January 26, 2015, 05:55:42 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 ... 30 31 [32] 33 34 ... 46
EOS Bodies / Re: What's Next?
« on: October 20, 2011, 01:15:52 AM »
Canon can do a $2000 FF DSLR if they want to. Just look at the price of 7D. The difference in FF sensor and APS-C is about $200.

That's the first time I've seen that figure. Can you document it?
I read couple articles in the web.  I was trying to find it for you. Unfortunately, I cannot find them. I am going to explain why I agree with their number based on my knowlege from wafer fab and cost of CMOS wafer. For 8 in wafer, the cost of a processed wafer is about $1000, throw in the micro lenses and AA fiter for extra $300 (my guestimate) So each wafer is $1300. My estimate is that there may be only 75 sites for the 8 inch wafer for APS-C sensor. Let us assume the yield for APS-C is 75 %, then we will have 56 sensor per wafer, $1300 per wafer, that will be $23 per sensor. There are 24 FF sensor site  for 8 in wafer. Assuming the yield for FF is 25% (1/3 of the yield  of APS-C, being pressimistic ). then each wafer will yield 6 FF sensor. that will be $210 per sensor.
So the difference between FF and APS-C is $193. I said about $200 is just a rough number in case my guestimate on the micro lens and AA filter is wrong.  IF Canon have moved the sensor production to 12 in (300mm) wafer, the difference is even smaller. However, Canon white paper mention that there are 200 site of APS-C sensor in a 8 in wafer. That is totally wrong. Anybody can prove it by drawing it out on a peice of paper.

EOS Bodies / Re: What's Next?
« on: October 19, 2011, 04:53:32 PM »
Contrary to what many on this forum wish for, I don't think we will see an under $2,000 full frame model. I'm not even sure it's possible to produce a full frame body at that price point.

Canon can do a $2000 FF DSLR if they want to. Just look at the price of 7D. The difference in FF sensor and APS-C is about $200. Throw in another $200 for larger body, penta prism etc. You have your $2000 FF. If you start with 60D, you can have a $1500 FF easily. However, Canon will do neither one of the above hyperthetical model. Canon wants to Keep FF as a more expensive model (read it  as higher profit).

Canon General / Re: Photography - Equipment or Skill ?
« on: October 18, 2011, 02:59:55 PM »
In my humble opinion, It will take ALL three: Talent, hardwork (skill) and equipment. There are a lot of good photographer. But not that many great photographer. I know I may start another contraversial discussion here. Give a medium range camera to the average people and teach them how to take picture. He or she can become a good photographer, if he or she will work hard enough. That is what I mean by hardwork and skill. However, in order to become a great photographer. He will need talent.  I known some posters here do not believe in talent is being burn with. I am a firm believer that talent is being born with. Our brain is just like any other part of the body. Every body have different physical appearence, height, eye color, hair color etc. Our brain is also different. So people will be born with different talent.
As for Equipment, It also play a very important role. Most of the time, it will determine if it is a good picture or a great picture. Also it need the right equipment to do the right job.
Ansel Adam will be a good example. No body will argue that he is not talented and not hard working. He use huge view camera. He needs the detail, almost zero gain for the picture. His equipment can never be used by any sport photographer. No matter how talented the sport photographer is.
So great photography is talent, skill and equipment, not necessarily in the exact order. They are just like the three legs of a three legged stool. Some poster may say that if you have talent, you will have skill. That is for another discussion.
However, to be a good photographer, you still need skill and equipment

EOS Bodies / Re: Leica M9 – A Second Opinion
« on: October 17, 2011, 02:16:28 AM »
Specifically, Carl Zeiss stated that Leica has changed the register distance on the M9. As I stated, if this was untrue then Leica would have filed suit against CZ. To my knowledge, they did not do so. If memory serves, the difference is about 20 microns
Can you provide supporting document for this??? If you do a search in the web, the web is full of test reports by well known Leica experts about Zeiss lenses used on M9.  Most of them are very favorable.  If the Zeiss lens does not work on the M9,  are all of them are just telling lies???  If the Zeiss lens will not work on the M9, why are Zeiss making M mount lenses???

EOS Bodies / Re: Leica M9 – A Second Opinion
« on: October 16, 2011, 07:24:15 PM »
, I still use a 1950's Agfa (aka Ansco in the States) rangefinder and (having owned a rangefinder more than 30 years) I do understand the rf technique and limitations pretty thoroughly.

All Leica M  (from M2 to M9) are manual focusing cameras....
All Voigtlaender, ZE, ZF ZF.2, ZK and ZM lenses are manual focusing too. The field curvature of fast lenses is intrinsically pronounced so you either need to pre-compensate or live with poor focus from focus and recompose. Your final alternative is to focus on your subject and crop the image - but that reduces the camera's effective resolution to something like 11 megapixels. (purely an estimate based on the rule of thirds costing you 1/6 of your field in each direction.)

My comment that Leica has corrupted the M-bayonet specification.....Finally - I would like to address the comment on retrofocus designs for lenses degrading performance.

An Agfa/Ansco range finder camera from the 50's can hardly be qualified as a good well built range finder camera. It has fixed lens and the range finder accuracy and operation is way below Leica camera of the sametime.
Any lens that will fit the Lieca M is manual focusing by right. That is why I did not mention the Voigtlander and the Ziess ZM are manual focusing.  As for the curvature of field for the lens., No auto focusing can correct them.
That is another reason why the Leica lenses are more expensive. Leica trys to minimize them by excellent design and tight manufacturing control.
If M9 can use The Lieca M lenses all the the back to the 50's, I still cannot see why the M9 has corrupted the M mount. If the other brand cannot work properly,  it it is the other guy's problem .You are old enough to use an Agfa camera from the 50's. Do you remember why the Nikon range finder lens will not work right with the Ziess Contax?? Even both mounts are identical??
I have never mention that retrofocus degrade the lens performance. i just mention that It is easier to design short lens for range finder  than for DSLR.  FYI, even leica is using retrofocus design for their 24mm and 21mm M mount lenses.
The M9 is using offet micro lens to try to minimize the effect of the short back focus of the lens. on top of that  there is soft ware correction built-in the M9 also.
Please rememder that quality and price is not a liner relationship. It is exponental. Juts look at the price of D1 and the price of a Rebel.  Is D1 nearly 10 times better than the Rebel???

EOS Bodies / Re: Leica M9 – A Second Opinion
« on: October 16, 2011, 03:05:55 AM »
I'm no fan of Rockwell by any stretch, but what he's says about distance of rear element to image plane is close to what I read many years ago about why rangefinder cameras are capable of sharper images than their slr counterparts.

Mirror slap is a non-issue with mirror lock-up.
For lens sharpness, Rockwell is semi-right. It is easier to design short lenses (50 mm and shorter) for range finder cameras. As a case and point, in the early days of the film SLR, the "Standard lens" is 55mm to make the design easier. Whether it is sharper or not, It will depends on the actual design, the manufacturer and the price.
With the mirror locked up, it will slowdown the operation of DSLR a lot.

EOS Bodies / Re: Leica M9 – A Second Opinion
« on: October 16, 2011, 02:53:20 AM »
It looks like that the M9 has been badly "trashed" by people that have never used it. It is not fair. I can feel that these people might have never a good manual focusing, well made range finder film camera before either.
All Leica M  (from M2 to M9) are manual focusing cameras. Due to the excellent focusing mechanism of the Leica lenses and the mavelous coupling to the range finder in the body, it is a joy to do the manual focusing with very acurate result. With the proper techique, it can be almost as fast as the current mirrorless digital camera. If zone focusing is used. It can be even faster any DSLR.
One op claim that the M9 does not follow the specification of the M mount. I do not know how or where he got this idea. the M9 can use ANY Leica M Mount lens made by Leica dated back to the 50's. This is a good prove that Leica did not change any focusing related item on the M ount on M9. The only thing M9 has added on the M mount is the elctronic comunication between the lens and the body to let the body know the focal length of the lens being used. If the other brand lens cannot focus on M9, It is their problem. The same poster claim the Zeiss M mount lens will not work on M9. The B and H mail order store is full of review about how wonderful the Ziess lenses works with M9.
As M9 is asking a high price and being an obsolete equipment at the same time, it is also highly debatable.  M9 does not have auto focusing, does not have live view and does not have IS. But it is the only FF camera that does not use AA filter. neither canon nor Nikon can do it.  A lot poster in CR claim that they use manual focusing even their DSLR is AF equiped.  With multiple focusing points (can be as much as 51 ) being chosen by the camera, sometimes it is too much uncertainty. So is without auto focusing really being obsolete, or is it just another choice?
M9 is a minialist's camera. It give you what you need to take excellent picture without the bells and whistles. So is it an obsoleted equipment?
The pictures from the 2nd review at CR are being trashed also. It is even more unfair. He is just trying to show us how good the low light capability of M9, even without IS. The M9 is more hand heldable than DSLR due to lack of mirror bounce.
M9 is expensive, that is a fact. Our CR guy have never use any Leica M model before. After a few weeks, the M9 becomes his main camera and replaced his DSLR. That got to tell you something.

EOS Bodies / Re: The New EOS [CR3]
« on: October 14, 2011, 05:12:47 PM »
The post did not say that it will be a 1D. It is another EOS camera. Looks like Canon is trying to make a "speed demon" and an "owl" out of this camera. The highest MP in the FF for Canon is 21.1MP. Between 18MP (proposed) and 21.1MP, there is only a lost of reolution of 8% (linear). It is no big deal. If it give us a  better noise performance at high ISO, better dynamic Range  and an "insane" speed of 12-14 FPS. It may be worth to give up the 8% resolution.  In fact, i would rather it is not a 1D. Instead I would like to see it with the body similar to 5D II, without the vertical grip. I also have dreamed that it will be a copy of the Leica M9 with Leica M mount.

EOS Bodies / Re: New DSLR on Tuesday, October 18, 2011. [CR3]
« on: October 13, 2011, 03:02:14 AM »
Looks like Canon is trying to make a "speed demon" and an "owl" out of this camera. The highest MP in the FF for Canon is 21.1MP. Between 18MP (proposed) and 21.1MP, there is only a lost of reolution of 8% (linear). It is no big deal. If it give us a  better noise performance at high ISO, better dynamic Range  and an "insane" speed of 12-14 FPS. It may be worth to give up the 8% resolution.

EOS Bodies / Re: MP/ISO
« on: October 11, 2011, 08:49:20 PM »
Before someone launches into a comparison of ISO noise on the FF Canon 5DII vs. the FF Canon D700, claiming that the lower MP count of the D700 results in its lower noise, remember that spatial frequency matters.  Yes, the D700 has less noise, but that's not because of the larger pixels per se, it's because the 5DII has a higher spatial frequency (more detail).  If you downrez a 5DII image to 12 MP, it will appear to be much less noisy (it won't really be less noisy, but it will be perceived that way) - so, you'll get something that looks a lot like a D700 image, in terms of noise and detail.  That doesn't make the 5DII or the D700 'better' - they are simply different, reflecting different emphases by the two manufacturers. 

Under most circumstances, I prefer Canon's approach - starting with a higher resolution and noisier mage, I can trade a loss in detail for more noise reduction; starting with a lower resolution but cleaner image, I can't trade an increase in noise to add detail that's not present in the original image.

That is the best explaination of MP vs Noise explanation that I have seen.

EOS Bodies / Re: someone identify this crazy video attachment/camera?
« on: October 10, 2011, 02:25:56 AM »
It look likehe is attaching a Canon DSLR with video function (5D II ??)To a old Sony camcorder ( It actually show model as TRV ???/) without the lens.  It look like he is using the old camcorder for the following: 1. as a shoulder support to help the hoding for video. 2. the microphone from the camcorder. 3. The eye level monitor of the ccmcorder.  3. The large battery of the camcorder to power the DSLR for extender recording.

EOS Bodies / Re: A Loose Roadmap [CR1]
« on: October 04, 2011, 10:20:14 PM »
That said, I think that in the longer term, the days of reflex mirrors are numbered.  Within 5 years it would not surprise me if most "single lens cameras" have done away with the reflex mirror.  The biggest stumbling block may still be a decent EVF.
The biggest stumbling bock should be a good fast AF. We may say that The New Nikon mirrorless has both contrast detector and phrase detector built into the sensor(??). But Nikon may be holding the patent right on it. So it will be off limit to other manufacturer.   If we are using mirrorless, we can just use the LCD screen at teh back of the camera as view finder. All point and shoot user are doing it. we do not need EVF and use the mirrorless like a DSLR.
On the other hand, Canon can build a copy of the M9 with Leica M mount and made a new line of lenses. Canon is fully capable of doing it. Canon has been making Leica copies for decaded until the 60's. The patent right of M mount has expired afew years back.

Canon General / Re: Camera armor, does it work?
« on: October 01, 2011, 08:27:33 PM »
Personally, I will not use it at all. Remember in the film days, almost every mid range and up camera comes with an 'Ever Ready Case"??? It adds bulk and weight to the camera and drown grade the handling of the camera. I never used them. I did not even use them on my M4 and people told me that I am crazy not to use the case with my M4.

EOS Bodies / Re: Price point of a 5Dmk2 replacement
« on: September 29, 2011, 11:19:21 PM »
Sony did it with a $2000 FF.

EOS Bodies / Re: Price point of a 5Dmk2 replacement
« on: September 29, 2011, 04:31:13 AM »
My calculation is: $300 difference between FF and APS-C, $300 for larger prism, larger shutter, lager mirror, larger body (compared to 7D). Assuming that the 5DIII have all the features of 7D then, the 5DIII should be  $600 above 7D. The current 5DII have less feature than the 7D and sells about $1000 above the 7D. Therefore the 5DII is over priced. Canon should be able to sell the 5DIII at about $2200. Since 5dIII is a FF, Canon may price it at $2800 for deeper profit.

Pages: 1 ... 30 31 [32] 33 34 ... 46