January 25, 2015, 05:19:52 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] 4 5 ... 46
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.

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

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.

If you are going to buy it you should buy the 35mm viewfinder. I just happened to have a 25mm view finder laying around

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

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
5 fps
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.
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.

EOS Bodies / Re: A Real EOS M Replacement Coming Soon? [CR1]
« on: November 17, 2014, 12:38:58 PM »
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.

EOS Bodies / Re: A Real EOS M Replacement Coming Soon? [CR1]
« on: November 17, 2014, 11:42:32 AM »
I don't want the M to be any bigger.

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.
You can always get the 90EX. It is so small that you do not even know that it is in your pocket.

EOS Bodies / Re: A Real EOS M Replacement Coming Soon? [CR1]
« on: November 17, 2014, 11:37:10 AM »
I 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.
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 7D ???

EOS-M / Re: Tele lens for EOS M?
« on: November 16, 2014, 10:24:23 AM »
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
: 1, I know how good the lens is. 2. I have owned it for over 45 years.  3. I want to try out in a real trip rather than playing around at home.  5. I am not a fan of long lens 5. I try to keep the bag small.
I will still bring it on my next trip just in case.

EOS-M / Re: EOS-M in Turkey
« on: November 15, 2014, 09:09:20 PM »
Dear Rocky,
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.
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.

EOS-M / Re: Tele lens for EOS M?
« on: November 13, 2014, 11:56:57 AM »
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? 

-Ef-m 55-200
-Ef 85 f/1.8 + Canon adapter
-Legacy 135mm f2.8/f2.5 + 3rd Party adapter
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.

EOS-M / Re: EOS-M in Turkey
« on: November 10, 2014, 11:41:48 PM »
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!

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!
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.

EOS-M / EOS-M in Turkey
« on: November 10, 2014, 06:23:31 PM »
Most of the members are using EOS-M as a back up or for light duty usage.  I was using the EOS-M as my ONLY camera  on a 12 day land tour in Turkey. I would like to share my experience with you.
Equipment: EOS-M, 22/2.0, 18-55mm Zoom, 90/4.0 Elmer, 35/2.0 Summicron, 8X32 binocular, SD 800 IS (as backup, in case the EOS-M dies, fortunately, it never got used), additional lens caps,. Lens hoods, 2 spare batteries, lens cleaning stuff. All packed in a Lowepro Nova  2 with a Lowepro Dashpoint 20 in the Nova 2  to fill in empty space. The total weight of the bag is 7 lbs.
Since this is a small system, That make me feel  a lot more comfortable in both the size and the weight of the bag.
Both Canon EF-M  lenses feels  very slippery. Since the Nova 2 is packed very tight, it makes the changing of lens a little bit scary. The Dashpoint 20 can be attached to the strap of the Nova2. That make it become an additional pocket  for the lens or camera.. That makes live a lot easier.  I have also put the EOS-M with 22/2.0 in it for easy access.  Thanks Nuero for the suggestion of Dashpoint 20. I have actually drop the EOS-M with 22/2.0( in the dashpoint10) from chest level. Nothing is broken. Lucky!!
In bright sunlight, I have to turn the screen brightness all the way up to make the camera usable. If the sun shines right on the screen, all bets are off. Fortunately, I have a 25mm view optical view finder. With my glasses(with the sunglass attachment to push my eye even further away from the view finder. That make it almost the same angle of view of the 22/2.0.
Battery life: since I have to turn up the brightness of the screen, the battery is only good for about 200 to 250 shorts. I am glad that I have 2 spare batteries.
Touch screen is both a blessing and a curse.  It makes adjustment very fast, especially AF points. I need to make sure that I do not touch it by accident and change something .  One way to combat this  problem is  to use wrist strap and turn the camera off when I am  taking a break in shooting.
Both lenses perform well as expected under normal condition. The 20/2.0 is slightly sharper than the zoom.  The AF of 20/2.0 is slightly slower than the zoom.  Both are lenses are sharp enough even Wide opened. Both have proved to me that they are suitable to do ”shoot and run” in an organized tour. The AF speed on both lenses on EOS-M is no match to USM lenses on the 40D. But the difference is not subtancial.
At low light (4 EV, 2.9 at 0.5escond with ISO1600) ,the zoom refuses  to AF when the AF assistant light is out of range. The 20/2.0 can still AF at that condition.
Manual focusing: Since the screen of the EOS-M does not like bright sun light, the Magic Lantern with focusing peaking or LV Digic Peaking are very hard to use under the sun. It is a slow process. Not suitable for “shoot and run”. However the 90/4.0 Elmer proves to be indispensable during the balloon ride. I preset the distance at 300 ft and let the DOF takes care of the rest. That is zero delay in focusing.  The Elmer is small but not light weight.  The overall picture quality is even better than the 20/2.0. it will be in my EOS-M bag  from now on. Due to the fore-mentioned reason, the Summicron had never seen the daylight.
The 18mm on EOS-M seems to be quite a bit narrower than the 17mm on the 40D. Quite a few times, I feel that the 18mm is not wide enough. I end up doing a lot of stitching.. I am considering either the 11-22 Canon EF-M or Rokinon 12/2.0 EF-M
Conclusion: The EOS-M system will be my travelling system. I need to live with the forementioned short coming also

EOS-M / Rokinon 12/2.0 or 11-22mm zoom?
« on: November 02, 2014, 02:52:52 AM »
I am doing a "field test" in Turkey. I have the both the 22/2.0 and the 18-55mm zoom, along with 90/4.0 Elma and 35/2.0 Summicron.  I found out that the 18mm end of the 18-55 zoom seems to be quite a bit narrower than the 17mm end of my 17-40mm with my old  40D. Now I realize that I need something wider in the future. my shooting is mainly scenery with "shot and run" attitude. Another thing that I have noticed is that the 22/2.0 is obviously sharper than the zoom. I am flipping between the 12/2.0 and the 11-22mm zoom. Please give me your expert opinion, especially from the owner of both lenses. Thanks for the advice in advance.

EOS-M / Re: EOS M with Magic Lantern, shutter cannot release
« on: October 23, 2014, 02:08:54 PM »
I switch  the SD Card to a Sanddisk Ultra, 4GB, class 4 ( I know, It is old). It works like a champ. No more "shutter bug". May be ML is right, It is "card dependent". But I still cannot explain why the same card has been  working right for the last 3 months and suddenlybecome incompatable with ML.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 46