« on: November 22, 2014, 12:26:51 PM »
If you have the lens laying around, it is fun to do it. If you have to buy the lens, think twice. EOS-M is not made for manual focusing under the sun.
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.
+10, Excellent explanationI read a comment or a post recently which inferred that a 7D II file shot as a jpg at one of the smaller sizes was inherently cleaner than a larger file at similar settings (ISO etc).
Is there any truth to that statement? If this is crazy talk just say so.
I bring this up because I own a 7D and if someone can tell me that a Medium Jpg is 10x cleaner than a Large or Raw ... I'm locking those settings in today. Moreover, is that the case with all cameras? Is this phenomenon a jpg exclusive or is it the same with Raw? I mean, I have printed like 40 files of size 8x10 and nothing bigger. So if I can get cleaner images that will print at that size amazing ... Awesome..
Why isn't this 'feature' advertised?
I think that saying "smaller files" is the reason the images are better is wrong and misleading. The size of the file really has nothing to do with it. JPEG files are smaller than RAW files, even at full size image dimensions, however RAW files are generally superior, often far superior, in terms of IQ.
It isn't the file size that matters. It is the image dimensions, and more specifically the relative image dimensions, that matters. By relative, I mean in relation to the original image size. A smaller image, in terms of dimensions, generated from the same sensor, means that a greater quantity of information was "oversampled" to produce a lesser quantity of better quality information.
When you take a large image, say a 20mp image, an downsample it, you are taking a lot of original source data, averaging it together and packing it into a smaller spatial area. Averaging many pixels into fewer pixels reduces noise, by the square root of the number of pixels averaged. Downsample an image to 1/4 the original area, and you reduce noise by a factor of two (2x2 pixels averaged into one pixel, SQRT(4) = 2.) Downsampling also has the effect of improving acutance, which improves sharpness, which is a big factor in terms of what we perceive as image quality.
So, no, smaller files does not mean better IQ. Smaller images, in terms of spatial area, often DOES mean better IQ. You can achieve smaller images in a few ways. Obviously you can downsample larger images. You could take a RAW image, process it to optimum quality, then export it as a downsampled JPEG. The results are likely to be superior to a small-sized OOC JPEG every time. You can also use a lower resolution sensor with bigger pixels, however depending on exactly how the sensor is designed, that may or may not actually improve IQ as much as downsampling a higher resolution image (i.e. use and strength of AA filter, or lack of an AA filter entirely, could dictate whether a lower resolution sensor is better than downsampling images from a higher resolution sensor.)
Which 25mm optical view finder do you have and where one can buy it.
What it will probably have:Another item on the wish list: ability to disable and enable the touch screen easily( via a button??) with the AF selection on all the time.
20.2 MP, from the 7D mk II
Digic 6 processor
1080p video at 60p, no aliasing as 7D mk II
Clean HDMI out with audio/timecode
3" touch screen
-I would really love such a small stills and video workhorse but only if the video aliasing part is true in that it's similar to the 7D mk II not the 70D. Don't screw video with your damn aliasing Canon, the A5100/6000 all got rid of it and have similar video to the 7D mk II and 5D mk III, this one should have it too considering the competition.
The SL1 and the 7D have so little in common that the target audience is different. If you release a mirrorless that's comparable to the what the other user was looking for (X-T1 like controls, 70D autofocus, swivel screen, video features), then it's basically the same as a 70D for around the same price or less, then it could potentially confuse the buyer.It will not be confusing. It become a matter of choice. If people spend $1500 to $2000 for a camera body, they should know exactly what they want.
I don't want the M to be any bigger.You can always get the 90EX. It is so small that you do not even know that it is in your pocket.
Yes the AF needs big-time improving.
But I have a beef with those who post on this board and yammer on and on about the need for a viewfinder.
I was there...until I bought an M.
Shooting without a viewfinder is simply different...not necessarily better or worse...and after a ten-day family vacation where nearly all of my images were obtained with the M (and its 11-22mm lens, the M's killer app), I became quite familiar with its eccentricities...and I was hooked! And yes I still love traditional DSLRs (and their viewfinders).
What is WAYYYYYYY more important to this vacation/travel/street shooter...is (even a tiny) on-board flash.
I own the 270 flash...but don't always have it with me. Daylight vacation people shots BEG for the onboard flash...and the fact that my 40D has the onboard flash is one reason that it still gets used.
But I suspect that those who demand a viewfinder etc. really haven't used the M.
Even with the shortcomings of the existing M. It has already replaced my DSLR as a travelling camera. Canon can make a much better M and give customer a choice. People that prefer the DSLR will still buy the DSLR. People prefer a smaller, lighter camera and have no need for DSLR will by the better M. Has anybody ever have a concern about SL1 will cut into the sales of 7DI hope it has the size and controls of the Fuji X-T1, has the 7D2 sensor, a swivel screen, and lots of videocentric features.
I don't think it will be that drasticallly different from what is out now, they would be in fear of cannibalizing their DSLR sales.
I personally hate adapter solutions, I'd go for the EF-M! Should be a great bang for the buck.I agree with you. The reasons that I use the Elmar 90/4.0 on my trip are
Dear Rocky,Taken with 90/4.0 Elmar at f8.0. from the other side of the valley. Image was cropped (not down sized) to fit the requirement of CR.
Thanks for sharing your experience. I'm very curious to see your work with your Elmar lens. It would be nice if you can share a few shots.
About 11-22, I recommend it. It's a good, portable, and affordable lens. I bought it from Vistek with a price match in late July! It was at my door step in TX within a week.
We had a discussion about a legacy 100-135mm lens for EOS-M. There, a few valuable lenses were mentioned; the prices were close to $300 for those glasses. This is close to the native ef-m zoom or a good (second hand/new) EF portrait lens. What's your opinion about these?Have you looked into the 90mm f4.0 Elmar( Leica)? It is small ( not light weight). Its picture quality beats the 22/2.0. It is around $200 to $300 depends on the condition. It can be use wide opened and still as sharp as stopped down. If you want to spend upward of $500 you can have the 90mm f 2.8 Elmar.
-Ef 85 f/1.8 + Canon adapter
-Legacy 135mm f2.8/f2.5 + 3rd Party adapter
Thanks for sharing your experience! It's interesting - sunlight hitting the screen has never been an issue for me, maybe because I tend to shoot in the evening!Have you tried to install ML with a SLOWER SD card?? I have the same trouble with the 18-55 zoom with ML on a class 10 SD card. After I install the ML on a older Class4 card, the problem went away.
Also worth noting, I had ML installed but I had to remove it when I bought the 11-22mm as it caused the camera to crash with this combo. I don't know why. It wouldn't let me take a picture when I pressed the shutter. When I switched memory cards to one without ML it worked fine.
I was thinking of taking only my EOS M on my next trip too and see how it goes!