« on: December 23, 2014, 05:46:36 PM »
Are you able to get right up against the glass? If so, buy one of those cheap collapsible rubber hoods and use that pressed up against the glass. It will make it as if the glass isn't even there.
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.
Here´s a short video, where he is demonstrating the fantastic (in his view) autofocus with facial recognition on the D4S:
Even for a totally still, well (over)lit face, it still hunts ...
In his D4S review, which he claim has the best AF system in the world, he is using his kid on a swing, as "the ultimate AF challenge"
He must have picked an excellent copy of the original 100-400 for his comparison. I'd say my version 1 lens is average but the version II lens is excellent. My copy of the new one is much sharper wide open plus the much improved IS and twist zoom is a "must upgrade" if you use this lens a lot.
They tested four copies of each generation 100-400, and averaged the numbers.
One thing I'll just throw out for discussion regarding 100-400 comparisons. It's a lens we find we have to optically adjust fairly frequently over time (maybe 10% of copies) and the problems are always at 400mm only. The 4 copies I tested had all been optically tested and screened on a bench prior to this measurement.
I was skeptical that this lens could live up to the hype. It appears the hype was justified:Roger at Lens rentals disagrees. He just posted a comparison of the old and new 100-400mm and there isn't that much difference between them.
He also posted on the 400 DO. Which appears to be significantly better than the mark 1.
Hopefully Roger will get some Sigma 150-600mm's soon and run a comparison between them,the Tamron and the Canon 100-400mm II
I was a bit surprised at the 100-400 results myself, I expected more difference. Shooting test charts (same ones as TDP uses) I could see a difference that the Imatest results didn't measure. Perhaps it's a decrease in some aberrations? I'm not sure.
Sir, I do not think, that Conon will release an "bad-sensored" camerabody. Maybe the IQ is not the the IQ you get from the Nikon D800E or Sony A7 36MP. I hope - it will be on an equal level like the IQ of todays Canon products.
Just think of, what will happen to Canon if this Camera is rubbish? They will never release an under-average product.
Maybe it took so long to developa an good high MP sensor.
Wasn't that what the EOS-M was considered to be by many... even Canon themselves(recently)?
EOS-M was only under-average on AF ...and corporate support of the basic idea. The IQ is actually quite good and I think APS-C is not a terrible call to split the difference between the mirrorless world that wants everything made smaller and the mirrorless world that wants best possible IQ. They clearly need products for both camps, but APS-C is not a terrible starting point and the EOS-M could have been successful as a result.
But I still don't think Canon has launched a mirrorless system until they give us a @#$%ing EVF and more than two native lenses to choose from at B&H. The embarrassment of the EOS-M is not the product so much as Canon pushing a ship in flames out of port with a vague intention to 'put that fire out soon'.
The 5DIII will be 3 years old in March next year. A move to 50MP will pretty much follow Moor´s law. That same law should indicate just over a doubling of its computing power and given the speed of new memory cards, we should a least expect a camera that could chew 50MP at a slightly higher speed than the 5DIII and thus see at least 6, probably 8 fps.
It's great to know who makes generic plates, but who else does decent lens-specific replacement feet with integrated ArcaSwiss rails? Being lighter, more compact, and directly attached to the collar could be great.
Low light performance is just happens to be the most important video feature, it is the one feature that can get you the shot or miss it. The GH4 is basically useless for video past ISO 1600, and not that great at 1600 either. The 5D3 gives great results up to about ISO 10,000 and with Magic Lantern you get zebras, peaking, magic zoom, and a ton of other goodies, so the GH4 doesn't cut it for me. The Sony A7s will be a great option when they get a good selection of native FF lenses, but Canon will probably have an offering before Sony gets the lenses made.
I suppose this happens to all manufacturers nowadays.
(to summarize, there is a light leak when shooting into backlit scenes using live view)
Looks like they were determined to copy the 5DIII as closely as possible.
Up to now I have used 14mm, 21mm and 16-35mm (and once in the past 300mm f/4). The nice thing with this mount is that I can trust it with a heavy setup since the attachment is at its center and it has no need of counterweights.
I would not trust a 500mm lens even on the new device you mentioned mainly because I would fear the excess size would make it prone to accidents...
7D II (horizontal, red cast):
Personally, the large blotchy color left behind after your regular color noise reduction is what bugs me the most. There is very little that can clean that up nicely. If Adobe could fix their RAW engine to NOT produce that in the first place, then one of my biggest complaints about Canon RAW images would be gone. They still wouldn't have the dynamic range, but, at least the data would be cleaner. I don't really want to spend the couple hundred bucks on C1 Pro, as it's workflow doesn't seem as nice to me as Lightrooms, and it has a limited range of DSLR compatibility...but I may jut do that for the IQ.
I know exactly what you mean, this was the issue i had with the A7 at high ISO. I'm not sure I saw anything like that in the 7D2 samples I played with but I'd need to check again. Do you see this on the 5D3 as well or just 7D2 samples?
I see it in every Canon file once I start lifting the shadows enough. It usually doesn't take much, a stop and a half. It's pretty bad with the 5D III, it seems milder with the 7D II. I think Canon may have moved to their newer fabs for the 7D II sensor. If Roger Clark is right about the dark current, and if the Q.E. really is 59%, then this is the first sensor from Canon in a long while that is starting to rival Exmor as far as dark current levels go. If Roger is right, it may even be a little better in terms of dark current than an Exmor.
If the color blotch problem is a consequence of the RAW engine, then Canon has certainly made some strides. They eliminated vertical banding and gained a little bit of horizontal banding (but it is soft, so, not nearly as intrusive as what the 5D III has), lowered dark current, and increased Q.E. Read noise is introduced by the readout pipeline, probably primarily by the ADC units Canon uses. So, that is probably something they could fix (basically, anything that reduces ADC frequency should help.)
I am pretty amazed at how clean the NX1 files are though. Very clean, very neutral random noise, much lower than Canon's. I am hoping Chipworks tears apart both sensors and gives us a detailed look at the designs. I'd love to see what's changed at a low level in Canon's sensor, and what Samsung has done with theirs.