November 27, 2014, 09:00:01 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 - Bob Howland

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 19
1
EOS Bodies / Re: A Real EOS M Replacement Coming Soon? [CR1]
« on: November 17, 2014, 01:33:31 PM »

<p>December seems like an odd time for an announcement for an EOS M replacement. If it does in fact happen, I wouldn’t expect shipments to start until the new year.</p>
Why would you think that - the M2 was announced on December 3.  and Japan / Asia had shipments before the end of the year.

a really quick google would have told you this.

Probably because he was thinking in terms of the Christmas buying season, same as me.

2
EOS Bodies / Re: A Real EOS M Replacement Coming Soon? [CR1]
« on: November 17, 2014, 09:35:32 AM »
Since we're doing wish lists, I'd like the M3 to be really small, like the Panasonic GM5. I'd like to replace my G10 with something having a much larger sensor. And, no, the G1X isn't it. Speaking of large sensors, how about a mirrorless FF, about the size of a Sony A6000 but using a shortened EF mount. That would be perfect. Since I always use a 270EX flash on my G10, a popup flash is unnecessary.

3
Canon General / Re: Canon Cinema EOS C300 Mark II Will be 4K [CR2]
« on: November 07, 2014, 06:30:26 PM »
After seeing this rumor the first time, I re-read the DPReview writeup about the Panasonic GH4, especially the part dealing with video. Very refreshing.

4
EOS Bodies / Re: what is the body you want to see canon release next ?
« on: November 02, 2014, 03:40:52 PM »
Something mirrorless, comparable to the Panasonic GM5 or Sony A6000, using (1) an APS-C sensor and M mount or (2) FF sensor and shortened EF mount. An M-mount camera could probably be GM5 size but an EF-mount camera would probably have to be A6000 size, at least.

5
So you're not sure either then? ;)
A quick scan kinda' hasn't remotely answered my question though...

Okay, so let's try this, based on square mm area of Canon's sensors!...

329/864ths? er... help? :p

329/864 = 0.38078703703

A Canon APS-C sensor captures 38% of a FF image? That's crap! Did I go wrong somewhere?!

That's about correct. It's 1/(1.6 * 1.6) except that it's typically more like 1.62. Crop factor is measured as a linear measurement and area ratios are proportional to the square of crop factor.

6


300mm f2.8 would yield 480mm f2.8 on the 7D mk II
300mm f2.8 + 1.4 converter would yield 672mm f4 on the 7D mk II

Only if you have never tested the actual capabilities of crop vs FF, and seeing as how you own both you should.

On the 7D MkII the 300mm f2.8 would yield a 300mm f2.8 cropped.
A 300mm f2.8 + 1.4 convertor would yield a 420mm f4 cropped.

There is no magic and very little in the way of an actual crop tele factor, test it yourself with the gear you already own, most that do are surprised at how little the crop camera actually returns.

The 5D3 cropped to APS-C equivalent results in 8.6MP. The 7D has 18MP, with a pixel pitch resulting in 47MP in a FF sensor. This is fundamentally the same argument about whether a 47MP FF sensor would give a noticeably better image than a 22MP FF sensor. Which is better: larger but fewer pixels or more but smaller pixels?

Bob,

You are making the classic mistake of assuming all pixels are equal, empirical results always demonstrate that they are not. It has been tested and illustrated many times.

Fine, I'm ignorant and stupid. However, I own a 5D3 and 7D and owned a 5D/40D pairing before that and have done the testing you suggest. Now, would you provide information regarding the "empirical results". And be sure to compensate for the fact that comparisons are almost invariably made between different generations of sensors and image processing, since that's an entirely different question.

7


300mm f2.8 would yield 480mm f2.8 on the 7D mk II
300mm f2.8 + 1.4 converter would yield 672mm f4 on the 7D mk II

Only if you have never tested the actual capabilities of crop vs FF, and seeing as how you own both you should.

On the 7D MkII the 300mm f2.8 would yield a 300mm f2.8 cropped.
A 300mm f2.8 + 1.4 convertor would yield a 420mm f4 cropped.

There is no magic and very little in the way of an actual crop tele factor, test it yourself with the gear you already own, most that do are surprised at how little the crop camera actually returns.

The 5D3 cropped to APS-C equivalent results in 8.6MP. The 7D has 18MP, with a pixel pitch resulting in 47MP in a FF sensor. This is fundamentally the same argument about whether a 47MP FF sensor would give a noticeably better image than a 22MP FF sensor. Which is better: larger but fewer pixels or more but smaller pixels?

8
A high MP body will 'affect' lenses in that they'll all resolve more detail.  How much more depends on the lens.
+1, with greater improvement being seen with the higher quality, generally more expensive lenses.

9
I have a 5D3 and a 7D, and can't imagine why you are not still shooting the 7D at times.  The 5D3 certainly has low light advantages, but in the day, the 7D is still a very capable camera.
+1

10
Not unless it allows me to do something that would make me lots of money and that I can't do for cheaper another way. Besides, the ultimate camera in 2015 is mediocre in 2017.

11
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 16, 2014, 01:33:09 PM »
I have both a 7D and a 5D3 and use and like both, but for different things. I use Raw (almost) exclusively. Simply stated, the trade-off is (1) higher pixel density (i.e., smaller pixels), (2) larger sensor and/or (3) high frame rate. At any given price point, choose any two of the above.

The 5D3 gives better image quality, especially in very low light. Its Auto-ISO max is set to 12800 whereas the 7D's is set to 3200. In particular, the 5D3 seems to have more DR. Furthermore, regardless of what Canon says, I don't believe that the 7D2 image quality will match or exceed the 5D3's (or 6D's) image quality.

The 7D uses smaller pixels than the 5D3. Thus, using a given lens focal length at a given distance from the subject, the 7D uses more pixels to make the image, unless the subject is so large that it "overfills" the 7D's field of view. A FF camera with the same pixel density as the 7D would have about 47MP. To maintain the same data frame rate as the 7D through the image processing circuitry would require dropping the FPS from 8 to about 3.2. Raising the frame rate back to 8 would requiring using better, faster and, therefore, more expensive circuitry.

Also, the smaller sensor of the 7D should have cost implications regardless of the number of pixels. The mirror and related components can be smaller and lighter and, in principle, cheaper and easier to produce.

So, what do I use and where? My default camera is the 5D3. The 7D is used almost entirely to photograph racing cars and motorcycles with a 100-400, 70-200 or 300 f/2.8 with or without TCs. When doing that, the 5D3 is usually also at hand, with a shorter lens attached. This is a role which the 5D3 can play but its predecessor, a 5D, couldn't. I suspect a 6D can't either. Anyway, unlike some, I find the extra "reach" to be real and advantageous. I suppose I could buy a 600 f/4 or Sigma 200-500 f/2.8 and a 1Dx , but then I'd have to carry them.

12
This is an incredibly stupid poll!

13
Canon General / Re: seeimpossible.usa.canon.com?
« on: October 05, 2014, 05:32:33 PM »
Wild guess: 50MP sensor capable of 4K, 60P video and 4:1 binning resulting in a 12.5MP Lord-of-Darkness mode. Unfortunately, it's only a development announcement.

The good part is that the announcement is happening really soon.

14
I don't see much advantage in putting a high MP sensor in a 1Dx body instead of a 5D3 body. After all, wouldn't a high MP camera be most useful to landscape and studio photographers? And let's not forget what the 5D2 did to 1DS3 sales. A lot of users must have found the 5D2 to be "good enough".

15
How about that the old camera no longer works properly? I bought my 7D about 2 years ago because the shutter release on my 40D was getting unreliable. However, my 5D3 replaced a 5D because the new camera had vastly better focusing and I could use it at ISO 12800 for 8X10 size images. I guess my vote would be "none of the above" or "all of the above". Take your pick.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 19