August 22, 2014, 06:02:52 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 - raptor3x

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7
1
Canon General / Re: CPN Interviews the Men Behind the EOS-1 Series SLRs
« on: August 21, 2014, 05:22:19 PM »
I believe the last bit is the most interesting for me:

"I believe that the trend towards compact, lightweight equipment is a certainty among categories encompassed by advanced amateurs, and even professional equipment, [so] the entire [EOS] system will move toward a more lightweight form.

The technical challenges are: lighter, stronger materials; glass materials with a high refractive index and high permeability; improvement in low power consumption design and compact, high-capacity battery; electronic parts with a higher degree of integration.”

Ugh, I hope this isn't too true.  The 5D series are the smallest cameras that are actually comfortable to hold, I'd be highly disappointed if they started making them smaller.  By far, the worst feature of the current mirrorless cameras is that they're all incredibly uncomfortable to hold since they're so tiny.

2
Lenses / Re: Development Announcement of a New 800mm f/5.6L IS II [CR1]
« on: August 20, 2014, 12:14:05 PM »

These lenses, now that they are so light, are eminently hand holdable. I hand hold my 600/4 II all the time, with and without a 1.4x TC. The IS is invaluable for hand-held work like that. Even when used on a tripod, there are things, like vibrations caused by wind, that IS is still useful for.

I thought all the whites version II had an detection inside to find out if they are used on a tripod, and if that's the case then IS would be switched off. Or am I wrong ?

It doesn't turn the IS off, it just prevents it from going into the feedback loop that caused problems in the early IS lenses.

3
PowerShot / Re: What Else is Coming for Photokina? [CR2]
« on: August 17, 2014, 10:13:47 PM »
Given that I'm looking at my "90 Percent Off" Pixma Pro 100, I might hazard a guess at one of the printers that will be replaced.

It's only been two years since the Pro-100 was released so I'm not so sure about that.  I'm pretty sure the reason the printers are always so deeply discounted is because Canon is running on the blade and razor business model.  The ink and paper is really where they're making their money.

4
EOS Bodies / Re: Exmor vs DualISO
« on: August 17, 2014, 09:25:51 PM »
I wonder how good will be a Canon 6D with dual ISO.   ;)

Not a huge difference since the read noise difference between the 5D3 and 6D is neutralized and the 6D doesn't have a huge advantage at ISO 1600 over the 5D3.

5
Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 16, 2014, 05:09:38 PM »
However, all of the Canon DSLRs I've used have a plastic screen cover, and I'd be surprised if that were not true across the board.  Plastic is a lot more flexible, albeit at a cost in terms of getting scratched a lot more easily.  On the other hand, you don't put your DSLR in your pocket, so scratch resistance is less relevant.

The 7D,5D3, and 1DX have glass screens that are bonded to the LCD panel while all other non-touchscreen DSLRs have a replaceable plastic cover over the LCD.  I'm not sure about the cameras with touchscreens though.

6
Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 15, 2014, 04:19:09 PM »

"Innen wird ein Aluminiumchassis
von geformten Kunststoffelementen
geschützt – das schafft ein sicheres
Gefühl von Zuverlässigkeit."

Inside an aluminum chassis is protected by moulded elements made from
plastic - this gives a feeling of reliability.
I think your conclusions are right, that the EF mount is mounted via a plastic (of high quality) to the inner frame  - just change from steel to aluminum for the inner frame. As I remember the EOS 20D has a steel frame - perhaps steel applies to the 5D mark I ?

Great find!  And yes, the only camera that I have a service manual for is the original 5D, so I'm not surprised that there are minor changes but that the fundamental construction is the same.

7
Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 15, 2014, 03:53:50 PM »
Not a lie, but it's showing the magnesium shell.  That shell is attached to a composite/stainless steel skeleton whereas the Nikon has a magnesium skeleton throughout.  The lens mount, for example, is mounted to the composite mirror box.  My suspicion is that the shell is largely structural, especially around the mount area as there's a lip on the lens mount that mates with the magnesium shell, but I don't have any good way to demonstrate that without taking my 5D3 apart.  If you read Roger's article you can see how it's all put together.


Roger doesn't seem to say anything about it, that I can tell.  A reader comment suggested the mirror box was composite, Roger indicated the circuit boards were screwed into composite, but there could be metal under it.  The words 'magnesium' or 'steel' aren't used on the blog page.

It's interesting that the Canon mag-alloy frames seem more tightly constructed, using fewer pieces (at least, that's how it appears).

In other images of the 5DIII chassis, the 'mag allow shell over steel skeleton' isn't apparent, although it does seem the 5DIII's bottom plate may be steel (it's a different finish than the rest of the frame, at any rate).

So, I'm still not sure where you're getting this information...   ???


That's coming from the 5D service manual.

8
Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 15, 2014, 03:52:49 PM »

I think your premise here is that the Nikon has the lens mount fitted to the outer shell

Not quite.  The nikon mount seems to be connected directly to the internal magnesium chassis, while the Canon mount is connected directly to the composite mirrorbox which is then connected to the stainless steel chassis.  Neither are directly connected to the outer shell, although my suspicion is that the outer shell on the Canon is giving some structural support to the lens mount based on the lip from the lens mount that sits flush against the magnesium shell.

whereas the Canon has it fitted to the internal chassis. I bet there is a reason for Canon to fix it to the chassis, possibly accuracy, after all the sensor is fitted to the chassis, not the outer shell. I would very much doubt that a D800 is built 'internally' to the same standard as a 4D, and my experience with the Nikon 'prosumer' grade of camera is that they are not inherently built to the same standard as the equivalent Canon, in fact I'm fairy convinced they are a cheaper unit, and the mount affixed directly to the chassis may be part of this.

Whether it's better or worse is really something that only their structural engineers can really tell you, as there can be very real advantages to composite parts (precision, toughness, thermal stability) other than manufacturing cost.  As for them not being up to the same standard, I can believe that the internal sealing is probably superior on the more expensive bodies I'm not sure that the internal construction methods used will be all that different on the Nikon side.  On the Canon side, the 1D bodies look similar to the D800 internally so an increase in build quality for the 7D would probably involve using a more unibody like construction for the internal chassis and/or better weather sealing.

9
Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 15, 2014, 02:36:24 PM »
Found a picture of the insides of the D300.  Same full metal skeleton as the D800/1D/D4 so I don't really think this kind of build quality can be that expensive to produce.


10
Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 15, 2014, 02:26:03 PM »
The 5D series, however, has a stainless steel chassis...


So Canon's own image on the Canon USA page for the 5DIII is just a flat out lie?




Not a lie, but it's showing the magnesium shell.  That shell is attached to a composite/stainless steel skeleton whereas the Nikon has a magnesium skeleton throughout.  The lens mount, for example, is mounted to the composite mirror box.  My suspicion is that the shell is largely structural, especially around the mount area as there's a lip on the lens mount that mates with the magnesium shell, but I don't have any good way to demonstrate that without taking my 5D3 apart.  If you read Roger's article you can see how it's all put together.

11
Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 15, 2014, 02:09:08 PM »
The Nikon D800 (and I think D300s) have the same internal build quality as the 1D/D4 type cameras, aside from the improved sealing.

What's your source for this information ?

I'm curious as well...

It probably also depends on how you define 'build quality'.  Most of the higher end bodies have a magnesium alloy chassis and a polycarbonate shell.  I believe what distinguishes the 1-series bodies, aside from materials, are tighter manufacturing tolerances.

I don't know anything about how the tolerances vary between bodies or brands so I can't really speak to that.  What I can say though, is out of all the cameras that I've owned/borrowed/rented if I had to beat someone to death I'd reach for a 1DX or maybe 1D2n before anything else.

12
Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 15, 2014, 02:06:47 PM »
The Nikon D800 (and I think D300s) have the same internal build quality as the 1D/D4 type cameras, aside from the improved sealing.


What's your source for this information ?


There was a discussion about this on FM recently.  The D800, and I believe the D300s as well but I'm taking other people's word on this one, has a full magnesium skeleton and mirror box similar to the 1D/D4 series.



The 5D series, however, has a stainless steel chassis with a composite mirror box as shown by Roger Cicala for the 5D3 or the 5D technician service manual that's floating around.



Not that this actually means better or worse as there are reports on FM of the D800 being more susceptible to fall damage than the 5Ds.

13
Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 15, 2014, 12:27:01 PM »
I tend to agree with Neuro that the "1D build quality" may not mean what some people think it does. It might exceed the 5DIII, but I just don't think there is enough of a market for a $3,000 APS-C camera to justify the kind of bombproof construction the 1D series is noted for. (Unless of course, I'm seriously overestimating the cost of producing 1DX build quality – perhaps it's not as much of a cost factor as I think, given modern production technology.)

The Nikon D800 (and I think D300s) have the same internal build quality as the 1D/D4 type cameras, aside from the improved sealing.  I doubt that it adds all that much to the production cost.

14
EOS Bodies / Re: Exmor vs DualISO
« on: August 14, 2014, 09:59:18 PM »
The last thing I want to show is that there is another type of artifacting that can occur in situations where you push the secondary ISO very high, for this example 3200, and you have thin lines (i.e. small branches or wires) running almost parallel to the sensor rows. On the left hand side of the frame in the shots below you can see a tree with some bare branches sticking out.



If we zoom in, we can see some places where the tree branches seem to vanish and reappear. This can happen in a very specific scenario where you are :

  • Using a very high secondary ISO. This usually only happens over ISO 3200, and MagicLantern will warn you about using these settings.
  • You have a very thin object. Thin as in less than ~2 pixel in width.
  • That thin object is at an angle of less than ~15 degrees to the horizontal row of pixels.



If you run into this scenario you will probably see this issue. Whether or not you'll see it in a print is another issue entirely. I made 13x19 prints of all the shots in shown here and I'd be surprised if anyone was able to tell the difference between the two without resorting to a loupe, even the issue with the branches is very hard to see in the prints. In addition, most scenes don't require the secondary ISO to be set any higher than ISO 800 as you really get diminishing returns for each additional stop of secondary ISO, but in cases where you absolutely need to push higher then be careful.

So who wins? Clearly the A7. It's simply the better tool for this kind of shooting. The workflow is way easier, you don't have to fiddle with installing MagicLantern, turning on DualISO, fiddling with the secondary ISO, or worrying about factors that might leading to artifacting.  Plus it retains resolution better when pushed. That said, unlike with the vanilla 5D3 where the difference in image quality in these types of adverse situations is enormous, we're really nitpicking minor differences here. The fact that the guys from MagicLantern have extracted so much extra dynamic range from the Canon sensor is pretty amazing. Additionally, there's a yet to be released update for magic lantern that adds ~0.8 stops of highlight headroom for the 5D3 just using some of the pixel capacity that Canon decided to keep in reserve for whatever reason (i.e. when the 5D3 sensors clips to white, it's not actually clipped. There's at least another 0.8 stops available before it really clips.)

So is DualISO great for people who only shoot landscapes and run into DR issues all the time? I'd call it good but not great, if you're this kind of shooter you're crazy for not moving to Nikon or at least picking up an A7R. Is it great for people who normally shoot lower contrast scenes but get frustrated when they occasionally do run into a DR limited scenario? Definitely, this is pretty much the category that I fall into and DualISO has pretty much satisfied all of my DR issues (not that I wouldn't love a 5D4 with better low ISO performance).

As an aside, I like the A7 a bit more than I had expected but good lord are the ergonomics horrible. This is literally the least comfortable camera I've ever held. My wife shoots with a Fuji X-T1 and has much smaller hands so the grip doesn't bother her as much, but for me it's like Sony put an absolutely wonderful sensor inside of a torture device for my right hand. That said, the reason I went with Canon when I got my first DSLR was because the Canon models that I tried out fit my hand much better than any of the Nikons that I tried, so this issue probably won't be true for everyone.

15
EOS Bodies / Re: Exmor vs DualISO
« on: August 14, 2014, 09:58:58 PM »
I then took both cameras hiking to get some more real world type pictures as well as to show one of the weaknesses that I know still exists with DualISO. For all of the following pictures I metered so that the highlights were just clipping (based on the A7 zebras) and then dialed it down 1/3rd a stop. ISO, aperture, and shutter speed are identical for each scene, although the light was changing quite a bit so not all shots are exposed identically but I'd say they're all within 1/3rd stop. For the first shot I was using a 40mm STM on the 5D3 and a 16-35 F4 IS on the A7 (made the weight distribution fairly even and meant I didn't have to constantly swap lenses), while on the last shot I used the 16-35 at 16mm for both cameras. Both shots were done at ISO 100 while the secondary ISO for the DualISO shots was 1600 for the first shot and 3200 for the last shot were I wanted to show a specific type of artifacting that can occur.

The first is a tree that had a nice dark shadow down the middle from a branch hanging just right with a bright blue sky in the background.



Zooming in we can see that the shadow from the branch is almost completely black near the branch and then gradually lightens a bit.



First, comparing the vanilla 5D3 and A7 I pushed the exposure by 2 stops and set the shadows slider to +100 in Lightroom.



We can already see that the vanilla 5D3 is falling apart in the shadows with tons of color noise and mush for detail in the particularly dark regions while the A7 still looks fine. This was were the overall exposure looked fine but I decided to push two more stops just to see how the A7 did.



By this point the 5D3 shadows are unuseable garbage but the A7 is still looking respectable, very impressive and this is the primary reason why landscape photographers have been ditching Canon for Nikon over the past two years. Well that and the 14-24. And 36MP, but I digress.

So now that we've shown the A7 rules and vanilla 5D3 drools, how did magic lantern do? Again, we start off with +2 stop exposure and +100 shadows.



Whoa, huge difference compared to the vanilla 5D3. At this point I'll say the DualISO 5D3 and A7 are doing equally well, but what happens if we push another stop?



The two are still very close but I think the noise in the A7 has a slightly higher quality to it, still extremely close but I'll give it to the A7 at this point. How about one more stop.



Again, still close but I think the A7 is starting to pull away from the DualISO 5D3 now. The 5D3 seems a bit more exposed than the A7, probably from the changing light conditions, and the interpolation scheme seems to be showing some flaws at the edges of where the bark becomes washed out. Conveniently, Lightroom's CA removal tool works extremely well to get rid of these, but they can still show up if you push the files very hard. A win for the A7, but not by a large margin. Below, I'm showing the dualISO 5D3 next to the vanilla 5D3 to show what an insane difference dualISO makes for the 5D3.


Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7