April 17, 2014, 07:23:18 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 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 37
61
EOS-M / Re: The Next EOS M? [CR1]
« on: February 25, 2013, 04:03:20 PM »
It's a starting point for Sony. I didn't see 35mm fixed as boring lens, I took over 2K photos last couple weeks with my RX1. My 5D III and all EF lenses been sitting in the bag lately - NOW, that is boring :-X


Agree, 35mm for FF is the most versatile  lens. In the old film days, while a good lens cost 1/2 month of wage, people used 35mm as their main lens. I know people travelled around the world with a 35mm and  a 90mm lens. For the film point and shoot, 40mm is the fixed lens.

62
EOS-M / Re: The Next EOS M? [CR1]
« on: February 25, 2013, 02:51:43 PM »
Canon  cannot even make a good APS-C mirrorless. People are asking FF from Canon??? Dream on!! Don't get me wrong, I like mirrorless. Like the other poster says, if Canon comes up with a GOOD mirrorless, even in APS-C, I will jump on it.

63
Canon General / Re: Lone protester takes on the camera companies at CES
« on: February 14, 2013, 03:01:28 PM »
I have once try to send in my 8 X 25 IS binocular toe Canon Service center to fix the IS. It is only 1 1/2 year old.  I have a quote of $450. I paid $175 brand new from a local shop. ( a very good sale). Can it be more CRAZY, REDIDICULUS, GRAB YOU BY THE THROAT....???

64
EOS-M / Re: EOS M Firmware Coming Soon
« on: February 11, 2013, 04:19:14 PM »
I am really puzzled by SLOW AF of  all Canon  P & S (high and  low end) and the mirrorless. Casio is A LOT faster than  Canon even 4 years ago. Now Olympus, Panasonic, Nikon and even Sony  etc. are "near DSLR" AF speed and Canon is still a turtle. I have only one sadistic reason: Canon P & S user getting fustrated and move to Canon DSLR. I am one of them.

65
Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens
« on: February 01, 2013, 07:53:06 PM »
In the old film days, Leica designate the 90mm lenses as portrait lens and designate the 135 mm lenses as telephoto lens.  Canon does not make any 90mm lenses. Therefore Canon designate  the 100mm lens as portrait lens and 135mm  lenses as telephoto lens. The reason: 90mm give us the "proper perspective" while 135mm tends to compact the facial feature at portrait (head and upper body) composition.

66
EOS Bodies / Re: Big megapixel camera?
« on: January 31, 2013, 02:15:41 AM »
Agreed on no MF - it would require development of a complete system in a very niche market.
... which is already occupied by Leica.
Canon have the same technology in MF. They just abandon it when they get out of the Range-finder camera segment 40 years ago.
Thanks , I though he is refering to manual focusing.

I guess Athlon is referring to the S2; a whopping big camera for whopping big money - and that's before you  start on the lenses

67
Lenses / Re: Please explain the need for f2.8 zooms
« on: January 31, 2013, 01:42:08 AM »
Even you do not need to shoot at 2.8, these are the benefits of having a 2.8 lens:
1. Brighter view finder image, so you can catch th expression easier.
2. Faster focusing in dim light
3. More accurate focus after you have stopped downth lens during exposure due to increased DOF.
4. Sharper image after stopped down the len. Usually, a 2.8 lens at 4.0 is sharper than a lens wide opened at 4.0
Draw back of 2.8 lens:
1. Size and weight.
2. $$$

68
EOS Bodies / Re: Big megapixel camera?
« on: January 30, 2013, 01:21:47 PM »
Agreed on no MF - it would require development of a complete system in a very niche market.
... which is already occupied by Leica.
Canon have the same technology in MF. They just abandon it when they get out of the Range-finder camera segment 40 years ago.

69
Software & Accessories / Re: Rucksack Camera Bags
« on: January 23, 2013, 11:38:24 PM »

The thing I'm not sure about though, is the security aspect of it. It sure does look easy for someone steal the cameraout of the side pocket in the street.


Lowepro put the "ribbon" Loop with a plastic end on the double zipper puller is not just for look or "easy to pull". It can be used for security also. After you have zipped up the openning, put one (1st) "ribbon loop " through the other one (2nd). Then put the 2nd loop through the 1st loop, then put the 1st loop through the 2nd loop.If you still can do it, then put the 1st loop through the 2nd loop. Now  nobody can pull the two zipper puller apart without undoing the looping. The camera will be secure in the bag unless someone cut the bag.

70
Sharpness has got nothing to do with perspective, or DoF.
I disagree. That's not even true when you only shoot ISO test charts. The larger DoF, the smaller the circle of confusion and the higher the resolution/sharpness (disregarding diffraction etc.).
As long as your lens can out resolve the senser, the DOF does not matter any more. Also the DOF is governed by the acceptable size of circle of confussion.  As long as you have the acceptable size of circle of conffussion, your DOF can either be  1 inch or 10 ft, both will give you the same result on the point of focus.

71
2. There are isolated incident that the APS-C can actually sharper than the FF if the lens use for FF have a severe problem in curvature of field or severe unsharp conrners. Since APS-C snesor only using the center part of the FOV of the lens. These problem may not exist. Therefore the APS-C is actually sharper.

well, you have soon  24x36 with the same pixel density then you have both cropping and 24x36 to chose between.
as todays d800 APS crop 15,3Mp. Next will be 54Mp 24x36 if they keep  the schedule and the APS crop 24Mp
[/quote}
My discussion is based on both FF and APS-C ARE of the same pixel count. Not pixel density.

72
2. There are isolated incident that the APS-C can actually sharper than the FF if the lens use for FF have a severe problem in curvature of field or severe unsharp conrners. Since APS-C snesor only using the center part of the FOV of the lens. These problem may not exist. Therefore the APS-C is actually sharper.

I don't see why, because if you were taking the same lens on the full frame, even if it had bad corners, if you took a center 1.6 crop size on the FF to get the same FOV, you would be throwing away the FF bad corners. It would be same as then comparing the same image area. Nearly every lens chart I have ever looked at the lens is sharper in the middle, so unless you were comparing edge of FF to centre of APS-C (which is not really a reasonable comparison) that is not the case.
If you read my post carefully, I started by staying that both FFand APS-C are of the same pixel count. Also sharpness has got nothing to do with FOV or DOF. Your disussion talks about cropping the FF to APS-C size. Therefore you have already thrown away more than half of the pixel from FF. Do you expect a 10 Mp picture to be sharper than a 22 MP APS-C picture with an very sharp lens (center area only)??

73
For one, I asked you what exactly you meant by "the APS-C lens has to be better than the FF lens"?

I followed that up with a clarifying question asking if you were talking about two different lenses such as one EF-S lens and one EF lens.

Sorry if I was the cause of any additional confusion... :)

-Yes, to get two images, one taken with APS and one taken with FF appear equally sharp when viewed at equal presentation size in your presentation format of choice, the lens used on the APS camera needs to be sharper, when sharpness is defined by "lines or line-pairs per mm".

-Yes, at least I am talking about two different lenses in the comparison. Why compare an 85mm on FF with an 85mm on APS? they don't "do" the same thing any more. If the shot taken with the FF camera was at a 10 feet target distance, you'd have to back of to 16 feet to get the same framing on APS. And by backing off to 16 feet, you change the perspective of the shot so much that it wouldn't even be the "same shot" any more.

Taking that into account is where the "FF is sharper than APS" starts to make sense....
Using a 135L 2.0 wide open on a 5D3 gives the same field of view, the same short DoF and the same amount of noise as using the 85L 1.2 on a 60D. But the 135 on 5D3 image will be a LOT sharper and more contrasty.

For the same reason, a bog-standard 85/1.8 on FF gives sharper images with the same short DoF as a 50L 1.2 does on APS. And a 50mm vs 35mm F1.4 on APS and so on.
Sharpness has got nothing to do with perspective, or DoF. You quoted all the lenses are wide open for the tests. It is not fair either. Every body knows that ALL lenses is not in their best behaviour when they are wide open ( more distortion, less resolution and less contrast ). Are you sure that the lenses can out resolve the APS-C sensor under test??? if not, then the result becomes a test of the lenses, not the sharpness of the sensor.

74
The original post talks about "sharpness". A few posts are comparing DR, noise between the two formats. These are "picture quality", not sharpness only.  Some poster throw in "post production", that is not a valid arguement either. My take on this subject are:
1. For the same pixel count on both formats, both can be as sharp as each other,  assuming that the lens can out resolve both sensor in the imaging area. That will put a lot of stress on the lens for APS-C sensor. The lens need 1.6 time reolving power compare to the FF.
2. There are isolated incident that the APS-C can actually sharper than the FF if the lens use for FF have a severe problem in curvature of field or severe unsharp conrners. Since APS-C snesor only using the center part of the FOV of the lens. These problem may not exist. Therefore the APS-C is actually sharper.
3. FF will be sharper if the lens cannot out resolve the APS-C sensor but it will out resolve  the FF.
4. There is no doubt that FF will have better picture quality than thre APS-C, due to less noise, better DR.
5. The above piont is assuming that the lens is not being diffraction limited. The DOF is not affecting the sharpness either
6. In print, most of the difference will not be obvious due to the printing process.
7. How many people can tell the difference in music between  amplifier with 0.01% distotion and amplifier with 0.005 % distortion??

75
Lenses / Re: New EOS-M Lenses Soon [CR2]
« on: January 19, 2013, 01:16:17 AM »
I just cannot understand why Canon is having SLOW AF on ALL its point and shoot, G series and even the M. Casio has much faster AF even a few years back,. LX-5 is twice as fast as most Canon P & S. The Newer SONY RX100 and The Panasonic LX-7 are even faster, at almost DSLR speed. I have not yet mention The Olympus OM-D or Fuji yet.
What is happening Canon??
Also until Canon can solve the SLOW Af problem, Canon mirrorless will not be a good  option. Now some poster wants a FF mirrorless from Canon???

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 37