Messages

421

PowerShot Cameras / Re: PowerShot Rumor: S95 Replacement [CR2]

« on: June 22, 2011, 10:54:09 PM »

Camera manufacturewrs have had a dismal record of product naming.  They obviously did not forsee the rapid development of digital cameras, and thought that like film cameras, they might pop out a new model every 10 years.

They really need to develop a better plan for naming models.

Well, they went from S80 to S90 to S95 . . . S100 is not inevitable . . .

Honestly, I don't see what's wrong with the MK version. Hell, Honda is so much better than GM just from sticking to a naming convention alone.  The current accord is informally the 8th generation . . . which is perfectly fine as insiders all know what it means, and you can quickly find out with a google search.

Maybe camera manufacturers have wanted to keep people on the upgrade path.
Maybe they think people will get confused if, for instance, an EOS5D was different depending on the model year of the camera.

On the other hand Apple stick with "Macbook" "Macbook Pro" etc. and refresh them every so often, and nobody gets confused, and everybody still wants the latest and greatest.  (On the other hand, Apple have a problem coming when they run out of big cats.)

Canon have a bigger problem:
- Powershot G13 - I think not!
- What comes after Powershot S99?  (S96 has no ring to it anyhow)
- What comes after the EOS 950D?
- What comes after the EOS 90D?

Canon have painted themselves into a corner.  Nikon will take a little bit longer to hit the same problem...

422

Lenses / Re: Leaf shutters

« on: June 11, 2011, 08:47:05 PM »

Am I the only one feeling the need for leaf shutter lenses? Of course one could upgrade to medium format if they have the money. But why doesn't Canon provide leaf shutter lenses for 35mm DSLR?

I would assume small dof and high flash sync speed would be attractive to many. Unfortunately, this can only be done with ND and powerful flash at the moment.

So why isn't there leaf shutter for 35mm?

One could ultimately probably summarise it as that a leaf shutter system for a SLR is commercially inviable, because of the technical challenges in building such a system and the limited market for it.
A leaf shutter needs to be built into the lens assembly - the optimal location is at the aperture diaphragm.  That means, in an interchangeable lens system, that each lens must have its own shutter assembly.  While leaf shutters have the advantage of high flash sync speeds, they are more limited in terms of absolute shutter speeds.  For higher shutter speeds, they need to be relatively small.  (You can see this in a number of point and shoot cameras that use a form of leaf shutter, where they can only achieve their fastest shutter speeds when the aperture is stopped down.)
I would venture that for a SLR system, a focal plane shutter has fewer disadvantages than a leaf shutter, and ultimately makes more sense.  (At least for most users.)
While it is a compromise, you can achieve higher flash sync speeds using HSS, at the expense of absolute flash output power.
For 99.9% of photographers out there (amateaur and professional) a focal plane shutter system probably provides the best solution.  It doesn't make commercial sense for Canon to chase that 0.1% niche.  (99.9% vs 0.1% is my own hyperbole, those figures are not based on any fact.)


I have to admit I don't entirely follow your comment about depth of field.  DoF is a function of aperture and frame (sensor) size, not the kind of shutter used.

423

Lenses / Re: Is Canon discontinuing the EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye ?????

« on: June 09, 2011, 05:09:22 PM »

As for the 50mm f/1.0, I don't understand why it sells for so much money. It has ~1/2 a stop advantage, but reviews say it doesn't perform well optically at any aperture, and if it sold well to begin with, Canon would have continued producing it.

[Yet, I think I'll keep my EF 15mm f/2.8 FE after I buy the EF 8-15mm f/4 - I like that lens]

I have to agree with you on the 50mm f/1.0.  The 15mm f/2.8 fish-eye is a real keeper however.

424

Lenses / Re: Is Canon discontinuing the EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye ?????

« on: June 09, 2011, 12:12:11 AM »

I suppose the new fisheye zoom is more versatile, but for those who want to de-fish and find the f/2.8 useful, that bites.

I guess the problem Canon had with the 15mm fish-eye was that the target market was limited to 35mm film bodies and 5D and 1Ds series bodies.  Owners of APS-C and APS-H bodies were left out in the cold, and they represent the majority of EOS owners.

So, hang onto your 15mm fish-eye, and hope that it appreciates in value... Somehow I doubt it will be as good an investment as the 50mm f/1.0L *grin*

425

Software & Accessories / Re: Which Storage Devices ???

« on: June 07, 2011, 06:45:17 PM »

If photography is your business, get a dedicated RAID server for your backups.  It doesn't have to be hardware RAID-5 or 6, as we use software RAID-5 or 6 for a lot of mission critical stuff.  If photography is your hobby, then RAID-1 should be good enough with 2 large HDs.  It all depends on your requirements (speed, capacity, etc).

There are two points here that a few people have discussed:
1) data protection (RAID is the most common technology to address this); and
2) backups.

The two should not be confused.
There is no one-size-fits all storage solution - we all need to analyse our needs, and build a solution that fits.

What is important to remember is that RAID will protect you from a single hard drive failure (or two hard drive failures with RAID6 / RAID-DP - if you are using Netapp storage).
RAID will not protect you from a NAS or controller failure.  To do that you need to look at solutions like replication (e.g. replicate data between two NASes).

RAID also does not protect against human error - i.e. accidental file deletion, or against operating system failure - e.g. your system crashes due to power loss, and the file system is trashed when you try to boot up again.

Try to consider all the failure modes you need to protect against, and then architect a storage solution that fits your needs.

For instance, RAID is not for everyone.  You may find that individual hard drives are large enough, and that replicating between 2 NASes protects you from drive and controller failure, while backing up to the cloud protects you from finger trouble...

426

Lenses / Sigma 120mm-300mm f/2.8

« on: June 04, 2011, 04:30:45 AM »

News that's a couple of days old already:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/1106/11060105sigma120-300.asp

What is interesting is that this is the first time I am aware of Sigma launching a lens with some sort of "splash-proof design" (sic).  I would be interested to see if they update lenses like their 70-200mm f/2.8 to include weather sealing, and whether that puts any price pressure on Canon.... Competition is always a good thing.  To date, the lack of weather sealing has been one of the key factors turning many people away from the Sigma 70-200mm.  (Of course, there is still the discussion about whether Canon might introduce a change to the EF lens interconnect that breaks third party lenses on a yet-to-be-released body.)

427

Canon General / Re: Patent - EF 50 f/1.4

« on: May 26, 2011, 07:31:11 AM »

I wonder, though, if the EF non-L primes sell enough these days for Canon to feel that a redesign and everything associated with a new product is warranted.  In recent years there seems to have been a pattern of letting non-L primes wither.

I wonder if it is a case of letting non-L primes wither, or whether other lenses (especially a lot of zooms) have been in much greater need of an update...

428

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III [CR1]

« on: May 20, 2011, 10:02:30 PM »

I read an interesting article on medium format sensors the other day. In it was a discussion on how many mp would be needed before the sensor outperformed the lens. Apparently Canon are said to be working on lenses for 36x24 "full frame" that will work happily up to 60mp, while on the Pentax 645 sensors would need to exceed 110mp before it becomes an issue. Basically, I believe that manufacturers will simply offer better lenses as the MP count creeps ever higher.

That same article was saying that in prints of A3 or bigger, the large MP sensors on good quality medium format systems produced a very obvious quality improvement over the 36 x 24mm "full frame" size sensors. Basically, bigger is still always better.

An interesting question about that will be what lenses like that will cost.  Clearly over time, they will become cheaper, but I expect that we will initially see such lenses being quite expensive (relative to other 35mm system lenses).
On the other hand, that still gives Canon the ability to go hunting in traditional medium format territory, as such lenses might still be cheaper than medium format lenses.  I suspect that Canon (and aso Nikon) will want to hunt as many photographers from the medium format camp as they can. - Ultimately, if your clients do not need resolution of more than 60MP, why buy a 110MP medium format system is a 60MP DSLR will do?  Many photographers who previously shot medium format film have already taken that path and migrated to DSLRs.

I am not saying that there is no need for a 110MP MF camera.  I am just postulating that Canon (and Nikon and Sony) would want to encroach as much as possible into the traditional territory of MF systems, relegating MF to being a more and more specialised niche.  (That is a pity in a way, as that stands to risk MF cameras becoming even more expensive, due to smaller market scale and less competition.)

As for 32MP on a 5DmkIII - anyone who currently makes 20"x30" prints off a 5DmkII would welcome that!

429

EOS Bodies / Re: We cant rule out any more quakes

« on: May 12, 2011, 10:09:56 PM »

Of course a 9 is a big deal anywhere since the magnitude scale is not linear but exponential, meaning a 7 is twice what a 6 is and 8 twice what a 7 is and so forth. LOL, I knew my geology degree would come in handy one day...I got mine right in time for the big oil bust of the '80's and the joke back then was if you had your PhD it stood for 'Pizza Hut Dude' since no jobs.

Small correction: the Richter Scale is a logarithmic scale (to the base 10).  Thus, a magnitude 9 quake is 10 times more severe than a magnitude 8, and 100 times more severe than a magnitude 7!

So, if you compare the Sendai quake to the Madrid quake, the difference is 3.7 points on the Richter scale which is a nearly 5012-fold difference in intensity!

The intensity of the quake doesn't give the full picture though - shallow quakes tend to have a more devastating impact - this was the case in Christchurch.

430

Software & Accessories / Re: Radio in New Canon Flashes? [CR2]

« on: May 10, 2011, 08:10:08 AM »

As PKN above said, I would assume that the new system would use one of the common wireless frequencies so as to maintain usable in all parts of the world - one of the 802.11 variations or something like Bluetooth would be obvious choices.

I have my doubts that Canon would use 802.11[a/b/g/n], however it is possible that they might use one of the ISM bands (which are used by WiFi products).  Some wireless flash triggers (like the Elinchrom Skyport) do already use the 2.4GHz band.  The only potential issue is interference with WiFi equipment, as users would now potentially need to ensure that they set their flash and WiFi equipment to use different channels.  Potentially if you are in an area where the ISM band is already crowded with WiFi signals, you may have problems operating a flash trigger system.

For going wireless, the ISM band may still be one of the best bets though.

431

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS with GPS tagging

« on: May 03, 2011, 11:17:40 PM »

Would like to know if Canon is going to incorporate GPS tagging in the new line up of EOS bodies.

This is a rumors site.  If you want to know something, wait for the press release from Canon.

One thing I do know is that right now, you can geotag images taken with your 50D by adding a WFT-E3A and a compatible 3rd party GPS unit.  Granted, it's not exactly a cost-effective solution...

There are also some solutions that clip into the camera hotshoe (not much use if you want to use you flash and geotag an image).  For example:

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2008/07/clip-on-geotagg/

http://www.jobo.com/web/photoGPS.447.0.html

I'm not sure of availability of these.

432

Canada / Re: Questions about crossing the border with your gear

« on: May 02, 2011, 09:30:25 PM »

I have been to 22 different countries with my camera gear, DO NOT declare any of it!  You are not importing or exporting goods so it is not declarable.  If you do you are asking for a whooping.

And the reason why you would generally take that approach is that your camera gear is classed as "personal effects" - most countries aren't too concerned about goods you take in for re-export.  Most countries also don't like to develop a reputation for making things difficult for tourists.

I think the exception is, for some countries, registration of equipment you take with you when leaving your country of residence, especially when you live in a "rip off" country (e.g. South Africa) where electronics and cameras are very expensive, and residents tend to buy new "toys" when overseas.
When I used to live in South Africa, I always diligently registered my camera gear for re-importation, but was never once asked for any documentation when returning.
When entering Australia I have always found that customs are more concerned about whether or not your shoes are clean than about whether you have commercial amounts of camera gear with you. - I guess, do not admit to Australian customs that you have had your camera on a farm in South America - they might want to wash it for you! *grin* - More seriously - if Australian customs think you have had your camera bag in the bush and it looks dirty, they might insist on washing/decontaminating it!

Of course there is always the warning that someone will find a country where these general rules do not apply...

433

United States / Re: When did "taking photographs" become "suspicious behavior" on a plane?

« on: April 26, 2011, 04:42:03 AM »

It's a crap shoot but I think certain airlines also have certain sensitivity levels...  I was on a KLM flight on my way back from europe to san fransisco and seconds after take (literally) people were taking off their seat belts and walking around the cabin and up til the final approach where we were probably 1000 feet off the ground there was a certain photographer taking pictures from the rear door window and ran to his seat right before touchdown.  KLM didn't care about photographers let alone proper safety rules and regulations.  Then I've been on a southwest flight where a passenger next to me lecture me because I dared to text my family as I boarded the plane because somehow my cell phone could damage the plane beyond repair even though we were just boarding.  It's just your luck of the draw.

I still have the odd negative from photos I was asked to take by airport security in order to prove that my camera was real!  (Johanessburg in the early 1990s...)

434

Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/2.8L II Patent Published

« on: April 24, 2011, 08:10:23 PM »

It appears to me that Canon is compromising by sacrificing properties that can be fixed by in-camera software, or in post processing for properties that cannot.   They seem to be giving priority to center, corner and edge sharpness and to eliminating chromatic abberation.  Distortion at the wide end or long end can be fixed by software, while sharpness and LOCA's cannot.

How can lack of IS be "fixed" by in-camera software or in post-processing?  You could just say use a tripod, but then I'm not sure why Canon would make a MKII of this lens if the first one does so well?  I know I can't be naive and think Canon hasn't been listening to those of us who want IS in a lens, or better ISO performance in a body, but at the same time it seems like they dropped the ball on this one.

I'm sure it'll cost more than the MKI with maybe a small %age increase in IQ that probably won't be worth it for most people.  IS on the other hand would've been a fantastic feature to have (along with the improvements you suggest).  That would given people who have been waiting a long time for this lens a real reason to upgrade.

I don't think scaleusa was referring to IS when discussing factors that can be "fixed" in software.  What he was referring to, I think, was more the factors in terms of optical quality, which can be "fixed" in software - for instance, peripheral illumination and barrel/pincushion can be sorted out either in camera or or in post.

As for IS, it might be worthwhile if somebody could comment on the technical feasibility of fitting IS into a package that is not too bulky for this lens.  I am not sure whether that might be too much of a challenge.

If I were Canon, and planned to release a 24-70mm with IS, I would also market a non-IS version.  Purely commercially, I think you would find that this is a lens where you could sell both versions.  For stills shooters, many people need to use shutter speeds fast enough to ensure that there is no blur due to movement of the subject.  This is unlike the 70-200 category, where shooting at speeds less than 1/200s is essential, whereas many photographers may not need/want to shoot at less than 1/80s - especially press or event photographers.  As has been mentioned, this may be different for videographers.

435

EOS Bodies / Re: Question about RAW

« on: April 20, 2011, 08:58:22 PM »

The closer those images are to perfect, straight out of the camera, the less work you have afterwards.

I'm not a wedding photographer and not under that sort of time pressure for processing images.  But the problem with 'close to perfect' is that it's not perfect...but if it looks too close, human nature will tempt one to not go that last short distance to perfect.  If the WB noticeably off, you'll probably get it right.  But if it's close, you may leave it alone...

You've probably hit the nail on the head: it's horses for courses.  Architectural, landscape and commercial work needs to be perfect (i.e absolutely perfect) - so it pays to spend the time on WB.
For a wedding, after your client has selected the 60 or 70 photos from the 400 odd initial proofs, it is worth working on the 60 to 70 photos that make it into the album, more so for that 20"x30" enlargement that your client is paying you hundreds of dollars for.  That is where I think the wedding photogs who shoot JPG will fall short - when it comes to making those large prints RAW gives you the edge to show details you will not see on the screen or in a small print - probably about 1 stop worth more shadow detail (YMMV).
For wedding formals, it is often even worth it to give the bride a white balance card to hold first - that way that framed print that hangs over the mantlepiece will be perfect because you can get the white balance absolutely right in lightroom afterwards.  (Forget trying to do that with JPG.)