October 01, 2014, 08:32:26 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 - Rocky

Pages: 1 ... 30 31 [32] 33 34 ... 42
466
Contests / Re: Holga Giveaway
« on: July 19, 2011, 03:25:51 PM »
It is an interesting name; "Kitchen sink"???

467
EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon Withdraw from the Megapixel War?
« on: July 18, 2011, 04:59:57 PM »
Potential 645 customers know what they are doing, should be beyond falling for catalog numbers.

For a sizeble number of people though I'd guess its not going to be cut and dry whether to move up to MF and more Megapixels on FF is one reason not to.

I don't think you can rule out the effect of the growth in MF on the amature markets view of whats desireble either, even if its not actually an option for people.

I hope we are not starting the same debate about Leica VS Hasselblad in the film days again.
MF in digital will give better picture, especially in large enlargement due to the larger size of individual pixel and hence lowe rnoise, better dynamic range. However, the size weight and cost will make most people, including professionals think twice before jumping into it. Just look at the price of the lenses and digital body of Hasselblad.
On the other hand, FF will give you much better mobility and cost saving. So MF is for amature with super deep pocket and with an assistant.

468
Canon General / Re: Canon Mirrorless Related Patent?
« on: July 18, 2011, 01:48:24 AM »
Mirrorless is a must these days. Almost every brand has one, so I will be VERY SURPRISED if Canon won't create one sooner or later..

I think Canon is SMART not to have a EVIL until they can make the AF as fast as the DSLR. As it is now, there is no tested EVIL can match the AF speed of DSLR. In fact they are all around 0.4 to 0.5 second. Which is the same speed of the Point and shoot. If people like to  have a small camera and travel light, S95 or G11 or G12 will be perfect for the usage. Just imagine that with evil body, 2 or three lenses, you will never  travel light and with SLOW AF speed. Is it worth to have EVIL????
Do not get me wrong. I would like to have an EVIL system with the following conditions:
1. AF speed is as fast as the DSLR (0.14 second or less)
2. A set of dedicated lenses from wide angle to medium tele lens .I do not  want to use the large EF or EF-S lens in these focal length. That will defeat the concept of smaller EVIl system.
3. It may be just a dream and will never happen: The EVIL will take Leica M mount lenses

469
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 3 Layer Foveon Type Sensor
« on: July 16, 2011, 12:34:40 PM »
You cannot patent a idea, that would be rejected immediately.

 
May be I have used the  word "Idea" too loosely. The following example illustrate what I mean by "idea". There is a company holding the patent on trimming the accuracy of a smeiconductor product through the I/O pin of teh packaged product . The same company have never make it work right. After 2 years, the product was killed and that "idea" was never used agin by the company. But the company have the patent.

Better yet. the following case is almost patenting an real "idea":
The Gilbert Hyatt Patent
A patent on the microcontroller, predating the only two Intel patents related to the MCS-4, was granted to Gilbert Hyatt in 1990. This patent described the architecture and logic design of a microcontroller, claiming that it could be integrated into a single chip. This patent was later invalidated in a patent interference case brought forth by Texas Instruments, on account that the device it described was never implemented and was not implementable with the technology available at the time of the invention.  Actually  Gilbert Hyatt recieved huge pay off before the patent is invalidated.


470
United States / Re: picking out lens
« on: July 09, 2011, 12:39:15 PM »
Hi I'm new to the SLR world. I'm planning to purchase a canon 60d with in the next couple days. what would be some good lens to go with the camera. I'm planning on doing landscape, sports, and lots of macro.

Being new to DSLR's, I would not recommend going right out and buying a lot of expensive lenses until you have more experience with your camera.

Lenses are very important, but not the only thing to get.

There is nothing wrong with getting the kit lens to start with.  There is so much to learn.  Buy software like Adobe Lightroom, learn to shoot and develop raw images, purchase a separate flash, and perhaps a better beamer for the flash to use for birds or small critters, diffusers and reflectors, a good tripod and head, monopod, etc.  At the very least, save money in your budget for some accessories.

It would not be a good idea, for example to buy a $50 tripod for a $1500 telephoto lens.  The cheap tripods are not stable enough to eliminate vibrations, and you will wonder why you get blurry images with your telephoto lens.

Once you learn how to master your kit lens and have any of the above accessories you might need, you should know what you'll want in your next lens.

I'm one for fine tools, and I have a lot of high end lenses, but they were each bought for a specific reason and a lens that might have been a best choice for another would not have done the job for me. A shotgun approach can work, or it can waste a lot of money.

We all look at our lenses and feel that we have spent our dollars on the best lens  (for our use).  That might not be the best for you.

Thats why the kit lenses are there, a starting point and a way to learn without spending $$$ on the wrong choice.
Totally agree.  There is another point to consider. Since you are new to the DSLR, you may not be used to the weight and bulk of  all the extra lenses.  You might even start to hating it. The 18-55 IS kit lens is not bad for the price ($100??).  I have actually use it to compliment my 17-40mm for low light. The other kit lens (55-250) is a cheap price (another $100 ??) to learn about using long lens. Both lenses will give you good 12X14 easily. 
If you are going to buy the expensive lenses that are suggested in the different posts. Then you might want to buy the 7D for the micro AF adjustment. You will need it eventually. Since you are going to spend thousands of dollars on the lenses you might as well spend extra few hubdred buck on the body.

471
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 3 Layer Foveon Type Sensor
« on: July 07, 2011, 06:51:31 PM »
The politics of this Patent are very interesting, Canon would not announce this unless they were either close to releasing it in a real camera, or that they were doing it to wrong foot the competition, I can't imagine they would spend the R & D to reach a Patent stage without an intention to launch a product.


Patent is a very interest tool. It has been used to stop someone else to make similar product, as saving in the bank, as trading card, etc. IBM was well known to hold (and even buy) a lot of patent that has got nothing to do with any of their own product line. Better yet you can patent an idea without making it actually work.
So I will believe it when the actual product is made.

472
EOS Bodies / Re: My Prediction for the new EOS Lineup
« on: July 06, 2011, 10:04:26 PM »
The quality of the wafer is yet another factor.  Canon say they use a higher grade of wafers with as few defects as possible, because the yield can be very low with FF or APS-H sensors. 

Still, I wonder if they are able to find all the defects before they assemble the sensor with microlenses, anti-aliasing, etc.  If they have to do all that before testing, the cost of a good sensor goes up a whole lot.
There are so much at stake for the 12" or even 8" wafer. So everybody are using high quality wafer. Raw(starting wafer) are dirt cheap, compared to the finished wafer.  Infact most of the defects are from each processing steps. there are at leat 30 steps, some can go as high as 60 plus steps. Testing sensor can be quick, it is all automatic problem is that you cannot notto add microlens in individual sensor. You have to do it on the whole wafer, for bothj good and bad sensors all at the sametime.

See Canons white paper, a bit dated, but not a lot has changed, lots of small things, but the process and number of steps has not been reduced from 600 ti 60 or 30.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/49842014/Canon-CMOS-WP

And, as Canon says, they do not use cheap $30 wafers, but pay up to $5,000 for ultra high quality ones.
There are different ways to define step. In the industry, each step is one mask. Between each mask, there are a few process, So If you count everything, 600 "steps" are highly possible. As for the number of sensor an 8" wafer can produce, there are some mistakes too.  There is no way an 8" wafer can produce 200 APS-C sensor. I worked out to number to be roughly 70 sensor sites for APS-C for a 8" wafer. There are a few holes in the paper. we can read it anyway we want.  I read it as a paper to justify the high cost of FF sensor. I am speaking from my own experience about the CMOS process.. You can also read it anyway you want also.

473
EOS Bodies / Re: My Prediction for the new EOS Lineup
« on: July 06, 2011, 06:30:07 PM »
The quality of the wafer is yet another factor.  Canon say they use a higher grade of wafers with as few defects as possible, because the yield can be very low with FF or APS-H sensors. 

Still, I wonder if they are able to find all the defects before they assemble the sensor with microlenses, anti-aliasing, etc.  If they have to do all that before testing, the cost of a good sensor goes up a whole lot.
There are so much at stake for the 12" or even 8" wafer. So everybody are using high quality wafer. Raw(starting wafer) are dirt cheap, compared to the finished wafer.  Infact most of the defects are from each processing steps. there are at leat 30 steps, some can go as high as 60 plus steps. Testing sensor can be quick, it is all automatic problem is that you cannot notto add microlens in individual sensor. You have to do it on the whole wafer, for bothj good and bad sensors all at the sametime.

474
EOS Bodies / Re: My Prediction for the new EOS Lineup
« on: July 06, 2011, 05:30:38 PM »
Stu_bert,  increase the wafer size is not as easy as it looks. It is very envolved. Also the equipment will be extremely expensive for large wafer. As far as I know, nobody can break the 12" barrier yet. As for yield, the ratio is not the ratio of the size but roughly the 1/ square of the ratio of size. The size of idividual trnssitors are getting smaller and smaller, As a result, Some IC are getting smaller and smaller and hence getting cheaper and cheaper.  Some IC have multifunction. that is why most of the electronic device are getting cheaper including Digital camera. As for CPU, that is a slightly different story. The transistors are getting smaller and becomes faster. The CPU also evolved from single core to double, quad, even hex. I can predict tha we will see Octo soon.
As for flat panel TV, IT is not yet a mature process, so the cost is dropping due to increase in yield.

Hope this will help

475
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Mirrorless on the Horizon?
« on: July 06, 2011, 01:45:22 PM »
I think there are two questions here, with two possible partial answers:

1 - how small could they make a DSLR? I have a film EOS that's much smaller than any digital, so could they shrink one down further? I think the film camera size comes down to only needing space for a thin strip of film before the back of the camera. Now we have a sensor with filter assembly on top of it, and typically a LCD display behind that. Let's say the rear LCD was ditched, and they just relied on the viewfinder for everything....

2 - if they go mirrorless, where in the range would they target? The m4/3 and APS-C sensor size is pretty much covered by existing players for example. Could Canon bring something new to that space and not come out with a "me too" product? The tiny sensor like Q I find hard to take off, as you're competing directly with compacts there, and to me I can't see why I would want one over a compact unless the price is slashed right down, but then what's the point? The rumoured small-ish sensor Nikon is more interesting, as you can get smaller lenses than current APS-C models (assuming you're not after strict DoF equivalence) without compromising too much on image quality. That would be a more logical positioning keeping both compacts and SLRs out of the way of self competition. As a wild card, could they go high end only? Go full frame, and make a Leica for the 21st century. I don't think they would have any trouble undercutting Leica pricing anyway...
The DSLR is bigger than the SLR due to the battery, memory cards, a whole bunch of electronics and motors inside the body. Plus every body wants a hand grip for the DSLR.
As for the size of sensor,I think Canon need to make it big to be attractive. Otherwise we can just buy a S95 and we will have anything that a mirrorless has got except the interchangable lens.
Personally, I would like to see Canon to make something that will be a M9 competitator With a M mount. ( Canon has been making Leica competitator with Leica mount up to the late 60's)

476
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Mirrorless on the Horizon?
« on: July 06, 2011, 12:16:54 PM »
although APS-C is possible, it's just as likely to share a sensor with the G series, which would have the advantage of not needing as large a lenses to feed the sensor, which makes the lenses cheaper to make thus creating a greater profit margin.  I suspect also that the lens range will be large, but also EF/EF-S compatable using an expensive adaptor.

I doubt that canon  will use the sensor from the G series for the upcoming mirrorless. The name of the game is to have a"larger" sensor than its competitators. So APS-C will be a good candidate.  Until Canon can solve the shutter lag issue, all bets are off.

477
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Mirrorless on the Horizon?
« on: July 06, 2011, 02:58:26 AM »
Mirrorless is exciting - not because it's another gadget, but because there's no mirror!  In a DSLR a mirror is a neccessary evil, but evil it is.  It prevents the exit pupil being moved closer to the sensor plane (bad for wide angle especially), and then there's the mirror slap, you can move to live view to avoid it, but then you're shooting the same as the mirrorless camera, but without the benefits.  The shutter assembly is large only syncs with flash at slow speeds, it's possible without a mirror to increase the flash sync.

The true rangefinder comment is a  little confusing, the rangefinder is a focus system not a mount, and isn't particularly good with zoom lenses.  The reason the Leica M7 M8 appears sharp is that it doesn't have an anti aliasing filter.  Pros & Cons to that, but certainly sharp.
The mirror give us fast auto focus and fast shutter lag. Nowadays, the mirror are so well damped that It hardly causes vibration unless you are working with microscope or copying stand for extremely critical work. There is always a mirror lock up function. At slow shutter speed, most of the shaking are from the user, not the mirror.
So far the best mirrorless still have twice the shutter lag of DSLR. So would you rather have longer shutter lag or the mirror?
As for M9, the picture is sharp and good look is due to the exceptional good Lieca lens plus no AA filter. Leica may have better DSP also. Leica uses range finder manual focusing. It can be faster than the DSLR if handled correctly. Unfortunately, It is too expensive for me

478
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Mirrorless on the Horizon?
« on: July 06, 2011, 02:46:03 AM »
If the X100 isn't a rangefinder, then it is more likely a point and shoot with a big sensor and compact body. Not very impressive.

So, what I'm getting at here is, it makes no sense for me to be gassing for mirrorless systems for the sake of portability or mounting a Zeiss if the end result is only competitive for almost-as-good-as dslr image quality. Where a true rangefinder would really make a difference.

You are right, X100 is not a range finder. The excitement of it is the retro style and the optical view finder and electronic view finder can be switch over through the same eyepiece.
None of the existing mirrorless camera excite me due to the slow shutter lag. The best one is still twice as much as a DSLR. There is only one that impresses me, the Leica M9. It is too rich for my blood. It takes careof the shutter lag by not using auto focus. Instead it uses manual focus via range finder. When it is handled properly(using zone focusing technique), it will be be faster than the auto focus of DSLR.

479
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Mirrorless on the Horizon?
« on: July 05, 2011, 09:44:54 PM »
my 5-cents here:
- Digital full-frame version of Canon 7 w/ 50mm f/0.95 to directly compete with M9
- don't really care about lenses mount as long as it can mount some M lenses (via adaptor or not)
- Couple of extra lenses 28/35/50/90mm would be nice

Are there other canon fans that would vote for this?
That will be a fun camera to have. The only question is How many Canon fans will give up the auto focus? I am for it as long as Canon brings back the rangefinder lens with fine focus adjustment With a fine range finder built into the camera.

480
EOS Bodies / Re: My Prediction for the new EOS Lineup
« on: July 05, 2011, 05:43:15 PM »
Agreed, I am no engineer either so it is pure conjecture on my part, and I meant no offence in the discussion. I guess I am assuming that in the same way we keep cramming more transistors onto CPUs, and make bigger and higher res Plasma/LCD/LED devices, then the same cost-challenges with sensors can be overcome. Of course making a 12 MP FF sensor for $500 this year, which may have cost you $700 2 years ago to make, also means you can make an APS sensor for $300. So the economies of scale would apply to either.

I guess my point was more that overall cost, simplifying your whole range has an affect on a whole manner of elements - from develop/manufacture/market to support and thus help reduce your cost base and allow you to increase your margin or lower your prices. Whether that was standardise on FF or APS would have the same affect to your cost base. I was just biased as would hate them to standardise on APS sensors  ;D
CMOS process is a relative stable process and  has been around for a long time.. We cannot expect any substantial cost reduction in sensor from the process alone, except moving from 8 inch wafer to 12 in wafer. With  the same amount of physical work (mostly done with automation), a little more chemical, and a slight modification in process and you end up twice as much sensor.
As for improving the sensor performance, we should have high hope. just look at the latest sensor from Nikon( Sony). However, we have already pushed beyond the capability of the lens resolution with 18MP APS_C sensor.

As a foot note: Most other electronic device are enjoying huge cost reduction in the last 40 years due to the advance in processing technology and cost reduction in the processing itself and hence the internal device on the silicon is getting smaller and smaller and resulted in the actual silicon in each IC is getting smaller and smaller and hence more and more IC per wafer. They are getting cheaper and cheaper.  Unfortunately. This  does not appy to the DSLR snesor. The sensor size is fixed. So there is no cost reduction in shrinking internal device. Instead we end up with higher pixel count. We have moved from 2MP (APS-C) to 18MP (APS-C) in the last 15 years or so.
As for the prine difference of FF and APS-C, The size ratio between them is about 2.63. So the cost ratio between FF and APS-C will be 5 to 7 times depends on the cleningness of the  fabrication facility.

Pages: 1 ... 30 31 [32] 33 34 ... 42