Messages

46

Canon General / Re: Robots 1 - Humans 0, Canon Going all Robotic by 2015?

« on: May 16, 2012, 01:45:11 PM »

I disagree that robots don't have the same manufacturing tolerance capabilities as humans. Precise movements, measurements, and other "mechanical" things are very easy for machines to perform. Where humans completely smoke them is in cognitive thought, adaptation to circumstances, ability to infer details that are not directly visible, and so on. When it comes to repeating a motion over and over with extreme accuracy, robots have humans beat.

47

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: DXOMark website - mistake and careless on their part...

« on: May 15, 2012, 08:05:38 PM »

Okay, it's a spelling error. Someone who wasn't a native English speaker mistook the words expandable and expendable (a very understandable mistake).

Compared to native English speakers who write there instead of their and they're (and note how the reverse almost never happens), your instead of you're (same as before), and my absolute favorite, "lense", it's trivial. "Expendable" is a result of English containing two decently difficult words that happen to be quite similar in both spelling and pronunciation. The latter examples are not spelling errors, they're understanding errors which prove that the writer has a fundamental lack of understanding of the very words, and by extansion, ideas, which they aim to convey.

48

Canon General / Re: Robots 1 - Humans 0, Canon Going all Robotic by 2015?

« on: May 15, 2012, 02:00:19 PM »

I think it's a good idea because it means lower cost to the consumer, tighter manufacturing tolerances, and higher production output.

However, "the production line employees will move to other areas in the company and not be laid off" is the most blatant lie I've ever heard. Generally those people are there because they don't have the necessary training (be it academic or vocational) to do the other jobs, and moving those people around in the company doesn't save money. The only way they could reduce production costs without laying off those people would be to increase the scale of production to the point that the number of employees they already had is the same percentage of the overall company in whatever jobs they are reassigned to. Which requires more market share, a resource which is both scarce and difficult to obtain (if it were easy, every company would be successful and there would be no need to compete).

I'm all for progress, but I also like honesty.

49

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: What's the deal with B&H being closed on weekends?

« on: May 06, 2012, 04:59:20 PM »

It's not that Chassidim are "more serious" but rather that their dedication to observing Jewish law to as great a degree as they can manage is what drives them to identify with that group in the first place. That is to say, cause and effect are reversed here. Chassidim don't follow every word of the Torah, either. Just a much higher percentage than most other Jews do.

With all respect, as someone who knows about Chassidim probably a little more than you, I would have to disagree.

Orthodox Jews including Chassidim strive to and have to keep all of Jewish Law - there's no picking and choosing.

I made no accusation of picking and choosing, nor of failing to strive to, nor even of not having to observe all tenets of Jewish law. I don't wish to start an argument, so I will drop the point here.

50

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: What's the deal with B&H being closed on weekends?

« on: May 06, 2012, 04:02:26 PM »

2. Millions of Jews keep Shabbat. There's no such things as Chassidic Jews are "serious" about it or keep it more. There is something called Halacha (Jewish Law) which dictates exactly how to keep everything including positive actions and negative prohibitions.

3. A Jew cannot have his business open on Shabbat period and that includes benefiting from it. That's why B&H are closed on Shabbat and all the Festivals.

I think the point was that in this day and age, many people who identify as Jewish do not fully observe the Jewish law (for example, by working on Shabbat or not keeping Kosher). Many businesses run by Jews remain open on Saturday, which is precisely why the behavior of closing a large business can create confusion amongst those who haven't been exposed to it.

It's no different from identifying as Christian but not following the literal word of the Bible (find me a single person who actually does verbatim and I will be phenomenally impressed).

It's not that Chassidim are "more serious" but rather that their dedication to observing Jewish law to as great a degree as they can manage is what drives them to identify with that group in the first place. That is to say, cause and effect are reversed here. Chassidim don't follow every word of the Torah, either. Just a much higher percentage than most other Jews do.

At the end of the day religion is a very personal thing, and one of the reasons I love living in America is that you can choose to live however you want, even if that means closing a hugely successful business every Saturday, and people may wonder why but nobody can tell you that it's not okay... that's freedom of religion. Identifying as Jewish even if you never attend synagogue, don't observe Kashrut, and work on Shabbat is also your right. As long as you eat bagels and lox. If you don't do that, then go find some other religion, because Judaism doesn't want you anymore.

51

EOS Bodies / Re: Idea for Canon?

« on: May 05, 2012, 04:29:22 AM »

I don´t agree in "better".
CMOS advantage are the production costs!

it requires not that much energy like CCD
and the high ISO performance is better.

but color deph and DR, sharpness are definately better at CCDs

While it may not have been done yet, you're missing the flip-side of lower production costs. Namely, if you're willing to bring the production costs back up to the same level as before, you get a lot *more* performance out of it. The problem with doing that is marketing, primarily.

52

EOS Bodies / Re: More Full Frame Cameras on the 2012 Horizon? [CR2/CR1]

« on: May 04, 2012, 11:58:51 AM »

canon recently have design 120MP sensor. Could it be FF 120MP monster?
http://www.canon.com/technology/pdf/tech2011e.pdf Page 65

It's not even that recent, I believe they said it was APS-H, and I'm about 99% certain they demoed it for marketing purposes/to scare competitors. They've never revealed a sensor before actually going and using it, as far as I know.

53

EOS Bodies / Re: More Full Frame Cameras on the 2012 Horizon? [CR2/CR1]

« on: May 03, 2012, 02:02:58 PM »

Yes, I forgot all about that. I think the word "four" sounds like the word "death" in Japanese. T4i anyone?

Thats only the monkier in the US, in the rest of the world it'll be the 650D.

I'd argue that using 2 has some negatives aswell given that its makes it clear that its NOT #1.

I guess we're both wrong. I had in my mind that Japan was also using the Rebel moniker but it's actually Kiss. The Rebel T3i is called the Kiss X5 in Japan. interestingly, the T2i WAS in fact called "Kiss X4" in Japan.

Ah yes I forgot about the Japnese label although even then the 4 is somewhat buried rather than being the main brand the camera is sold on. If there is an issue I'm guessing marketing rather than giant corperate superstition is where it lies.

Just like everyone calls Mac OS X "OS Ex" even though Apple internally calls it "OS Ten", Nikon has made their Japanese marketing clear that it's called the ディーフォア "Dee Foa", and since anyone who's superstitious wouldn't want to make the death allusion anyway, people stick with the canonical name.

Incidentally, though, when I was at a major electronics retailer in Japan, I was shown to one "Dee Nanahyaku" (D700), but a "Faivu Dee Maaku Tsuu" (5D2). I did immediately find it interesting that they rendered it in Japanese for Nikon and English transliteration for Canon, although I think it's the fault of the word "mark" that makes it awkward to say in Japanese. It would end up being rendered as something like 第２、５D "Dai Ni Go Dee", which looks and sounds ridiculous in addition to being reversed relative to the actual name printed on the camera body.

Well, I'm just rambling at this point, but I thought it was interesting.

54

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7Dmk2 any rumors??

« on: April 28, 2012, 05:48:35 PM »

If the 7D2 had 61-pt AF, 8+ fps, top-of-the-line weather sealing, etc., and the entry-level FF just had image quality and ISO going for it. Even if it takes a lot of corner-cutting to offset the extra cost of the FF sensor, there are a lot of corners to cut in such a complicated device.

Just buy yourself a 1D series camera, ok?

I have no interest in something that heavy, nor can I afford the more recent entries in the 1D series. I'm not in the market for a 7D-like camera either, since I rarely shoot things that move. You asked how a 7D Mark II would sell against an entry-level full frame, and my suggestion was that it would sell just fine against an entry-level full frame with nothing going for it other than being full frame.

I kid you not, if Canon released a camera with a full frame sensor that only went up to 400 ISO, shot 1 FPS, had only one autofocus point, and no weather sealing, but had 14 stops of DR and virtually nonexistent noise at ISO 100 (or even better, native ISO 50) for under $2000, I would buy it. Today. And I bet you I'm not alone.

Everyone wants something different in a camera, so having competing models at the same price point expands the potential market at least as much as it cannibalizes sales from other models. And if they have a camera that caters to a market that the competitor doesn't have a foothold in, then the sales they're cannibalizing are someone else's.

55

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7Dmk2 any rumors??

« on: April 28, 2012, 03:15:59 PM »

Anyone know if the DIGIC 5 or 5+ has the same pinout as a DIGIC 4? Same or better power dissipation?

They generally don't release that information (plus they've said in the past that each DIGIC model isn't actually a single processor, although I'd guess the ones they put in their DSLRs are the same if they have the same designation), but I don't think they'd even bother releasing a new one if it wasn't going to be more power efficient, since that's literally the #1 most important thing for embedded computing, way more important than performance or any other metric.

If the rumors of a Nikon D600 at 24MP are correct and it will sell at around $1500, then you can kiss goodbye to any hopes of a 7D Mark II. There just isn't space to put a product like it into the lineup and have it sell competitively against the competition.

Or to put it differently, how would the 7D Mark II sell against a full frame camera that was priced sub-$2000?

If the 7D2 had 61-pt AF, 8+ fps, top-of-the-line weather sealing, etc., and the entry-level FF just had image quality and ISO going for it. Even if it takes a lot of corner-cutting to offset the extra cost of the FF sensor, there are a lot of corners to cut in such a complicated device.

56

5D MK III Sample Images / Re: Joshua Tree National Park - 5D III + 16-35 II

« on: April 25, 2012, 03:55:56 PM »

The second one is a little over-post processed (you can see halos), and the fourth one could probably stand for some keystone correction. That being said, I love the composition and think they are very nice photos; well done!

57

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon, STOP shipping defective products!!!

« on: April 25, 2012, 03:52:57 PM »

I really don't want to get involved with this thread, but after reading through the entire thing there's something I simply fail to understand and I wish someone would enlighten me. The camera only uses metering data to select exposure parameters when it's not in manual mode. If it's not in manual mode you're relying on it to determine the exposure (it's metering). If you're relying on it to determine the exposure, why are you checking the top screen at all?

Let's say you do check the top screen and it's metering 4s at f/4 (as per the excellent post a page or so ago), and you think "well that's not right, in this darkness the exposure definitely needs 5s if it's at f/4, so I'm going to dial in +1/3 exposure compensation", then why aren't you shooting in manual in the first place?

I'm not trying to be cynical at all here, I'm seriously confused. Please enlighten me.

58

Lenses / Re: Leica 50mm f/0.95 can be used in 5D2 Body?

« on: April 17, 2012, 02:42:47 AM »

does it support Auto Foucs or not?

In addition to what's been said, the Noctilux has no auto focus to begin with, so it certainly won't have any once adapted. 

59

EOS Bodies / Re: How many actuations on your Canons?

« on: April 10, 2012, 02:06:47 AM »

The naming convention made me think:


Currently files are named "Img_xxxx.CR2"
  That is 8 positions - dot - 3 positions. This exist from the Microsoft DOS period.
I assume that if I skip on the "Img_" there will be 4 additional character spaces that can be filled with a number. Theoratically it should allow 10001.CR2 and later 100001.CR2 and later 1000001.CR and if the camera would allow it even 10000001.CR2
Or....am I wrong in this assumption?

You're almost correct. The reason that they are named IMG_xxxx.CR2 is indeed an archaism from the DOS days when files were limited to 8 bytes of name and 3 bytes of extension. However, that restriction exists only as an archaism/compatibility issue, and therefore, there's practically no limit to what you can rename your files. Older versions of Windows allowed names and extensions up to 255 characters each, and I believe newer versions, as well as modern Mac and Linux implementations, allow even more than that, so for practical purposes you can rename the file whatever you want.

There's a side-issue at work here, which is that due to long-entrenched standards, CF and SD both use FAT (usually 32, occasionally 16) for their file system. These exceptionally old filesystems (FAT16 was finalized in 1984, positively ancient by computing standards) are basically still used because they work and the industry is allergic to change. They do allow longer filenames than 8 characters, but because of the way they are represented internally, file corruption is not impossible if you use names longer than that, and they're more interested in being reliable than being pretty. It's also cheaper since the firmware backbone to deal with it already exists. If they switched to a modern file system like ext4 or even NTFS, all of these issues would evaporate, and it would become trivial to add to the firmware options to let you format your filenames however you please, so the camera would be able to let you do something like Positron_[YYYYMMDD]_[shuttercount].cr2 or whatever else you wanted.

The reason they don't do this is because they haven't done it yet, and if a new camera supported ext4, anyone who used it would have a card incompatible with any camera before it, people would try to put their card into the other camera, it would say it needs to be formatted, and they'd lose shots since they'd need to find and format a card without pictures on it already, assuming they even have one. And then they'd complain, and Canon would look bad for trying to make a step into the future.

Bottom line: When you're trying to make money, sometimes you have to do things that are patently retarded to keep your competitive edge.

Ok. Just a check: so if I name my files: [shooting date][prefix][number (6 digits)].CR2 is that too long with risk of filecorruption or damage to the memorycard? Especially shooting AI-servo 8fps?

There's no risk once the images are off the card, and there's no way to set the camera to write the filenames like that while they're still on the card, so no. The only risk I could think of is if you had more than 999,999 such images and put them all on one card at the same time (which is when the card would no longer be able to tell them apart and you'd get corruption).

60

EOS Bodies / Re: How many actuations on your Canons?

« on: April 09, 2012, 01:39:14 PM »

The naming convention made me think:


Currently files are named "Img_xxxx.CR2"
  That is 8 positions - dot - 3 positions. This exist from the Microsoft DOS period.
I assume that if I skip on the "Img_" there will be 4 additional character spaces that can be filled with a number. Theoratically it should allow 10001.CR2 and later 100001.CR2 and later 1000001.CR and if the camera would allow it even 10000001.CR2
Or....am I wrong in this assumption?

You're almost correct. The reason that they are named IMG_xxxx.CR2 is indeed an archaism from the DOS days when files were limited to 8 bytes of name and 3 bytes of extension. However, that restriction exists only as an archaism/compatibility issue, and therefore, there's practically no limit to what you can rename your files. Older versions of Windows allowed names and extensions up to 255 characters each, and I believe newer versions, as well as modern Mac and Linux implementations, allow even more than that, so for practical purposes you can rename the file whatever you want.

There's a side-issue at work here, which is that due to long-entrenched standards, CF and SD both use FAT (usually 32, occasionally 16) for their file system. These exceptionally old filesystems (FAT16 was finalized in 1984, positively ancient by computing standards) are basically still used because they work and the industry is allergic to change. They do allow longer filenames than 8 characters, but because of the way they are represented internally, file corruption is not impossible if you use names longer than that, and they're more interested in being reliable than being pretty. It's also cheaper since the firmware backbone to deal with it already exists. If they switched to a modern file system like ext4 or even NTFS, all of these issues would evaporate, and it would become trivial to add to the firmware options to let you format your filenames however you please, so the camera would be able to let you do something like Positron_[YYYYMMDD]_[shuttercount].cr2 or whatever else you wanted.

The reason they don't do this is because they haven't done it yet, and if a new camera supported ext4, anyone who used it would have a card incompatible with any camera before it, people would try to put their card into the other camera, it would say it needs to be formatted, and they'd lose shots since they'd need to find and format a card without pictures on it already, assuming they even have one. And then they'd complain, and Canon would look bad for trying to make a step into the future.

Bottom line: When you're trying to make money, sometimes you have to do things that are patently retarded to keep your competitive edge.