April 16, 2014, 08:20:04 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 - motorhead

Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18
If a lens has to be dismantled for any reason, thats a repair, not a clean in my book.

I must admit that having someone else clean a lens of mine is not something I'll ever consider. Its hardly difficult or even time consuming.

Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/2.8L II Patent Published
« on: April 25, 2011, 02:58:44 PM »

I've been very pleased with my "mark 1" version, so don't be too downhearted. The fact that theres a mark 2 version coming (bear in mind with Japans current situation it could be 12 months away) does not mean that the previous version is now useless. 

The large format landscape photographer Joe Cornish claims to be still waiting to get the shot that he knows a location in Scotland will deliver. He has tried many times already, each time walking all night up mountain tracks with his heavy equipment and to my eyes has already achieved wonderful images from the spot. But he is not satisfied. His eye for a landscape image is second to none in my book.

That's true dedication. Another landscape specialist camped next to a Canadian lake for three weeks solid before getting the lighting conditions he wanted. I admire that kind of single minded (sheer bloody minded might be another way of putting it) but although I consider myself to be very patient, I don't have enough to match either of the examples I've given, but wish I did. It's what sorts the real tog's from those that only play at it.   

EOS Bodies / Re: Diffraction, MP and the great beyond
« on: April 24, 2011, 07:28:23 AM »
The word "photography" covers an enormous range subjects, interests, disciplines and so depending on an individuals special interests, I well understand that there will be differences of emphasis (I was about to write opinion, but that in itself is argumentative). In fact that's one of the things I like about it, its sheer diversity.

My own thinking is based on the fact that digital photography is still at the nappy stage and growing fast. Nothing will stop that, it's inevitable. Come back in 50 years and we could have an informed discussion on where it goes from that point, but right now anyone trying to stop the technology maturing is on a hiding to nothing. The typical dSLR is still a direct descendant of the film SLR at the moment. While there are signs that this might be about to change it's still not certain.

Unlike a lot of others, I look forward to the day when I have image files of 1000mb or more with DR that is twice as good as film ever was. We are certainly not at a digital  "Golden Age" right now so even if it was possible I for one do not want to stop the clock and don't understand others who do.

Due to commercial realities Nikon have been at the mercy of a  third party sensor manufacture and despite having one hand tied behind their back have played the cards they have been dealt very well. But I am prepared to bet that in reality Nikon would give give their eye teeth to have Canons sensor design and manufacturing facilities at their disposal.       

EOS Bodies / Re: Diffraction, MP and the great beyond
« on: April 22, 2011, 01:24:10 PM »
I remember reading a very interesting article on just this subject in Amateur Photographer written by Geoffrey Crawley -sadly now deceased.

His argument was that "popular thinking" was wrong on so many points. He had no time for those who claimed "12 mp is enough............" and instead argued that difraction is not as much of a problem as some would have us believe and resolution is a moving target  - always getting better, if at a price. He claimed that lens designers have known how to improve their products for a long time, but that it has not been financially justified. 

 As an example he referred to a decision made by the BBC in the 1950's to spend very large sums of cash on extremely high quality German lenses, but the results were extremely disappointing to say the least. The glassware was not at fault, but no amount of superb glass could improve things when the camera and film technology was the limiting factor at the time. Geoffrey claimed that this was exactly the situation with dSLR lens designs until now, with lens design having been carefully matched to the bodies being offered. He said newer, better glassware would appear as the camera sensor and processing justified it, until then there was no point.

We are certainly witnessing Canon in particular upgrading their range right now, ready for the next generation large mp cameras I for one  fully expect to be using. 

"Popularist thinking" seems to forget that ever higher mp's will give us ever smoother images as we have to stress the basic data less. It assumes we will never have more powerful computers or printers that will print at high ppi's than at present. Both these assumptions are obviously flawed.

One further point:  I can print at A3+ provided I got the framing right in camera, any cropping at all  the A3+ print exposes the flaws. If nothing else, the upcoming 50-100 mp images should give me more flexibility to crop.

EOS Bodies / Re: 37 Megapixel 1Ds Mark IV? [CR1]
« on: April 18, 2011, 05:02:41 PM »
While I like the idea of a proper medium format body, I don't think that a 37/40mp square sensor will be anywhere close to MF. I guess you have all been seeing the real MF players and know what's already in play so you don't need me to spell it out.

No, 37 or 40mp will have to be a bog standard 36 x 24 mm "frame" to have any chance of lasting more than 18 months as the "top dog". Even at that level it needs to have other headlining benefits, for entirely selfish reasons I'm hoping a world beating DR forms one such. I'm also selfishly less bothered by noise as I don't use high ISO settings.

It has been previously reported that Canon is investigating the possibilty of linking up with an existing MF manufacturer. Unless they are prepared to start from scratch and develop a medium format expertise and reputation slowly, I see this as their most likely way into MF, especially now that the company will have other major drains on corporate finance for the forseeable future.   

I have had experience of having repairs done by both Nikon and Canon over the years. Both operate very efficient and high quality repair shops, but in my experience at least Canon were very uncommunicative during the process while Nikon were very outgoing, very friendly.

The actual repairs have all been quick and well done from both, but I at least came away from the Nikon experiences feeling I'd made new friends and from the Canon experience still in the dark as to what the repairs had entailed.

With Nikon I was encouraged to ask questions. They took a pride in the customer relations side of the equation. Canon seemed to prefer that I not exist, certainly questions were totally ignored or made very difficult to even ask.

EOS Bodies / Re: 37 Megapixel 1Ds Mark IV? [CR1]
« on: April 17, 2011, 10:09:35 AM »
I'm all for 40mp as long as we also get an improvement in DR. I'm not referring to the the very artificial lab test definition, but usable out in the field DR. It's the one area I feel it is still behind film.

Hopefully like one or two other top end manufacturers they can work out a way to remove the AA filter, which I gather is one of the things holding better DR back. One less artificial object between the subject and the sensor as well, which can only be a good thing.

EOS Bodies / Re: DIGIC V [CR1]
« on: April 14, 2011, 03:09:32 PM »

It's not simply  the RAW format, its more complicated than that. I cannot see the digital camera sensor lasting in it's present form, it's simply far too expensive to produce. So assuming a better and cheaper method will arrive at some time, probably out of some eccentric geniuses shed, I believe we will be using very different processing methods.

Like you I don't trust computer software producers as far as I can throw them, but I'd trust Canon/Nikon etc more than I'd trust third parties like Adobe, who have shown a scant regard for existing customers over the years.     

EOS Bodies / Re: DIGIC V [CR1]
« on: April 14, 2011, 06:45:03 AM »
For the time being I'd much prefer to keep manufacturer specific processing methods. It keeps the door open for major advances. Locking everyone into a particular RAW "flavour" this early in the development of digital cameras seems like tying designers hands behind their backs.

I don't find it a problem. Canon provide me with DPP, which is designed to work with the RAW formats they use. I don't have to buy it, it's offered completely free and gets updated frequently (v3.9.4 is the latest release).

By the way, "Amateur Photographer" has a short article this week on Bayer pattern sensors which mentions a host of adjustments the processor has to do to the basic data it receives. So it's easy to see how the Digic5 might have taken 4 years of work, and why its essential it works well with whatever sensor it is harnessed to. 

EOS Bodies / Re: 1D & 1Ds Rumors [CR1]
« on: April 08, 2011, 01:28:09 PM »
If the announcement was not really meaning  medium format then I'm a lot happier and am likely to be one of the first standing in line for a 40mp full frame body. But why mention medium format if Canon don't mean it? That's just crazy. If it's an oblique reference to the "square" sensor thats been floated before, then thats not MF and its stupid to pretend it is.

A 40mp 36 x 24mm sensor would buy Canon a year or so's breathing space before the opposition match it. Given the delay in the introduction of the 1Ds mk4, anything less than 40mp would prove to me that Canon have been asleep for a couple of years. Even at 40, they will not have bought themselves much time, so it needs to come with best in class DR and noise control.   

EOS Bodies / Re: 1D & 1Ds Rumors [CR1]
« on: April 08, 2011, 09:19:39 AM »
So you think Canon may be thinking of a compromise? Using existing lenses on a medium format sensor? It seems a curiously warped decision if so. Neither fish nor fowl. 40MP I'm all in favour of provided its on a 36 x 24mm frame, but 40MP on a medium frame sensor does not even match the best existing MF offerings. If Canon are serious about medium format then they need to do the job properly, with a range of MF lenses and a body with maybe 80 or 100mp.

Of course time will tell, but on the face of it this news has left me a little under-whelmed. I hope this is Canon testing consumer reaction and not a serious suggestion.   

Lenses / Re: UV filter for 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II?
« on: April 07, 2011, 04:00:15 PM »
I would second fotox.tv,

While I do use Neutral grads and a polarising filter when the occasion demands, I would never leave a filter attached because of the possibility of flare. Why chance it? Having paid a vast sum for a lens with better optics, reducing the resolution with a screw on filter seems daft to me. The lens hood on the mark 2 is a very sturdy one and as I use it all the time, that is my protection.

Site Information / Re: What originally brought you to canon rumors?
« on: April 04, 2011, 04:47:40 PM »
I've been keeping an eye on the rumours for around two years. Having dipped my toe into the digital water and convinced myself that I'm a convert "dispite myself", I want a body that will last me a considerable period, not one that constantly leaves me thinking about yet another upgrade. For this reason I have been taking a keen interest in the 1Ds in all its incarnations.

My requirements are an odd mixture of extremes. I am keen on landscape and travel images, yet am also into MotoGP, Superbikes, hill climbs and F1. As I never use the motor drive for any of my motorsports shots, my thinking is to get a top-end "all-rounder" and I believe (hope?) the next 1Ds will be the one. If not, then I'll continue to wait until something or someone does offer something that fits.

I tend to use a tripod (or monopod for motorsport) rather than hand hold and would much rather Canon concentrated on the low ISO, high DR, quality end of the spectrum rather than high ISO and video. If I have to move to Hasselblad or Pentax, then I will do so, but I have a heavy investment in Canon "L" glassware so would prefer to stick with them if at all possible.

Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18