reason for soldering everything is reliability.  Socketed chips have a tendency to work themselves loose, and thus would be problematic in something as mobile as a DSLR.  As far as electronics reliability goes, a good goal is to eliminate as many connectors as possible, and to move as much as possible to a single-board design.  Every socketed chip is just waiting for a chance to work itself loose and cause a device to stop working.  Therefore, sockets and other connectors are worth avoiding unless there's a really compelling reason to use them (e.g. using connectors for flash storage so that you can move the content itself from device to device).

For computers you are right, but I spoke about ANALOG signals with high bandwidth and precision.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon abandoned EOS M?
« on: January 04, 2014, 09:08:57 AM »
Considering the enormous price drop, the non-release of EF-M 11-22 in the USA, and EF-M 22mm discontinued in BH site, it seems to me that the EOS-M system will be abandoned soon. What do you think?

I heard some information that Canon is switching more and more to robotic assembly of cameras - perhaps they proceed with that process to be much more flexible in the future.

Perhaps Canon company tries to implement production technologies to be flexible in terms of camera variations and scale of production before it tries the next "adventure" with a new model? The original EOS M suffered from the combination of a high price and not enough "features" for it's price. So it might be a good idea to add an EVF with "tiny" effort just by reprogramming the production line ...

For me, I like the existing EOS M with the standard zoom and it has replaced my S95. It is not as pocketable, but IQ is much better and it allows me to use my trusted FD 1.4 50mm S.S.C. lens.

EDIT: So I am shure that Canon will develop the EOS M line furthermore but I do not expect an EF-M 2.8 300mm - I see room for compact EF-M lenses between 10 and 150mm which harmonize with the small footprint of the EOS M. E.g. a compact EF-M 2.8 10mm with very good IQ would be a dream!


I'm hoping Canon just makes a third mount type that takes both EF lenses and allows lenses that sink 10-20mm into the body. You could have a 20mm pancake that only sticks out of the body far enough to have a switch and a focus ring.

Excellent point ... and would be consistent with a "minimized equipment for maximized purpuses concept". The larger flange distance of the original EF mount would help for a better grip, a larger battery and a ring dialer (like Powershot S95 ...-models). It wouldn't be as compact as a EOS M with the 2.0 22mm but has it's advantages for really good wide angles (and standard lenses).
And if they use an "EF mount" with smaller flange distance and a 10mm extension tube as standard part ... we would be open to use the whole world of FF lenses via adaptors.

the nexus 5 is worst than my lumia 1020 taking shots at any iso and the lumia 1020 is good considering it's a phone, but it isnt any better than a dslr like a canon 60D; post some samples

Speaking about photos without seeing them is like seeing a good meal without tasting it!

As mentioned above: Noise reduction (algorithms) can do a lot for noisy images. I tried a lot with the DxO Software (v9) before I bought it. It reduces noise very effectively with it's PRIME feature and does that nearly without any loss of detail and gives me a 2 or 3 stop advantage in terms of noise control/high ISO/recovering shadows. Perhaps some handys have PRIME included ... why not?

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Aftermarket upgrading of cameras?
« on: January 02, 2014, 11:45:42 AM »
I suppose it maks sense that everything is soldered onto the board, to deter "improvements" by people.  [...]

That's not the (primary) reason to solder things on a board. The primary reason is that only soldering chips on highly optimized boards allows for the large bandwidths needed for fast signal processing. To read out 10 million pixels 6.5 times a second means very high data throughput for ANALOG signals from the sensor to the analog to digital converters.

IMO companies aren't interested in exchanging the sensor/ADC/processor group in the camera because it is 50 or 70 % of the production cost. Think about changing the motor, the gear and the wheel subgroups of your car including a new dashboard which contains the automotive computer/electronics.

I am too dreaming of upgrading my 40D cameras to a newer sensor/ADC/processor - e.g. 10 MPix with video capabilities or a monochrome sensor module with 18 MPix. And I would pay 600 EUR/$ for such an upgrade because the haptics of the 40D is great - a tool which is accepted by my hands and brain - the 600D or EOS M are awful in this discipline but IQ (photo and video) is very good so I live with the compromise to use 4 bodies instead of 2.

Best - Michael

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Will vintage lenses help me find the way?
« on: January 02, 2014, 08:53:32 AM »
I fiddled around with a Pentacon f/2.8 29mm lens (via M42 adaptor) - quality improved above f/8 but was never satisfying. After getting a second hand f/2.8 24 EF for 150 bucks in a local store in mint condition I had a lens which was contrasty and sharp from f/2.8 on. I used it a lot on my 20D and 40D.
Last month I checked my old FD lenses on the EOS M and was frustrated: Except the f/1.4 50 S.S.C. (chrome ring) and the f/3.5 50mm macro lenses like the 1.8 85, 3.5 135mm, 2.5 135mm, 4.0 200mm, 4.0 300mm are vastly inferior compared to a EF 2.0 100mm or the EF 4.0 70-200mm L (non-IS).

So I decided to stay with the current EF lenses I have - and will use vintage lenses for "special effects". The 1.4 50mm S.S.C. will have it's place but - as someone remarked in this thread - the AF option is a great one and I am missing it really.

About my lens choice: In 1990, during a visit at photokina, cologne, I fell in love with the compact and fast EF 2.0 100mm: If I will ever have the money, the time and enough ideas to do photography as hobby or better, as passion I would like to have a prime set with 25(24), 50(49), 100, 200, 400mm focal lenghts. From my footer you can see that I am on the way - and if I ever will go to FF, I will keep the EF 2.8 24mm, the two EF 100mm lenses and the EF 5.6 400, sell the rest (hopefully) and buy a EF 1.4 50mm IS lens. Just the excellent EF 4.0 70-200 will stay.

From the price perspective I think it would be interesting to you to consider the 2.0 100 as a light tele prime which is one of the best of it's bread. If you need a red ring, buy metal paint, tape and a brush and make one!

Lenses / Re: Making a perfectly sharp lens corner to corner idea
« on: December 31, 2013, 05:08:41 AM »
I was thinking that a FF lens used on crop camera is sharper in the corners because it only sees the centre of the lens.
The lens designers could make a lens that has a much larger image circle (maybe 1.5x the size of FF), this would make the lens' corners sharp at full aperture on a FF camera.

The drawbacks that I see would be the size (thickness and weight) of the lens, but ignoring that why is this approach not taken?
See the new Zeiss Otus 55 f/1.4 lens.  Most people believe that's exactly what they did with this FF design.

IMO your comment about the OTUS is partially right. I am shure that Zeiss did NOT have calculad a MF lens but they just used the Distagon formula which applies a negative front lens(or group) to create a retrofocus design. This allows a longer light path through the lens and gives additional opportunities to correct aberrations.

Usually the Distagon "fprmula" is a retrofocus design used to keep the mirror area clear from lenses to avoid any "conflict".  A MF wide angle for a (D)SLR needs the same construction but for different reasons.

The main idea behind the OTUS construction is (again IMHO):
  * use a retrofocus design to get a longer light path which can be influenced and
  * use different special glasses (i read sth. about 6 different special glass types!)
     which can be placed in the longer light path due to the retrofocus design.

To the OP:
A good idea might be to use a MACRO LENS for MF with an adaptor on a FF camera - macro lenses are usually much better in terms of correction than other lenses and give higher resolutions than their "standard" counterparts. As others said: MF lenses have lower spatial resolutions for a larger image circle - the magnificaion in postprocessing is smaller to gain the same "final product size" so there is (was?) an advantage of MF.

Lenses / Re: Patent: 16-120mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM
« on: December 29, 2013, 09:22:33 AM »
16-120 sounds interesting but I am more interested in
(1) a f/4.0 zoom, e.g. 15-75mm with GREAT IQ and a
(2) f/2.0 40mm compact lens (with telephoto construction to minimize size) with GREAT IQ, IS and a good close focus capability (1:4 would be sufficient for most purposes).

But that's just my "needs" ...

Lenses / Re: EF 400mm f/5.6L IS on the Way?
« on: December 28, 2013, 08:02:33 PM »

The 400F5.6 came out in May of 1993. In the last 21 years there have been great advances in the accuracy of machining. What we took for excellence twenty years ago is now commonplace. The advances in image quality of the big whites from series 1 to series 2 implies advances in optics, both in manufacture and computer aided design. The 400F5.6 was sharp for its time, but I would expect a new version to be much better as it should be both mechanically and optically superior.
Much better mechanically? Much better optically? I am not shure. Better optically: Yes. Better mechanically: Don't think. I reuse my 1.4 50mm S.S.C. with the EOS M and it is a very good lens optically but mechanically a dream compared to "modern" lenses.

Accuracy of machining is one thing - but quality control on a 7 lens optics is much easier than controling 12 or 15 lenses. If QC at Canon is o.k. the advances of machining aren't relevant.
And I am shure that computer aided design is standard since the late 1970s so the 5.6 400 for shure is a product of a computer optimized design.

The main cause of sharpness losses I observe with my tele lenses is due atmospheric effects - the lens is sharp like my 2.0 100 (one of the "sharpest" lenses) or the 2.8 100 macro (USM, non-IS).

EOS-M / Re: useability of FD lens on EOS M
« on: December 22, 2013, 03:46:55 PM »
I have a simple non-chipped adaptor for 40 Euro. Some experiences:

- Using manual is a pain because the exposure simulation doesn't work. With Av mode everything is o.k.
- Manual focus is easy with 5x or 10x magnification but not for moving subjects. Just focusing via the excellent display is possible (by focusing back and forth and minimizing the intervals).
- Quality of the old lenses is mediocre compared to the new lenses I use on the 600D (3.5 50 macro, 4.0 17, 2.5 135, 4.0 200). Just the 1.4 50 mm chrome ring is an exception. I am really impressed by the clarity of the images. See the example below. The center strip (2nd image in my post) is a 100% view:

Canon General / Re: Renaming and storing photos
« on: December 22, 2013, 03:34:58 PM »
I do not like to have identical file names so I use a naming scheme like this one:


Red are the original parts of the file name, 40d is the camera type and the cipher 1 is the first of my two 40Ds. The 00 prefix allows for unique names of the next 990000 shots.

Renaming is done with irfanview which lets you choose the files to rename in a batch job. The black part of the previous exampes is inserted by irfanview.
But try this feature with a copy of not so important files before you do the renaming of important data.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sony has 54MP FF sensor next in line
« on: December 15, 2013, 06:13:48 AM »
54 MP is way too much for me ... imagine the RAW file size ... 24 MP is plenty good for me.

IMO, a large MPixel count is not the problem but the Firmware which will let you choose some reduced resolution modes.

54 / 4 = 13.5 full color megapixel ... in mRAW giving you real 14 bit per channel color depth ...!

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: A 40mm f/0.85 for Your EOS-M?
« on: December 15, 2013, 06:08:04 AM »
Wow.  The concept is cool, but how many people in the world are going to buy a two thousand dollar lens to mount on >$300 camera?

Basically you are right, it will be a few people.

But if that lens allows a new perspective/way of expression ... why not? I mount a 1400 Euro lens on a 350 Euro camera (EF 5.6 400 on 600D) which allow to do some tele photography / video (landscape/nature, where the 7D AF system is not necessary).

Think about video in low light in tight environments ...

Not that I am interested to much in that lens - if I use a high aperture lens I would like to have a great AF and perhaps IS to extend the range of use into near darkness.

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 28