Messages

61

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: APS-C vs megapixels for zoom

« on: October 01, 2012, 10:35:39 AM »

I thought about using a 5D3 that way. As it turned out at ISOs of 800 and below, my old 40D looked better than the 5D3 image cropped to APS-C size. The same is true comparing cropped 5D3 to 7D, although the 7D improvement over the 40D has been something of a disappointment.

62

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Manual Mode T2i with auto ISO

« on: October 01, 2012, 10:23:51 AM »

I use that mode often but i would use it more if the 7D and 5D3 would let me specify what to do with aperture and shutter speed when the ISO limits are reached. Currently, the cameras just overexpose or underexpose. I've never used the comparable feature in a Nikon camera but I understand that Nikon's implementation is more sophisticated, even in their consumer DSLRs.

63

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Estimate the price/body size of the new rumored Canon Megapixel Monster...

« on: September 28, 2012, 02:53:00 PM »

"Estimate"? How about "make a wild guess" or "What I would do if I was head of Canon marketing"? Anyway, I guessed 5D3 body below $5000, simply because the Nikon D800 and D800 exist and the Sony 24Mpixel APS-C sensor can be scaled up to 60MP FF. I don't think Canon would introduce a high megapixel camera more expensive than the combined price of a D800 body and Nikon 24-70 and 70-200 lenses. But then, I'm often wrong about such things.

Update (correction): "...scaled up to 54MP FF."

64

EOS Bodies / Re: POLL: How much $$$ will the high-mp eos cost?

« on: September 26, 2012, 08:27:04 AM »

I don't see $9000+ option.

If Canon uses the 1Dx body, $9000+ is a real possibility. Look at what they did with the 1Dc. Of course, then potential buyers will be able to buy a D800 body plus Nikon 24-70 and 70-200 lenses instead and still have money left over.

My guess is that Canon isn't that stupid and will use a 5D3 body with two Digic 5+ processors, for a cost of $4500-5000. However, I think 3FPS would be quite adequate. I've never understood the obsession with high pixel count and high frame rate. When I do landscape photography, my frame rate is measured in tens of seconds or even minutes. And most studio strobes can't recycle faster than 2 or 3 FPS (although the real limit is how fast electricity can be sucked out of the wall).

65

EOS Bodies / Re: More Big Megapixel Talk [CR1]

« on: September 25, 2012, 04:58:56 PM »

It'll be interesting to see if Canon sets the price so high that potential customers can purchase a D800 and Nikon 24-70 and 70-200 lenses, and still have money left over.

66

Lenses / Re: New Lenses in January [CR1]

« on: September 25, 2012, 04:53:45 PM »

now what do you think "affordable" means?

Wild guess: about the same price as the 300 f/2.8, since the front element is almost the same diameter. On the other hand, the 300 f/2.8 with a 1.4x TC makes a very nice 420 f/4.

67

EOS Bodies / Re: New Canon EOS-M

« on: September 19, 2012, 07:36:54 AM »

Did the Canon reps happen to mention how fast Canon was going to expand the next M camera line? Once Canon gets the focusing speed issues resolved and we all become accustomed to using an EVF, the 7D2 might actually be an M camera.

68

Lenses / Re: Were EF-S lenses a bad idea?

« on: September 18, 2012, 02:56:57 PM »

But the real reason EFS lenses was so brilliant was necessity.  It served the consumer of APS-C sensors.  In the EF family, what lens would be your general purpose zoom?  The EF 24-105 L or the 28-135?  Not wide enough.  The EF 16-35 II?  Expensive and not long enough.  EFS lenses have and will continue to serve their purpose very well. 

Necessity?? We'll have to agree to disagree about that. Considering what Nikon, Tamron, Tokina and Sigma all did, I don't see EF-S as being necessary at all.

69

Lenses / Re: Were EF-S lenses a bad idea?

« on: September 18, 2012, 02:52:40 PM »

Many, many others use both FF and APS-C and find both useful.

And I'm one of them, owning both a 5D3 and 7D. However, I'm considerably less certain than you that a 7D2 will ever be introduced.

70

Lenses / Re: Were EF-S lenses a bad idea?

« on: September 18, 2012, 12:47:36 PM »

Canon might regret introducing the EF-S concept only if/when they lose large numbers of 60D sales because consumers realize that can upgrade to a Nikon D600 for about the same cost as upgrading to a 60D and they buy the Nikon instead. In contrast, a Nikon D200 user, like a nephew of mine, can purchase a D600 body only for now, can use his current lenses and can buy more lenses as finances allow. As for why he would want to "cripple" his new camera with old lenses, consider that his wife is 7 months pregnant with their first child. A D600 body alone will be financial stretch.

Then again, maybe a lot of bottom end DSLR buyers don't care about upgrade paths. From what I've seen, most of them don't even buy a second lens.

As for the M-mount, it is backward compatible with EF and EF-S lenses using the adapter. It'll be interesting to see if many current Rebel owners opt for an M when their current body breaks or becomes inadequate, but still use their old lenses.

Update: Correction - 6D, not 60D, Thanks

71

Lenses / Were EF-S lenses a bad idea?

« on: September 18, 2012, 11:24:39 AM »

A Canon APS-C user who want to upgrade to a 6D cannot use his APS-C lenses on his new camera. In contrast, a Nikon APS-C user who wants to upgrade to a D600 can use his DX lenses on his new camera and the camera uses some sort of sensor cropping to emulate DX, at about 10.7MP. Interestingly, third party lenses (i.e., Sigma, Tamron, Tokina etc.) can be mounted on Canon FF bodies but those bodies have no way or recognizing them as not being FF lenses.

Do suppose Canon regrets introducing the entire EF-S lens concept?

72

EOS Bodies / Re: Enough Full Frame Talk: Where are the 7D II Rumors?

« on: September 18, 2012, 10:52:12 AM »

Sadly, you aren't going to get a revolution in high ISO noise performance in a crop sensor for a very long time... if ever.  With current sensor technology there is a limit to how well a crop sensor can handle noise... and with consumers for this category demanding features in video, hdr, etc... there is even less hope for sensor improvement.

But keep dreaming... it never hurts to dream.

There has already been a revolution in crop sensor high ISO noise. It's called the D800. The pixel pitch of it's sensor is VERY close to that of the 7D.

4.88µm v 4.3µm - that's only 13.5% difference. For comparison the 5D Mark III has a pixel pitch of 6.5µm - 50% bigger.

You can't tell me that the D800 doesn't have low high ISO noise. It's very competitive with the 5DIII.

However, the D800 does not do 8 or 10FPS.  A crop camera is the best/only way of optimizing the following combination of attributes (1) lower price, (2) higher frame rate and (3) smaller pixels (i.e., lots of "pixels per feather"). I currently own a 5D3 and 7D both of which were purchased in the last 6 months. (They replaced a 5D and 40D.) The 7D is used almost exclusively outdoors in comparatively good light with longer lenses  to photograph things that move rapidly and unexpectedly. The 5D3 is used for everything else.

I agree 100%. I also own a 5D3 and a 7D. I was just pointing out that it is possible to get more out of an APS-C sensor than the 7D gives, at least Sony and Nikon have figured it out. Here's hoping Canon will soon too.

I guess I was arguing with a strawman. I have this uneasy feeling that, instead of selling us a better 7D for $2000-2500, they are going to try to sell a 47MP, 8FPS, $10,000 FF monstrosity based on a 1Dx.

73

EOS Bodies / Re: Enough Full Frame Talk: Where are the 7D II Rumors?

« on: September 18, 2012, 09:21:34 AM »

Sadly, you aren't going to get a revolution in high ISO noise performance in a crop sensor for a very long time... if ever.  With current sensor technology there is a limit to how well a crop sensor can handle noise... and with consumers for this category demanding features in video, hdr, etc... there is even less hope for sensor improvement.

But keep dreaming... it never hurts to dream.

There has already been a revolution in crop sensor high ISO noise. It's called the D800. The pixel pitch of it's sensor is VERY close to that of the 7D.

4.88µm v 4.3µm - that's only 13.5% difference. For comparison the 5D Mark III has a pixel pitch of 6.5µm - 50% bigger.

You can't tell me that the D800 doesn't have low high ISO noise. It's very competitive with the 5DIII.

However, the D800 does not do 8 or 10FPS.  A crop camera is the best/only way of optimizing the following combination of attributes (1) lower price, (2) higher frame rate and (3) smaller pixels (i.e., lots of "pixels per feather"). I currently own a 5D3 and 7D both of which were purchased in the last 6 months. (They replaced a 5D and 40D.) The 7D is used almost exclusively outdoors in comparatively good light with longer lenses  to photograph things that move rapidly and unexpectedly. The 5D3 is used for everything else.

74

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma Announces Three New Lenses: 35 f/1.4, 17-70 f/2.8-4.0 OS & 120-300 f/2.8 OS

« on: September 17, 2012, 06:09:11 PM »

Sigma do listen!

Really? Where is the 200-500 f/4?

75

Lenses / Re: missing 200-400 and 100-400 announcements?

« on: September 17, 2012, 08:41:59 AM »

The 200-400 is particularly surprising, since there apparently were several (dozen?) at the Olympics. Unlike a couple other posters, I prefer to know what is coming in the future, since it allows me to better plan my equipment expenditures.