December 21, 2014, 10:58:22 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 - Rocky

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 44
1
EOS Bodies / Re: A Real EOS M Replacement Coming Soon? [CR1]
« on: Today at 11:33:37 AM »
The Rumor may have some truth behind it. AT Amazon Japan, The EOS-M2 with 22/2.0 and the 16-55 zoom is at about US$465 and Canon gives almost US$60 rebate.
I doubt that Canon will be in the FF mirrorless market in the foreseeable future. It will be to much capital investment, ( all new lenses, "buying" pattern from other companies, etc ) even for Canon.

2
EOS Bodies / Re: Built in adapter?
« on: Today at 11:10:22 AM »
Lens flange can be reduced to make a slimmer body. We still have the lens stick out. Therefore a slim body does not really makes the package smaller. On the other hand a shorter flange will give more freedom to the lens designer, especially for the wide angle lenses The EF and the EF_S lens is a good example. But we cannot over stress the advantage of the shorter flange either. The FF Leica M9 and the ME have a lens flange of 27.7mm. both need the micro lenses to be offset to get a more even exposure at the corner. After that, Leica have the software to give it a further improvement. Another interesting observation.the diagonal measurement of M9 and ME to the flange distance to  is 1.57 while the EOS-M is 1.61. Is there a " magic number " somewhere??

3
Photography Technique / Re: What can old-school photogs do better (or not)?
« on: December 13, 2014, 02:04:25 PM »
 I am a very serious amateur in the old film days and shoots B/W, color negative and slides, all in 35mm format. The difference between now and Then is MONEY.
1. A very good camera in these days ( 60's) may cost a month's wage. Now camera's are relative cheap.
2. Every short costs money. Therefore every shot needed to be well composed with accurate exposure, especially for sides.
3. NO AF, therefore we learn to focus fast or relies on DOF.
4. Exposure bracketing and focus bracketing are only used in rare situations.
5. If I can make a 20 X16 print or project the slide to a 60" screen with "good" sharpness, I am extremely happy

Now with digital camera, I tend to be more trigger happy.
1. CF cards are cheap and reusable. "Shoot first and ask questions later" Get the picture is more important than anything else.
2. DSLR and AF lenses are not made MF. Selectable area for focusing is a great tool
2. Exposure bracketing, AF bracketing etc. becomes a second nature.
3. There is Photoshop to come to the rescue. cropping, minor lighting and color adjustment etc.
4. We all tend to be pixel peeper, one way or the other and start to debate the sharpness of the lenses. We are effectively looking at a slide projected to a smooth 60" screen from 15 inches away. That is WAY overkilled.

I have to admit that I am less careful than the old film days.

4
Lenses / Re: Question Sir/ Madam.
« on: December 10, 2014, 05:53:17 PM »
On the other hand, why not an EF-S 24mm F2.0 pancake, rather than F2.8 ? More interesting, for those (like me) who still have APS-C format.

The lens flange distance for both EF and EF-S mount are 44mm. When you look at any EF lens. The lense mount sticks out 5mm into the flange. Therefore only 39mm is allowed between the sensor and the distance of the last optical element. Therefore the 40 f2.8 EF is already semi -retrofocus design. And Cannon has done a good job in making it into a pancake by keeping it at f2.8.
For EF-S, with a smaller mirror, the last optical element gets another 3.5 mm into the camera body. That make it 35.5 mm between the last optical elemnt and the sensor. Canon has alread done an excellent job  to make the EF-S 24/2.8 into a pancake. Anything faster than that will not be a pancake.
As to answer Surapon's question, 24mm EF lens must be a retrofocus design. therefore it is hard to be a pancake. As a foot note, Voigtlander makes a 20/3.5 that is almost a pancake.  The design diagram shows that it is retrofocus design. they have done a super  job to keep it small. One of their trick is to keep it at 3.5 instead of 2.8 or faster.

5
EOS Bodies / Re: Petapixel: Canon Full Frame Mirrorless
« on: December 06, 2014, 12:59:00 PM »

Based on that, I think it's safe to say that the entire EF-M format is an evolutionary dead end, and that there's basically no advantage to Canon ever building a full-frame mirrorless camera.
I respectfully disagree. Canon may be using EOS-M as a learning tool for the mirrorless. It is doing well in the Asian market. There is no reason why Canon cannot have a new mount for the FF mirrorless. Just remember that Canon was in competition with Leica in the film range finder camera until the late 60's. In fact 18mm lens flange is too short to do a good job for FF digital camera. Sensor like to have as close to vertical light ray angle as possible. Even the Leica  M9 or ME with a lens flange of 28mm still needs the microlens to be offset to get a more even exposure. After that they still needs software correction.

Remember all the prior commentary that EF-S is the cash cow for Canon?  If mirrorless is the inevitable future, perhaps the EF-M is the future cash cow mount for Canon.  I wouldn't write it off just yet.

The question is -- if a new standalone FF mirrorless mount is also coming -- how well will Canon support all four mounts during the 'great industry migration to mirrorless'?  Given how poorly they've supported EF-M since it's launch (again: only two Canon EF-M lenses are for sale at B&H right now), I have concerns that Canon will water down any transition period with adapters until they have to deliver lenses or lost customers.

- A
The EOM-M and Canon FF mirrorless are two totally different situation from my point of view. The EOS_M is a test case for Canon. Canon built it small and relative light. Therefore a smaller lens mount. It will fit into the pocket and the purse.  It was never mean to be a full system camera. The real mistake that Canon made are the slow AF in the original EOS-M, did not import the 11-22mm lens and the M2 to the US.
If  Canon ever get into the FF mirrorless, it will be a serious system camera. It should have everything plus the kitchen sink with a much larger body and lens mount.
Canon has done multiple mounts on the same body before. On its rangefinder film camera in the 60's, it has both the standard L39 screw mount for its regular lenses  and the bayonet mount for its 50mm f0.95 lens only.

6
EOS Bodies / Re: Petapixel: Canon Full Frame Mirrorless
« on: December 05, 2014, 07:44:49 PM »

Based on that, I think it's safe to say that the entire EF-M format is an evolutionary dead end, and that there's basically no advantage to Canon ever building a full-frame mirrorless camera.
I respectfully disagree. Canon may be using EOS-M as a learning tool for the mirrorless. It is doing well in the Asian market. There is no reason why Canon cannot have a new mount for the FF mirrorless. Just remember that Canon was in competition with Leica in the film range finder camera until the late 60's. In fact 18mm lens flange is too short to do a good job for FF digital camera. Sensor like to have as close to vertical light ray angle as possible. Even the Leica  M9 or ME with a lens flange of 28mm still needs the microlens to be offset to get a more even exposure. After that they still needs software correction.

7
EOS Bodies / Re: Petapixel: Canon Full Frame Mirrorless
« on: December 04, 2014, 07:15:05 PM »
This is the part where I get lost.  Could the EF-M mount / flange distance / diameter actually support a FF sensor?

Canon has said clearly no. Don't have the link right now, but you can google the interview with a canon exec, i believe it was masaso maeda. It has also been discussed in cr forum a number of times in different threads.

There is no denying, that at the end of the day there will be 3 canon mounts left:
1. ef-m
2. ef-? for ff mirrorless (short flange distance) up to around 100mm focal lengths
3. ef for focal lentghs from about 100mm or 135mm and up - with adapter for mirrorless

Only if you are delusional and completely ignore where the vast majority of the sales, and income, actually come from, EF-s.

You have such blinkers on that you don't see anything but getting rid of 'mirrorslapers' as the answer to any and every question, 'what would you like for dinner?', 'Get ride of mirrorslappers.' 'What time is sunrise?', 'I need a mirrorless.'

Getting rid of the mirror is not the answer to everything, it isn't even the answer to every photography question and there is some doubt that it ever will be.

Some markets may never adopt mirrorless cameras, other emerging markets may never embrace SLR's to the extent they are in the USA. It seems more variation to suit different market is the future,not one or the other.

Steve Jobs said the best iPod Apple ever made was the iPhone, they were happy to cannibalize their own product line because the new model made more per unit, the functionality was dramatically increased but the iPhone included all the functionality and form factor as the iPod Touch. Subsequently people have demanded bigger phones, not smaller. So, what additional functionality does a mirrorless offer other than an EVF and size? Because the SLi is pretty small and people seem to want bigger anyway as can be evidenced by the increase in size of the newer mirrorless models; and including the functionality of the EVF in a hybrid OVF seems eminently doable, as per the X100T.

EF-m is comparatively new, any mirrorless form factor is going to use that mount, it is a clear indication that Canon see their mirrorless involvement to be squarely set in the APS sensor size, and with sensor improvements we will be achieving current 135 format IQ from APS sensors in a few years.

EF-s is the current cash cow and won't be abandoned because there is no need to until such time, if it ever comes, that EF-m completely takes over from EF-s, Canon did a very smart thing in hedging their bets there!

EF is Canon's legacy, it will be the core part of their camera imaging system until such time as entirely different tech is commonplace and the resolution is not up to the job and people are convinced they need much more in the way of capability, which given the current capabilities and camera tech maturity would seem to me to be a very hard sell.
Well said.

8
EOS Bodies / Re: Petapixel: Canon Full Frame Mirrorless
« on: December 04, 2014, 02:10:16 AM »
Small is not always desired...

EF 400mm f2.8L IS II
EF 2.0X II Extender
Voltrox EF to M Adapter
EOS M
That is an EXTREME case. May I ask how many of you have put the EOS-M with 22mm lens in your own pocket or your wife's purse? That is what the EOS-M is for. If it is done right, we can still put a FF mirrorless with a 35mm lens in the wind breaker jacket easily.

9
EOS Bodies / Re: Petapixel: Canon Full Frame Mirrorless
« on: December 03, 2014, 07:10:23 PM »
What is a Rangefinder Mirrorless Camera?  That sounds pretty Retro, and limited production is not Canons thing, particularly in a falling market.
 
I'd be very happy with a FF mirrorless body that used existing lenses, but I'd just ignore one that needed new lenses.  Using a adaptor with my EF lenses would be out of consideration.
That is Leica M9 or ME. It is a mechanical monster. The gearing in the lens and the linkage in the camera alone will need to be precision mechining ( read it as expensive). To be fair, Canon was in that business untill the 1960's. It's camera is only 10 to 15% cheaper than similar Leica at that time.

10
EOS-M / Re: Adapters + legacy lenses on the EOS M: any advice?
« 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.

11
EOS-M / Re: Tele lens for EOS M?
« on: November 22, 2014, 12:21:11 PM »
It is fun to experiment with other lens via adapter on the EOS-M. But in actual shooting, especially under the sun, the manual focusing is no fun. The EOS-M is not built for that situation. The only way to do it is with a LCD hood with magnifier. Then it will make the EOS-M very big. My suggestion is if you have the lens laying around, you may try it. But if you need to go out to buy the lens(especially the good and expensive one), you should think twice.

12
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Is IQ better with smaller files?
« on: November 18, 2014, 01:16:52 PM »
I 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.)
+10, Excellent explanation

13
EOS-M / Re: EOS-M in Turkey
« on: November 17, 2014, 08:05:10 PM »
]

Which 25mm optical view finder do you have and where one can buy it.
Thanks
JD

If you are going to buy it you should buy the 35mm viewfinder. I just happened to have a 25mm view finder laying around
https://www.cameraquest.com/inventor.htm

14
Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: November 17, 2014, 06:51:03 PM »
Just for kicks

15
EOS Bodies / Re: A Real EOS M Replacement Coming Soon? [CR1]
« on: November 17, 2014, 12:52:11 PM »
What it will probably have:

20.2 MP, from the 7D mk II
DPAF
5 fps
Digic 6 processor
1080p video at 60p, no aliasing as 7D mk II
Clean HDMI out with audio/timecode
An EVF
3" touch screen
Intervalometer
Wifi

-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.
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.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 44