April 16, 2014, 07:17:20 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 - dlleno

Pages: 1 ... 25 26 [27] 28 29 ... 38
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon's D4 Officially Official
« on: July 09, 2012, 05:22:39 PM »
Thats an interesting take.  I suspect the market (Nikon) will determine the need for f/8 AF, and that if Canon wanted to adjust their firmware to enable f/8 AF while preserving full capability /performance at f/5.6 they could do it.  High performance AF may be the differentiator that Canon is going for, though,  and for the pro series bodies they could win the argument on the technical merits, i.e. if what you say is true then not many pros will jump brands just to get poorer AF performance at f/8   

EOS Bodies / Re: Adorama Order Fulfillment Tracking
« on: July 09, 2012, 05:09:14 PM »
on a more general note -- One can always find a bad example for most any retailer, so YMMV and I'm Sure Adorama has lots of successful sales transactions --  I just find that between B&H and Amazon,  I don't need Adorama.  Years ago they tried to slip in a grey market lens past me when I ordered a U.S. warranty lens.  That put a bad taste in my mouth that has persisted ever since so I just don't bother with them.  I do check their prices from time to time, and find that they are always in line with the other two.  For me their practice of including rebates in with the displayed pricing is less transparent than the way B&H does business.

just my take...

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon's D4 Officially Official
« on: July 09, 2012, 04:29:06 PM »
sure -- f8 AF performance is likely to be worse than f/5.6, so Canon will have to decide if reduced functionality/performance AF is worth it, compared to what Nikon is offering. 

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon's D4 Officially Official
« on: July 09, 2012, 02:56:05 PM »

What might end up happening is a 1DXn within the next 12 months that addresses this issue and this issue alone - that is unless they can pull a rabbit out of the hat between now and general availability of the 1DX.

A firmware update to the 1DX might do it.  unless the underlying hardware is just not capable, in which case Canon has some serious egg on face

Lenses / Re: Owning the Canon 200-400 f/4L Vs 400 f/2.8L II
« on: July 05, 2012, 10:30:51 PM »
IQ of the Canon 200-400 will be interesting to see.  For kicks and giggles, go out to the-digital-picture.com and compare the Canon 400 f/2.8 at 560mm/1.4x  and the Nikon 200-400 f/4 at 560mm/1.4x.   not a fair comparison, to be sure, but the Canon sure spanks!

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Successors [CR1]
« on: July 02, 2012, 07:59:28 PM »
there are a couple of amusing outcomes

1.  If there is no APS-H body announced, I observe that the 1.3x fans will be a mite disappointed but largely accepting of the decision, while they figure out Canon's strategy re:  reach versus IQ and how it applies to them.  Meanwhile,  the "APS-H is dead" crowd will do the snoopy dance and say I told you so

2.  If there is an APS-H body announced, the 1.3x fans will do the snoopy dance and say I told you so, but the "APS-H is dead" crowd will have to seek therapy

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Successors [CR1]
« on: July 02, 2012, 01:55:52 AM »
There's no way the 7D replacement will not accept APS-C lenses. So no sensor bloat - that's just silly.

What if it could and was 1.3X crop as well ??

oh boy a 10-22 on a APS-H  body would be cool --  but I doubt that Canon would produce a 1.3x body that could accept today's EF-S lenses.  Clever engineering aside, such a body would utilize more of the image circle than these lenses were designed for, so the optical performance would likely be lackluster.  more vignetting, edges not so sharp...  :(

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Successors [CR1]
« on: July 02, 2012, 01:46:52 AM »
There's no way the 7D replacement will not accept APS-C lenses. So no sensor bloat - that's just silly.

APS-H is D.E.A.D. It was only there for faster frame rates compared to FF. It was a compromise. Canon solved this with the 1DX. The whole point of a crop-sensor lens in a semi-pro body like 7D is just that - the crop factor! Otherwise you'd just get the 5DIII. My left nut to say that APS-H will never ever see the light of day ever again in a new body - it makes absolutely zero sense.

You forget one very important aspect of the whole picture: The marketing perspective

The APS-H sensor have no direct competitor

yes. Canon's wildcard, so to speak.  1.3 could be dead, but if it is, it won't be because of the reasons stated.  It will be because the cost versus the compromise between reach and IQ is not in Canon's best interest. 

Also -- the point of a "crop sensor lens" is not (by itself) the crop factor,  it is the cost - APS-C lenses are cheaper to produce.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Successors [CR1]
« on: July 02, 2012, 01:21:58 AM »
More megapixels for the 70D.... why do you need more megapixels on a prosumer camera?

Useful for cropping when I'm focal-length or magnification limited.

If more pixels weren't useful for this, teleconverters would also be useless, and they are not.  Even our old optics can do well with a 2x TC on an 18MP 1.6-crop sensor, thus indicating that sensor could go to 72MP and still provide benefit even to an old zoom lens (100-400L).

100-400L + 2x on T2i:

That's like saying I'm shooting birds with a wide angle and need the extra pixels for cropping. Not really the right tools for the job.

There are wildlife situations that meet the objective above, namely FOV limited because you cannot get any closer, or buy longer glass,  in which case a higher pixel density crop sensor will outperform a larger sensor of the same generation, cropped in post to obtain the same FOV. 

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Successors [CR1]
« on: June 29, 2012, 04:55:17 PM »
APS-H was designed and made by Kodak first. The Kodak sensor was then bought by Canon for the first 'Canon' APS-H cameras such as the D6000. Canon then designed their own and put it in the 1D in 2001. The rest of the camera was based on the IV film camera - so it got the 45 point AF system

- 8 fps continuous shooting
- Continuous shooting burst up to a maximum of 21 shots

Kodak also designed the first APS-C 1.6 crop sensor for Canon (such as the D2000)

Perhaps we can now stop propegating the myths about why Canon 'designed' APS-H for maximum profit - it just bought them off the shelf like Nikon do with Sony sensors.

dude nice history.  so Kodak is out of the picture now entirely since 2001, and Canon fully owns and produces their own sensors?

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Successors [CR1]
« on: June 28, 2012, 10:20:48 PM »
well, its still only CR1 and seems to have appeared again only because its a rumor that won't go away... But I still like the concept of 7DX, leaving 70D to rule the 1.6x world. whether or not Canon likes it is quite another matter!

Alas, the 7D firmware update signals to me that it may still be a year before we see it

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS Rebel T4i/650D Full Specifications
« on: June 27, 2012, 12:25:23 PM »
it really looks like the same 3 years old sensor from the 7d..

basically what does the digic5 do which digic4 could not?

from wiki

"DIGIC 5 is now featured on Canon compact cameras like PowerShot SX40 HS to achieve a capture rate of 10.3 frames per second at full resolution in High-Speed Burst HQ, Full HD 1080p Videos and Intelligent Image Stabilization. The new DIGIC 5 processor is 6 times faster and creates 75 percent less noise than the DIGIC 4 processor.[7]Designed to achieve new and advanced levels of image quality, DIGIC 5 analyses four times more image information to create each pixel, recording more detail and colour from a scene than ever before. Processing speed is also six times faster compared to the previous processor, efficiently managing the increase in scene information and simultaneously reducing the appearance of image noise by up to 75%.

DIGIC 5 Is used in the Canon EOS 650D/Rebel T4i/Kiss X6 (announced June 8, 2012 and available later that month)

If I read that correctly it is saying that it used the Digic 5 for NR?

If true then surely that NR could be achieved in pp??

yea I'd say the weight of evidence points to Digic5 being used for in-camera jpg

Its hard to parse through the marketing language to divine the technical capabilities of the sensor itself. 
On the optimistic side, the sensor is "new" in the sense that the MP count is different (lower) and brings phase detection AF capability not present in the 7D sensor. 

On the other hand, the "new" sensor could be heavily leveraged, "essentially" the same as the 7D sensor in terms of inherent noise, or even the same exact sensor technology only modified for phase detection capability.  until we get some real-world test analysis of the RAW files, we won't know for sure, but it appears (to me anyway) that the weight of evidence favors this (latter) explanation.  I note that if Canon had made some incremental improvement in sensor noise performance, for example, the marketing language would have been different. 

It would be quite a stretch, imho, for Canon to have developed a low-noise sensor technology here and just not expose it or tell us about it, to avoid stealing thunder from the 7D2, for example.  More likely, imho, Canon is advancing their phase detection AF capability here in the APS-C world, not noise/ISO/IQ capability. perhaps we will see a higher IQ APS-C sensor with phase detection combined in the 7D2. 


I also use IS very heavily between 70-99mm and value the difference between acceptable and tack sharp.

IS is a good thing for longer lens. Even my binoculars have IS

However at the shorter end motion blur becomes the main enemy. So for example at 24mm on a ff the 1/30 shots will be sharp, yet any movement of the subject will be blurred.

From experience I would say that motion blur becomes an issue (except while panning) when shooting under 1/60. On a crop this would be about 40mm where IS isn't needed.

That's certainly reasonable. beyond that,  the value of IS at even shorter focal lengths is more evident on a 1.6x crop because lower ISO speeds are often used to avoid noise especially when there is no subject movement.   Here the rule of thumb from the film days is still good guidance, i.e.  to know when IS is contributing or should be used.

That said we should note that some have never had the need or desire to shoot handheld 28mm f/2.8 at 1/6th second.

...And sorry to be almost snobbish, but I really don't see the need for IS on any lens below 100mm ...

.. if you have the 10-22mm i don't see much reason to go with the 17-55 EF-S lens at all - with most EF-S glass the price makes it attractive, but the 17-55 isn't far off from the 24-70 (well, at least the V1, the V2 is much pricier), but the 24-105 is right in the same ball park.  If your at that stage and know that EF-S glass won't work on FF, I really have no sympathy for ya.

I seriously doubt very many at "that" stage care about your sympathy.  People purchase lenses because the capabilities they offer produce results in the situations that are important. 

Not many, with a single APS-C body, will purchase those two lenses in that order, and even if they do, it will be for a good reason.  I use my 17-55 a lot, and I use the IS a lot at f/2.8, and highly value both of those capabilities because they increase the keeper rate especially indoors and for handheld HDR.  and the lens has great re-sale value as well, with or without your sympathy. 

I also use IS very heavily between 70-99mm and value the difference between acceptable and tack sharp. 

aside from the three mentioned, what is your total investment in EF-S long glass? what long glass do you reach for when needed?

I was wondering, just how much can you invest in EF-S long glass?  (Or, perhaps, how do you define long glass? ;))  The 55-250 is the longest EF-S lens offered, following the 18-135.  Everything else tops out at 85, I believe.  EF-S lenses are designed to give croppers the FOV of wider EF lenses.  There is no demand for long EF-S lenses, since people use long lenses to "reach."  I mean, who would buy an EF-S lens with the FF FOV of the 100-400 when they can use the 100-400 perfectly well and get 1.6x the "reach"?

 I know what you mean, so not to pick nits here but to be more precise I would state the objectives of EF-S this way: 

1.  one of the primary intentions of the UWA EF-S lenses is to give the cropper the FOV of longer EF lenses when used on FF bodies.  (10mm on a APS-C gives the equivalent FOV to the longer,  16mm on a FF).

2.  All EF-S lenses benefit from a reduced cost of R&D and mfg, arising from the fact that the image circle does not have to accomodate the larger FF sensors.  therefore, the lens can be produced cheaper with equivalent or similar IQ compared to a FF lens.  As a matter of practice, certain EF-S lenses bear this out, i.e. 10-22, 17-55, 15-85 (I think thats the "third" one...)

3.  one of the secondary (imho) intensions of the longer EF-S lenses is to give the cropper a way to acheive moderately long focal lengths with a very  minimal investment.    The 55-250 is a great example of this. 

So yes, generally the IQ aware croppers don't buy EF-S "long" glass -- most of us turn to L glass.  But the casual entry level APS-C tog who just wants the full range of focal lengths can obtain coverage from 18 to 250mm with a very minimal investment. 

Pages: 1 ... 25 26 [27] 28 29 ... 38