January 25, 2015, 07:36:53 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 ... 32 33 [34] 35 36 ... 46
EOS Bodies / Re: 1D Mark V Spec List [CR1]
« on: August 17, 2011, 02:44:15 PM »
""Viewfinder: Magnification: 0.76x, 100% frame coverage
APS-H viewfinder magnification zoom: 0.87x – 89% viewfinder crop
APS-C viewfinder magnification zoom: 1.0x – 82% viewfinder crop ""
That will make the view finder system become a monster with a built-in zoom (Automatic??). I do not think that is real spec.

Lenses / Re: Which is the best "normal" prime for a Crop Camera?
« on: August 15, 2011, 01:54:57 PM »
First, there was nothing magical about 50mm on FF. The only reason it got called the classic/standard/normal etc. was because a standard 50mm lens is THE easiest lens to make and it's very easy and inexpensive to make one that is super sharp stopped down just a little. So it might be more rightly referred to as the simplest/cheapest focal length than the classical/standard/magical/etc. So they used the be the kit lens years ago.
Actually, there are a few "Magical" reason behind the 50mm standard lens. The diagonal of a FF is 43.3mm. In the old days, 45mm is the standard focal lenth for fixed lens camera.  Also the angle of view of 45mm is also almost the same as the "clear view" angle of human eye.  Leica was using 50mm as standard lens since day one. In the 30's comes the SLR (Exakta). Due to the frange focal length, that make it impossible to make 45mm focal length for the camera. So 55mm was forced to be the focal length for its standard lens. This focal length was adopted by almot all SLR maker until the 60's.  As techology gets better, SLR maker finally was able to make 50mm as standard lens.
As for the price, 50mm is always the cheapest due to high volume, not due to the ease of design or manufacturing. All the design cost and manufacturing tooling are  shared by millions of lenses. That makes it almost zero overhead.  As for ease of design, for SLR it is easier to design a good 60mm lens than a 50mm lens due to the frange focal length. But 60mm  is a little too narrow for general use.

EOS Bodies / Re: Coming Tech & More [CR2]
« on: August 13, 2011, 12:28:51 PM »

how likely is it, that canon implement the forementioned sensor type in one of their next bodies? I'd love to see a 40+MP 5Diii / iv then, providing near perfect ISO 100k. or if that is too much of wishful thinking: ISO 51200 ;-)
I have no idea. However, My guess is that it might never happen. I am sure that Fuji is having the pattern right on the EXR sensor and its implementation. Fuji may not even want to licience it to anyone else.

Software & Accessories / Re: Neck strap alternatives
« on: August 12, 2011, 06:01:02 PM »
I read a lot about straps from this forum and other reviews. It seems to me that all the "better"straps has buckles, hooks, rings, quick releases at both ends of the strap. Does anybody knows a comfortable, good and simple camera straps that are without rings, hooks or quick release. The original Canon strap fit my bill except that it is not comfortable.
On one of the discussion here it was mention about the fastening of the original strap was undone by itself and end up the camera was dropped. I would suggest that the ends of strap to be looped back to the buckle one more time this make itvery tight.

EOS Bodies / Re: Coming Tech & More [CR2]
« on: August 12, 2011, 02:14:26 PM »
About DR:
Here's what I'd do: add two new colors to the bayer pattern, white (clear) and black (nd), and move from the current RGGB to something like RGGBWWWKK with a 3x3 basic structure. This should deliver both clean shadows (thanks to W) and safe highlights (thanks to K)

I've always wondered if you couldn't just have staggered RGGBs, if their size was small enough and bias their exposures so one set is giving you an offset exposure at the same time as the other set.  That would mean then that you would need 20 or 30mpx to get effectively 10mpx. So if you have a tech that offers super high density with decent noise performance, you could effectively take two or three photos at once with offset exposures that would be merged in camera to a lower res shot with high DR, right?  Am I nuts?  Did I just give away a patent idea?  ;-)
Fujifilm digital camera with EXR sensor is just doing that. They stagger two pixel of the same color sensitivity next to each other. So it is RR GG GG BB. In HDR mode, one pixel is over exposed while the other one is under exposed. Then they are comined to give us HDR. Also they can be independent of each other to give us high resolution or they can combine two pixel of the same color(next to each other ) to become a larger pixel  to give us low noise.

EOS Bodies / Re: *UPDATE* This & That
« on: August 11, 2011, 10:24:36 PM »
Canon has already done it with the 60D. The 60D has less feature than the 50D and lose the metal body at the same time.  Logically, 60D is supposed to have more feature and a step up from 50D.  60D basically has changed  the tradition and linage of the XXD. Now 60D has been nicknamed "Super Rebel".
"Less feature" on the 60D is very nearly a matter of interpretation.  It doesn't have microadjust (important to be sure and rather inexcusable to lose on a camera of this rank) and, almost unimportantly, the magnesium has been replaced by polycarbonate, glass fiber, and aluminum.  (Moving from aluminum to carbon fiber in tripods is one thing, but in camera bodies going to aluminum seems minimally important, as aluminum is still plenty good as a heatsink.)  It also loses one frame per second shooting speed, going from 6.3 FPS to 5.3, and the control wheel.  That is really about it on the negative side.

The 60D "has more feature" than the 50D in every other meaningful way.  Each little point, taken individually, is small, but taken together they lead to a camera that really is a replacement for the 50D, even if Canon has been careful not to position it that way (that's what the 7D is for).  When the 60D gets its own replacement, the new camera will probably be an unambiguous upgrade from the 50D in all areas but a few specifics to annoy the most finicky of purists.
You have listed a few  thing that the 50D has is missing on the 60D.  but you cannot even list anything that the 60D is better than the 50D. I would like to know. May I just list two? It it the tilting screen and the sensor has been changed from 15 MP to 18 MP. By the way, 60D does have dual control wheels.  However the 60D does not have a standard joystick  and the top LCD pannel has less information than the 50D.

EOS Bodies / Re: *UPDATE* This & That
« on: August 11, 2011, 04:02:12 PM »
Why would Canon sell a camera that was better than a 5D, under a name that loses the 5D's brand awareness, for cheaper than they could sell it for if it was the 5D?

Canon has already done it with the 60D. The 60D has less feature than the 50D and lose the metal body at the same time.  Logically, 60D is supposed to have more feature and a step up from 50D.  60D basically has changed  the tradition and linage of the XXD. Now 60D has been nicknamed "Super Rebel".

Lenses / Re: Why not EF-s "L" lenses?
« on: August 08, 2011, 02:21:26 PM »
Therefore the EF-S 35mm can be made better than a 35mm EF.

Can be.  But will it be? Canon may very likely sacrifice IQ to keep cost low (Nikon's 35mm f/1.8 DX is $200).  The current 35mm f/2 on APS-C is optically better than the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS kit lens, and actually delivers IQ similar to the excellent 85mm f/1.8.  How much optical improvement do you expect from there? 

The main complaints about the 35mm f/2 are that the build quality is poor, no USM, etc., and if they release an EF-S version of the lens, I doubt the build quality will be all that much better (assuming their target market is similar to Nikon's for that lens, they'll price it accordingly, and it will end up with build quality closer to the 18-55mm kit lens than to the 60mm macro).
You are right again.
May be Canon marketing have an idea that people like to think " Mine is bigger than yours". So APS-C  user are  forced EF prime lenses. For the deep pockets they go for BIG prime L lenses. For none deep pocket, they use non-L prime lenses.
Unfortunately, I am from a slightly old school . I like it small and  good.  That is why I am longing for good EF-S prime. As for the pricing, If the 7D user will spend $1600 on the body only, I am sure that they would not mind to pay for a EF-S good prime (optically and true USM) with the price close to the L lenses with smaller size and weight.
I know, I am the minority.

Lenses / Re: Why not EF-s "L" lenses?
« on: August 08, 2011, 01:13:17 PM »
It would certainly be possible for an EF-S 35mm lens to outperform an EF 35mm lens, but that would not be because designing a 35mm lens to cover an APS-C image circle is equivalent to designing a 56mm lens for FF.  Focal length is the distance from the rear nodal point to the image plane, regardless of the sensor size.  So, a 35mm lens for APS-C still must be designed with a 35mm focal length.  The mirror on an APS-C camera is only ~9mm shorter (vertical dimension) than that on a FF camera, so an EF-S 35mm lens can would still require the retrofocus design you need for wide angle lens.

The real benefit to the EF-S format is that the image circle is smaller, which means the elements of the lens can be smaller in diameter.  In the case of the inexpensive kit lenses, that usually just means less glass can be used, so the lens can be made more cheaply.  But, it also means the for the same cost and lower total weight, they can include more elements in the lens design, or better-made elements (e.g. molded glass instead of a resin replica for aspherical elements), or both, and that increases the ability of the lens to correct for aberrations - i.e. better IQ.
You are right. the reduction of 9mm between the back element of the EF-S lens and less than half of the covered area will definitely give the 35mm EF-S  an edge to giveuis a better lens. It still needs retrofocus design as you mentioned. But the design should be a lot esier. Therefore the EF-S 35mm can be made better than a 35mm EF.

Lenses / Re: Why not EF-s "L" lenses?
« on: August 08, 2011, 04:04:48 AM »
I wouldn't expect a EF-S version to get worse, but unlike the Nikkor side, I also don't expect it to get that much markedly better, either.
If it is done right, the 35mm EF-S can outperform a 35mm EF easily. The 35mm EF is a wide angle lens (to cover the FF sensor). While 35mm EF-S (with equilvalent focal length of 56mm) is slightly longer than a "normal lens". Anybody with knowledge in lenses knows that it is harder to design a good wide angle lens than a good normal lens for SLR or DSLR due to the flange focal distance (42 to 47 mm depends on the camera, for Canon is 44mm). If fact most the SLR had 55mm as "normal les until the mid 60's for the same reason. They just cannot make a good 50mm lens. Also 35mm EF-S just need to cover less than half of area of FF. If they cannot make the35mm EF-S better than the 35mm EF, something is really wrong.
That is the reason we are asking for some short EF-S prime lens. may be a 30mm  f1.8 and a 17mm f 2.8 prime in EF-S mount.

EOS Bodies / Re: Micro Focus Adjustment on 60D
« on: August 06, 2011, 02:42:21 AM »
It is a shame that canon do not put MFA in the 60D. It is a no cost extra for Canon. We, the comsumer will benefit a lot when we need it.  Canon should not expect the 60D user to use slow lenses and not  being critical all the time. There is one arguement that I have read over and over again " Canon wants to distinguish 60D from 7D by not having MFA in 60D" This is a lame reason. There are a lot of feature that 7D has but not on 60D. There is enough distinction between them without taking account of MFA. The only real reason is Canon is forcing people to buy 7D for the MFA.  And we all know that 7D has a much higher profit margin than the 60D.

Lenses / Re: Why not EF-s "L" lenses?
« on: August 05, 2011, 12:36:26 PM »
I do think it would be a great idea for Canon to release a "Premium" line of EF-S lenses.
A blue ring would look nice  ;D

They could have three zooms (wide angle, general purpose and telephoto) and maybe three fast primes (f1.4) with focal leghts more adapted for the 1.6 crop factor.

Canon already has 17-50mm and 10-20mm. both are 'premium priced" EF-S. As for telephoto, It is really a waste of resouce to do EF-S. There are hardly any size (weight ) and cost saving. We may just use EF lens instead.
However. I am all for standard and wideangle EF-S lense. These are where the better performance and smaller  size will come in. I would like to see a 30mm f1.8, 17mm f2.8 to start with.  I did not ask for fast lens due to smaller size and better performance can be obtained with a "not that fast lens".

Lenses / Re: Why not EF-s "L" lenses?
« on: July 26, 2011, 08:49:27 PM »
We need some short focal length prime lenses for APS-C body. I do not care whether they are L lenses or not. As it is now, we are forced to use the EF prime lenses. That is a waste of weight, design and size of the lenses. I would like to see the following:
30mm, f1.8 or 1.4. This will make a good and smaller Normal lens.
21mm, f2.8 or f2.0. This  will be a 34mm equilvalent lens.
17mm, f2.8 , this will be a 27mm equilvalent lens.
13mm, f 2.8, this will be a 21mm equilvalent lens.
I did not propose any really fast lens in consideration of size, cost and design.
Hope Canon is listening.

EOS Bodies / Re: CF to SD/MMC reader on CANON Camera 7D
« on: July 26, 2011, 04:36:09 PM »
Hi guys, did anyone tried this on their CANON camera especially 7D.  I was just wandering if you can use this:

For that price, you can buy a 8G CF crad.

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.

Pages: 1 ... 32 33 [34] 35 36 ... 46