December 19, 2014, 11:06:29 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 - Don Haines

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 239
16
EOS Bodies / Re: High Megapixel Camera Coming in 2015 [CR3]
« on: December 17, 2014, 03:21:01 PM »
I see no point in the 'Do we need so many megapixels?' debate.

On a related note, I remember when 3 megapixels was high megapixel and people slammed it because no display could show that many pixels.....

17
EOS Bodies / Re: High Megapixel Camera Coming in 2015 [CR3]
« on: December 17, 2014, 01:48:40 PM »
Well for me... I have an SL1 on my belt, a 7D2 for sports/wildlife/BIF and a 5D3 for landscapes/portraits/low light and everything else.... not clear to me why I would buy a 50MP camera (just landscapes???)

Some of my buddies that shoot the Nikon have complained about their 36MP camera in that their Computer bogs down with so much info (think Raw file size) ... almost all have had to then go out and buy bigger/faster computers for PP and storage!  Something else to consider! :P

Everyone said that would happen when the D800 was announced and sure enough, it happened.  But people used it and said "this is worth getting a faster computer and a bigger hard drive."  Nikon of course now has the FrankeNikon 24 MP D750 which is being viewed as a pretty well put together FF rig without the burden of the huge files.  As inventory and obsolescence-insane having many non-gripped FF bodies is, it lets Nikon scratch some different userbases itches really hard -- one high resolution monster, one higher burst with a tilty/flippy screen, one more vanilla for cost, perhaps a nearly-dedicated video rig like the a7S someday, etc.

But back to your point -- I think if the sensor is worth it (interpret that as you will), people will cope and get the hardware they need to manage it.  I imagine this same discussion happened when Canon offered 21.1 MP bodies years ago, right?

- A
I agree....

Spending $3000 to $4000 on a camera and not spending $200 on a hard drive seems like an unlikely pairing....

18
EOS Bodies / Re: High Megapixel Camera Coming in 2015 [CR3]
« on: December 17, 2014, 01:14:55 PM »
Still there is no definite proof for Canon using new fab process for APS-C/FF. And using new process will (probably) make 46Mpix FF sensor even more expensive…

There is some evidence that something has changed.  The sensor in the 7DII has about 10% higher QE and about an order of magnitude lower dark current than any previous Canon sensor.
EXACTLY!!!!
Finer lithography is the most likely reason for the increased quantum efficiency...
your 4 micron pixels with a 500nm process has 76 percent usable area...
your 4 micron pixels with a 180nm process and DPAF has 87 percent usable area...

There's your 10 percent gain....

Finer lithography means less heat and there's your improvement in dark current ( or at least some of it)

19
EOS Bodies / Re: High Megapixel Camera Coming in 2015 [CR3]
« on: December 17, 2014, 11:20:51 AM »

No, it will be "pure" (no DPAF) high res sensor body. Possibly build around Sony sensor (not sure).


And you know this how????

how do you know it won't be a FF sized 7D2? Canon is very good at keeping secrets, yet those of us on rumours group always seem to know the answers.....
Guess only. Canon is probably struggling a little bit with Dual Pixel at the moment ( example: no DPAF 1080/60 in 7d2). One will need processing power comparable to 6 x DIGiC 6 inside high res FF body. And manufacturing high res DPAF sensor also won't be cheap.
Well, I do not underestimate Canon capabilities. They are surely able to create such monster. But who is gonna pay for that?
My guesses have been "somewhat less than accurate" :) It is very hard to know where a secretive company is going....

They appear to be moving away from the old 500nm production fab, so any new sensor would presumably be on the 180nm run, possibly the same pixel size as the 7D2... they seem to have the bugs out... I just can't see them designing a new "normal" sensor, but that's my guess, and as I said above, my guesses have been somewhat less than accurate.

I wonder how long before GPU style hardware is going to emerge in the Canon (and Sony, Nikon, etc) bodies... more computing power per watt and with a CPU/GPU computing architecture one could use the appropriate combination of algorithms and hardware to drastically speed things up... your 6Xdigic6 computing power could be easily obtained and possibly at lower power..... oh well, time will tell....

20
EOS Bodies / Re: High Megapixel Camera Coming in 2015 [CR3]
« on: December 17, 2014, 10:32:17 AM »

No, it will be "pure" (no DPAF) high res sensor body. Possibly build around Sony sensor (not sure).


And you know this how????

how do you know it won't be a FF sized 7D2? Canon is very good at keeping secrets, yet those of us on rumours group always seem to know the answers.....

21
Canon General / Re: Advice on which DSLR to get
« on: December 16, 2014, 09:33:15 PM »
The T5i or the SL1 (currently a great deal on Canon refurbished, if they still have any left) with the kit lens would be a great choice for someone just starting out.  While those interested in technology more than photography want to upgrade every couple years, the upgrades are extremely minor.  My first DSLR lasted 9 years and was still capable of excellent results despite being the original rebel and only 6 MP.  On my screen and printing up to 8" x 10" there is no discernible difference between that camera and the most recent rebels.  Don't get caught up in the techno-hype - the camera you get will be good for years.

I would agree.

There is very little difference between the image quality of most DSLRs... what you pay for are fancy features which a beginner would only find confusing. I like the SL-1.... good camera and compact size, yet very usable. Start off in full automatic mode and try some of the other modes such as aperture priority and shutter priority as she gets more familiar with it.

22
Canon General / Re: Canon USA Addresses the Gray Market
« on: December 16, 2014, 09:26:07 PM »

So ... up yours, Canon!

Great attitude!  Why are here on a Canon site when you clearly dislike the company so much.  Personally, i don't have any allegiance to any company having owned Canon, Olympus and Kodak cameras in my life.  My Canon cameras have been well made, extremely reliable, and have taken great pictures giving me much enjoyment over the years. 

Your bitterness seems to indicate that you haven't had the same results.  So, why are still here?  Go Sony or go Nikon.  We'll be glad if you do.

+1

As I look around me in the room, I see Canon, Nikon, Sony, Olympus, Kodak, GoPro, Rolleiflex, Ikeda, and even the dreaded iPhone.... guess that makes me a fanboy on lots of sites....

but more to the point, as we become a global economy and more and more gear is legitimately bought in other countries, manufacturers are going to have to realize that setting up artificial boundaries is a step backwards.

23
Canon General / Re: Canon USA Addresses the Gray Market
« on: December 16, 2014, 09:14:10 PM »
What about the view from other countries..... where on the other side of the river a genuine Canon battery from an approved Canon dealer cost 60 percent of what it does on this side of the river... and they are both genuine Canon products sold by genuine Canon dealers and the exact same part number....

24
EOS Bodies / Re: Using full frame lens on crop body cameras ?
« on: December 16, 2014, 09:07:48 AM »

The only elements that would be smaller are the small elements nearest the camera. The largest grouping would be the same. on lenses longer than 50 or 60 mm it makes a hardly recognizable difference.

Telephoto yes, wide angle no. Just look at EF 24 2.8 and EF-s 24 2.8. The EF-s one is actually a 38 equivalent FoV one so it's narrower and a lot smaller.

Using a 70-200 on crop would be less wasteful than using a 16-35
or you could compare it against the EF40 F2.8.....

You can't really compare pancakes against normal lenses... Although Canon's pancakes are very high quality designs, and the performance for the price is stellar, there are sacrifices in IQ compared to regular lens of similar design and materials.... the sharper you bend light, the greater these problems get, particularly the prism effect where you start focusing different colours in different places.

but more to the point, you are correct in saying that for the wider angles, there are size and weight savings with EFS mounts...... but the large elements still remain the same size.

25
EOS Bodies / Re: Using full frame lens on crop body cameras ?
« on: December 15, 2014, 10:55:05 PM »
When you mount the same FF lens to a APS-C 1.6x crop sensor, you are essentially only capturing 39% of the light (photons) the lens collects, and throws away the rest of the 61%. No matter how you spin, that is a loss.

So yes, using FF lens on APS-C is wasteful, because you could as well use a native APS-C lens with the same focal length and aperture, and it will be a lot smaller and lighter because the glass in it collects light from a narrower angle of view so it doesn't have to be as large.

The only elements that would be smaller are the small elements nearest the camera. The largest grouping would be the same. on lenses longer than 50 or 60 mm it makes a hardly recognizable difference.

26
EOS Bodies / Re: Using full frame lens on crop body cameras ?
« on: December 15, 2014, 10:52:09 PM »
Hi -- 

New member and not super techie, so please be nice.  Also, I am a Tony/Chelsea fan, -- they are nice, goofy and earnest, IMHO,  so again, please be nice.  That said, I do get very confused by Tony's explanations.  Here's why -- I think -- prior to digital phtotgraphy, using a 35 mm camera meant that light got to film causing a photochemical reaction which produced a picture.  So, all the math was based on a constant.  Now, there are ff digital cameras, which are "true" 35 mm equivalents and crop sensor cameras, which are camera with sensors that are smaller than 35 mm by varying degrees.  In addition, the medium is not film, so instead of a photochemical reaction, the cameras are taking in information communicated by light and reacting electronically. 

Since both ff and crop sensors are pocessing the same light and then electronically converting that to an image, I don't understand his comments about the same amount of light getting to the sensor.  In other words, if person A is using a ff to take a picture of statue 1 with a field of view of X and person B is using a crop to take a picture of statue 1 and adjusts his position to have the same field of view of X and both are using the same lens and the same focal length, isn't everything the same?  Both cameras are working to take the same eaxact picture, with the same light coming to the sensor.  The only difference I can think of is that if both camera's are 20 MP then the FF pixells are going to be larger.  So, I get confused about his "sensor light collecting" statements, because it seems to me that this would only be relevant if the argument was about comparing a 35 mm film camera to a smaller sized film camera.  It seems to me that the argument with ff versus crop has to do with how a 20 MP ff processes the electronic information versus a 20 MP crop, not about the light getting to the sensor. 

Thanks in advance for the assistance.

Chip
Hi,

An awful lot of people get mixed up with "equivalent"

let's start with the crop factor... I pick up a crop camera and put a 100mm lens on it and take a picture of an object 100 feet away. Standing in the same spot, if I want to take an identically framed picture on a FF camera, I need to use a 160mm lens on it. That is your 1.6X crop factor. very easy to understand....

Things get fun when you think about depth of field..... shooting at F2.8 and at 100 feet that 160mm lens has a DOF of about 20 feet, while the 100mm lens has a 55 foot DOF... you would have to stop down the 100mm lens on the crop camera to F1.2 to get the same depth of field as the 160mm lens on the FF camera.

that's what happens if you are stationary, sometime you can zoom with your feet. If you shoot with the FF camera at 100 feet away, you can get the same field of view with the crop camera from 160 feet.... there's that 1.6X crop factor again.

If you shoot with a 100mmF2.8 lens on the crop camera and move to 160 feet with the crop camera and the same 100F2.8 lens , you get the same field of view AT THE FOCUS PLANE, but everything else changes. Your depth of field with the FF camera is still 20 feet, but with the crop camera it is now 160 feet of DOF. To make matters even more confusing, you now have a different perspective on the two shots so they are not and can never be identical. The crop camera is now going to be seeing distant objects larger and near objects smaller in relation to how the FF camera shows them in relation to the object at 100 feet that you are focused on.

As far as light goes, that 100mm F2.8 lens remains as a 100mmF2.8 lens no matter which camera you mount it on. It collects the exact same amount of light. Your exposure times and ISO settings are identical between the two cameras. The difference is the amount of the light that is used. The FF sensor is 2.56 times larger than the crop sensor (1.6 squared). If both cameras are the same number of megapixels, this means that the pixels in the FF camera will get 2 1/2 times the light as the pixels do in the crop camera. If you are in poor light this is a big deal, but in good light it really does not matter.... it's kind of like the difference between shooting at ISO 200 and 500 (good light, not noticeable) or between shooting at ISO 10,000 and 25,600 (poor light, very noticeable difference)

and then we have the corners/sweet spot tradeoff.... Lenses are always sharpest at the center and that's the part crop used most, while FF cameras can have problems with the corners.... but since this is so incredibly lens dependant, there is no answer here....

another factor that virtually nobody considers is economy of scale and limited design and manufacturing resources. Looking at that 100mmF2.8 lens, you could design one specifically for FF and another one specifically for crop, but there would be no improvement in image quality and the price of both would be driven upwards.

In short, there is no such thing as equivalence between a crop lens and a FF lens and there is no reason to not use a FF lens on a crop sensor.


27
EOS Bodies / Re: Sony Sensors Coming to Canon DSLRs? [CR1]
« on: December 15, 2014, 09:47:16 PM »
To keep all this in perspective.... for decades Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Fuji, Pentax, Ricoh, and even (GASP!) Kodak cameras all used the same sensor (film) and somehow nobody came to the brilliant conclusion that since they were using Fuji film (or Kodak), they had to use the same brand camera.....

28
EOS Bodies / Re: Sony Sensors Coming to Canon DSLRs? [CR1]
« on: December 15, 2014, 07:29:25 PM »
I think it would be a mistake for them to surrender chip design--both for Canon and for the users.  There needs to be MORE sensor competition--not less.

+1, but Canon needs to do something in the high res department. But if they cannot compete themselves, limited competition is better than no competition at all.

I just talked to a well-off landscape photog still shooting mf film scans as he finds they are better than a 20mp dslr for what he does. When I told him about the upcoming Sony ~50mp cameras, he was thrilled and nearly ready to dump all his Canon gear right away. As a wildlife photog, this isn't my world, but there you are.

If they wanted too, they could produce one easily. Take a 7D2 sensor design, build the design FF size, and you have a 50Mpixel FF camera that shoots 4FPS and needs 40 shots to fill the frame buffer.

The way I figure it, Canon should have 4 FF cameras in it's lineup....
the 1D series for indestructability and speed
the 5 series aimed at weddings and "do it all"
the 6 series as a low end camera
a new series of high megapixel cameras for landscape.

Let's see what the new year brings.... I predict a massive fleet update.

29
EOS Bodies / Re: All I Want For Christmas...
« on: December 15, 2014, 07:21:16 PM »
Tis the season

... to call people trolls for desiring anything other than the products Canon currently makes.

Now you went and took my completely harmless post and added a negative connotation. Hardly the spirit there my friend.

Tis the season for eggnog?  <- better?

Cheers! (better be a little something extra in it)

Yes :) partake in the good eggnog till all the IS technology in the world can't help you.......

30
EOS Bodies / Re: Sony Sensors Coming to Canon DSLRs? [CR1]
« on: December 15, 2014, 06:20:44 PM »
yes.... wait until the tech has matured to the point where the average user can't tell the difference... put lots of research into things like DPAF and bring it to market.... move your sensors to a more modern fabrication line... and throw it all away to let the competition control your destiny...... not bloody likely!

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 239