September 02, 2014, 03:17:21 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 - meli

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 11
61
EOS Bodies / Re: Big Megapixel Camera in 2014
« on: February 07, 2013, 10:01:56 AM »
I think it will be high frame rate because high frame rate is what Canon does better than anyone else. I have also been poring over Canon patents for the last month, and they seem to have quite a number of parallel readout and parallel pixel processing patents for high speed readout of high megapixel count sensors. Canon has also prototyped a 120mp sensor with a 9.5fps readout rate using some combination of block and row/column parallel readout and on-die image processing.

I see no reason why that technology could not be applied to a "measly" 30-40mp FF sensor to achieve at least 6-8fps. I also see no reason why ISO range would have to suffer. High ISO capabilities are not mutually exclusive with low ISO capabilities. On the contrary, high ISO is limited by physics, while low ISO is limited by electronic noise sources. Canons maximum well capacity is already more than high enough to fully exploit 14 bit data, as well as fully exploit 16 bit data...the only thing in the way is their high read noise. That could be solved with a parallel digital readout approach that applies digital noise reduction similar to Sony. If Canon solves the noise problem, they could easily have both quality high and quality low ISO performance.

Doubt it. Actually 5d3's data throughput is lower than d800's or 7d's and on par with d600's. 6D's is on par with the rebels!
Oh Canon surely can do FPS better than anyone..., but its reserved for the top dog only as is a bunch of other features.

62
This thread has to be a joke.  Either way, it's really, really awful.

Nothing awful about it. For my part I've decided long ago that the weight of 1d-based system was not for me but i still have my 1ds2 and although i jumped to d800 this season i still go for my ds2 rather than my 5d2s when i feel like Canon.
I dont have any experience with the ds3 but my feeling is that nothing much has changed in Canon's IQ <400iso since ds2 release 8-9 years ago. Shows how far ahead was back then and how stale is now in this particular sector...

63
Lenses / Re: Have you one of the new 24-70 f4 canon lenses, Is it good
« on: February 01, 2013, 06:35:57 PM »
I like the 24-70mm f/4 IS very much.  I originally bought the f/2.8 MkII, it is a fantastic lens, however I need the IS for low light event shooting.  But, back to the subject at hand, while I had the 2.8 MkII I rented the Tamron, in my opinion, not as good as Canon.  When the f/4 came out, I rented it and compared it to the f/2.8 and "for what I need" the f/4 was the winner and I returned the f/2.8 and bought the f/4.  All comparisons done on a 5dMkIII.

Price was not the issue, the new hybrid IS on the f/4 allows me more than enough room to make up for the one stop difference and I get all the benefits of IS (yes, I give up one stop of DOF, but check out the DOF calculator - it is minimal).  Where in the world these folks are coming from saying the 24-105 IQ is better than the 24-70 f/4, either don't own the 24-70 f/4 or they are trolls.  The IS on the 24-105 is old 2nd generation and does not hold a candle to the new 24-70 f/4 and 70-200 f/2.8 MkII.  This hybrid IS is rock solid.

I just wish the naysayers would come out and honestly say whether they have actually shot with the lens or not.  Further, on an actual shoot and not shooting a bunch of test circles.  (I have never been paid a penny for test shots).  Finally, I need IS and it is my money, so don't critisize me for my shortcomings (unless you are willing to pay good money for it).

I love Canon products and applaud them for offering a wide range of great products with a wide range of price points.  Finally, if they introduce a f/2.8 IS, I would strongly consider buying it just because I can!

I just like how anyone that doesn't share your opinion is either deluded or a troll  ::)

Plus, i assume you compared the f4 with the tamron too and the f4 came out on top despite having the same price, a stop less and the disadvantage of not using 2.8AF. The last two are rather important for your low light event shooting needs, so you must have found a crucial advantage of the F4, do share it with us please.

64
Lenses / Canon Cinema Primes vs. Canon L Series
« on: January 09, 2013, 04:19:22 PM »
video comparison by Jonathan Yi

Shot on a Canon C300, slight NSFW  ;D

*preview doesnt work, click on the link!

65
I have a canon 550d rebel and was considering the "jump" to FF.

Why does canon seem to give less and charge more ?

It is possible that Canon is cutting fewer corners than Nikon.

Fact is that Nikon put out many D800’s that could not autofocus properly. Fact is also that many D600’s have a flaw that causes the camera to spatter oil over the sensor for the first 3000 shots. Both problem’s were serious  and seemed widespread.

Not really, both companies have about the same track record; AF problems with D800 & 1d3, d600spills, 5d2mirrors, Lens QC for both etc etc.

The're way more complains about overpricing in the canon forums than nikon's though.
Pattern that started a couple of years ago with the 70-200II & IS lenses i think.

66
Really sorry guys - this is embarrassing.

The demand on my site from this post has caused a massive load on a shared server. Its a big post with a lot of images. As soon as it comes back online I can trim it down a bit - at the moment I cant get in to do that.

Im investigating getting a dedicated server. I have a couple of other sites as well so might not be a bad idea.
If anyone knows a good value company for this Id be very interested. Im in the UK.
My website admin guy is talking about £80 per month, gulp!

Mark

Hey it happens, just break down the photos into 4-5 pages and you'll be allright. I wouldn't consider a dedicated server unless you expect that traffic everyday! Alternatively consider setting up a secondary blog in something like tumblr, its free & it can handle the punishment.

Cheers for the review & the wonderful photos!

67
Lenses / Re: Canon 35mm f/2 IS Review
« on: December 29, 2012, 07:49:53 AM »
18-55 has IS too, it doesnt add 500$ over the normal 18-55

68
Lenses / Re: What 2nd lens for a designer
« on: December 26, 2012, 07:15:41 PM »
If i were you i would be happier if i could return the 5d3 and get a 6d with the new 24-70/2.8

69
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 35 f/1.4 DG HSM First Impressions
« on: December 22, 2012, 04:51:32 PM »
Good point, but I don't tolerate poor quality from any manufacturer.
Canon may be a bunch of shisters for price, but the quality is always top notch...

ET

Always? Somehow i think you either haven't bought many Canon lenses or you've been extremely lucky

70
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: The seemingly amazing Sigma 35
« on: December 20, 2012, 11:50:27 AM »

Am I alone in this thinking or is this an opportunity to maybe pocket $1-200 on the side and land a 'superior' product, at least until the 35L ii arrives (which will likely be still much more expensive).

Thoughts?

Go for it, pushing the 35L out wont be difficult and you get to play with the newest toy in town plus some coin; And when the new 35L arrives you act accordingly

71
Canon General / Re: DxO Mark explained
« on: December 15, 2012, 12:38:27 PM »
Great article, which will be promptly discarded unread by some users who want to believe their camera is the best and no amount of scientific data will change that, or some other blondes that consider punctuation errors as a serious hint against their data reliability  ;D

72
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 35 f/2 IS Resolution Test
« on: December 15, 2012, 04:15:17 AM »
Why does it make no sense to compare resolution numbers of 35mm and 50mm lenses?  I'm just saying it's not a "mediocre" lens if it produces resolution better than some highly regarded 50's, even better than the Leica 50 Summicron.  Infared mentioned that he had a "great experience" with his Sigma 50/1.4, but described this new Canon 35 as "mediocre" — and yet the new Canon offers better resolution than his Sigma 50/1.4, ... so why not compare the numbers?
Well, pas mal Infared didnt mention his 150-500 cause then you could draw some rather interesting comparisons;
how does it make sense comparing 35mm and 50mm res in the context of choosing a 35mm? And if it does, then how about comparing 35mm and 85mm or 35 and 24mm? What about 200mm, shall we compare them also?
If someone is on the market for a 35mm he will be interested on 35mm lenses only, not how they fare with some other random category.
Plus, Infared mentioned his sigma 50/1.4 to make a point about his experience with sigma's bokeh rendering unrelatedly to his opinion on 35/2IS

Your point is very valid.  It should be noted the new lens destroys the 35L in every category when the 35L is wide open; it is only stopped down that it surpasses the new 35 f/2 IS in the corners.  In fact, if it weren't for the Sigma's numbers, we would probably think this new lens was pretty great.  But the Sigma is turning in some fantastic numbers...and that makes it hard to deny.
The new one seems to have better corners & Ca but center res & distorion on par with the old one, I would deem that okayish not "pretty great" specially considering the old one is 22years old and 1/3 in price, IS notwithstanding.

73
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 35 f/2 IS Resolution Test
« on: December 14, 2012, 01:04:54 PM »
The numbers don't show a very mediocre lens.  To put things in perspective, look back at LensRentals' "The Great 50mm Shootout" —
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/01/the-great-50mm-shootout
and it appears that the new Canon 35mm f/2 IS offers better resolution (center & average) wide open at f/2 than ANY of the 50mm lenses at f/2, with the exception of the legendary $4,000 Leica Summilux.  And keep in mind that most of those 50mm lenses are stopped down at f/2, whereas this new 35mm is wide open. 

It can't be too mediocre if it offers better resolution at f/2 than any of these lenses do at f/2:

Zlatko you make no sense, what does 50mm has to do with 35?
Plus, about build quality, i ve only seen the sigma from up close but the build quality is insane for the price.

74
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 35 f/2 IS Resolution Test
« on: December 14, 2012, 07:54:55 AM »
Interesting report - Seems that the Sigma resolves better, but possibly with a harsher bokeh. I wonder how the lenses perform in other areas - flare, CA, etc.

He does mention a couple apart from resolution:
Quote
Our new toys let us do some other measurements as well.
Chromatic aberration is low for the Sigma and the new IS f/2 lens at 0.7% and 0.9% respectively at the lateral edges. The Canon 35mm L is higher at 1.3% and the original 35mm f/2 far worse at almost 2%.
The Sigma also had the lowest distortion at 1% barrel, with the 35L higher at 1.3%, and both the new and old 35mm f/2 versions at 1.4%.

All in all -apart from the addition of IS- a rather dull update of an almost 25yo lens

75
Lenses / Re: Anything Like a Sigma 120-300 2.8 on the Horizon?
« on: December 11, 2012, 09:51:43 AM »
TexPhoto you're referring to the old version of 120-300

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 11