August 22, 2014, 02:39:59 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 ... 33 34 [35] 36 37 ... 40
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Mirrorless [CR1]
« on: February 05, 2011, 04:46:58 PM »
After reading the posts, I have the following thought:
1. In order to complete with the DSLR, the auto focusing speed of the EVIL must be as fast as  the DSLR. So far non of the "mirrorless" can achieve that due to the "live view focusing". That is why Leica sticks to the manual focusing. Experience range finder user can guess the distance and use the " zone focusing " technique and endsup with zero focusing delay. Also all the Leica lenses have about 3/4 turn of the focusing ring for the entire focusing range and depth of field scale. That will definitely help.
2. Overall size is important. Sony has gone over board on minimze the body and ends up with a large lense. Using existing DSLR lens with an adapter is not an answer. That will be too big. Try to compare the f2.0 35mm Aummicro 9 leica) with any F2 35mm dslr lens. The volume is about a factor of 4. So the EVIL needs to have its own set of lens to make the size to be small to lure people from their DSLR.
3. Due to the decrease thickness of the camera body and the will to make smaller lenses, FF in EVIL is almost a dream  due to the high cost of the sensor and the special angled and offset micro lens arrangement ( Leica used it on M9, they may be holding patterns on it) plus soft ware adjustment to achieve even explosre from corner to corner. Even APSC will facing similar problem  to a lesser degree.
3. Marketing pressure/ user perference. Due to the lower demand, the sales volume of EVIL will be quite a bit smaller than the DSLR. So in order to get the R & D and tooling expense back, the EVIL (body and lenses)will be selling a lot higher than the DSLR at the same performance level.  So how many people will buy an EVIL instead of  a DSLR???
4. What is the advantange of EVIL over the DSLR beside size???  That is the same reason why the film SLR has literally wiped out the film range finder camera, except Leica. Even Nikon and Canon stopped producing range finder (with interchangeable lens) in the 60's.
5. my personal choice of mirrorless is down to two. 1. Leica M9. It combined the best of classic interchangeable lens range finder and the digital. Too bad at $8000 body only is too steep for me, even I have some Leica lenses from my M4.  2. FujiFilm X100, I look at it as a high tech  M9  with  a fixed lens.

EOS Bodies / Re: 600D/T3i Specs [CR2]
« on: February 05, 2011, 02:36:45 PM »
That will make it almost like a 60D except the size and the grip.  What is the point of having this model??

 a small form factor is always good. ever taken a camera overseas ;)

My 20D and 40D (with  3 lenses) have travelled to every continent of the world, including Antarctica.  For me, handling and speed is more important than the slight decrease in size and  weight.  With  the L lenses, the additional size and weight of the body becomes insignificant.

EOS Bodies / Re: 600D/T3i Specs [CR2]
« on: February 03, 2011, 07:55:21 PM »
That will make it almost like a 60D except the size and the grip.  What is the point of having this model??

EOS Bodies / Re: “1Dsq” & 3D [CR1]
« on: January 29, 2011, 06:12:39 PM »
When will you guys get it? With the EF registry distance of 44mm you can't have a mirror that will give you a short side much over 24mm. It has nothing to do with lens baffles or image circles. It is impossible to make a reflex camera with a 44mm lens registry distance anything over a 26mm square, even a non moving pellicle mirror can't do it. The only way you can realise a longer short side, and see through the lens, is to read off the sensor.
From 24 X 36mm to 30X30mm, the "Shortside" onlyincreased by 6mm, ie. 3 mm on each end of the "short side". If you look inside the film slr or FF dslr. You can see that there are easily 3mm space between the edge of the view finder and the insde of the camera body. This space is "reserved for the morror movement. If we think outside of the box and put the mirror hinge at the bottom of the camera. It may be doable. 

EOS Bodies / Re: “1Dsq” & 3D [CR1]
« on: January 28, 2011, 01:44:18 PM »
Anyone who has issues with using a "square format" sensor should buy a Hasselblad 500 series camera with an 80, 120 or 150mm lens, 10 rolls of Provia 100f or Velvia 100, and shoot at least 2 photos a day for 2 months. By the time those two months are up, you'll be wondering why every camera doesn't have a square sensor (with a landscape/ portrait crop option, for those few occasions where that works better). Guaranteed...
I do not have problem with the squre format. However, I do want to point out why Hasselblad (also Rollieflex and other copies) is using a square format. The penta prism for Hasslblad (Rollieflex also) is extremely heavy and expensive. so It it not an option for most of the users. Waist level view finder is the norm for the users.  So can you imagine people using it side way??? The squre format will eliminate the rotaion of the camera body.
Back to the arguement about "Standard  height to width ration".  There is no standard. However, human vision do have more width than height, it is about 3:2, individual milage may vary. That is why the movie industry set this standard at the beginning and Leica adopted it since day one and evey body follows. TV has been using 4:3 for a long time. Movies has been using wide screen for a long time also. DH TV has moved away from 4:3. So what is the right ratio???
The only thing that we will give up in square format is the angle of view in the horizotal direction. For any given lens, it will be narrower.
There are people agrue that with square format ( based on existing FF lens) will have less usable sensor area.  It nay not be the case. Let us use 8 X 10 print as a case for discussion. For a FF, an 8 X10 will use  24mm X 30mm area of the sensor. on a quare 30mm X 30mm sensor, it will stil use 30mm X 24mm. Exactly the same! For 12 X14 print,  24mm x 28mm will be used from FF. It is actually smaller than the 30mm X 25.7 mm from the 30mm square sensor.

Lenses / Re: IS in prime lenses.
« on: January 28, 2011, 01:07:00 PM »
Also why isn't there IS in the shorter primes such as the 24mm 1.4, 50mm 1.2 and 85 1.2?. These are three lenses on my short list ( i could only afford one to start with), however are they no good for video without IS? Any one with experience shedding light on this for me would be much appreciated.

a lot of this is also about diminishing returns.

let's pretend you're shooting in poor light with the Canon 24mm f/1.4 L II, and the 100mm f/2.8 L IS Macro.

without IS turned on in the macro lens, your fastest realistic shot you can grab is at f/2.8, 1/100s.  the equivalent shot on the 24mm f/1.4 L II, wide open, is at f/1.4, 1/400s.  the 24mm can comfortably go down to 1/24s, at which point you are gathering 4 times the amount of light that the 100 f/2.8 L IS Macro is gathering.  thus, the macro lens needs the 4-stop IS to get to the same level of functionality.

adding IS to wide-angle primes would be like M&Ms on your froyo ... it'd be great, but it's not necessary.  do you want to pay for the increased cost and weight, when it's already doing what you need it to do?  that's the question.  and it seems like Canon has determined not enough people are willing to pay the premium for the extra bit of utility
It is always nice to have IS on ANY lens, if it does not degrade the optical performance.  There are times that your 24mm is too wide and you need the depth of field. So you may be forced to use your 50mm or even 100mm and stop down to f5.6 or even f8. Under that situation, you will really wish that they have IS.
I can thinks of the following reason why there is no IS on the prime lens shorter than 100mm:
1. To keep the size and weight minimal. That is important for most of the prime lens user.
2. To avoid degrading of the optical performance. The IS will need at least 2 additional  Glass(or plastic) wedge in the optical path. This is degrade the optical performance.
3. Design problem. It is already hard enough to design a good short focal length lens due to the distance between the lens mount and the film (sensor) plate to allow mirror movement. Adding the IS optical elements will make it even tougher.

EOS Bodies / Re: Disappointed with Canon?
« on: November 13, 2010, 04:17:19 PM »
Between doing my photography and selling cameras i think people give canon a bad rap.  Both brands, nikon and canon, are great camera companies.  They both have their strong points.  However saying that i love canon.  I was thinking of switching to nikon but when i started to play with the nikons i found canon easier to work with. 
People complain about the noise but lets take a look at lets say the canon 7D vs nikon d300s.  The compaint is about the noise but lets look at whats really amaizing with the 7d.  it has 18mp vs 12mp.  canon manages to bring down the noise to comparable levels.  Personally i think thats an amaizing feet.  Another thing people tend to complain about is the lack of autofocusing points.  Well i don't know about you but i find they can cause problems with accuracy when you have too many.  I preffer using one point even when shooting widlife or action.  I have even heard by nikon users that they don't use all the points on the d300s.  To top it off we can tweak our cameras to make them work to the way we want them to.
As for the mirroless cameras why complain, nikon doesn't have one so why care if canon doesn't have one. 
At the end of the day its what you feel comfortable with and what your eye prefers.
Well said. Camera is a personal choice.  It is always a take or ive. We can always sinle out one aprticular feature and says  "A" is better than "B".  But when we look at 'A" and "B" as a complete package (including price), It is a tough call to say which is better than  which.
As for mirrorless, Even the excutives in Canon admitted that the technology is not here yet. So why should Canon make a inferior product just to claim a "ME Too".

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Mirrorless Far Off?
« on: November 11, 2010, 09:39:03 PM »
olympus has mirrorless cameras and is suffering.

with the current technology only amateurs would buy a mirrorless "DSLR".

it´s not about being the first but doing it right.
i can easily wait until canon does it RIGHT.

That just prove my point #1.  (Are mirrorless really making money??)

EOS Bodies / Re: No 1Ds IV? [CR1]
« on: November 10, 2010, 05:39:12 PM »
Perhaps this is referring to an old topic -- the merging of 1D and 1Ds lines.  One body, pick your resolution.

FF = 40 MP, 6 FPS
1.3 crop = 40 MP / (1.3^2) = 24 MP, 10 FPS

Then again, the rumor could be nothing more than speculation - devoid of fact.
It make perfect sense. for 1.3 crop, EF lens(for full frame) is a must(No EF-S).  Most of the pros are using L lens anyway. So if user needs speed, then it will be switched to 1.3 crop(with less pixel; count). If user needs resolution, the switch to FF. Two  cameras in one. Good deal.

EOS Bodies / Re: No 1Ds IV? [CR1]
« on: November 10, 2010, 03:54:40 PM »
A long lens actually need a bigger mirror due to the narrower object angle. You can try to  draw it out yourself. or you can try to read some of the manual of film SLR in the 60's, they do mention the above effect.

Hmmm.... I'm not convinced. Wouldn't you get limb darkening unless the mirror reflected the full beam? Unfortunately I don't have any camera manuals from the 60's lying around  :) Perhaps you can direct me to a more accessible source for information?
Sorry, I do not have one either. I try to search one for you  in the web, no luck. This is a simple exercise to convince yourself:
Lay down a paper in landscape position, draw a 24mm line at the left end of the paper (The 24  mm line represent the height of the film or a FF sensor)
draw a perpendicular line at the middle of the 24mm line
draw a 45 degree line(23 mm long) from the top of the 24mm line, This line represnts the mirror.
draw one line to the top and one line to the bottom from the perpendicular line at 50mm from the 24mm line. this represents the "light cone" from a 50mm lens.
draw one line to the top and one line to the bottom from the perpendicular line at 200mm from the 24mm line. this represents the "light cone" from a 200mm lens.
Now look at how the two "light cones" intersect with the "mirror".
You will see that the 200mm "light cone" will hit a larger area of the mirror than the 50mm  "light cone".
This proves that a longer lens needs a larger mirror. It will affect the viewing only, It  will not affect the actual picture.( the mirror has swung out of the way)
You can go through the same exercise on the proposed 31.5mm square sensor also.

EOS Bodies / Re: No 1Ds IV? [CR1]
« on: November 10, 2010, 02:30:45 AM »
A Pelical mirror set up may work, at least for shorter focal length. For super-telephoto, It will lost some view at the top.
Why would a pelical mirror need to be smaller, and why would the focal length matter?

It is the opposite. Since Pelical mirror does not move, it can be made bigger and be repositioned to be able to give us the additional 3.5mm area on the top and the bottom (May be??). A long lens actually need a bigger mirror due to the narrower object angle. You can try to  draw it out yourself. or you can try to read some of the manual of film SLR in the 60's, they do mention the above effect. Now, DSLR never talk about this is due to the improvement of the mirror movement ( especiall, Nikon), the pivot of the mirror moves backward before swings up to allow a BIGGER mirror.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Mirrorless Far Off?
« on: November 10, 2010, 02:06:32 AM »
May be I should jump into the 'crystal ball" business also. 5 years from now on, entry level of point and shoot will disappear. (replaced by smart phone). Mirrorless (EVIL) and entry level DSLR (APS-C) will survive and doing well. Evil type get a lot cheaper and better (another reason for the entry level P & S to disappear).  Picture quality of APS-C sensor DSLR will rival the FF of 2010.  Mid-range DSLR (like 7D etc) will perish, due to too much overlapping in function with entry level DSLR and high price. Professional DSLR will survive as FF only due to faster processor and faster frame rate. APS-H will not be needed for speed. As for MF, the market share will shrink due to the improvement of the FF professional DSLR

EOS Bodies / Re: No 1Ds IV? [CR1]
« on: November 10, 2010, 01:12:18 AM »
Is there any chance that Canon is thinking about a square sensor that is 31.5mm on each side? This format will use ALL the existing EF lens and take the bulk out of the medium format. Just like the  Rollieflex 127 in the OLD film days.

This topic has been covered before, and the conclusion was that it doesn't work for an EF dSLR because there is insufficient room for a mirror (to cover that field) between the lens and the detector. Canon would have to go EVIL to make an EF camera with a square super-FF detector. Then there is the issues with possible internal baffles on lenses (and the minor issue with tulip-shaped hoods).

A Pelical mirror set up may work, at least for shorter focal length. For super-telephoto, It will lost some view at the top.

EOS Bodies / Re: No 1Ds IV? [CR1]
« on: November 10, 2010, 01:01:53 AM »
What is the point of the 1Ds Mk** well part of it is in having a bigger camera than the customer!

If want to impress the customer, you can walk in with a M9 or a Hasselblad.

Sorry, but wrong and wrong.  If you want to impress the customer, show the customer your portfolio!

Today's customer would be pretty unimpressed by this guy's camera:

It seems that I have been misquoted. At the beginning of the  tread I actually suggested to use "FINAL RESULTs"(equals to portfolio) to impress customer. The last statement is trying to say "If you want to impress customer, D1 may not be enough, go all the way out with Leica M9 and Hasselblad, both are a lot more impressive than D1". Something is lost in my expression. Sorry about that you do not get the "joke"

EOS Bodies / Re: No 1Ds IV? [CR1]
« on: November 09, 2010, 03:53:07 PM »
What is the point of the 1Ds Mk** well part of it is in having a bigger camera than the customer!  not much good if a pro turns up with a camera that the client thinks is nothing more special than the entry level models he sees wrapped around the necks of so many amateur

I am thinking the opposite. User should have a choice whether he want a big camera  to impress his customer or use his own reputation and final result to impress the customer.  Vertical grip should be an add on not a built in.
"size do not count, It is the performance that counts". If want to impress the customer, you can  walk in with a M9 or a Hasselblad.

Pages: 1 ... 33 34 [35] 36 37 ... 40