Messages

1591

EOS Bodies / Re: buying question

« on: February 07, 2011, 08:26:18 AM »

I have two questions which I hope you guys could help with. I'm interested in buying the camera but should I buy it in retail or online? If online which website has the best deals? Also, should I get the Japan version or the US version or the international version? I heard the Japan version is sturdier and has better materials dont know if it's true.
thank you!

Sturdier? That's a likely story. They'll all come out of the same factory - just different packaging and firmware. Oh, and warranty. Do you want to post the camera to some overseas location if it develops a problem and needs a warranty repair?

1592

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon T3i/600D Announced

« on: February 07, 2011, 08:22:53 AM »

Have a look at the sample pictures on dpreview:
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/photos/892888/img_0570?inalbum=canon-eos-600d-preview-samples
They've included shots at ISO 3200, 5000 and 6400.

Find the noise.

ISO 5000 is generally regarded as being one of the "fake" ISOs. But it is a real ISO value:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_speed

The 60D and 600D (and most other Canon cameras) can be configured to support setting the ISO in 1/3 ISO stops. 5000 is 3200+2/3.

wtf?
thats crazy. I would like to see fullsize shots and raw..

there's something fishy on those samples: does the camera even have ISO 5000? dpreview themselves say it doesn't...

Yes, it does. If you look here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_speed

You'll see ISO 5000 listed between 3200 and 6400. It is 3200+2/3.

The 60D and 600D (and various other Canon cameras) allow for the ISO to be selected in 1/3 stop increments. However it is widely recognised that the 1/3 ISO stop settings on Canon cameras are fake.

1593

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon T3i/600D Announced

« on: February 07, 2011, 03:02:31 AM »

Have a look at the sample pictures on dpreview:
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/photos/892888/img_0570?inalbum=canon-eos-600d-preview-samples
They've included shots at ISO 3200, 5000 and 6400.

Find the noise.

1594

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS Development Announced

« on: February 07, 2011, 03:00:53 AM »

They don't say if the 1.4x extender changes the f-stop from 4 to 5.6...

1595

Lenses / Re: Canon 400 f/5.6L IS in April? [CR1]

« on: February 06, 2011, 06:23:05 AM »

You would expect the prime lens would produce sharper pictures when compared with the 100-400mm at 400mm at f5.6.  In addition, it should have faster focus and better IQ.  This is pretty important when tracking subjects.  Admittedly, the 100-400 isn't considered slack in these areas, but most reviews suggest that you need to stop down to f8 or f11 to achieve really sharp results.  The current 400/2.8 is considered one of the stars in the canon line up.  If a 400/5.6 exists, it would be good to think the image quality would be comparable, but in a slower package.  It may not appeal to everyone, but I think there would be buyers out there.

The 400/5.6L already exists, just not in IS:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12129-USA/Canon_2526A004_400mm_f_5_6L_USM_Autofocus.html

1596

Lenses / Re: Canon 400 f/5.6L IS in April? [CR1]

« on: February 06, 2011, 06:21:21 AM »

If they're just announcing it, why not?

They already have a non-IS version at just under $1300, why not add IS?

Is it a big seller? well, if the number of reviews at B&H are anything to go by, for every five 100-400's, they sell one 400/5.6L.

The announcements last year were 300/2.8L IS USM, 400/2.8L IS USM, 500/4L IS II USM, 600/4L IS II USM.

Notice that all four lenses have IS.

The *ONLY* white zoom lens that does not have IS is the EF-400/5.6L USM.

If it didn't sell, Canon would have axed it. Canon hasn't. Therefore I think it is ripe for updating.

1597

EOS Bodies / Re: 600D/T3i Specs [CR2]

« on: February 05, 2011, 07:15:41 PM »

That will make it almost like a 60D except the size and the grip.  What is the point of having this model??

 a small form factor is always good. ever taken a camera overseas


the differences between the 60D and the 600D becomes less and less with newer models to the point where you could probably the same thing about the 60D and its successor if the changes are incremental.

form factor preference is massively dependent on the form factor of the person using the camera.

I can't hold a T2i for more than a few minutes before my hand cramps.  I can, however, walk around all day with a 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II on a 5D Mark II body, and have flown with said combination.

it is disappointing that the digital camera realm is currently very size-ist, discriminating against those who prefer small cameras over those who prefer large cameras.  for my wife, she is limited to the technology of the XXXD lineup (and now maybe the 60D) simply due to the fact that she can't shoot comfortably with anything larger

Right, ideally the size of the camera would not have anything to do with the size of the sensor. Think back to 35mm film and this was the case: all cameras used the same "sensor" (film), just the body was different. But with other manufacturers doing interesting things (m4/3 and APS-C in compact), maybe she needs to think non-Canon.

1598

EOS Bodies / Re: 600D Shows Up at a Korean Agency

« on: February 02, 2011, 09:04:51 PM »

Is there one for the 7D?

Is WiFi built in?
Is GPS built in?
Wireless flash control built in?

1599

Lenses / Re: Lens Price Increases Taking Affect

« on: January 30, 2011, 08:54:42 PM »

Anyone notice that Canon bodies are dropping in price? Could just be a coincidence, but 7D is at an all-time low (just under $1,500). Looks like 60D and T2i have dropped as well, but not nearly as much.

I'm willing to bet this has a lot to do with the pending release of the Nikon D800 and D400 that could be as soon as Feb. 9

1600

Canon General / Re: 70-300IS USM (non-L) now pointless.

« on: January 30, 2011, 03:18:49 PM »

get a clue what you talking about or everyone is lauging about you.

the canon 70-300mm L is optical and mechanical much better then the tamron.
if you have not enough money to buy the canon.. ok.... but don´t make such stupid claims.

the EF 70-300mm non L is a more complicated topic.
but from my own tests the tamron is better in terms of sharpness, when you get a good one.

one problem i hear again and again from my nikon customers is that the tamron is underexposing.
my nikon customers complain about having to overexpose by 2/3 to 1 stop to get the same results as with other lenses.

Err, I think you're misreading the problem. It's being discussed on photozone and the issue appears to be that it meters for the Tamron wrong:
http://forum.photozone.de/index.php?/topic/355-tamron-70-300-vc-exposure-issues/
... but there appears to be no consensus on why and what the exposure issues are.

The 30-second review on the back of the camera showed little that I could discern between the two

that one sentence says it all......

the images you posted for comparisation are completely worthless.
learn to make reproducibility test images or forget it.

Well, since you're so knowledgeable and seemingly have access to said lenses, why don't you post some examples?

FWIW, it's not a matter (for me) about whether I can afford the lens or not but rather what do I get for my money?

And that's the question that everyone should ask. In the face of the Tamron lens, is the Canon worth the $1100 premium? Without question if you use the lens to make money, yes (it's a capital equipment cost), but for non-professionals, what is the small incremental gain worth? And it is seemingly a small incremental gain..

FWIW, I've got two 70-300IS USMs but both are a source of great frustration. For landscape, when I can zoom, tripod mount and use live-view to focus, they work but in almost any other scenario, they fail.

But since you haven't pony'd up with any actual photos to argue your point and just intended to criticize, I'll reward your laziness with this URL:
http://forum.photozone.de/index.php?/topic/641-tamron-af-sp-70-300mm-f40-56-di-vc-usd-for-canon-5d/

1601

EOS Bodies / Re: “1Dsq” & 3D [CR1]

« on: January 28, 2011, 01:23:53 AM »

So?
Why would you crop it to a "normal" AR?
And what is a "normal" AR?
3:2 because that's what 35mm film used?
16:9 because that's what wide screen TV uses?
4:3 because that's what a lot of computer monitors are?

If a 3:2 is always cropped in order to fill a 16:9, then what's the point of a 3:2 sensor?
If a 3:2 photo never fills a 4:3 or 16:9 screen, what's the point of a larger screen?

The point here being that aside from historical bias towards 3:2 there is no reason for digital photographs to be that way.

Aside from the legacy of 35mm film, there is the proximity to the golden ratio that favours the
3:2 aspect ratio.  (Actually 16:10 would be closer.)
I get the point though of asking "what is a standard aspect ratio?"
Take a look at a wedding album - you will see all sorts of aspect ratios that can readily be printed.

Someone that I know that teaches a photography course at college posted a series of pictures to facebook that were all rather cool and all square. Why were they square? Because that's what the correct cropping of the photograph to present the subject required.

What will be a technical consideration in working with a square sensor is that the sensor will be
higher (even if only 30.6mm) - quite a bit higher than 24mm.  That means that the reflect mirror
and pentaprism need to be totally redesigned (assuming a SLR design).

Correct. Which might be why it is such a long time since the 1Ds3. However, that's Canon's problem, not ours.

It has even bigger implications for the shutter.  Building a focal plane shutter than has to travel
30.6mm will probably be quite a technical challenge - especially when you want to maintain
a reasonable flash sync speed..

It also means that the shutter can travel either horizontally or vertically. Or even both ways if they're clever enough.

1602

EOS Bodies / Re: “1Dsq” & 3D [CR1]

« on: January 27, 2011, 03:27:58 PM »

Not to mention I wouldn't want to see the corners on a 36mmx36mm sensor with the lens that don't have the baffle on the back of them.

The image circle for a an EF lens would make a 30.6mm square sensor.  Sensor size would be constrained by the hypotenuse (43.266mm), not the width of a 3:2 ratio frame.  For the record, a 36x24mm sensor is 864 mm2, a 30.6mm square sensor is 936 mm2.  That is an 8% increase of surface area.  That, coupled with the fact that a square sensor would have less sensor area outside of the 'sweet spot' of the lens would likely result in slightly sharper images.

OK... now take your 30.6mm square sensor and crop it to a normal AR and you only have 30.6x20.4 and only 624mm^2.  Significantly smaller than FF, and just a smidge over APS-H.

So?
Why would you crop it to a "normal" AR?
And what is a "normal" AR?
3:2 because that's what 35mm film used?
16:9 because that's what wide screen TV uses?
4:3 because that's what a lot of computer monitors are?

If a 3:2 is always cropped in order to fill a 16:9, then what's the point of a 3:2 sensor?
If a 3:2 photo never fills a 4:3 or 16:9 screen, what's the point of a larger screen?

The point here being that aside from historical bias towards 3:2 there is no reason for digital photographs to be that way.

1603

EOS Bodies / Re: “1Dsq” & 3D [CR1]

« on: January 27, 2011, 03:15:12 PM »

"They don't need to build a whole new lens system."

Dilbert, make a circle that touches the edges of a rectangle with an aspect ratio of 1.5 x 1 then make a circle around the squares made up of the 1.5 dimension, and you'll see that the area of coverage is significantly expanded.

As other her noted the square will be smaller than the 1.5 dimension if they went that way but kept the current lenses. I'd say this has a snowball's chance in hell of being true, but hey, Canon have made some really bad decisions lately, like messing up the once wonderful G series, so maybe.

The flaw in your logic is that you're assuming the (new) square sensor will be just as wide as the current sensor.

There's no reason for it to be that way.

Click on and read the "many moons ago" story in that started this thread:
http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/05/the-cmos-sensor-squared-cr2/

Next time, read all of the article and the stories it references and links to first.

1604

EOS Bodies / Re: “1Dsq” & 3D [CR1]

« on: January 27, 2011, 03:29:25 AM »

I think the patents are a very pertinent point, and I really can't see Canon building a whole new system for the ever shrinking stills market. I bet that their focus will be on video all the way now.

Huh?

They don't need to build a whole new lens system.

1605

EOS Bodies / Re: “1Dsq” & 3D [CR1]

« on: January 27, 2011, 12:59:07 AM »

...
Ok, so let's see... Canon is going to bring out all new lenses for this square format sensor, and we haven't seen a single square format lens patent... right that does that one in.
...

Canon doesn't need to bring out all new lenses. The *only* lens that I'm aware of that isn't appropriate for the square sensor is the 24-105L/f4 because of the rectangular bit on the back. If they did bring out a square sensor, I would not at all be surprised if Canon also announced a program to "fix" those lenses.