September 16, 2014, 11:39:30 PM

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 ... 28 29 [30] 31 32 ... 41
436
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.

437
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:
http://photos.imageevent.com/sipphoto/samplepictures/T2i__3574%20edited.jpg

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. 

438
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?

439
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

440
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. 

441

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.


442
...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. 

443
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. 

444
Lenses / Re: Recommendations for vacation lenses and gear
« on: June 21, 2012, 11:23:52 PM »
24-105 is probably the only lens you'll use in Disney.  And I second all the advice here to concentrate on preserving the photograhic moments of your family as upposed to the scenery.  For example, when my wife and I go to the zoo with our kids and grandkids, I'm usually the one a few steps away, or ahead,  capturing the kiddos.  I sneek in an occasional animal portrait but the memories I take away will be of the little ones.   the 50mm will be perfect for those indoor shots of kids looking through windows. 

The last time we all were at a zoo, we saw a group of togs (no kids) carrying around huge amounts of 1 series bodies, L lenses, and Gitzos. It was more than enough to generate serious tog envy and  I'm sure they got some cool animial portraits -- but not of any little girls or boys looking at them :D

At disney, take the time to wait for the characters and get the kiddos obtaining signatures (by all means get them autograph books).   Go to goofys kitchen at least once.  spend the time at poohs corner and capture kids with Eyeore, etc.  let them play on the fire engine....   the 24-105 will be perfect.

445
I tend to agree Richard8971, esp as I consider those names to be brands, with a particular market perception that Canon wants attached to them.  It will be interesting if Canon Shakes things up, though, with name variants like 70DX, but whatever they do you can count on the fact that a lot of expensive salaries will have contributed to whatever branding strategy they come up with!

446
After getting a 5DII and 16-35mm f/2.8L II, I sold the 10-22mm.

FWIW, after about a year of use I sold my 10-22mm for only $50 less than I paid when I bought it new from Amazon.  Pretty low barrier to moving to FF, IMO.  A bigger barrier that some people cite is the cost to replace those lenses with their FF counterparts.  But I disagree - for the 10-22mm, even though I got the expensive 16-35 II, the 17-40mm is only 1mm less wide.  Likewise, there are a whole bunch of people who claim that there is no EF 'replacement' for the 17-55mm since the 24-105mm is a stop slower and the 24-70 does not have IS.  To that, I say false!!  The 'FF equivalent' of the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS would be a hypothetical 27-88mm f/4.5 IS lens - therefore, the 24-105mm on FF is wider, longer, and faster than the 17-55mm on APS-C (note: faster in terms of DoF for the same framing, but the 1.3-stop ISO advantage of FF more than makes up for the 1-stop loss of shutter speed, so really the only thing you lose is activation of the f/2.8 AF points).

I haven't actually heard the argument that there is no FF equivalent of the 17-55, and would gladly take a FF/24-105 over an APS-C/17-55 combination!

as for the migration penalty -- yea I think those who have invested in the high dollar EF-S lenses will find the used market attractive enough to make the transition worth it with minimal cost penalty. These lenses will hold their value in the Rebel market for some time, I expect.    I do suspect that other of the EF-S lenses would not hold value as well, but at the same time represent less overall financial risk anyway --  but I'm speaking without experience there...

Indeed I would agree that the 17-55 still makes a very good general purpose lens for a 2nd (APS-C) body

447
aside from the three mentioned, what is your total investment in EF-S long glass? what long glass do you reach for when needed?

Who said my EF-s lenses were long reach? They make other EF-s lenses. If I choose to spend any amount of $$$ on ANY lens, regardless of EF or EF-s, you better believe I thought it out first and will use it until it dies!

D

sure, not very many of us invest in glass without thinking it through.  For example, I have invested in the 10-22 and the 17-55 and this is not a trivial investment, but necessasy to optimize IQ across all conditions with one camera body. So let me re-frame the background of my question -- I was just calling out that there are three major EF-S lenses which form the biggest case for an investment in EF-S glass that would give one pause in a migration to FF, and that an investment in LONG EF-S glass is not sizable.   I did think, initially, that your response implied an investment in long EF-S but I see your comment is a more general statement that one  one should account for examples other than what I mentioned.     

Not to trivialize anyones choices or investments I was just highlighting the biggest case representing the most likely IQ fanatics that have a sizable EF-S investment that would be most impacted by a move to FF and that Canon would be the most concerned about in their branding and upgrade paths.  What are the EF-S lenses you have?   

448
I think the logical conclusion to what you are saying is that if you buy APS-C then you are locked into it for life?
Only if you buy EF-S lenses. However, many of us buy EF (L) lenses and those work on FF as well. The advantage of APS-C (and the prosumer/pro 7D) is that you can get a much longer reach.


The "reach" APS-C argument doesn't really belong in the same room with the EF-S lens compatibility argument.  with the possible exception of the bargin zoom, 55-250 or whatever it is, the folks who want "reach" don't buy EF-S long lenses -- they buy long "L" glass,  and after market FF compatible long lenses.

  The only practical value to  the EF-S compatibility argument is for the WA and UWAs -- the 10-22s and the 17-55s and the 15-85s  -- where a significant investment has been already made, both in $ and in IQ, that cannot be utilized in FF.  These folks have to either sell their EF-S lenses and re-invest, or keep the old APS-C body.  If one has invested in long EF-S glass, that investment is not very sizable.

Tell that to Canon, they keep making EF-s glass and some of it is expensive! I own some EF-s glass that I wouldn't trade for anything!

D

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

449
I think the logical conclusion to what you are saying is that if you buy APS-C then you are locked into it for life?
Only if you buy EF-S lenses. However, many of us buy EF (L) lenses and those work on FF as well. The advantage of APS-C (and the prosumer/pro 7D) is that you can get a much longer reach.


The "reach" APS-C argument doesn't really belong in the same room with the EF-S lens compatibility argument.  with the possible exception of the bargin zoom, 55-250 or whatever it is, the folks who want "reach" don't buy EF-S long lenses -- they buy long "L" glass,  and after market FF compatible long lenses.

  The only practical value to  the EF-S compatibility argument is for the WA and UWAs -- the 10-22s and the 17-55s and the 15-85s  -- where a significant investment has been already made, both in $ and in IQ, that cannot be utilized in FF.  These folks have to either sell their EF-S lenses and re-invest, or keep the old APS-C body.  If one has invested in long EF-S glass, that investment is not very sizable. 

450
There is absolutely no reason that the XXD line has to continue as an APS-C camera. It actually makes a lot more sense to have entry level APS-C cameras be XXXD/Rebels, and an entry level full frame camera be XXD cameras, and your pro level cameras regardless of sensor be XD.

could be!  nor is there any reason why 7D2 cant be APS-H.  most of us here would quickly adjust to whatever Canon does. 

Canon can do whatever they want, but their marketing departement might tell them that the 70D brand is important, and that the upgrade path for people with EF-S lenses from 60D to the Rebel branded camera is not acceptable.  Here is where we are venturing into the marketing mind of Canon, a venue where not many of us are qualified...

I like 70DX though.  cool suggestion  by TMartin. 

Pages: 1 ... 28 29 [30] 31 32 ... 41