Messages

406

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7Dmk2 any rumors??

« on: April 27, 2012, 01:01:08 PM »

assuming that the trade-offs between IQ and MPs remain as they did when the 18MP 1.6x sensor was made, and assuming the advances in technology have in fact improved the IQ/MP relationship itself -- AND assuming that the 7D successor is positioned as an advanced wildlife body capable of high quality large prints, then I would agree that the better choice for 7D2 would be to improve IQ and hold MP constant.

But what is good for me may not be good for Canon.  If Canon can acheive a measureable improvement in IQ AND increase MPs at the same time, AND if the market demands a high MP wildlife body, then they will do it.  Sadly, even with this positioning I suspect the market will deem increases in MP more important than increases in IQ  (witness the crop body evolution, where MP wars are waged).  But if Canon positions the 7D2 as an IQ wildlife body,  and can appeal to those who know and understand the IQ/MP tradeoffs, and can separate it from the xxD/Rebel pack,  then yes I can see them producing a new 18mp 1.6x sensor with game-changing IQ.  that would be cool

much depends on the 1.3x sensor, something which the owner of this site and this board believes is dead.  If it is really dead, then there is room imho for such a 7D2.  However, if 1.3x stays alive as some re-incarnation and enhancement of the 1D4, then I suspect 7D2 will take more of the MP route

407

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7Dmk2 any rumors??

« on: April 26, 2012, 12:54:09 PM »

Would this be possible in a 7d2?
An APS-H with an improved (low light, smaller lens gap) sensor in the 22-24mp range. It can also accept EF-S lenses, but then the sensor capture is scaled back to 1.6 crop at 18mp or so.
Yes - constant AF for video too...

well .... first of all it would require 27mp at the APS-H size to crop down to 18mp at the APS-C size.  But perhaps more importantly, APS-H has never been compatible with lenses made for APS-C, and if you arbitrarily crop a 1.3x sensor to 1.6x size "in camera"  then there is no benefit to the 1.3 and you might as well put a cheeper  APS-C sensor in there.  Sadly the market will probably demand 24mp in the next 1.6x 7D which will probabaly swamp the ISO gains that would have been attained with new sensor technology.   Thats pretty amazing pixel density, equivalent to to over 60mp in a FF

408

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7Dmk2 any rumors??

« on: April 26, 2012, 12:18:43 PM »

What the EOS 7D mark II needs is AF when taking video, 1080p with 60 fps, 10 fps stills, better IQ and ISO with the same MP crop sensor, flip out screen with an LED screen in stead of the LCD, SD and CF card other wise the same as now.
Canon can that be so difficult? 

"better IQ and ISO with the same MP crop sensor" may be mutually exclusive.  Unless here you mean a brand  new updated sensor with the same 18mp -- THAT would indeed give some IQ improvement.  on the flip screen -- well thats an interesting one.  to me it depends on which direction Canon wants to take the 7D.  if it moves more towards a premier wildlife body (especially if 1.3 is really dead) then its hard to imagine a flip screen on a weather sealed BIF body.  But indeed the flip screen is part of the intrigue here:  will it remain part of the xxD line or will it spill over into the 7D.   

409

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7Dmk2 any rumors??

« on: April 24, 2012, 06:16:41 PM »

The 7D may continue to be sold after it is updated, as well. 

410

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7Dmk2 any rumors??

« on: April 24, 2012, 05:52:24 PM »

An APS-H body is difficult to position unless Canon came up with a way to make it work with EF-S lenses (and get some pretty good results) so I find that quite unlikely.

 

why would it be more difficult to position now as opposed to how they have positioned "H" along side "C" since 2003?

Seeing how things are going at the moment, I would say we will have to first see a new Rebel and the D400 from Nikon before we can expect a 7D Part II or a 70D.

Except for the 1Ds, the 7D has now (approximately) equaled or surpassed the market life of any digital EOS body in the 12 year history of digital EOS.   It is the oldest APS-C body currently being sold, and with every passing month breaks new records for the longest market life of any Canon APS-C body.  Just now surpassing 2.5 years old,  the 7D is 1.5 years older than the current Rebels, and nearly a year older than the 60D which uses the same sensor.

The 60D itself is now about 2 years old, surpassing the market life of any xxD body Canon has ever sold.

Given how well Nikon played the marketing game with the D800, one wonders if Canon isn't planing a few surprises of its own later in 2012.  I can't imagine Canon lasting much longer in the prosumer wildlife body market without a 7D update, and indeed without telegraphing a clear direction,  the pro wildlife market (currently served by the 1D4) is on interesting territory as well, imho.

411

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7Dmk2 any rumors??

« on: April 24, 2012, 01:19:16 PM »

It doesn't take much of a leap to imagine a Canon 7DX: APS-C sensor performing at the level of the 1D APS-H sensor, improved weather-sealing, improved auto-focus and a one-piece gripped body. Taken individually, these are all low-cost incremental improvements, and there is no reason that this could not be done for well south of $2,400. But if they did that, what a game-changer it would be.

no kidding.    and they need to do it in 2012.  The biggest factor that would compromise this effort is if Canon trully continues to lag behind in sensor technology and fails to deliver a game changing 1.6x sensor.  I hope they have something up their sleeve though, as it is time for the next technology cycle to emerge, it seems to me.  I would hope that, reading the market, they would price it as you suggested (5D3 pricing leaves room for just such a body) instead of the 1D4 price category

412

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7Dmk2 any rumors??

« on: April 24, 2012, 12:20:30 PM »

IMHO it's a wrong mentality to consider APS-C as the poor, mutilated brother of FF.

maybe I'm not paying attention but I haven't seen much emphasis on 1.6x in this way.  I consider the crop bodies as the basis of Canons's technonolgy progression and even market  segmentation tests.  Thats where they can push the pixel density envelope, and translate those learnings into the FF world. 

Crop sensor cameras offer longer reach and deeper DOF, which are very useful for many applications. Lens usually behaves better, especially as far as border performance is concerned, due to the sweet spot effect. Also lenses designed for crop sensors are cheaper and quite well performing:
Canon 15-85 is 30% cheaper than Canon 24-105
Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 is 35% cheaper than Sigma 24-70 f/2.8
... and so on. And all of these are very good lenses within their scopes.

yes, but I think the key here is "within their scopes".  The 15-85 is really not even in the same league as the 24-105 L, in terms of build quality, weather sealing, etc, and the finer points of IQ, i.e. CA and distortion.    Yes there are some well-performing "C" lenses (15-85 and 17-55 are notables), and yes Canon has found ways to cut corners and still provide good IQ at reasonable cost that is accepted in the APS-C marketplace.  A portion of this "value proposition" does come from the reduced image circle but some of it also comes from the way in which the lens is manufactured, not to mention the target market and economies of scale. 

So what I mean is: crop sensor cameras are a market of their own, and all but secundary.

   Morever, were it not for the announced merge of 1D and 1Ds, and the ensuing speculation that "H" itself is dead, I think the 7D rumor mill would not be nearly so interesting -- the 7D2 would be just be another incremental improvement in a prosumer wildlife body.  However, the question still in my mind is "what will Canon do with the 1D market? will the 1.3x sensor emerge in another body (even the 7D2) or will Canon's top-tier crop body be a 1.6x?   

Now that they have used DigicV even for the new PowerShot cameras, I think they cannot delay a refresh of the 60D/7D line too much. I am very excited because I know they'll have to beat the D7000, which is already quite an impressive camera at a very sweet price. But I also think they're having a hard time in doing so.

It does appear that Canon has their compeititive work cut out for them on the sensor side, to be sure, and I don't think there are even any amusing prevarications, much less credible rumors,  suggesting the demise of APS-C.    Moreover, to add to your excitement, if APS-H  is really dead, then this places all the more emphasis (it seems to me) on an upper-tier weather-sealed crop body (more "1D-like") which could be a 1.6x 7D2.   and while we're speculating, the presence of such a body will strengthen the need for high-quality wide angle APS-C lenses.  they might even create a name for them.

413

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon is getting owned in sensor technology

« on: April 20, 2012, 12:01:06 PM »

I suspect thats a little out there, ,and that DXO's reputation would preclude this from happening.  It might not be trivial to accomplish,  but some independant test or even a careful real-world evaluation could show evidence of error and DXO would be toast.

D800 vs Medium Format with Roth and Ramberg

According to DXO, the Nikon should have won in dynamic range big time (14EV) but the hasselblad won. (12.5EV)

Stuff that in DXO's lens mount and smoke it.

Assuming the above is itself true and un-adulterated,  it doesn't necessarily mean that Nikon Paid DXO off, but a series of results similar to the above would at least strengthen the case that DXO test methodology doesn't perfectly and alwasys correlate with real results for the purposes of comparing two sensors of different design heritage.   Whats astonishing to me is to read comments like "numbers don't lie" when the real question is "what do the numbers mean and how do they correlate with things that are important?".  DXO can measure whatever they want, their test methodology and  scoring policy may tend to favor one sensor over another I dont' know;  Their staff may be even filled with Nikon fanboys for all I know, but it doesn't mean Nikon paid them extra to deliberately falsify information or contrive a test that favors the company who paid them the most to do so.

what we really need, in order to interpret the DXO numbers, is to show if and to what extent the numbers (especially the differences between two sensors) correlate to the final result, how the photographer either benefits from the difference or not, or at least how the difference will affect what the photographer does. 

414

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon is getting owned in sensor technology

« on: April 19, 2012, 04:49:57 PM »

I suspect thats a little out there, ,and that DXO's reputation would preclude this from happening.  It might not be trivial to accomplish,  but some independant test or even a careful real-world evaluation could show evidence of error and DXO would be toast. 

415

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon is getting owned in sensor technology

« on: April 19, 2012, 03:12:30 PM »

what we need to discuss is the impact that the  higher DR RAW capture has upon creating the desired results in post.  what are those differences and how important are they to the finished product in real situations.

416

Lenses / Re: What shutter speed is required to overcome the need for IS?

« on: April 19, 2012, 01:16:14 PM »

This info is great!

I actually have an original ex580 flash that I've never used, might be time to break it out! 

It sounds like I should take my existing 300mm and turn the IS off with a 6.3 aperture or so and see what results i can get and how blurry they are. 

the experimentation will be valuable and you can learn where your "shake limits" are and what IS does for you.   Also experiment with different apertures and see what that does for depth of field.   especially for complex backgrounds (like the snake shot) you want shallow depth of field to help isolate the subject from the background. 

I've never tried the multi burst either, i had thought it rather gimmicky for what I've done, perhaps some rethinking is in order!

yea its a tool that has specific benefits in certain situations.   optimizing for camera shake, or even subject movement in some cases,  under slow shutter speeds is one.  Another is capturing the right action shot under high shutter speeds.  not to eliminate blur, but to get a series of shots where you can pick the one where the ball just left the bat, for example, or the expression on the little T-baller's face is priceless, whatever.  one time at disneyland my wife and I were in the car just in front of our daughter and grandson, riding the thunder mountain railway.   I pointed the camera back at them over my shoulder and fired off a series of bursts.   I got one keeper out of like 20 -- blurred background and blurred bodies but sharp (enough) faces, as they moved in response to the car movements.  it was a lucky shot but it worked good enough for our library.  BTW using the burst also means you might have to buy more memory, lol

Sunny 16 is also a new one to me, ill have to experiment!  I agree, anything I've shot at ISO 400 and lower has kept me happy from a noise perspective.

  well the sunny 16 rule helps you to keep the relationships of light and ISO in your head, but its not a substitute for the metering system in your camera .   you can test the rule of course, by confirming what exposure the camera dials up in response to different ISO settings.  Back when cameras with metering systems in them were rare or too expensive, folks would manually expose film by using this rule, particularly if they couldn't afford an external light meter. 

I rarely use a tripod when out, so im going to have to see just how shaky i am!

depending on your goals and interests, you  might find that with 300mm, a tripod is your friend and you can get the shot you would otherwise not get.  But I agree one needs to learn HH techniques and what your limts are, because no matter how much you would like to have a tripod, they aren't always there and you're in situations where you have to get the shot. Imagine wielding a 500mm f/4 with a 2.0 TC -- thats the equivalent of 1000mm and I've seen some pretty awesome aircraft photos taken handheld with such a combination.  it takes strength, skill and practice.  the most I've done is 500mm + 1.4x chasing bear in Yellowstone.  I found that rocks and tripods were very helpful lol

417

Lenses / Re: What shutter speed is required to overcome the need for IS?

« on: April 19, 2012, 10:47:21 AM »

+ 1 on the comments here.   I would particularly emphasize the 1/(fl * crop factor) formula because this is what truly expresses the issue of camera shake in a way that includes  the narrow field of view "reach" for crop bodies (as already mentioned, the crop factor for a FF body is 1.0).  in other words, for a 300mm lens on a 1.6x crop body, the rule says that shutter speed is 1/480th sec.   The only additions I would make to the good comments above,  are:

1.  its a rule of thumb.  experiment with your own abilities -- you may find that your own personal needs are either more strict or less strict than the rule. 

2.  Its a rule of thumb for camer shake caused by you, not for stopping the action of moving subjects.  experimentation is the only thing that will help you determine how fast is fast enough.

3.  learn how to avoid shake -- lots of information out there from posture to breathing. Also learn to look for opportunities to utilize anything to help --  from trees or walls to lean against, to the the ground, or whatever, for supplimentary support when you can't use a tripod. 

4.  balance the rule of thumb with your expectations for the final product.  Some small amount of blur might be acceptable if you won't pixel peep, you're not printing an 11x14, the wife wants it anyway because is the only shot you have with that smile, etc. 

5.  IS won't stop a moving subject, but it is very effective when the subject is not moving.  Again, depending on your abilities and that of the IS system, advantages from 1 to 4 stops have been reported in actual practice.  I've obtained some acceptable shots at 1/30th and even 1/15th second at 200mm f/2.8 (70-200 f/2.8 II IS)  with my 1.6x crop body, using IS.  watershed habitat birds in a zoo, for example, arn't usually in bright light, but they often sit still!

6.  for moving subjects (aircraft for example, and birds in flight), you have to learn to pan.  For example,  following a propeller aircraft with a 300mm lens while still keeping the shutter speed low enough to blur the prop and still keep the plane sharp,  takes practice.  yea I prefer to blur the prop so that the plane doesn't look like its hanging from a string.

7.  multiple-frame burst is your freind.  In a countless number of situtions, I have combined posture, breathing,  IS and multple burst, and obtained one keeper out of, well, however many it takes!

8.  learn to give up depth of field for shutter speed.  you did a great job of that with the snake photo.   wider apertures may or may not be acceptable, but a sharp photo with a shallow DOF is more likely to be a keeper, whereas a blurry photo with a large DOF is guarenteed not to be a keeper. 

9.  choose ISO wisely to optimize to your goal, and learn how your camera chooses ISO if set to "auto".  For example, photogaphing prop aircraft in bright sunlight requires a ISO 100 to obtain ~400th sec shutter speed and f/8 region**, and you can't always depend on the camera to make the same choice as you would.  Personally I find that ISO 400 is useful in most situations with typically good results in good light.  higher ISO values than 400 will give you higher shutter speeds but may introduce more noise (depending on the camera), so you have to find the right balance and know the abililties of your camera and what IQ it produces at various ISO settings in various situations.  you'll need to become one with your camera in that regard :-)

BTW, the good news is that all the required experimentation is a boat load of fun. 

** "sunny 16" rule.  in bright sunlight and f/16, the shutter speed is 1/ISO.  f/8 is two stops brighter than f/16, so shutter speed has to go up two stops, to 1/4*ISO. 

418

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7Dmk2 any rumors??

« on: April 18, 2012, 07:42:48 PM »

yea with three different 1.6x crop bodies they have a lot of choices and can put a given sensor in whatever body that makes sense to their bottom line.  I'm more interested, not so much in which part number appears in which body (although that is interesting, to be sure) , but what is the technology lifecycle of the sensor in the body and how the technology learnings cross the C-H-FF boundaries.  With the volumes of 1.6x bodies flying off the shelves Canon has a good proving ground for studying the artifacts of pixel density,and then to apply those learnings to the larger sensors.

419

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7Dmk2 any rumors??

« on: April 18, 2012, 03:11:37 PM »

Nikon Rumors is reporting that the D3200 will be announced within the next 24 hours, with a 24 mp sensor. This is, of course, a Rebel equivalent.

Canon likes to hand down sensor technology from the top of the line (7D) to the lower levels. Nikon seems to be less concerned about that. Honestly, I'm not excited about a 24mp sensor (I'd rather Canon stick with 18-20 mp and improve ISO and dynamic range), but given the rave reviews that the D800 seems to be getting, it will be interesting to see how this 24mp sensor performs in comparison to Canon's current APS-C sensor.

Competition is good, so it will be fun to see how Canon reacts. I don't anticipate a new 7D until Photokina. This will give Canon at least four months to dissect the new Nikon sensor and figure out how to best it. I'm hoping Nikon has really raised the bar.

I can't wait to see how much APS-C sensor technology has advanced since the release of the 7D nearly three years ago. This new Nikon should give us an idea about that.

+1.  I think Canon is getting serious wake up call and swift kick in the pants from the competition.  A high-performance 1.6 would be awesome.  Because of pixel density I don't see the 1.6 ever approaching the larger sensors in noise/ISO at least at the same technology cycle.  But as the technology improves, all formats will benefit.  Rather than handing stuff down, though it seems the other way to me:  what they learn in the crops appears in the larger sensors at lower pixel densities with improved IQ.

420

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7Dmk2 any rumors??

« on: April 17, 2012, 06:39:52 PM »

exactly, +1 on that.  its hard to imagine Canon abandoning the the crop body for serious wildlife.  I mean beyond the current xxD line which is basically an upscale rebel.    Just because Canon's announcement implied that the 1D4 would rest, doesn't mean the 1.3 is going away or that Canon would abandon the pro level wildlife photographers.  What form that will take is the question -  I'm not convinced that will be a 7D2 but I would certainly cheer if it was!   Speaking of upselling though -- a 1.3 7D would be quite an upsell for the recreational wildlifers.  Do you see the 1D4 crowd migrating to a body named higher than 1?

I think if the specs were right then they would move - 3D sounds good. Imagine a 1D4 with 22mps - the video would be great as well.

+1 the hesitancy might come  if Canon really does abandon the 1.3 and a 1.6x 7D2 becomes the only wildlife body.  But we haven't seen any real evidence that 1.3 is going away -- only that 1D and 1Ds are merging, which means a 1.3 could still  appear in a different model.  I like the 3D suggestion in fact.

This would leave the 7D as the premium 1.6x wildlife body, and the xxD as the premium rebel.  I have to admit, having suggested that 7D would be confusing with 70D, that 1D and 1Ds didn't seem to cause any undo discomfort, save the fact that they are merging now