March 06, 2015, 09:26:34 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 - Marsu42

Pages: 1 ... 199 200 [201] 202 203 ... 396
3001
Pre 2012 cameras can only deal with three groups in the time between shutter press and shutter release. I believe this is why pre 2012 bodies have ETTL and HSS, Group mode, and sync limitations, they were not designed for more than three group functionality.

Interesting theory, but still Canon could have implemented a legacy mode where the rt flashes are limited the traditional three groups if they wanted to - with two flashes, you don't need group mode and my guess is that a lot of people would have welcomed such a compatibility esp. since Canon doesn't offer rt triggers.

3002
not sure why they still make flashes that cant be tilted upwards.

Explanation: Because Canon can sell two flashes to newbies, first an inexpensive w/o tilt and then a proper flash once people realize the importance of off-camera and indirect flash.

Unlikely.  There's no technical reason the 430EX II can't be a master, the control signals for Canon's optical triggering come from the main flash tube

... which is why I'm still a little annoyed because the 600rt cannot be a radio *and* optical master at the same time, unless someone comes up with a clever tech explanation my guess is that Canon removes the command sequence from the (ettl) pre-flash to pressure people into completely switching to the expensive 600rt line.

I just bought 5 600rts. :P These next speedlites better be RT capable.

They'll probably release a 660rt in fall w/ ettl3 protocol, including remote 2nd curtain sync and remote zoom.

Since there is a heavy official Canon rebate in Germany on the 600rt which is unusual for new equipment I wouldn't be surprised if they'd also replace their master flash along with releasing a smaller model.

3003
Last not least, note that if people rave about thin dof they often mean "strong background blur" except if you like the "only the nose in focus" type shots, and same thing here: bokeh also strongly depends on focal length and object/background distance relationship.
Except that bokeh really refers to the quality of the OOF blur, independent of quantity.  But maybe that's a story for another day.  ;)

Thanks for the hint, you are correct, even trusty Wikipedia says so (though you've probably written the article there :-)).

3004
Here is a comparison I did a while ago for another thread much like this one. It is a comparison based on the above criteria. The three images are identical in dof, noise, perspective, angle of view, etc etc.

Admit it, since you knew they'd be the same you were lazy and they're all from the same camera :-p ... ok, just kidding.

Why does the sensor size affect the DOF and why do FF cameras have a smaller DOF?

In addition to the good explanations from privatebydesign above, here's what I personally tell myself: To get the same shot (i.e. field of view) on a ff camera in comparison to a crop, you have to walk towards the object with a ff, resulting in a thinner dof @same aperture.

This also means that in real life, camera-object range is equaly important for the resulting dof than your sensor size, you can get very thin dof shots out of a longer lens even @medium aperture like the 70-300L@f4 which is able to focus very near objects. Play around here: http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

Last not least, note that if people rave about thin dof they often mean "strong background blur" except if you like the "only the nose in focus" type shots, and same thing here: bokeh also strongly depends on focal length and object/background distance relationship.

PS: The phrase "ff has thinner dof" indeed confusing at first, /me also German :-p and I also had to refer to this site to get a proper explanation :-)

3005
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
« on: July 13, 2013, 02:10:06 AM »
Is Topaz much better than the NR in PS? I have never tried anything but PS.

Afaik 3rd party nr software like noise ninja and probably topaz do automatic adaptive nr, i.e. they are much smarter than lr/ps at smoothing background bokeh and gradients while not smudging detail where is would be disturbing.

If you stick with acr, do manual adaptive nr by using a low global nr and using the brush with a higher nr setting to smooth non-detail areas ... or vice versa. Also apply lower nr for small export sizes - both techniques combined make a large difference.

3006
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
« on: July 12, 2013, 02:07:59 PM »
I'm not sure how much that matters any more - for most uses, high fps or high precision, a Hybrid/PDAF via image sensor is conceptually superior, just add enough computing power. That goes hand in hand with the requirements of the video market of the coming years.

Agreed, but there is a medium volume conservative dslr market (many of the forum users here are part of it) of people that are either pro and thus hesitant to break their successful habits or old-school enthusiasts that wouldn't touch a evf with a ten-foot pole. This group will keep demanding traditional dslrs for the next decade and pay (nearly) any price premium, so Canon will be careful to shape and deliver to this market.

3007
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
« on: July 12, 2013, 07:19:13 AM »
Is it just me or CR stated nothing new as a rumor...? He maybe ONLY updated the trustworthiness of what he already told us?

Hey, give the CR guy some credit, with a company as secretive as Canon it's hard to do regular updates on a rumor site (except for amazing deals with affiliated stores and pre-order possibilities) :->

The question is, is the 7DII supposed to be a consumer camera? If yes, why should Canon put their 61-point pro AF system in a consumer camera - as many are asking here.  And if not, why should Canon appeal to consumers with a (noisy) 24mp sensor.

Answer: Because Canons wants to maximize profits, as any company, and Canon is the market leader by selling volume with broad appeal and not by producing niche products (aps-h anyone? :-)).

So at the same time they will want to put enough consumer features into the 7d2 to make vanilla amateurs upgrade even if a 70d would do just fine (= more mp on 7d, fw features, gimmicks), and give a good reason for enthusiasts/semi-pros to upgrade even if they know some $$$ is better invested in lenses (= much better af on 7d).

As for the 61pt system, I don't think Canon will go Nikon like d4->7100, but they'll engineer something between the 7d1 and 5d3 to protect their ff cameras.

3008
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
« on: July 12, 2013, 04:56:28 AM »
The question is, is the 7DII supposed to be a consumer camera? If yes, why should Canon put their 61-point pro AF system in a consumer camera - as many are asking here.  And if not, why should Canon appeal to consumers with a (noisy) 24mp sensor.

Answer: Because Canons wants to maximize profits, as any company, and Canon is the market leader by selling volume with broad appeal and not by producing niche products (aps-h anyone? :-)).

So at the same time they will want to put enough consumer features into the 7d2 to make vanilla amateurs upgrade even if a 70d would do just fine (= more mp on 7d, fw features, gimmicks), and give a good reason for enthusiasts/semi-pros to upgrade even if they know some $$$ is better invested in lenses (= much better af on 7d).

As for the 61pt system, I don't think Canon will go Nikon like d4->7100, but they'll engineer something between the 7d1 and 5d3 to protect their ff cameras.

3009
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
« on: July 11, 2013, 06:15:34 PM »
Nah. They won't put a 24mp sensor in the 7DII.

Depends on what people it should appeal to - and more metapixies has consumer appeal, smartphone nowadays have 41mp cameras :-> ... and the 7d1 sells not only for sports/wildlife photogs, but also to the general shooter who wants the "best" crop body.

It is certainly not going to have the 5D3 AF. You can't just stick a FF AF system on APS-C.

Probably not the exact module, but everything else sounds a bit like an urban legend - Nikon put the ff d4 af into the d7100, surely Canon can modify the 5d3/1dx array w/o a complete redesign to go into a crop body? The real question if is Canon would want to do as aggressive tech trickle down as Nikon...

3010
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
« on: July 11, 2013, 04:41:29 AM »
Expanding the native ISO is an entirely different matter which would require lots of testing and tweaking since it is done more at the hardware level.

Afaik you're correct, though I know this specific term as "analog" iso ... there are 3 different things:
* base/"native" iso: sensor readout w/o any analog or digital gain (not necessarily lowest settable iso/100)
* analog iso steps: don on sensor, on canon crop 100/200/400/800/1600/3200
* digital iso steps: additional digital gain on digic for intermediary steps and 6400 and above (on crop)

For 200-1600 lower intermediary values are reduced (i.e. iso 1000 has a base of 1600) and 6400 and above are pushed from 3200, that's why for raw you're better off @3200 and push it in postprocessing yourself.

So my guess is that Canon could add iso25600 on crop by fw, they just wouldn't dare because it would look even more crappy than h1/12800 and as written above it's only good for jpeg or video.

http://magiclantern.wikia.com/wiki/ISO

3011
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
« on: July 10, 2013, 01:55:31 PM »
Is the 5D pro? Canon officially classifies it as prosumer, and while a lot of pros do use it, I am not sure if it fits into that category.

You can see what's pro and what's not by looking at the European CPS program that qualifies products into 3
categories. 1d/5d2/5d3 = platinum (pro), 6d = silver (consumer): https://cps.canon-europe.com/Public/QualifyingProducts

While it is unrealistic to suggest that Canon (or Nikon) can completely and quickly revise a product based on what their competitor does, it is also unrealistic to suggest that the companies don't react and respond to each others' releases.

It would be really interesting to have more insight into their development process:

My guess that Canon has lots of patents (see all the lens [cr] here] and semi-finished products, but all w/o final optimization stages and production streamlining. If so, they can react fairly quickly, they just take parts from other products or open the drawer, pull out the blueprints and take some month to produce them. Proof seems to be the 6d, they conjured that up out of thin air just to sidestep Nikon's d600 while not endangering the 5d3.

3012
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
« on: July 10, 2013, 05:47:34 AM »
I think moving beyond the sensor that will appear in the next Rebel, an EOS M camera and the EOS 70D is a good idea.

I'd disagree - the 7d1 shows that it doesn't need a better sensor to make a camera that is way above the internal competition, and Canon could charge a big premium just for better af & fw features like now (and that's the reason I've got a 60d :-p).

We’re also told that 2 new “pro” bodies will arrive in 2014, and that doesn’t include the EOS 7D Mark II

So it's the high-mp eos and a 5d4 with a new sensor? 2014 would be the earliest date I'd expect a 5d3 replacement to arrive because Canon wouldn't want to annoy their premium customers, but on the other hand any new sensor tech is bound to make it to ff soon because Nikon currently has an edge here in most specs.

3013
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 70D a New Benchmark in ISO Performance?
« on: July 10, 2013, 03:56:55 AM »
and while your spending half you life arguing about DR on internet forums others take great pictures with 6 year old cameras. :D

So? Nobody is disputing this, but this is not what this thread is about. Also with better gear you have more safety margin for critical situations, this isn't mutually exclusive that there were even good shots in the analog days or even in the old west with b/w pinhole cameras.

it´s sometimes so embarrasing to read gear focused photography websites.   8)

For me, the most creepy thing is seeing people who take the time read and post on tech forums flame other people doing the same thing basically arguing they should get a life ... it's not like anybody is forced to read any rumor thread if he/she isn't interested in speculating.

3014
EOS Bodies / Re: Why a high MP camera?
« on: July 07, 2013, 08:03:52 AM »
The very fact that this question is being asked is showing a fundamental lack of understanding regarding the entire photographic process, ranging from the increased DOF (back-up and crop) to the superior IQ of a downsized high MP image.

Ugh? That's a pretty self-confident statement, you're talking to me (since you quoted me, but I didn't ask a question) or the op?

A couple years ago, 12 MP was enough. Can it have been because Nikon didn't have an 'affordable' FX body with 21 MP? ::)

I'm sure the threads in the Nikon forums back then ("12 mp is enough, no one needs 21mp") are the same as from Canon loyalists now ("22mp is enough, no one needs 36mp")...

... of course the higher data rate (fps, storage) is a downside of more resolution, but my 2ct is that in secret most users would take more mp over less even if the downsized shots are no better than originals from the lower-mp body.

3015
EOS Bodies / Re: Why a high MP camera?
« on: July 07, 2013, 06:23:41 AM »
Out of curiosity, those looking for high MP cameras... why do you need anything above 18MP?

18mp is (more than) enough for me as a final export size, *but* as a source this is what I'd like more mp for:

  • tele: if a ff would have the same pixel density as current crop plus a "crop thecenter" raw mode, you wouldn't need a crop camera plus the ff would have 100% af sensor coverage
  • macro (the lenses are sharp enough): more magnification w/o aperture drop, or crop for more working distance, less lens shade
  • aspect ratio change (like 16:9 or custom ar for dtp) from the same source
  • focus stacking or pano stitching: always results in a drop in resolution/sharpness, so higer mp source is better
  • general postprocessing: for me some actions like tilting, sharpening or nr work better if some downsizing is applied, i.e. the software has some more data to work with even if it's noisy or less sharp

Pages: 1 ... 199 200 [201] 202 203 ... 396