Messages

76

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Mirrorless [CR1]

« on: January 09, 2012, 06:27:30 PM »

I've been a Canon user since the late '70s, moved over to the EOS-1 system twenty years ago and have been completely digital the past six.  These days I use 1DS and 1D bodies almost exclusively, but could appreciate a somewhat smaller and lighter camera to carry around for casual photography situations. 
A few years back I had a Powershot Pro 1, which almost answered my needs.  But, I would have liked faster response, more accurate focusing and definitely a larger sensor.  I've owned a couple QL-17s over the years and used them as take-anywhere cameras.  It's about the right size for me, as the point-and-shoot models have always felt too small, especially in their controls. 
It would be a great idea if Canon brought back the QL name in a mirrorless model, and even nicer if they could fit an APS-C sensor in it along with interchangable, fast and hopefully "L-quality" glass, though I'd probably still buy it in four-thirds configuration.  Nice, too, if they could keep controls intuitive, simple and large enough for those of us who are mostly thumbs.

Thought I'd "refresh" my first post on here, now that Canon has announced the G1X. It's certainly a giant step forward with the APS-C size sensor. Now, if only they'd put in some fast "L" glass!

77

PowerShot / Re: CES 2012: Chuck Westfall Talks PowerShot G1 X Live Tonight

« on: January 09, 2012, 06:13:48 PM »

Unless you want this camera to get substantially bigger, that's about as fast as the lens will get without trading away focal length.

Actually, I wouldn't mind if it were a little larger, say, the size of my old Canonet 17. And, while we're at it, let's have bigger buttons, dials, knobs, too! (It seems most camera makers have gone the way of the cell phones, where everything is made so small that they run into, sometimes past, the limits of usability.) Maybe put the zoom control on the lens (CW for tele/CCW to go wide?) to free up some space. Could put exposure compensation there, too.
It must be my engineering background coming back to haunt me, or, perhaps I should have become an industrial designer rather than photographer. Now, if Canon wants me to consult with them on their next project... I'm more than willing.

78

PowerShot / Re: CES 2012: Chuck Westfall Talks PowerShot G1 X Live Tonight

« on: January 09, 2012, 03:39:52 PM »

Chuck, any chance we'll see this come out with faster glass? I would think, between the APS-C sensor size and modest (4x) zoom range, it could have been kept at f:2.8, or even faster. Perhaps an update on my Canonet 17, or something along the lines of the Powershot Pro 1 from a few generations back? (I had one, the L glass was a nice touch, too!) Maybe one that took a couple interchangeable lenses, one wide (say 14, 15 to 30-35) and one tele (to 60, 70 or so)? Or, even dedicated fixed-lens cameras, one short, one long?

79

PowerShot Cameras / Re: Canon PowerShot G1 X Announced

« on: January 09, 2012, 03:20:43 PM »

If can read it correctly on the picture of the G1X, it is 15.1-60.4mm f2.8-5.8. You can see it on the frontside of the lens.

I could see if it was 2.8 the entire range where it could be a useful addition, but that's WAY too slow for my liking!
Just bumping up the ISO isn't going to give the same results, certainly not the look one gets with even moderately fast (say f:2.8 or 4) glass on a DSLR. I was hoping Canon might take a page from the M series Leicas here. One would think that with the smaller (than full-frame) sensor size and conservative (4x) zoom range, that's not asking too much! 

80

EOS Bodies / Re: 1D X Limitations Fixable?

« on: January 09, 2012, 11:34:37 AM »

No, it just means that if your lens largest aperture is smaller than f/5.6 (next step is f/8 typically) it can't autofocus. Focusing is always made at largest aperture, the lens is stopped down to the target aperture when taking the picture.

Lenses don't have as small as f/8 natively, but with teleconverters you get it, 1.4x adds one stop, 2x two. So if your camera cannot do f/8 autofocus you cannot get autofocus with a 2x teleconverter on an f/4 lens or 1.4x on an f/5.6 lens, which can be a limitation for especially wildlife photography. 2x on 500/4 to get 1000/8 with autofocus can be a nice option to have. Or on the low end 400/5.6 => 560/8.

It seems what torger implies really IS the point.
I should think there would be a good number of sports, wildlife, et c., professionals who have long, relatively-fast lenses, but occasionally find themselves in a situation where they need that extra reach. Putting a 2x converter on an f:4 lens brings one to that point and, with depth-of-field being so narrow at 800, 1000 or 1200mm, that autofucus is virtually essential, particularly given that the viewfinder image at f:8 is not going to be bright.
It seems there would be even more photographers who'd be likely buyers for this camera that possess lenses of modest apertures, but sometimes find themselves in situations where they'd like that 1.4 or 2x "boost", as well as those who don't always carry their big glass around. 
I certainly hope that Canon will fix the "Achilles heel" for what otherwise appears to be a stellar camera. Autofocusing at f:8, even if only in the center spot, has been a given for 1D series users for a decade now.  Taking it back seems such a step in the wrong direction and gives us one less reason why these bodies are our first choice.

81

PowerShot Cameras / Re: Canon PowerShot G1 X Announced

« on: January 09, 2012, 10:41:59 AM »

This is truly great news for those of us who have deferred buying a point-and-shoot until Canon made one that would produce results that we could be proud of.  The much larger sensor is a major step in this direction, I just wish it would have been in the 3:2 or even 16:9 format.
I didn't read anything about the what is lens on this camera.  What would get me most interested in buying one (or more) of these is if it were of sufficiently large-aperture, perhaps f:2 or at least 2.8 at all ALL focal lengths (especially at the long end where it is most needed).  It would nice to see the G1X utilize the creative advantages (depth-of-field control, bokeh... ), that until now have remained almost solely in the province of the DSLR.   

82

Contests / Re: Holga Giveaway

« on: July 19, 2011, 12:28:56 PM »

I'd love this Holga set. I'm sure I can find so many wonderful things to do with them. Having a couple 1Ds bodies and several L lenses, there are those times when one just has too much resolution. 

83

EOS Bodies / Re: 36x36 mm cmos sensor

« on: June 06, 2011, 12:01:28 AM »

I don't see much logic in Canon going for a square sensor, but how about a 4x5?  It's approximately the same surface area as the current full frame sensor and if Canon is really going after the medium format crowd with their next 1Ds, it would make more sense to go with that ratio.  What do you guys think?

I, for one, have never cared much for the 4:5 ratio.  It's boring, trite, too close to square for my liking.  Maybe that's because I've primarily worked in the 35mm format, and have long appreciated its close to "golden rectangle" proportions. 
But the real beauty of a square sensor would be its versatility.  The idea of never having to turn the camera to change from a horizontal to a vertical shot is very appealing to me, with the ability to produce a usable image in a wide variety of fomats an added bonus. 

84

EOS Bodies / Re: 36x36 mm cmos sensor

« on: June 01, 2011, 04:18:21 PM »

OK I can't have 36x36mm because there "might" be some vignetting?  SO what!, crop it.

Think about it.  Let's say your camera has a big square sensor and the resulting RAW image would have more vignetting than the current rectangular sensor.  So What?  Crop it to rectangular, or square, or a circle. Whatever you the photographer want.  Hell you could crop to horizontal or verticle with no loss from the current system.

Remember the edge of the image produced by the lens is not a hard line.  Unlike the diagrams above. It tapers off slowly, and even that changes with zoom, focus,  and aperture changes. (Again, unlike the diagrams above) 

So no, a square sensor need not be smaller on the wide side, it just will require the photographer understand unless he crops it to the exact size of the current sensor there may be a little more work involved. 

The jpeg could default to the current FF size to avoid shock and horror by people who don't understand there is still a little work to do after the photo is taken.

I think that's exactly the point!
Rather than limit the photographer to one particular format, this would give them the opportunityy to use whatever would work best for their specific situation.  I like the idea of JPEG defaults, say perhaps in 3:2, 4:3 and 1:1 in both horizontal and vertical modes.  Maybe 16:9, too.  Seems to me this would deliver noticably greater IQ in most all circumstances than the present "fixed-format" setups.
Also, it would give all lenses a certain amount of "shift" function, which one would work on (from the RAW files in post-processing.  And, in cases where a certain amount of falloff was acceptable, it would offer a much larger file from most all current (FF) lenses.

85

EOS Bodies / Re: 36x36 mm cmos sensor

« on: June 01, 2011, 12:16:34 PM »

This 36x36 mm sensor idea sounds most appealing.  I've been thinking along these lines for the past few months, though I haven't wanted to share my thoughts without some acknowledgement it's a reasonable possibiility.
There are a lot of good reasons to go with this format, including no more need to change camera position when shifting between horizontal and vertical formats AND that this will allow an almost-unlimited number of aspect ratios, a few of which could be pre-selected in-camera or developed in post-processing of the RAW files.
As for the matter that most lenses currently aren't capable of full coverage of this larger circle, it would only be of concern when one wished to use the entire image, something that is rather infrequent in real-world situations.  I imagine that Canon has already thought out the problem and is working on II and III versions of current lenses offering improved coverage.  In fact, I think some of the latest optics already offer equal or better performance at the 36x36 limits than the earlier models did at 24x36.

86

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Mirrorless [CR1]

« on: February 06, 2011, 08:26:07 PM »

I've been a Canon user since the late '70s, moved over to the EOS-1 system twenty years ago and have been completely digital the past six.  These days I use 1DS and 1D bodies almost exclusively, but could appreciate a somewhat smaller and lighter camera to carry around for casual photography situations. 
A few years back I had a Powershot Pro 1, which almost answered my needs.  But, I would have liked faster response, more accurate focusing and definitely a larger sensor.  I've owned a couple QL-17s over the years and used them as take-anywhere cameras.  It's about the right size for me, as the point-and-shoot models have always felt too small, especially in their controls. 
It would be a great idea if Canon brought back the QL name in a mirrorless model, and even nicer if they could fit an APS-C sensor in it along with interchangle, fast and hopefully "L-quality" glass, though I'd probably still buy it in four-thirds configuration.  Nice, too, if they could keep controls intuitive, simple and large enough for those of us who are mostly thumbs.