October 01, 2014, 06:50:20 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 - Mt Spokane Photography

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 567
Canon General / Re: Square or cross shaped sensors
« on: September 26, 2014, 09:00:23 PM »
i've asked this question before. I figured that a square would also provide the most area, but smarter people than me said that wasn't correct. they stated that a 3x2 sensor provided more area. i think someone even posted a mock up graphic of the formats laying onto of each other. i never bothered to do the math, but i still think the square would be larger, or !!
The largest rectangular area that will fit in a circle is a square.  Its a bit difficult to show mathematically, but they do it here.
However, having to workaround by doing time consuming and error prone processes to get a wide angle is not something I'd want to try, and ultra wide lenses bring lots of issues that we don't see in 24mm or longer lenses.
Some have suggested circular sensors.  They might be the most practical, because some of us never quite hold our cameras horizontal or vertical, and the composition could be more efficient.  I think there are technical issues with doing that, but nothing horrible difficult.  It would possibly result in lower yield of sensors per wafer, but sensors are no longer extremely expensive to make like they were 10 years ago.

Mirrorless is getting better, but some of the advantages he claims are drawbacks to me.  Small size means difficult to operate, using LCD to compose and focus??  Really?  In bright sun too?
EVF is a given, the alternative silvered mirror or use of LCD are worse.  I can live with a good one.
However, his claim that AF will surpass Phase detect?  The camera may focus very fast, but, if you can't see what you are focusing on, its not really useful.
I'm glad people are buying them, it will encourage faster development, and maybe soon, we'll see a full sized camera with a hybrid viewfinder and choice of AF type.

So as it turns out, Sony is willing to sell some of their sensors:


Sony sensors can be found in cameras from several different manufacturers. How does your sensor business work?

When we make sensors we put them in several categories. [At any given time] one category of sensors is reserved purely for Sony cameras - we don’t sell them to other companies. Like the sensor in the A7S. But once we’ve enjoyed this advantage we might sell them on later, after some time has passed. This is the second category. The third category of sensors is completely generic - the sensors are created for use internally and to sell externally, to anybody. China or Taiwan or wherever.

and Canon does not discard to buy them:


Canon released two cameras at Photokina - the EOS 7D Mark II and PowerShot G7X. One thing we’ve learned is that the sensor in the G7X is not made by Canon. Does this represent a new philosophy at Canon?

We select the best sensor, whoever the manufacturer is. That’s our policy.

So, let us imagine that Canon releases a 5D mark IV with the 36MP pixels sensor from the D800 and the A7r. Let us suppose that Sony supplies the same slightly improved sensor to both Canon and Nikon for the next 2 generations of cameras. Then, suddenly, when both vendors are addicted to Sony's sensors and have almost completely dropped their R&D in sensor technology, Sony releases a killer 100MP sensor with zero noise at ISO 51200 and 24 stops of DR and decides not to sell it to any external vendor. Sony would absolutely take over the market!

Definitely, it looks like a good decision for Canon not to use Sony's sensors for their flagship cameras. But, don't you think that Nikon is already in Sony's hands?

It would be poor for me, since the Sony DR is weaker at the high ISO's I use.  The advantage at low ISO's is noticeable with poor lighting or poor exposures, but not ordinary images.  I'd like to have my cake and eat it too, but, for now, its a tradeoff.  If you use mostly ISO 100, or mostly ISO 3200 and above.

Sony could indeed take over the market if they could defy the laws of physics, imagine how they could take over the world with a perpetual motion machine.  Basing a theory on things that are not going to happen because they are physically impossible is nonsense.

BTW, Canon has been using Sony Sensors in many of their cameras since their first digital camera, its only when they went to CMOS, and Sony did not make CMOS sensors that Canon started using them. 

Technical Support / Re: Dynamic Range questions..
« on: September 26, 2014, 11:15:50 AM »
In general, Sony EXMOR has more DR until ISO400. Canon has more DR at ISO above 1600.

I certainly am not interested in any dr mud slinging, but it has to be noted that Sony's advantage at low iso is very large and noticeable while Canon's advantage at higher iso (see individual model dr curves) are minor.

I'm generally looking here, though it's mostly dxo data: http://sensorgen.info/

I am finding that my 6D has fair DR at 100 and a very high DR in comparison at higher ISO's.

My standard comment: Use Magic Lantern's dual_iso, it boosts your dynamic range at iso 100 to about 14.5+ stops at (nearly) no loss of iq but usability hassle. It also will have a mini_iso module in the near future adding 1/3-1/2 ev of dynamic range just like that, it's about the same optimization Canon did to the 1dx.

The thing to consider, is that very high ISO's like I often use, there is very little DR to begin with.  Even a small amount is a big improvement.  When DR is only 5 stops, 1/2 stop is a noticible improvement for virtually every photo, but the average photo has no noticible improvement with a 20% DR at ISO 100, you have to have poor lighting with deep shadows or a poor exposure to see the benefit.   

Canon General / Re: DRones vs. anti-DRones: how to resolve the controversy
« on: September 25, 2014, 11:41:44 AM »
how to resolve the controversy
Only two possibilities:
1. Canon designs or buys a sensor equal or better than exmor.
2. Canon to file for bankruptcy and will stop designing sensors and selling cameras.

I vote for "1." ;)

PS.: And even if "1." would happen soon, the sensor wouldn't be good enough to them... I suppose.

When the G7 X came out, immediately the complainers started.  Now that its revealed that its a Sony sensor, they look pretty dumb, having already said how poor it is.

Lenses / Re: 400 f/2.8L II IS on sunny days and white jerseys
« on: September 25, 2014, 12:05:23 AM »
If you are focusing on a white jersey, and have spot AF set on the body, the lack of contrast will make AF struggle.  A 300mm might be seeing more of the subject and give more detail to work with.

I might be way off here, since you provided little info about the settings or focus points.

Technical Support / Re: Lens hood no longer sung
« on: September 24, 2014, 11:59:54 PM »
Plastics deteriorate over time.  Even $$$$ Engineering plastics go bad, as I had some first hand experience with.  Design plays a part, as does manufacturing processes and materials.  I recall one case where a manufacturing worker wanted to produce the best quality, so he put extra additive in the bin for producing plastic used for insulating electrical wire.  The problem was that the additive was for color, and since it was black, it was basically carbon.  Since the wire was going into a spacecraft, we required our receiving QA to test every inch of it for flaws (Using high voltage).  The wire insulation was 100% conductive.  Wire insulation that doesn't insulate is pretty bad.  Usually, we see pinholes from poor process control or bubbles that pop when the high voltage punctures them. 

The real issue to me is the cost of replacing a hood when it goes bad after a few years.  Canon prices for them are silly.  You can purchase knockoffs, but they will likely not last long.

Lenses / Re: EF 24-70mm
« on: September 24, 2014, 11:45:38 PM »
Just like a few other CR regulars, I had a shocker of a time with the 24-70 f/2.8 MkI. Over time, I had five copies and none of them were any good. Bluntly, they were all dogs. I personally know a number of pro shooters who would name the 24-70 f/2.8 MkI as their most disappointing lens. There are good copies out there, but you've got to be lucky.

In complete contrast, the 24-70 f/2.8 MkII has immediately established itself as a stunning lens, out-performing primes in the 24-70 range. My 24 f/1.4II, 35 f/1.4 and Sigma 50 f/1.4 overnight became an unused waste of space and have been sold. The new 24-70 f/2.8 MkII is nothing short of sensational. This is not just my personal viewpoint, read up on reviews and user reviews. This is a lens that won't disappoint.


This sounds like a repeat of my experience, five copies and none worth the price.  The worst of the MK II's is better than the best of the MK i's, and that ignores the curvature of field issue that puts the edges of a image out of focus.

This is a chart detailing tests of many of the lenses with obviously bad lenses omitted.  The red ones are the MK I. 

This does not mean that the MK I's are bad, but it puts claims about how great some MK I's are in perspective.

Lenses / Re: EF 24-70mm
« on: September 24, 2014, 11:28:07 PM »
just checked out their website. Sounds pretty straightforward and legit. Anyone who has direct experience with them?

I have not bought through street prices, but here are some things that they advertise and these are easily verified (and should be verified, IMO):
1. You will be dealing directly with the dealer.
2. It will be the same as buying from the dealer with warranty, returns, etc. as applicable.
3. Only authorized Canon dealers participate.
The reason for street prices to exist is the dealers cannot advertise the discounted prices openly, so CPW acts as a middleman bringing in potential buyers at the actual discounted price (or maybe a bit higher, taking commissions into consideration). So you are not buying from CPW.

There have been two recent threads discussing the street price with actual buyers reporting that they were happy with the deal.

Ah, thanks Mt. Spokane!

I checked out prices for the 50 and 35 Art lenses...  The 50 is not available at all.  The 35 Art is available for $679, but.... it's only available in the Pentax mount!  LOL

So I guess we still haven't figured out where all those returned Canon mount Art lenses are going.

Perhaps the percentage of returned lenses is much less than what one would guess from reading online reviews and blogs?

I'd suspect that they do just like Canon, they only put up lenses that are in stock, or have recently been in stock.  Then they wait until they have a sizable inventory before listing them.  Canon can sell out 500+ refurb lenses in 5 minutes during one of their sales if its a popular lens.

But not curious enough to do a Google Search??


Lenses / Re: EF 24-70mm
« on: September 24, 2014, 10:19:05 PM »
From a legitimate and reputable dealer? And if any issues crop up do you deal with CPW or the dealer?
Have there been times that the deal is better than advertised ? Thanks

Its from a legitimate Authorized dealer for a US version, not gray market.  Some have said that it was the same dealer they would have used otherwise.  You deal with the Dealer, CPW merely points to one who has agreed to sell it for that price. 

Portrait / Re: Comic Con
« on: September 24, 2014, 10:11:25 PM »
Interesting.  I've volunteered to be the official photographer at the Sasquan, the world Science fiction Convention in Spokane next August.  Even if they do not select me, I'll be bringing my Camera.

I've never attended a SF convention before, but when the big one hit little Spokane, I decided to give it a try.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Says Higher Resolution Sensors Are Coming Soon
« on: September 24, 2014, 10:05:55 PM »
They'll go incremental.  They won't go to the 120MP APS-H approach (which would approach 190MP at full-frame size), they'll go 30-50MP.

Brilliant Deduction :D

Lenses / Re: Value of a 24-105
« on: September 24, 2014, 05:23:12 PM »
What would a fair value be for a used white-box 24-105 lens that is in like new condition with very little use?

Considering they sell in the $600-$700 range new (white-box), I'm thinking $400 or less?

I'd say that you could get $500 on Craigslist, but it depends on the local market.  Personally, I'd keep it rather than sell it for a low price. 

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 567