Messages

31

EOS Bodies / Re: Does a 39.3mp Sensor Exist? [CR1]

« on: December 31, 2012, 07:25:37 PM »

As some here probably already realize, 39.3 megapixels is kind of a magic number, since its resolution is probably 7680 (i.e.,1920 X 4 and 3840 X 2) horizontal by 5160 vertical. If you want a C300-style 2 x 2 binning sensor, except capable of being cropped to 3840 X 2160, that is the resolution you would want.

Good observation. A 4x4 HD 3:2 sensor has 39.3 MP; a 5x5 has 61.4 MP

I don't think that 5x5 would work. The bayer sensor uses a 2x2 block of two green, one blue and one red pixels. Using odd numbers would require taking pixels from an adjacent block. I don't think the 5D3 uses 3x3 binning, although the horizontal resolution is 5760 or 3 x 1920.

32

EOS Bodies / Re: Does a 39.3mp Sensor Exist? [CR1]

« on: December 30, 2012, 12:12:41 PM »

As some here probably already realize, 39.3 megapixels is kind of a magic number, since its resolution is probably 7680 (i.e.,1920 X 4 and 3840 X 2) horizontal by 5160 vertical. If you want a C300-style 2 x 2 binning sensor, except capable of being cropped to 3840 X 2160, that is the resolution you would want.

33

Lenses / Re: New lenses for 46mp camera?

« on: December 24, 2012, 02:23:15 PM »

I've long read how most of the current lenses are more than capable of out resolving anything on the MP horizon, and I thought it very likely to be true, but when i look at DXO's "mpix" rating of lenses, i start to wonder.
 
BTW-I'm ISF certified, yet i have no idea what a quad-HD television is, but i don't disagree with Bob's point.

Sorry, 3840 X 2160

34

Lenses / Re: New lenses for 46mp camera?

« on: December 24, 2012, 09:52:29 AM »

can't imagine i'd ever need 46mp.. so i'd stick to what i have anyway..

I bet you couldn't imagine that you needed 12mp about 10 years ago. The worlds changing buddy, get on the train and hold on tight, or be left behind

Yes, the world certainly is changing but I doubt that anybody using a Nikon D4 (16MP) or Canon 1Dx (18MP) will feel "left behind". Professionals, increasingly, are seeing their images displayed small in size and at low resolution. Even a quad-HD television is still only 8MP.

35

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Do you miss APS-C?

« on: December 14, 2012, 10:36:37 AM »

i own and use both a 5D3 and 7D. This pairing replaced a 5D and 40D. The 7D is used principally with my 100-400 and 300 f/2.8 (with and without TCs) for sports photography. Very often, the 100-400 will be on the 7D and a 70-200 on the 5D3. With the focusing improvement, the 5D3 is a passable sports camera, something the 5D never was.

However, I have also used a (1) 17-35 on the 5D/5D3 and 24-70 on the 40D/7D, (2) 24-70 on the 40D/7D and 100-400 on the 5D3 and (3) 17-50 on the 40D/7D and 70-200 on the 5D/5D3.

Having said that, if I were regularly shooting events and/or weddings, I would certainly buy another 5D3 and relegate the 7D to backup status.

Regarding the mythical 7D2, I want improvements in DR and high ISO image quality over the 7D, not more pixels. That's what I said about the 5D3 over the 5D2 and that's what Canon delivered.

36

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 50 f/1.4 IS in 2013 [CR2]

« on: December 13, 2012, 07:37:28 AM »

shooting at 1.4... just looks amateurish

this is something new to me

For video, going super shallow is cool, but so easily overdone, and has become a 'special effect' with DSLR video these days that's often used too much, with no regards to keeping anything particularly in focus to show off bokeh.
I like shallow, but for subject separation or for a nice dreamy feel when needed, but not for an excuse for poor composition, you can't just keep a single point in focus and ignore how the overall image is composed.
If you need 1.4 for the light, then that's certainly great if IS is part of the package too, but one is better off with a fast wide angle for lowlight video anyways

I watch a lot of TV shows that have a documentary flavor. They rarely, maybe never, use selective focus. If anything, they go to the other extreme, with everything in sharp focus.

37

Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: The Future Speedlites, Not Far Off Now? [CR2]

« on: December 05, 2012, 07:30:41 AM »

The reality is that Canon is a business, and their obligation is to deliver value to their shareholders. 

And any buyer-seller relationship is essentially adversarial and the person you're dealing with is your mortal enemy, to be exploited to the maximum extent they will accept.

38

Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: The Future Speedlites, Not Far Off Now? [CR2]

« on: December 04, 2012, 09:09:00 PM »

I wish instead of bringing out new flashguns they would bring out a receiver unit for the ST-E3-RT to make the 580's compatible...

That would be an ST-E2!

I really don't understand the dissatisfaction here, Canon did a very good job of making the new flash compatible with 100% functionality of the legacy gear going all the way back to the first EX's. They didn't have to include optical triggering reverse compatibility, it wouldn't have altered my decision to buy three 600's and an ST-E3-RT and having used them for a few weeks I know I will be buying more, but give credit where it is due, Canon did include it. You can buy one 600EX-RT and if you already own older EX Speedlites or a camera with a commander built in you are good to go.

You don't understand the dissatisfaction?? We just want Canon to introduce something comparable to the Phottix Odin. They've already introduced the transmitter half but seem intent on forcing us to buy new flashes instead of introducing the dedicated receiver. For your information, the ST-E2 signalling doesn't work very well in bright light and is very restricted in range. Now do you understand our dissatisfaction??

39

EOS Bodies / Re: First Round of EOS 7D Mark II Specs [CR1]

« on: November 27, 2012, 11:23:09 AM »

For the billionth time, more pixels does not mean more noise.  In fact, given the same basic sensor performance, more pixels means less noise (given the same total sensor area, of course).  This is because bigger pixels do nothing but simple block averaging while noise reduction software uses far more sophisticated approaches to reducing noise than that.

Think of it this way - a perfect sensor would record each photon's location.  This is sort of equivalent to "infinite" pixel count.

There are a couple factors here. Hand-holding ability suffers when pixel density is too high,

No, it doesn't.  The extra pixels are capable of showing the blur that was already there in more detail.  Reducing the pixel count just hides that blur inside the blur due to poor sampling.

On top of that is encountering diffraction earlier on.

That's also baloney, and for the exact same reason.

There are several drawbacks to cramming more pixels on small sensors. You can take as many shortcuts as you like, but eventually physics will emerge victorious, thus the booming full frame market.....

The only drawbacks to more pixels are that better manufacturing is needed, faster processing pipelines have to be included, more storage is consumed by the final files, and more processing power is needed to post process the final images.  There are no image quality disadvantages except in certain extremely way out there edge cases no one ever mentions anyway.

If all that is true, why does the 1Dx have only 18MP and the Nikon D4 only 16MP?

40

Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: AA Battery Charger and Batteries

« on: November 07, 2012, 01:34:12 PM »

Low self-discharge NiMH batteries and a battery charger that charges each cell individually, not in pairs, at a relatively low current. I use Eneloops and a LaCrosse BC-700

41

Lenses / Re: New 50 Finally on the Way? [CR1]

« on: November 04, 2012, 04:05:11 PM »

I wouldn't put it past Canon to make a new EF 50mm f/1.8 IS USM intended for video.

If it's intended for video, my guess is that it would probably be STM, not USM, especially if the eventual goal is to allow lens focusing while recording video.

The new 24mm & 28mm have USM, rather than STM.

OK, do the 24 and 28 IS lenses focus quietly enough that a camcorder/video DSLR could continuously focus them while recording without the associated noise being picked up by the built-in mics or a mic mounted on top of the camera? My Panasonic HDC-TM700 Camcorder, with a built-in lens, can do that and I believe that the Canon XF 100/105/300/305 camcorders can do it also.

42

Lenses / Re: New 50 Finally on the Way? [CR1]

« on: November 04, 2012, 08:17:19 AM »

I wouldn't put it past Canon to make a new EF 50mm f/1.8 IS USM intended for video.

If it's intended for video, my guess is that it would probably be STM, not USM, especially if the eventual goal is to allow lens focusing while recording video.

43

Lenses / Re: Trip to Namibia next year... what gear?

« on: November 03, 2012, 09:49:15 AM »

5D3, 24-105, 100-400, lightweight tripod, flash
or
7D, 15-85, 100-400, lightweight tripod, external flash

44

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Natural Progression of Camera Bodies. Type Your story below.

« on: November 01, 2012, 01:58:21 PM »

1973 - Asahi Pentax Spotmatic II (manual metering, with the lens stopped down. Ugh!)

1975 - 1997 - In order, (2) Canon FTb, AE-1, A-1 bodies and about 10 lenses. The primes were good but the zooms sucked.

1997 - Canon EOS Elan II Film body (Sold all my FD MF gear. Started buying high quality lenses, taking a "systems" approach, instead of what I could easily afford. Currently own 17 lenses and haven't sold any. However, the Sigma 28-70 f/2.8 zoom I bought with the body died in 2004.)

2002 - EOS-3 body, which I still own, but never use. I still love how this handles, but the 5D3 is fully its equal.

2004 - 10D body, because I couldn't stand scanning negatives and slides any more. "Sold" the body to a friend in 2006

2005 - 5D body, because I was photographing bands at the time and the 10D wasn't good enough.

2007 - 40D body, because I was photographing auto and motorcycle racing at the time and the 5D makes a terrible sports body.  A FF body and APS-C body together make a superb combination.

2012 - 5D3 and 7D bodies, because I wanted something better at high ISO than the 5D and the 40D shutter release button is getting flaky. The 5D3 is so good at high ISO that I may sell my five high speed primes from 24mm to 135mm that I used to photograph bands. The 5D was given to a friend who uses it with a 28-200 and has far more camera than she knows how to use. I still own the 40D and use it as a remote triggered with Pocket Wizards.

Oh yes, I also own a Panasonic HDC-TM700 video camera and a G10 P&S. Given enough light, the TM700 is a much better video camera than either the 5D3 or 7D, and the G10 is just so convenient.

45

EOS Bodies / Re: How often do you go through a body? Why do you upgrade?

« on: November 01, 2012, 08:55:34 AM »

Last Spring and Summer, I replaced a 5D with a 5D3 and 40D with a refurbished 7D. The 5D was 6-1/2 years old and the 40D 4-1/2 years old. Both still take great pictures. The 5D was given to a friend who attached her 28-200 and now has far more camera than she will ever need. The 40D was replaced because the shutter release button is becoming increasingly flaky. It will probably be used primarily as a remote camera triggered by Pocket Wizards. The 5D was replaced because I needed the better high-ISO image quality and wanted the much better focusing of the 5D3.

I'm set for another 5 years or so.