October 20, 2014, 10:45:36 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 ... 43
Lenses / Re: why????
« on: July 24, 2011, 04:21:58 PM »

and that would mean $30 per APS-C sensor (166 working chips out of a $5000 wafer), which sounds pretty reasonable, and tells me this format is not going away anytime soon
You must have been using the number from the white paper by Canon. the APS-C potential site is REALLY wrong. 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, $5000 per wafer, that will be $90 per sensor. Assuming the yield for FF is 25% (1/3 of the yield  of APS-C, being pressimistic ). then each wafer will yield 5 FF sensor. that will be $1000 per sensor. That seems about right.  If wecompare the price of &D to 5D MkII, It is about $800 difference.
My personal opinion is that the Canon white paper is used to justify the high price of the FF body. The site of the FF sensor on the wafer may be 22 to 24. That will bring the yield up to be 6 sensor per wafer. and the difference in cost will be $770 instead of $1000.We are assuming that the wafer cost is $5000. Which is extremely high for a CMOS process. What if the wafer cost is $2500, than the difference  of FF sensor and APS_C snesor will only be $450 or even $370.

Lenses / Re: why????
« on: July 24, 2011, 03:51:37 PM »
why does no one make say a 16-50mm f2.0 or something similar for crop cameras sure it would be expensive but i think people would be willing to pay for it, i would pay 70-200mm is f2.8 is money for it.

On a side not canon should make an L-s range for good crop for lenses like this. i aim fairly certain within a few years full frame will be less popular with the ridiculous iso performance of  new crop cameras and the possibility of photo binning (don't ask me about it i'm a noob but basically you have option to reduce megapixels to get better iso performance)
The lens that you want  is an excellent walk around lens. However, it may be a monster in size and weight. just look at the 17-50 f2.8 EF-S. It is 4.4 inches long, using 77 mm filter and weights 1.4 lbs. If it was f2.0 and 16- 50 mm, it might be using 90mm filter or larger and weighed over 2 lbs easily.  The 16-35 already uses 83 mm filter. How many people will like to have a monster like tah tas a walk around lens and can be spotted from far away???

Canada / Re: Questions about crossing the border with your gear
« on: July 23, 2011, 02:26:19 PM »
May be I am lucky. I have been in most parts of Asia, Europe, Central and Southern America, the Nother Africa and  the old Eastern block including Russia. I have never have any problem going in or out with my camera equipments ( M4 and 4 lenses, canon DSLR and 4 lenses plus filters etc.) the bag may have been looked at couple times. In the old days I have a certified paper from the US custom for my Leica equipments. It is used to prove to the US custom that I have brought them out of US therefore I can bring them back in without any questioning. Nowadays, photo equipment is cheaper in US than most parts of the world. So the US custom has not looked at my paper for more than 25 years.

Canon General / Re: Canon Mirrorless Related Patent?
« on: July 21, 2011, 12:11:53 PM »
Racgordon,  You are asking for a brand new system with technology that does not exist yet, with all the bells and whistles and still want it in midprice range ($200??).Good Luck. Let us face it. as it it now, nobody even has made an EVIL or point and shoot with AF as fast as DSLR. The claim of fast AF of EP-3 has been shot down by a few people in the internet. Your dream EVIL may have to wait a LONG time. I suggest you get a S95 now. It have everything you want (pocketable, good image, zoom lens full control etc,)except the touch screen.

Canon General / Re: Canon Mirrorless Related Patent?
« on: July 21, 2011, 12:24:38 AM »
Is it fair to say that eventually the m43 route would just yield a cheaper M9 with an electronic viewfinder? Even though giiven the size of the 43 sensor and lenses designed specifically for it, I doubt the m43 companies can replace the 43 sensor with a FF sensor.
If there is another EVIL FF, the existing M4/3 EVIL player may be out of the picture. My reasoning is: 1. They got too much investment in M4/3. 2. If they replace theM4/3 with FF, that is almost admitted that they have made a BIG mistake. On the other hand, It is hard to have anybody to do a FF EVIL  from ground up due to the huge capital outlay and the patent right held by Leica for the offset micro lens to minimize the uneven explosure at the corner and the edge of the frame. Even Leica did not start the FF digital from ground up. It uses its existing rangefinder lens that is for M6 onward (Even lenses from M2 to M5 are usable in M9,  ALL Leica lens since day one of Lieca (since 1930??)are usable via a screw mount to M mount adapter). The wonderful view finder and range finder are move over from M7 also.

Contests / Re: Holga Giveaway
« on: July 20, 2011, 07:16:46 PM »
Kitchen sink, what away to get attention

Contests / Re: Holga Giveaway
« on: July 20, 2011, 07:15:56 PM »
"Kitchen sink"/// quite a way to get attention

Canon General / Re: Canon Mirrorless Related Patent?
« on: July 20, 2011, 07:04:44 PM »
The problem with most of the EVILs out there is that whilst small and even pocketable with a pancake lens, the quickly become ungainly when a kit lens is attached.

For EVIL to really take off their has to be a step change in the quality of image sensors, so that you can either get APC-Like quality from a SUB APC imager (and probably something smaller than Micro 4/3)  or alternatively a step change in imager sensitivity and noise processing so that smaller lenses (with greatly reduced maximum F Stops) are viable.

I have a feeling that until there is this dramatic revolutionary (rather than evolutionary) improvement in Image Sensors EVIL will remain a much smaller market than pundits and product managers would like!

The EVIL sysytem is not intended to be a cheaper DSLR system. It is just  a "smaller" system with picture quality comparable to DSLR.  Therefore if they can make the small sensor (smaller than 4/3) with image as good as the APS-C, I am sure that they will also apply the same technolgy on the APS-C sensor the make the APS-C sensor even better.  So If we want the EVIL to be as good as the APS-C DSLR, The EVIL sensor must be the same size as APS_C.
As for the lens, It is harder to design a lens to have total line pair resolution of APS-C for a small sensor. The lens will need 2 to 3 times more resolutin per mm.
We should try to look at EVIL and DSLR just like the range finder (with interchangeable lens , like Leica and Canon) and DSLR (like Exakta, Canon, Pantacon, Pentax... etc) in the old film days. It is two seperate system to fit the different need of user. Either system may be more expensive than the other. So EVIL should not be in the cost saving path. It should be on the quality path.

Contests / Re: Holga Giveaway
« on: July 19, 2011, 03:25:51 PM »
It is an interesting name; "Kitchen sink"???

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.


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.

Pages: 1 ... 30 31 [32] 33 34 ... 43