Messages

1

PowerShot Cameras / Re: NAB 2013: Canon USA, All About 4K

« on: April 09, 2013, 12:36:00 PM »

The size of screen you’d need to see the difference between 4K and 1080P in your home would eliminate most potential customers. Think of it like a 1080P vs 720P 32″ television, there’s just no discernible difference when viewing 1080P content.

1080p vs. 720p is a big difference even on a 32" display. Heck, it's discernible on phones that are under 5". If you can't tell the difference, then you're probably too far away from the screen.

2

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Spec List [CR2]

« on: February 19, 2013, 02:53:30 PM »

No that's the wrong way of looking at it.
The 6D is pitched as an 'entry level' or first time FF body.
The 7D line is the 'high end' Crop body.

Precisely!

Counting my pennies...

so the 6d is 'entry level'   yet the 7d 2 is high end.

doesnt want to make me buy the 6d anymore!

Yes. The 6D is an entry level full frame camera whereas the 7D is a premium crop camera.

That doesn't mean that the 7D is necessarily the better choice. The FF sensor makes a huge difference. Because of its much larger (and newer) sensor, the 6D will produce much cleaner images with better color and dynamic range especially in low light situations.

The 6D can't match the AF, build quality, and speed of the 7D but you shouldn't expect it to. It's aimed at people who want the benefits of a FF sensor but who don't need / don't want to pay for those extra features. If you need those features, that's where the 5D3 and 1DX come in, but the 6D offers pretty much the same image quality for a much lower price.

3

Lenses / Re: What's your dream lens

« on: December 04, 2012, 10:33:17 AM »

Hmmm. How about a 35mm f/1.2 L IS that's excellent wide open? (Bonus points for making it a pancake.)

That and a 24-120 f/2.8 IS. I don't care how much it weighs.

4

Animal Kingdom / Re: A day at Disney's Animal Kingdom - Orlando

« on: October 14, 2012, 07:08:25 PM »

I walked around Animal Kingdom all day back in May this year with a 7D (with grip) + 70-200 L IS II + 2x III extender and never got stopped by any Disney employees.

5

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

« on: September 26, 2012, 06:09:39 PM »

There is no way, by any measure, that mRAW and sRAW can really be called "RAW" formats. They do not preserve the original sensor data in any way, shape, or form. The sensor is demosaiced for christ sake when reading and encoding chrominance channels.

For more information: http://dougkerr.net/Pumpkin/articles/sRaw.pdf

The article you linked to disagrees with you. The author claims that the sensor is not demosaiced, but rather that color four each pixel is computed from 2x2 RGGB blocks of photodetectors.

Relevant quote: " Thus, we can see that perhaps what happens to the Raw data on its way to the sRaw format does  not, rigorously, involve either demosaicing or downsampling."

6

EOS Bodies / Re: first pic of canon mirrorless?

« on: July 21, 2012, 03:57:18 PM »

The DSLR won't be around forever, it will eventually be replaced by some other new technology and I believe that the mirrorless camera is the direction this is all heading.

D

Very true. Technology is rapidly changing. First the OVF will be replaced by EVF. Then Full Frame will be replaced by APS-C. APS-C won't stick around too long before it is replaced by ... Time marches on, it's been a long time since PJs shot news and sports with 4x5 cameras.

I can definitely see mirrored cameras disappearing, but I don't think FF is going anywhere. For fast action low light situations even a theoretical APS-C sensor with perfect quantum efficiency is going to be limited by physics. Photon shot noise is an inherent limitation and the only way to combat it is to gather more light (use faster glass, bigger sensors, or longer exposure times).

7

EOS Bodies / Re: Mirrorless Update - APS-C? [CR2]

« on: July 13, 2012, 02:42:21 PM »

I disagree that the "only reason for full-frame is image quality, and APS-C is already overkill for the largest desktop printers." Full frame sensors are not good just for extra resolution; they gather more than twice as much light as an APS-C sensor. That makes a big difference to me shooting sports in low light.

But that's just image quality again. Boost the ISO by a stop or two and you get pretty much the same shot as on full frame, just with more noise. Now, downsample that frame to 1024x768, to post on the Web or send in an email, and the noise vanishes.

Would you be satisfied with the image quality? Obviously not. But 99 44/100% of Rebel owners would be thrilled with it, and that's why we're not going to see a full-frame mirrorless.

b&

That works if you still have an extra stop or two of ISO available and don't care about losing a significant amount of dynamic range (it's not just a difference in noise). But then DR is "just image quality" as well, I suppose.

As far as what to expect, it really boils down to who the mirrorless is marketed towards. If they target the Rebel buying populous (and that's where the profit is to be made), it would indeed be silly to put a FF sensor in it.

8

EOS Bodies / Re: Mirrorless Update - APS-C? [CR2]

« on: July 12, 2012, 09:16:17 PM »

Mirrorless - Replaces G-series PowerShots and all Rebels, 3 - 5 models total

I doubt that will be happening soon. Not until there is a huge breakthrough in EVF technology (in both performance and cost). The optical view finder on the Rebel beats any existing EVF anytime.

I agree with you that we're ages away from an EVF that can even pretend to compete with the real thing, even the dark and dinky ones on a Rebel.

However, I'd bet that the overwhelming majority of Rebel owners already mostly use live view anyway. Note, that's the majority of those who own Rebels, and certainly not the majority of Rebel owners who read Canon Rumors -- those are two entirely distinct sets of people.

But the EVF problem is yet another reason why there'll never be a full-frame mirrorless Canon camera. The only reason for full-frame is image quality, and APS-C is already overkill for the largest desktop printers. The only reason for mirrorless is to make something you can slip in the opposite pocket from your cellphone. If you're really making 24" x 36" and bigger prints, fitting your camera in your pocket is the least of your photographic challenges.

Cheers,

b&

I disagree that the "only reason for full-frame is image quality, and APS-C is already overkill for the largest desktop printers." Full frame sensors are not good just for extra resolution; they gather more than twice as much light as an APS-C sensor. That makes a big difference to me shooting sports in low light.

9

EOS Bodies / Re: 4 More DSLRs Coming in 2012? [CR2]

« on: June 12, 2012, 09:08:29 PM »

If it helps, you guys should go to the MacRumors forum and watch all the dudes tear their hair out because Apple hasn't seriously updated their i-Macs or Mac Book Pros for years.  Talk about long waits. 

Didn't Apple just announce a new MacBook Pro with an amazing new "retina display" yesterday?
If if had another USB port or two and came with Windows 7, I'd probably buy one.

10

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Canon C300, 5D Mark III and Red Scarlet, compared at night

« on: May 03, 2012, 10:34:13 PM »

I'm excited about The Hobbit being in 48 fps. The standard 24 fps rate drives me nuts. The judder during panning is particularly unpleasant.

It definitely feels different watching video at 60 fps versus 24 fps or 30 fps. It's smoother and sometimes looks almost "too real" for cinema. I'm guessing 48 fps will look odd for a little while before the brain adapts to a new frame rate.

11

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5DIII same ISO performance as 5DII

« on: April 15, 2012, 04:08:09 AM »

Pushing my 5D3 to 6400 still scares the crap out of me.  I just need to post process a few more weddings with it to build my confidence   Oh, and LR 4.1 OFFICIAL release will be a big deciding factor as well.  And as of this year, I am DONE with DVD's.  Now Digital Negatives (if they buy them) are delivered on these:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820235047

With custom labeling for the client.  Auto slideshow built in as well.  I hate DL DVD's with a passion!

As far as more MP.  I don't see clients ordering anything much bigger than 20x30.  So no real need for more MP unless you plan to do a lot of cropping.  I would prefer Canon go to a SQUARE sensor next round with a slight MP increase. see this:

http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/05/the-cmos-sensor-squared-cr2/

I don't know about square sensors... I like the 2:3 aspect ratio.

I don't know if I would use flash drives for clients... cost is about 17x higher. And they are so small the client would lose it easily. Plus, the DVD has a larger area for custom printing/engraving.

How/where do you do your custom labeling?

I think square sensors would be awesome. I'm a fan of the 4x5 aspect ratio.

Compared to the cost of a shoot, a USB drive really isn't that expensive and a lot of computers don't even have optical drives these days.

12

Macro / Re: Canon MP-E 65 1x-5x 2.8 Macro Lens example photos

« on: April 09, 2012, 04:31:13 AM »

Sharpness takes a hit at small apertures due to diffraction blurring unless you use focus stacking, but such are the limitations of physics.

Here's an example at f/16:

13

Lenses / Re: Patent: Canon EF 2.8x Teleconverter

« on: March 28, 2012, 11:59:29 AM »

A 70-200 f/2.8 at 70mm has a maximum opening 25mm in diameter, agree?

A 70-200 f/2.8 at 200mm has a maximum opening... 25mm in diameter.

AFAIK, there's no physical mechanism opening the blades wider as the focal length increases. Rather, the zooming in optically magnifies that 25mm aperture such that it appears to be 71mm in diameter (at the 200mm example).

I see no reason they couldn't employ that principle in teleconverters.

That said, sure, I probably I read it wrong, hence me asking what they meant by that bullet point.

I don't think you understand the fixed f-number zoom lenses properly. If the 70-200mm had a maximum opening of 25mm at 200mm, then it would only be f/8 zoomed in. There is in fact a physical mechanism opening the blades wider as the focal length increases.

No, it has 2.8, because the pupil is magnified by the front element moving relative to the pupil.

If they could make the blades open to 71mm in the same form factor, they sell it as a 70-200f/1-2.8.

Zooming a lens doesn't mechanically widen the pupil. It optically magnifies it. 

http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=523730&postcount=2
There is a lot of mis-information on the Internet about how "constant aperture" zooms work, but the most lucid explanation comes from Bob Shell:

    Comments from Bob Shell (January 8, 2003):
    "An f-stop is the ratio between the focal length of the lens and the *apparent* size of the lens opening as viewed through the front. It must take into account the magnification factor of all lens elements in front of the diaphragm, because it is the size of the opening that the light "sees" as it passes through the lens, not the actual physical diameter of the diaphragm opening.
    It is this fact that allows companies to make constant aperture zoom lenses which maintain a constant f-stop when the focal length changes, because such lenses are designed so that the magnification factor (diopter value) of all elements in front of the diaphragm changes as focal length is changed to hold the aperture value constant."

Hmmm. It seems I'm wrong then. Thanks for the correction.

It still doesn't completely make sense to me though. If it's possible to magnify the image while maintaining the same f-number, then couldn't they make TC's that go in front of the lens without sacrificing aperture? And why even make variable f-number zooms?

14

Lenses / Re: Patent: Canon EF 2.8x Teleconverter

« on: March 27, 2012, 12:27:58 PM »

A 70-200 f/2.8 at 70mm has a maximum opening 25mm in diameter, agree?

A 70-200 f/2.8 at 200mm has a maximum opening... 25mm in diameter.

AFAIK, there's no physical mechanism opening the blades wider as the focal length increases. Rather, the zooming in optically magnifies that 25mm aperture such that it appears to be 71mm in diameter (at the 200mm example).

I see no reason they couldn't employ that principle in teleconverters.

That said, sure, I probably I read it wrong, hence me asking what they meant by that bullet point.

I don't think you understand the fixed f-number zoom lenses properly. If the 70-200mm had a maximum opening of 25mm at 200mm, then it would only be f/8 zoomed in. There is in fact a physical mechanism opening the blades wider as the focal length increases.

15

EOS Bodies / Re: So frustrated with new 5DmkIII - returning it!

« on: March 25, 2012, 08:15:29 PM »

Mine is pixel-sharp.

With a 24-105mm L. (Not considered the sharpest lens available.)

I think maybe you got a bad unit.

I'm delighted with the combination!

Hey FLEETIE

Can you post one of your shots? A JPEG version and possibly a link to the RAW as well? I'd love to see one!

I'm also loving my 5DMKIII - Images are looking sharp and very low noise

Maximum attachment size allowed is 4096kB (4MB), so I can't. The JPGs are 7 to 12MB.

I don't have any fancy web accounts that'll store files that size.

If you really want, give me your email address and I'll mail you a JPG straight out of camera.

You don't need any fancy web accounts. Just use something like minus.com.
(Note that unlike say imgur.com, minus.com leaves the metadata intact.)


Example:
Here's a direct link to an 8.61 MB JPG: http://i.minus.com/ibmN49uCtD9Jov.jpg
Here's a link to download the original 25.76 MB CR2: http://minus.com/m1FHpveLO/