July 26, 2014, 05:08:51 AM

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 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19 ... 187
241
EOS Bodies / Re: New DSLR and PowerShots in May [CR2]
« on: May 29, 2014, 08:11:02 AM »

We’re told to finally expect some significant camera announcements from Canon in May. There will be a couple of PowerShot’s announced, most notably the SX60 IS and its 100x zoom, as well as a DSLR. The assumption on the DSLR is that it will be the follow-up to the EOS 7D.</p>


So, today or tomorrow, right?   :o
I'm leaving on a trip tomorrow morning.... do you think the 7D2 will be ready in time? :)

242
Hi all,

Is there a benefit in using the expanded ISO range vs the Native ones?
What do you use?

Thanks
It allows you take bad pictures in bad light....

If you are going to resample the pictures down to "web size", you can still get reasonable quality....

243
EOS Bodies / Re: New Full Frame Camera in Testing? [CR1]
« on: May 28, 2014, 08:10:22 PM »
I find it inconceivable that there would not be a new FF camera in testing....

hopefully you do know what the word inconceivable means even if a certain someone in a certain movie did not
otherwise canon has lost the plot
not conceivable, unimaginable, incapable of being conceived, imagined, or considered....

If it is inconceivable that there would not be a new FF camera in testing, then I could not imagine such a scenario, and if I could not imagine such a scenario, I obviously would not comment on it :)

BTW, Neuro got it right :)

244
EOS Bodies / Re: New Full Frame Camera in Testing? [CR1]
« on: May 28, 2014, 07:48:43 PM »
I find it inconceivable that there would not be a new FF camera in testing....


You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means.

 ;D

I was wondering if anyone would catch on....
An inconceivable Montage Small | Large

:)

245
EOS Bodies / Re: New Full Frame Camera in Testing? [CR1]
« on: May 28, 2014, 06:47:39 PM »
I find it inconceivable that there would not be a new FF camera in testing....

246
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS M Vanishes from Canon USA Web Site
« on: May 28, 2014, 06:20:28 PM »
Not to mention how laughable it is to compare the EF-M lens line-up with the X-mount lens line-up. If one really thinks that the EOS-M produces the same quality image as the Fuji, esp on the optics department, one's kidding themselves.

You can't really compare the lens line-ups without looking at EF-S and EF lenses.

For wide angle lenses and "kit lenses", there are great savings in size to be made with EOS-M, but when you go fast or go long, the size and cost savings evaporate. Let's say you wanted a 70-200F4 lens for your EOS-M.... it would be as wide as the EOS lens and about 95 percent as long and virtually the same weight... not much savings... and since it would not have the volume of sales of the EOS lens, it would end up costing more... and with the shorted flange difference comes sharper bending of light in the final element grouping and that translates into lower image quality... So why would Canon design an inferior lens that costs more and then hope that somebody would buy it?

This is why the EOS-M lenses released are what they are... and I would certainly expect more to be released in the future, but they are going to only be the popular lenses.... anything special or with a limited appeal will be EOS...

247
microwaves cook food via a radio transmitter.  it bombards the food with radio waves.  your microwave is "jamming" your wifi signal with these radio waves.  If this is happening, your microwave is likely leaking.  Get a new microwave
ALL microwaves leak..... The question is how much.... You are talking 1000 watts of power from the microwave oven and milliwatts from your wifi device. This raises the noise floor and desensitizes the receivers... Resulting in errors, retransmissions, and if bad enough, dropped links....

Solutions are:

Clean where the magnetic rubber strip of the door seal is.
Buy a better shielded microwave.
Move the wifi router to a place closer to your devices and further from the microwave.
Line the kitchen walls, ceiling, doors, and window with 2mm copper mesh.....


248
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7d2 IQ thoughts.
« on: May 27, 2014, 09:08:37 AM »
Every time you split a photodiode, each resulting smaller photodiode is less sensitive to light...it has a smaller area.

When you split a photodiode in two, you get LESS than half the light in each half. There is an amount of waste real-estate around the edges of a cell. To illustrate with a simple example, let's say the manufacturing process has a resolution of 1 unit and a pixel is 10x10 units square. You have a waste area of 1 unit around the outside of the photodiode so you end up with an 8x8 photodiode and 64% of the surface area used to gather light. By splitting the photodiode, you end up with 2 3x8 photodiodes, or 48% of the surface area used to collect light.

Yes, you can use microlenses to counter this, but perfection (which can never be achieved) would get you back to even with the single photodiode.

249
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7d2 IQ thoughts.
« on: May 27, 2014, 08:51:01 AM »

I think you've made a lot of wild guesses, assumptions and crazy speculative leaps. You make the assumption that Canon has QPAF technology, they do not. (Based on current patent filings, no one does...some competitors are finally developing their own DPAF-like patents. Canon's own subsequent patents to DPAF, some only a few months old, still indicate DUAL photodiodes, not quad. The changes have to do with sensitivity alone, and those sensitivity changes have to do purely with AF technology, the image readout technology is still exactly the same...binned.)

Although I think QPAF is possible, I don't think we will see it anytime soon. Since the pixels are binned, you could achieve the same results with having alternating pixels split vertically and horizontally and it would make for far simpler circuitry that could detect both vertical and horizontal shift.

250
I notice that nobody has said "I'll run out and get an iPad and a GoPro".... yet sadly enough, for what I need tomorrow night, that would be my first acquisition.....

251
Technical Support / Re: Fix for a large CP Filter Stuck on Lens
« on: May 26, 2014, 10:06:53 PM »
You can also try a thick rubber band around the filter..... that helped me get a stuck 77mm polarizing filter off.

252
Animal Kingdom / Re: Your best animal shots!
« on: May 26, 2014, 08:45:55 PM »
Climbing Snow Leopard

I had to manipulate the lighting a bit on this, so I expect the experts here to come crashing down on me, but the animal is still extraordinary.

1DX, 200-400 f4L IS 1.4x @560mm
1/250s, f5.6, ISO1600
Personally, I like the picture the way you have it. It sets a mood.

253
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7d2 IQ thoughts.
« on: May 26, 2014, 08:33:08 PM »
In my specific case, full frame is not the best choice because I need to shoot in low light, and still have wide depth of field. For such depth of field with full frame, I would have to close the aperture more than one stop, losing much of the advantage of high ISO. How I use two cameras at the same time also need cameras and lenses lightweight as only APS-C can be.

That's a pretty specific set of needs. I'm sure you understand why Canon might not see a market for that.

I'm guessing you are shooting for publication, which is why you don't need more than 12 mp.

I'm not sure that depth of field works quite like you describe though. My understanding has always been that perceived greater depth of field with APS-C is created by the distance from the subject to the camera.

A 200mm lens on an APS-C camera and a 200mm lens on a full frame camera -- both pictures taken from the same spot and the full frame image cropped to match the APS-C crop -- should have the same depth of field, correct? Although the full frame crop is likely to get you below your 12mp target.
You are right in that the depth of field of a 200mm lens is the same regardless of what body it is mounted on... however, if we are talking about field of view, a 125mm lens on a crop camera would have the same field of view as a 200mm lens on a FF camera, and all else being equal, the 125mm lens would have greater depth of field.

254
Lenses / Re: Return policy on lenses/equipment?
« on: May 26, 2014, 08:14:16 PM »
I guess I was lucky, as the store manager allowed the return. However, they were explicit in stating it was against store policy, and would not be allowed again.

After looking at their website now, they state:

Professional Items
It is a strict Vistek policy that we sell only equipment that is absolutely new (unless clearly marked otherwise).
Due to the nature and value of professional equipment, Vistek cannot offer a refund or exchange on any professional equipment exceeding a Vistek retail price of $1,000.


This is very vague, and haven't seen this at other retailers.

They have lost my business...

Hi, huge fan of this site - long time reader, first time poster.

I wanted to share a recent experience, and hoping to find out if this is common to many stores.

Over the last couple years my wife and I have purchased a lot of equipment for her studio. As of late, we have purchased all our equipment at B&H and some of the larger stores (non-chains) in Toronto with great experiences. We recently purchased the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 II, however, changed our minds the following day and decided to return the lens (we converted to all primes 2 years ago, but considered adding the 24-70 to her kit). I should note the box was never opened, and returned to the store the next business day. When we arrived at the store (a large national chain in Canada with 6 locations), we were informed that their policy is no refunds or exchanges on "professional gear over $1000". When I bought the lens I was never informed that it was final sale, and it only appeared in the fine print on the receipt (which I only received after the lens was purchased and they had my money).

This experience has caught me off guard. In an era where everything is becoming "pro" or "prosumer", what is included in "professional gear" is very vague and pretty much includes all camera bodies and all high-quality lenses.

While I haven't returned lenses in the past, I appreciate the option, or the store should be explicit in stating final sale. Has anyone had a similar experience? Is this common practise at many stores? At the very least, I won't be shopping local for cameras or lenses again.

Thanks.


Visitek?

That's just wrong! I would escalate the complaint.

According to the consumer protection act of Ontario http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_02c30_e.htm#BK12
Any ambiguity that allows for more than one reasonable interpretation of a consumer agreement provided by the supplier to the consumer or of any information that must be disclosed under this Act shall be interpreted to the benefit of the consumer.
I would argue that since the equipment was not specifically labelled as "pro gear" and that there was no specific explanation of the restrictions on returning said gear,  that it was a reasonable assumption that normal return policies apply.



I will never darken their door again either..... It is ironic when Best Buy, which also sells Canon gear worth over $1000, is more professional than the "pro shop".....

255
Lenses / Re: Return policy on lenses/equipment?
« on: May 26, 2014, 07:54:36 PM »
Hi, huge fan of this site - long time reader, first time poster.

I wanted to share a recent experience, and hoping to find out if this is common to many stores.

Over the last couple years my wife and I have purchased a lot of equipment for her studio. As of late, we have purchased all our equipment at B&H and some of the larger stores (non-chains) in Toronto with great experiences. We recently purchased the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 II, however, changed our minds the following day and decided to return the lens (we converted to all primes 2 years ago, but considered adding the 24-70 to her kit). I should note the box was never opened, and returned to the store the next business day. When we arrived at the store (a large national chain in Canada with 6 locations), we were informed that their policy is no refunds or exchanges on "professional gear over $1000". When I bought the lens I was never informed that it was final sale, and it only appeared in the fine print on the receipt (which I only received after the lens was purchased and they had my money).

This experience has caught me off guard. In an era where everything is becoming "pro" or "prosumer", what is included in "professional gear" is very vague and pretty much includes all camera bodies and all high-quality lenses.

While I haven't returned lenses in the past, I appreciate the option, or the store should be explicit in stating final sale. Has anyone had a similar experience? Is this common practise at many stores? At the very least, I won't be shopping local for cameras or lenses again.

Thanks.


Visitek?

That's just wrong! I would escalate the complaint.

According to the consumer protection act of Ontario http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_02c30_e.htm#BK12
Any ambiguity that allows for more than one reasonable interpretation of a consumer agreement provided by the supplier to the consumer or of any information that must be disclosed under this Act shall be interpreted to the benefit of the consumer.
I would argue that since the equipment was not specifically labelled as "pro gear" and that there was no specific explanation of the restrictions on returning said gear,  that it was a reasonable assumption that normal return policies apply.

Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19 ... 187