July 29, 2014, 03:03:20 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 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 188
61
EOS Bodies / Re: Eos7D mk2, How EXCITED will you be if . . .?
« on: July 18, 2014, 07:17:36 PM »
If interested here is a quick informal test I did yesterday. Crop cameras are the best birding cameras IMO beating a FF pretty handily. Especially with the new crop sensors from sony.

Interesting that Art Morris (of who's website your URL is seemingly a parody, and who actually shoots birds instead of posed pooches) uses the 1D X and 5DIII with Canon 500/600 II lenses and delivers impressive images. 

I must say, your opinion smells like birds that fart.  :-X
When I got my Tamron 150-600 I rushed outside to take some bird pictures.. I finally had a long enough lens that I could shoot tiny birds, and using it on a crop camera increased the equivalent focal length to 960mm. All serious birders know the you need long long long lenses and there is no substitute.

I came back from my walk with lots of pictures of Chickadees taken with a wide angle lens at 20mm :)

62
EOS Bodies / Re: DSLR ? - thinking out loud ....
« on: July 18, 2014, 10:38:14 AM »

And you have hit the big problem with mirrorless.... battery life. They increase the power consumption and make the battery smaller.... and for some inexplicable :) reason, battery life sucks! If they kept to LP-E6 they would last longer... or with a mirrorless in a "normal" sized camera there would be room for a larger battery.

For comparison,
70D, LP-E6 battery, 1000 pictures per charge
EOS-M, LP-12 battery, 230 pictures per charge

LP-E6 is 7.2V and 1800mAh
LP-E12 is 7.2V and 875mAh

If you look at in term of pictures per Ah, the 70D is 555 per Ah and the EOS-M is 265 per Ah.... so assuming the same battery capacity you are still at only half the life on the EOS-M as the 70D

63
EOS Bodies / Re: DSLR ? - thinking out loud ....
« on: July 18, 2014, 10:23:01 AM »
Not sure if this was stated as I kind of speed read through the five pages of previous posts.

But like I've stated before, the real killer feature would be to make the viewfinder a hybrid ovf/evf like Fuji has done on the x100/s and xpro.

This would give us the best of both worlds and the option to use whichever is best suited for the user/scenario.

Yes, I am aware that there will then be issues with parallax. But it is a small nuisance to maintain the benefit of having access to both types of VF in the same body.

Battery life would also be prolonged which is my biggest beef with mirrorless now.

I personally would love to see a full sized (dslr shape) mirrorless offering from Canon so long as it featured the hybrid vf. The larger form factor would appeal to my ergonomic preferences and also allow for a much larger battery than what is currently used in most small mirrorless bodies.
And you have hit the big problem with mirrorless.... battery life. They increase the power consumption and make the battery smaller.... and for some inexplicable :) reason, battery life sucks! If they kept to LP-E6 they would last longer... or with a mirrorless in a "normal" sized camera there would be room for a larger battery.

64
Software & Accessories / Re: Tripod center column - yes or no
« on: July 17, 2014, 01:16:39 PM »
I have three tripods. The Manfrotto 055 came with a center column, and I did not use it very often, being aware of the stability issue. The big (CT3472) and little (CT3442) Feisols didn't come with a center column, and I haven't bothered to get one. It does get old trying to adjust the legs by less than a centimeter each. I have thought of getting the column kit and a short column for those times when I might be doing a lot of fussy height adjustment. Besides the simplicity and stability of having no center column, there is the additional 200 grams or so that is saved by not having the center column. On a longer hike, I likely would rather shave the grams and fuss more with the legs, than take a center column. Along that line, for extra stability I hang my water bottles off the tripod baseplate hook, for an extra 1.5-2 kg if water full. I also have a plastic mesh bag from 3# bag of oranges - it can be stuck onto the baseplate hook and a few rocks can be loaded into it.

Very similar to what I do.... I have a 4mm cord that I use to tension the tripod to my backpack, which is laying on the ground under the tripod.

65
I think that what is needed is a touch screen on the back of all new cameras.

Obviously, one should not get rid of the knobs and dials of cameras, but this gives you an additional way to operate the camera (for those so inclined). One should be able to run an App on a phone that gives you the same functionality as the built-in touchscreen, or on a tablet where the increased real estate would give you even more convenience. Yes, tilt/swivel is nice, but removable/remoteable goes so much further....

66
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 60d results - the bird feeder
« on: July 16, 2014, 02:52:27 PM »
The great think about chickadees is that you don't need hunting blinds to get close.... all you need are some sunflower seeds and a lens that focuses within half of an arm's length....

The 60D is a fine camera.... enjoy!

67
EOS Bodies / Re: Eos7D mk2, How EXCITED will you be if . . .?
« on: July 16, 2014, 09:37:59 AM »
I dunno. I've read the subsequent DPAF patents, and there isn't anything remotely revolutionary in there. Mostly just using different sized photodiodes for the AF part, and a means of increasing sensitivity for AF without reducing IQ. If that's all Canon's got for the 7D II, they are going to take a HUGE reputation hit...and they HAVE to know that... (If they don't, then they've totally lost touch with their customer base, and I am seriously hoping that's not the case.)

Are you suggesting that the people here are representative of Canon's customer base?  I see lots of clamoring for better IQ on forums but until the 70D, the 7D remained a strong seller.  I'd bet a 7DII with 41ish AF points and 10 fps, and a 24 MP DPAF sensor similar in IQ to the 70D, would sell quite well.
Personally, if the 7D2 came with:
7DII with 41ish AF points
10 fps
24 MP DPAF sensor similar in IQ to the 70D, or slightly less pixels and slightly more IQ....
and WiFi/touchscreen

I'd buy one.

Right about now, the biggest thing they can do to improve IQ is to move the A/D onto the sensor, and if they do that plus the above, I'd pre-order it.

68
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II [CR1]
« on: July 15, 2014, 10:10:51 PM »
Theoretical is just that and some of the more expensive lenses do get close. I think that a f/5.6 lens could be made with as good an image quality that a f/2.8 lens (both 400mm) has at f/5.6 for less money (than the f/2.8 lens) because of the smaller pieces of glass used. They would have the same MTF values at f/5.6. There would, however, be more vignetting for the f/5.6 lens because of the smaller pieces of glass.
However, to make the lens cheaper the f/5.6 lens may not be as good as f/2.8 stopped down to f/5.6.

To improve a f/5.6 lens (to the level of the f/2.8 lens stopped down to f/5.6) could involve more expensive glass types for example. These expensive types are used in the f/2.8 lens. I suspect an improved (resolution-wise) 400/5.6 lens would involve selecting more expensive glass that would drive up the price. I think this is what we are seeing with many of Canon's lenses as they get updated. They could probably build several different 400/5.6 lenses with different price points according to the types of glass used but this is impractical. The old lens will provide a lower price point option so long as it says in production.

Understanding resolution is not a simple topic. The Rayleigh Criterion in the reference I gave above is the "textbook" example. I got this in a class I took in microscopy decades ago. In this next reference (link at end of this statement) the authors argue that this is not good enough for digital. It is very long but if one scrolls down and looks at the tables (the resolution numbers in the columns go up (apertures decrease in size as one goes down) in each table but the values vary according to criterion - going across in the table (for a given aperture)) it is obvious that the maximum theoretical resolution (i.e., diffraction limited) at f/2.8 is greater than f/5.6
link: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/resolution.shtml


Theoretically that is obvious, from a practical standpoint aberrations and mp limits cut in way before that when wide open for us camera users and the lenses we actually have available. Your assumption earlier was "assuming similar correction for lens aberrations", it is more than four times more difficult, many would say sixteen times, to manufacture a 400 f2.8 than a 400 f5.6 with the same optical aberrations.

Theory ends when "limited" purchasing options are all we have.


The 400F5.6 is SHARPER in the corners than the 400F2.8...

There is theory, and then there is practice... Yes, in theory, a F2.8 lens could be made sharper than a F5.6 lens, but given the limited precision of manufacturing (it is not perfect and you can not polish off fractions of atoms) and the aberrations in glass, in the real world the problem becomes how to make that F2.8 lens as sharp as an f5.6 lens.

When we are comparing the two, you have to be comparing similar materials and similar designs. The 400F5.6 is a 20+ year old design and used UD elements. The 400F2.8II lens is just a few years old and uses fluorite elements... it was designed with better software and it is manufactured to higher tolerances. If you used that same level of technology/materials on a new 400F5.6 it will be noticeably sharper than the F2.8 version.

Also, with the same design, because of the larger elements, there is much more thickness of glass for the light to pass through in the F2.8 lens. This has the effect of both reducing light and increasing the odds of hitting an aberration. In theory, the glass is perfect. In the real world, it has flaws.

69
Lenses / Re: Year of the lens....a joke....?
« on: July 15, 2014, 08:28:45 PM »
It is the year of the lens...

but unfortunately for Canon, the lens is the Tamron 150-600......

70
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II [CR1]
« on: July 15, 2014, 07:10:04 PM »
My bet is that Canon could design and build a 400 5.6L IS that could produce images every bit as good as the 400 2.8L IS (stopped to 5.6), of course much lighter and cheaper. Light and cheap means you're more likely to have it with you.


Easily:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=327&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

HEY!
This is an emotional argument.... common sense and logic (and particularly data) have no place :)

71
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II [CR1]
« on: July 15, 2014, 10:08:57 AM »

F/2.8 to f/4 is a full stop. :-)


Obviously, I should not post when half asleep.... OOPS!!!

72
Canon General / Re: Canon PowerShot SX60 HS Update [CR2]
« on: July 15, 2014, 09:18:22 AM »
I wonder if this will be the introduction of DPAF to p/s cameras?

Would be nice, but I seriously doubt it.

My biggest hopes for this camera are:

  • Dramatically improved EVF optics.  The SX50 optics have a major field curvature issue.
  • The lens (including IS) is at least as good as that in the SX50 (which is pretty good).
  • The video performance gets a good upgrade (better quality, 60p FHD available).
agreed!

I am amazed at how good the SX-50 is, considering what it does..... Give it a better EVF and make the buttons less sensitive (or better yet, a lockout switch) and you would have a huge lead in the superzoom market.

73
Notice that the patent was filed in December of 2012. So they've had over a year and a half to work on it, plus whatever time they spent before filing. So it's possible it will be included in a 7D2 this fall.

I'd expect Canon to announce a prototype, and show off the benefits of their technology, as they have in the past, before actually using it in a product. There certainly isn't any guarantee that would happen, but it doesn't feel like the technology is ready yet. I expect more patents on the technology, and a prototype test, before we actually see a competitive layered sensor in a DSLR.
What about a P/S camera with the technology? That would be a lot safer way to introduce it.....

74
Canon General / Re: Canon PowerShot SX60 HS Update [CR2]
« on: July 15, 2014, 08:57:18 AM »
I wonder if this will be the introduction of DPAF to p/s cameras?


75
EOS Bodies / Re: DSLR ? - thinking out loud ....
« on: July 14, 2014, 11:06:34 PM »
Since we're speculating...

7 years down the road your pro/semi-pro camera will not only be mirrorless, but will have no built-in display and limited controls.  Instead, it will have a dock for your smartphone, which will serve as the control panel and view screen.(*)

(*) Not an actual prediction, for entertainment purposes only.
actually..... I would love it if I could use the Wi-Fi on the camera to connect to a smartphone or tablet and have the device act identically to the screen on the camera, or in the case of a tablet, have all the controls at your fingertips...

Im sure you can already do that...
Check 6D plus EOS app on your smart phone...
Of course it isn't perfect but it can do what you want...
That's the first "kick at the cat".... I expect future versions to be better and we will probably see this on all the new DSLRs and mirrorless cameras from this time on....

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 188