November 23, 2014, 08:43:06 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 ... 31 32 [33] 34 35 ... 44
481
Lenses / Re: why????
« on: July 25, 2011, 05:17:01 PM »
Actually the $1000 FF DSLR can be built even Now. However, ALL DSLR company wants to keep the higher profit in the existing FF model and will not build a "Cheap"FF. just look at the following numbers: The cheapest Rebel is about $500 now. My previous tread calculated the difference of FF and APS-C sensor  can be $500 (based on the white paper from Canon dated 2006, now the gap may be even smaller). So $500 (Cheap body)+$500(upgrade to FF from APS-C) that is $1000. Let us be generous, add $200 to additional feature and bigger body. That is a CHEAP $1200 FF right there.

482
Lenses / Re: why????
« on: July 24, 2011, 06:45:53 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???

Since he is rerferring to APS-C, I assume he means EF-s, which would be about the size and weight of a 16-35, but it would likely cost more.
17-50 EF-S and 16-35 EF is already the same length and weight. I was using the 17-50 EF-S fiter size of 77mm
as starting point and use  the 18-55 EF-S (F3.5) 58mm filter size and the 16-35mm Filter size (77 mm) to guestimate the filter size. If between f3.5 and f2.8 (both EF_S) with increase of 19mm in filter size, I  guest an increase of only 13 mm between f2.8 and f2.0 is very stingy.  I have not yet taking the increase in viewing angle between 16mm and 17mm into  account. With increase in the size of optical elements, the weight will increase also. It fact I may have already under estimate the size  and weight of the 16- 50mm APS-C f2.0 lens.

483
Lenses / Re: why????
« on: July 24, 2011, 06:25:35 PM »
Canon uses 300mm wafers

I am glad that someone confirms that Canon is using 300MM wafer. I have been suspecting it for a while but I have no way to find out. If Canon is really using the 300mm wafer, then the price gap between APS-C and FF sensor will even be smaller due to: 1. the cost per unit area of finished wafer is smaller. 2. The ratio of site between FF and APS-C is closer due to the ratio between perifferal partial site to whole site is smaller. May be the difference in final cost can be down to around $200.

484
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.

485
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???

486
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.

487
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.

488
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.



489
Contests / Re: Holga Giveaway
« on: July 20, 2011, 07:16:46 PM »
Kitchen sink, what away to get attention

490
Contests / Re: Holga Giveaway
« on: July 20, 2011, 07:15:56 PM »
"Kitchen sink"/// quite a way to get attention

491
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.

492
Contests / Re: Holga Giveaway
« on: July 19, 2011, 03:25:51 PM »
It is an interesting name; "Kitchen sink"???

493
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.

494
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

495
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.


Pages: 1 ... 31 32 [33] 34 35 ... 44