July 25, 2014, 10:21:03 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 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 22
Lenses / Re: small primes to go with SL1?
« on: March 22, 2013, 10:45:02 AM »
I don't see wide angle primes in pan cake format for EF/EF-S mount because the flange distance doesn't allow very small lenses with high quality. You have to use a retrofocus design which needs negative lenses in front of positive groups and therefore consumes space. A very contrasty, sharp and distortion free lens like a f/4.0 25mm seems possible with perhaps 30mm length. But nothing more.

One existing pancake like lens is the Color Skopar of Voigtlander:
  * NO AF
  * Moderate IQ
  * small size
  * great mechanics
I never used it and I am not interested because I have the old 24mm f/2.8 from
Canon which is a little bit larger but gives me the IQ I need and is made from sturdy
but light plastics. Perhaps that lens is another alternative for the 100D (and should
be cheaply available).

SL II lens collection of voigtlander (except 58mm lens available for EF mount):

A test of the 20mm:

Best  - Michael

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 70D, DIGIC 6 & 18mp Sensors
« on: March 21, 2013, 06:16:08 AM »
If the MP count has not changed then the underlying technology behind the pixels/sensor has not changed. i.e. there will be no DR/noise improvements over the 60D.

Indeed. I do not see why Canon does not want to take advantage of an improved sensor design to venture into higher pixel count territory. It is after all a chance for them to brag.

What if they can't?
What if some n years ago, they reached a point where they couldn't improve any further?

I am shure that canon is able to build revolutionary sensors intellectually and technically ... but they can't bring it to market because of intellectual property reasons (patents etc.).

Compare an EOS 20D (2004) and a some current model: There has been slight progress in IQ compared to the decade before the EOS 20D has been available.

Today's sensors are mostly out-developed and the headroom for improvement is small. Now Sony has found a profound improvement in DR, perhaps by the only available technology at the moment. They protect it by patents and other companies are blocked ... until the other companies find another way to improve sensor DR without offending existing patents.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS-b Images Leak & a New Kit Lens
« on: March 19, 2013, 02:13:09 PM »
Looks a lot more interesting to me than the under performing M series.

Just made this gif, the b is much smaller than the T4i.

A good comparison between both cameras that you provided here.

EOS b opens the opportunity to use 1 or two secondary cameras in
a standard photo backpack - by putting them with a lens attached
into a standard lens compartment. This might be the "intelligent rear
cap" for EF(-S) lenses and makes a really cute combo with the 2.8/40mm!

If I had not invested into a EOS 600D(T3i) it would be interesting ...  if
it has the video zoom mode (3x) with a 100% crop of the sensor center
region (5.6 400mm with 2x TC results in 3840mm focal length!).

Canon General / Re: Which eye do you shoot with?
« on: March 15, 2013, 02:13:05 AM »
Always right eye for view finder
Always left eye open to see what (or who) is going on

Only one severe problem with this procedure:
During a solar eclipse in 1999 I used a 600mm lens WITH FILTER to observe
the sun and its corona. After the total eclipse I have remarked the dangerous
situation for my LEFT eye (open as always) after several seconds and
had a black spot for several weeks (luckily it was off center of my personal
image field!).

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: In-camera noise reduction
« on: March 15, 2013, 02:05:22 AM »
Can anyone explain how the NR settings is affected, according to Camera Setting?

There are (at least) two components of noise reduction:
  1 Noise reduction on the sensor raw data +
  2 noise reduction SETTINGS (besides the sensor raw data)
     in the raw files which keep information for DPP etc.

What I deduced from my cameras (40D, S95):

Ad 1:
Long exposure noise reduction exposures a dark frame (shutter closed) with the
same exposure time as the image exposure (e.g. 15 sec exp time means 30 sec
for one exposure process!). The dark frame image is subtracted from
the image frame to remove noise, especially hot pixels (which show signals without
getting light). This affects the sensor raw data.

Ad 2:
Noise reduction settings are stored according to the chosen ISO (and exposure time?)
in the "settings section" of the raw file. These do not affect the sensor raw data but
the development in DPP (etc.).

I haven't found a menu setting to suppress the noise reduction settings for DPP
in my camera.
My procedure:
  Edit one image to set the noise reduction to zero (NR is usually
  applied at base ISO and degrades percepted sharpness!).
  Copy the recipe to the other images of that series.

Best - Michael

Lenses / Re: Need to test my lens for sharpness
« on: March 11, 2013, 03:11:07 PM »
Examples for subtle differences in sharpness without (upper) and with minor luminance noise reduction of 2 units with DPP are attached. But sharpness isn't perhaps the right word, I would say texture fidelity is the right term: look at the speckled surfaces in the 2nd example and the glass/ceramics insulators of the 1st example.

These differences drove me mad because I thought it was an AF error of the 40D or some loose mechanical element inside lenses. The 40D involves noise red just for ISO 100 despite I set it to high iso noise reduction.

Best - Michael

First image: 40/2.8 STM
Second image: 100/2.8 Macro USM (Non-IS)

Lenses / Re: Need to test my lens for sharpness
« on: March 11, 2013, 02:28:43 AM »
Just checked and i did have high ISO noise reduction turned on and to quote a site "Canon states noise reduction is applied at all ISO speeds when enabled, so we've included samples at every setting."

It might make a difference

I will try to add an example today or tomorrow. Noise reduction is applied regularly at ISO 100 and very seldomly NOT applied at ISO 100 - as I see in DPP. I think that drove me mad to understand the different IQ between different photos under nealy the same conditions, subjects and with the same camera. 40D and 5Dmkii are very similar - I think they were born in the same year ;-)

Lenses / Re: Need to test my lens for sharpness
« on: March 10, 2013, 12:23:38 PM »

I manually focused using live view x10 so the center was looking perfect (subject was some static log pile

One thing i will add and i dont know if it means anything, when i view live view at x10, it looks nice and sharp and i take a picture, then zoom in on that image on the camera to the max which then looks the same as live view at x10, and it doesnt look quite as sharp as the live view.


I observed the same with my 40D which has similar ABSOLUTE sensor resolution (pixels per mm). I explained it to myself ... :

1. There is always some slight noise reduction involved for the image files, shurely NOT for the live view. Additionally the viewing firmware for the files might have some accelerated routines which affect IQ to gain speed (not shure but makes sense).

2. Using DPP I have seen some photos (especially with the 2.0/100 and my macros) which had per pixel sharpness, others which weren't es sharp. It took two years or so to understand that just a minor noise reduction setting reduces the percepted sharpness dramatically (with 10 MP cameras each pixel counts even more!). Now I set the noise reduction to zero - some grain is (for me) still much more acceptable than blurry details.

Perhaps this helps to understand the differences between different series of photos where noise reduction settings affected the percepted IQ in different ways.

Best - Michael

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Spec List [CR2]
« on: March 09, 2013, 01:19:58 PM »
Specification list

Bwahahahahahaha! 32 MP ....thanks for starting my saturday right with a laugh   :P

I spit up some coffee.  This is great, I haven't been watching any funny movies lately.  Thanks I needed that.

36 or 40 MP would be good news and a raw mode which bins the pixels into 18/20 + 9/10 MP to get rid of the patterns of monochromatic light sources. With a back side illuminated sensor the net photosensor size would be the same as that of a lower MP sensor giving you the freedom to choose between different resolutions, high ISO modes and a mode which avoids demosaicing completely.

Lenses / Re: Advice on a telephoto lens for street photography
« on: March 06, 2013, 12:48:04 AM »
Ever considered to choose a 2.0/100 ?

It's an almost boring lens in terms of pure specs: No IS, no red ring but: it is short, a little bit longer than the 1.4 50mm and hence very unobtrusive. IQ is very good from f/2 on: high contrast, very good texture rendering. Just sharpness increases if you stop down a little. AF/USM is very fast.

Just my 2ct - Best, Michael

I would shoot an earthrise from the moon.

That would be a great opportunity to shoot that great film. But I think there is no way to book flights to the moon on the fly - just have seen a lot of movie stuff from those great times 1969 till 1972/3 where the Apollo program was very prominent!

Lenses / Re: Canon 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS II Leaked!!
« on: March 02, 2013, 04:34:47 AM »
1. It would be nice to have the word "faked" in the title - "leaked" is at least misleading ...
2. It's a simple (and untrustworthy) fake because it is basically a 2.8 70-200 II. A 100-400 dual ring zoom will have totally different dimensions and the 1.2 m minimum focusing distance doesn't make sense for 400mm focal length - you won't get a real image.
3. With 300 $/€ lenses a faked leak is o.k., but with 1000 or 2000 bucks lenses it might hurt ... whose who decided for a 100-400 mark I or a 5.6 400mm prime.

This is irrefutable.


Cos I finally gave in and bought a new 100-400 today.


Your topic is misleading but ... I understand (hopefully) what you meant: Just the moment you gave up waiting on a new 100-400 and bought a version I Canon will release the Mark II.

I was in the same situation one year ago and bought a 5.6 400 waiting for the release of a Mark II version of that lens with IS but ... it is still not available and will cost (my estimate) roughly 3000 EUR / $ and the same will happen with the 100-400.

I try to learn to be happy with what I have. If I remember the days I made slides I had to wait 2 weeks for development (Kodachrome) and 36 exposures where enough for 2 weeks - digital has simplified the TECHNICAL PROCESS of photographing dramatically! Quality of APS-C is near FF with slide films if not better ...

Enjoy what you have - nearly all the lenses are good enough for great photographs ...

Lenses / Re: Why aren't zoom lenses faster than 2.8?
« on: February 24, 2013, 01:55:21 AM »
Is it a business decision (ie dont want to canabalize the prime market) or a technical limitation (physically can't do it with current tech) or cost issue (technical difficulties would require that the lens be priced too high for target market)?

There are hard physics facts which limit the chance to use well known designs to built such a lens.

Look at the cut views of e.g. a 2.8 70-200 II (see http://cweb.canon.jp/ef/lineup/tele-zoom/ef70-200-f28l-is-ii/img/spec/lens-construction.png ). A f/2.0 lens should have a sqrt(2) larger diameter: scale the diameter AND THE THICKNESS of each lens by a factor of 1.41 - the tight spacing between the lenses doesn't allow that procedure to get a 2.0 lens.

Canon and all the other lens producers use exotic materials like high refractive index glass or lenses with special dispersion properties in their premium lenses. There is no headroom to change glass types. Let's dream about a glass type which has a refractive index of 2.5 or 3 without any dispersion and a super coating which increases the transmission to 99.9 %!

Than you have to recalculate the whole design including the 4, 5 or 6 lens groups which are positioned during zooming! This might introduce another 5 or 10 lenses to achieve good IQ and than you will loose more light due to reflections on the lenses ...

There are no physics killer facts to built a e.g. f/2.0 70-200 but physics will reduce IQ and/or increase massively the size (not only front element diameter but also the length). If you demand the IQ of the 2.8 70-200 II you will pay sth. between 50000 and 200000 $/€ for that lens - if it is possible to get such a high IQ. And than your third point factors in ...

Lenses / Re: Are you using a filter on your 40mm
« on: February 18, 2013, 01:16:02 AM »
I always use filters on my lenses but do not use front lens caps.

(1) I don't have to be supercareful if dust, dirt, water hits the front of the lens which happens always.
(2) A planar optical element is easily cleaned - here with cotton clothing or sth. other which is available.
(3) If the front gets a hit by a hard object there is a chance that the filter is smashed but the front element of the lens survices.
(4) In winter or during rain I like to put the camera under my coat. I had one incident when a plastic part of the coat has destroyed the consistency of the multi coating of a filter.

My experience with the 10-22: See point (4) above. The filter is now on my 5.6/400 where it doesn't matter but on the 10-22 the damaged coating was visible in contralight so I replaced the filter and now I use front lens caps on that lens. Replacing the filter was ~50€, a replacement of the front element of the 10-22 would have been sth. around 300 € (estimated) - it is an aspherical lens.

Filters used: B&W MRC 010

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 22