October 21, 2014, 04:59:17 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 - Gcon

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 5D X Speculation
« on: January 24, 2012, 03:05:15 AM »
The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of canon unifying the 7D and 5D lines. Think back to before the 1Dx announcement. Canon's lineup has 3 (4 with the entry level body) 1.6 crop cameras, a 1.3 crop and two full frames. That meant that they have to spread a bunch of features across a large range of cameras. Even if you discount the lowest level camera (the 1100D), that's a lot of tooling they have to maintain in their factories and a lot of sensors to develop. They also risk confusing consumers over the difference between the bodies.

They've already united the two "1D" lines into a single camera, and I think it makes a lot of sense to consolidate the 7D and 5D. Right now the 5D offers some usability upgrades over the 60D, but I've always felt that the 60D had features held back to keep it "below" the 7D. Canon has also made users pick "sport" bodies v.s. "landscape" bodies (to generalize), which has also hurt them. Combining the 7D and 5D would let them have 4 easy to understand product catagories:
  • The 1D line: Professional quality used by professionals.
  • The 5D line: Near professional quality for about half the price. Not the best, but excellent.
  • The X0D line: Enthusiast quality for ~twice the entry level price. Controls and features an experienced shooter will appreciate, without the quality (or price) of its FF brothers.
  • The XX0D / XX00D lines: Entry level SLRs with prices to match. A good deal, but experienced users will want more.

The more I think about this, the more I think it makes sense. If they can deliver similar frame rates on a full frame sensor, sports shooters can crop down if they need more range (or canon can introduce a "crop" mode a-la nikon).

I like what you did there with that break-down. I think Canon made a big mistake in muddying their product lines by giving a crop sensor a xD designation.  Really only FF sensors should have the xD designation.

I predict that that the 5Dx will be a merging of full-frame 5DmarkII, with the best features of the 7D.

So what happens to the 7D2 then? I don't really care as I won't buy one, but they could come out with a kick-ass 70D, and bring things in line with what you said.

For all those people who want a crop sensor for "reach" I'm not overly convinced by that argument. You pack all those photosites so close together and yes you get more perceived reach, but the noise increases too.  If ISO is high enough, I believe it's better to crop in Photoshop a full frame image. Really it depends on the ISO - a crop sensor is better for reach at lower ISO, but IMHO a crop of a full frame image is better at higher ISO.

In any case - can't wait for Feb!!

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 5D X Speculation
« on: January 23, 2012, 10:26:02 PM »
The 5DX is a really fantastic development if it eventuates! Kill the 7D crop sensor for good! Read on...

I own two 5DmarkII's and I bought a 7D on a whim in November of last year. I love everything about the 7D except the image quality.  Compared to the 5DMarkII there is noticeably more noise even at base ISO, less accurate colors and less dynamic range - all of these are noticeable in Lightroom and not just spec sheet facts.  For the quality of camera body that you get and the features you get - the Achilles heel is the sensor. I've thought since buying the 7D, that crop sensors it the Canon lineup should stop with the 60D.

For the 5DMarkII's, the IQ is really very good, but is let down by many of the features - poor AF and poor weather sealing are two of the main culprits. Read more of its weaknesses here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d700/vs-5d-mark-ii.htm (I don't agree with K.R. with everything but that's a really good summation of things and I agree with those weaknesses 100%).

I'd be extremely happy if they combined the 5D and 7D lines, even if it sold for an extra grand over the current 5DMarkII. It would still be a lot less than a 1DX (approx half the price), and not be as fast, nor have quite as many features, but it would be enough to satisfy me as serious amateur, and stop me going the Nikon way.

5DX - let it be true!!!

EOS Bodies / Re: The 5D Mark III Megapixel Count? [CR2]
« on: January 20, 2012, 06:29:53 AM »
The talk about the 5DIII keeping the MP the same is fantastic. That means there's an even greater chance that their upsell over the 5DII is going to be AF and weather sealing. One can only hope. GPS built into the body would be nice, but fat chance of that I reckon.

EOS Bodies / Re: The 5D Mark III Megapixel Count? [CR2]
« on: January 20, 2012, 03:45:19 AM »
I'm happy with 21MP. I'd be happy with 18MP.  I can pano-stitch my landscapes in portrait-aspect chunks so long as there's little to no movement in the scene, and that gives many more MP.  For single frame grabs like events - then 18MP stuff is plenty. The only reason I'd want more MP is for simulating reach with the crop. Maybe I just buy a longer lens instead?

That's my MP rant. For AF - I'd be more than happy if they had the same # of AP points but did two things - made them all X-type, and spread them a fair bit wider. So Canon - if you gimp the AF one more time in the 5D range, I'm afraid I'm probably out.

As for weather sealing, the 5D2 should be made to withstand heavy rain. Landscape shooters / hikers don't need a big-ass portrait grip to add bulk and weight.  The 5D2 is a great size for hiking compared to the 1D line, so it should be sealed accordingly. How many out there have been burned by the poor sealing on the 5D2? I know quite a few.

If Canon can address these issues I'll buy two 5DIII. If there's more of the same, then well... the dark side awaits!

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 28 f/2.8 Disappears From Price List
« on: January 14, 2012, 06:43:11 AM »
This lens has always been dead to me, given I own a 24-70mm f/2.8L. So it can go away quietly for all I care. I'm all for Canon removing the older clunky non-L EF lenses. I have no use for them whatsoever - I only shoot on L glass.

It wasn't a free sample? Sorry my bad!  :P

PowerShot Cameras / Re: Canon PowerShot G1 X Announced
« on: January 09, 2012, 07:04:44 PM »
It'd be cool if it were cheap and the underwater housing was also cheap. I'd like to take underwater photos with my 5DMarkII but the housings are expensive! And also If It screws up than that's an expensive experiment.

EOS Bodies / Re: 5d or 1ds
« on: January 05, 2012, 04:34:47 AM »
I've had two 5D2's for a couple of years now. Shoot every weekend, and process through the week. I bought a 7D in December on a whim. I'm selling it on eBay soon. I'd describe the image quality as "sub par" or "horrible" depending on what kind of mood I'm in. A shame - the features and handling are top notch.

Image Quality,  Features, Low Price (in comparison to 1D/Ds) - pick two of the three!!  OK breaking it down

IQ + low price = 5D2
features + low price = 7D
IQ + features = 1Ds

Now off to sell my 7D.

Lenses / Re: Pre CES Announcements
« on: December 22, 2011, 12:25:30 AM »
It's amazing that no one has mentioned the great "Rounded Aperture Blade" theory in all of this.

From what I can gather, pretty much all if not all L series lenses from the Canon 24-105mm f/4L launched 2005 have rounded aperture blades for smoother bokeh.

The mark II versions of the 85mm f/1.2L and the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS have rounded aperture blades - their mark I versions didn't. The Mark I were pre-2005 and the Mark II's are post-2005.

For portrait work you want the rounded blades. The 35mm f/1.4L (released 1998) and the 24-70mm f/2.8L (released 2002) don't, and they really stand out in their list of fast L lenses that don't. The other one being the 135mm f/2L, but I'd say that would get the rounded-aperture blade update sometime later.

So they will both pick up rounded aperture blades, and will have less CA from improved sub-wavelength coatings.

You can easily check what lenses have what kind of aperture blades on http://www.the-digital-picture.com - which is where I did all my research for this.

 I am uncertain if the 35mm f/1.4L II will pick up weather sealing. The 85mm f/1.2L II isn't a sealed design. I don't think they see the 35mm as an outdoor lens, like the 24mm f/1.4L II or the 24-70mm f/2.8L.

If they get rounded blades and reduced CA, then that's a worthy upgrade, although I'd love the 35mm to pick up weather sealing as well, although not confident in that.


EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III Information [CR1]
« on: December 01, 2011, 02:41:25 AM »
I wouldn't be surprised if the 5DIII is just a incremental bump in AF, weather sealing and a "downgrade" to the 18MP sensor to save costs rather than developing a whole new sensor.

The only fly in the ointment with this theory is the purported 36MP in the Nikon D800.  Really though is video that big a market that they need dedicated video cameras and bang on about video in the stills cameras? As a stills-only landscape shooter I'm not feeling the love from Canon - seriously thinking of going the Nikon way with a D800 if they don't look after me.

Lenses / Re: RIP Canon EF 15 f/2.8 Fisheye
« on: November 22, 2011, 03:57:27 AM »
I just saw the cost of the Sigma fisheye - wow! So much cheaper! If cost is an issue then definitely get that one. The Canon one shouldn't be that much more expensive - possibly it's still at "early adopter" prices. I think if the Sigma is worth US$600-700, then the Canon 8-15mm f/4L should probably be around the US$1000 mark. It is 100% deserving of its 'L' designation though and build quality is great (easily removed lens cap excepted!).

Again - I wouldn't worry about about losing f/2.8. Who really needs depth of field on a fisheye? It's not like you're going to get much at 14mm or 15mm anyways. Faster shutter? Have you seen the 1Dx high ISO ability?! ;)  f/2.8 is not really needed, or won't be, for a fisheye lens. A sound choice I think by Canon.

So if you want the very best you have to pay through the nose for it. If you can wait then wait - perhaps it'll have big price drops once Japan/Thailand recovers and early adopters like me have theirs. I'm guessing it'll be $1200 in 6 months but hopefully it'll drop more.

Lenses / Re: RIP Canon EF 15 f/2.8 Fisheye
« on: November 22, 2011, 03:43:17 AM »
I hear from lots of people that aren’t happy with the 8-15 f/4L fisheye. They wish Canon would update the full frame fisheye 2.8 prime.

Who are these people?  I have no experience with this lens, but every review I've read online is glowing. They all say it's sharp, contrasty, and has excellent build quality. Heck, even the Nikon users are extremely jealous about this lens.

I think the people who are complaining are the ones that don't own the new lens. I have to admit - I was a complainer at first. I wanted f/2.8 and as a full frame shooter - couldn't care less about the zoom. Then I read the review on The Digital Picture (.com) and realised that f/2.8 on the original is pretty blurry and for me that makes it a useless aperture. I think it's probably impossible based on physics of light to make f/2.8 sharp on a 15mm fisheye. Since a soft aperture is unacceptable for a L-designated lens, I'd say this is a contributing factor in making the widest f/4 - that and it being a zoom where f/4 is standard.

Anyway I went out and got one and did a two week road trip pulling out the fisheye regularly (new toy). It has all the "C's" in spades - color, clarity, contrast - all fantastic. Unfortunately also cost - not cheap.  It's a little bit punchier in the colors that my 17-40mm f/4L. I really can't fault the IQ at all except corner sharpness until you stop down but that's to be expected for a fisheye.

What a lot of people don't realise is that you can use it on a full frame down to just below 14mm. The difference between 15mm and 14mm is quite large, and I'm really glad I've got that extra mm over the original one.

Besides cost, the only other thing that annoys me is the outer lens cover comes off really easily with the slightest push of the release button. The built in 'hood' stays on pretty well as that twists off.

If you are a full frame shooter then if you want f/2.8 then you can go out and buy the old one, but expect pretty ordinary soft results and if you are a pixel peeper, you just won't use it. As an owner of the new lens, I really don't think anyone should shed a tear with the news of the old lens being discontinued.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS "Soonish" [CR2]
« on: November 13, 2011, 10:54:09 PM »
Will it take the 1.4x or 2x extenders?

EOS Bodies / Re: Nikon D800 at 36mp, Will Canon Respond?
« on: October 04, 2011, 10:44:10 PM »
Based on Moore's Law, Canon should be able to get four times as many pixels in their sensor, now, as they could have, three years ago. Of course, it's not always about more pixels, as has been pointed out. There are trade-offs, such as reduced heat, power, noise, etc. Still, I would be surprised if Canon couldn't make a FF sensor that is one or two stops better and still increase the pixel count.

The most misquoted law around ;)

Moore's law is that the quantity of transistors in silicon will double for a given price point every 18-24 months.

There are some similarities with digital camera pixels over recent years but it's definitely not Moore's law.

EOS Bodies / Re: A Very Detailed 1D Mark V Spec List [CR1]
« on: August 06, 2011, 12:49:56 PM »
I'm calling shenanigans too.

"Metering modes Multi Center-weighted, Spot" - just those two metering modes on a pro camera? Don't think so.

I also don't think they would have SD on this.  32MP at 9+FPS. Do you know how much data that is? That's a lot of freakin' data! They are going to be needing dual UDMA and probably dual Digic 5's for that.

I also don't think they'd downgrade speed from the 10FPS of the ID Mark III and IV. Speed is paramount for a sports shooter. 1 extra frame per second could be the different between getting, and not getting the shot.

Total shenanigans. Glad this is only CR1.

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8