61
Canon General / Re: Lens Rebates Extended & 5D Mark II $400 Instant Rebate
« on: September 30, 2012, 12:24:15 PM »I'm a bit confused; Is the 5D2 after rebate 1299$ or 1799$?
It's 1799 with the rebate.
Oh, i almost got my hypes up.
May 22, 2013, 11:00:28 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.
Oh, i almost got my hypes up.
62
Canon General / Re: I'm mulling over 2 lenses (70-200mm f/2.8L USM or the EF 200mm f/2.8L USM II)
« on: September 30, 2012, 07:38:20 AM »I also have heard that they do allow slr's but the white zooms are persona non grata.
Once again the Nikon-Crowd wins!
63
Canon General / Re: Lens Rebates Extended & 5D Mark II $400 Instant Rebate
« on: September 30, 2012, 07:37:01 AM »
I'm a bit confused; Is the 5D2 after rebate 1299$ or 1799$?
64
EOS Bodies / Re: 46.1mp Canon DSLR Previewed at PhotoPlus 2012? [CR1]
« on: September 26, 2012, 12:04:21 PM »Did you see them?Canon's pricing strategy with 5DMKIII proved to be fundametally wrong, so I really hope they learned their lesson...Just curios, did you see sales numbers?
65
EOS Bodies / Re: More Big Megapixel Talk [CR1]
« on: September 25, 2012, 04:52:10 PM »
I'll believe it when i see it.
66
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 3D at 46.1mp Next Month? [CR1]
« on: September 25, 2012, 10:32:44 AM »Please be sub-4000$.
lol. Yeah, let's call it the 5.1D then. With Canon's pricing strategy, $4,500 is almost a guarantee. 6D -> 5Dm3 -> 3D -> 1DX. $4,500 fits in there nicely.
Does Canon even make a lens that can resolve 46MP?
Yep, The 100L & 135L are beast. Perhaps the New 24-70 II?
Any Canon Lens, that can take a 2x Converter with 18MP APS-C can not only resolve 46MP Full-Frame, but up to 120MP Full-Frame. Resolution-wise we're not done until reaching pixel sizes of about 0.25 micron.
67
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II, EOS 70D & 700D in 2013? [CR1]
« on: September 23, 2012, 02:04:57 PM »
Let's hope they get their 80MP APS-C sensor out. That could be run at 20MP (2x2 downsample), 9MP (3x3 downsample) or 5MP (4x4 downsample) in low light mode. They have the technology, they just need to build it.
68
EOS Bodies / Re: 46.1mp Canon DSLR Previewed at PhotoPlus 2012? [CR1]
« on: September 22, 2012, 04:22:55 PM »
At least this promises to gain back some DR in print.
69
Lenses / Re: Photozone's review of the EF 24-70 f/2.8L II is up
« on: September 22, 2012, 03:29:22 PM »Interesting to see how the Photozone resolution figures are very different to those posted by Roger at Lensrentals.com.
I suspect that all manufacturers have major quality issues with the new lenses due to very low tolerances acceptable. Maybe Zeiss can come up with high enough quality standards but Zeiss also has a high enoug price for that. I guess it's up to the user to put each lens through a test and send back the broken ones (which will be delivered to other customers).
Canon should make a LT-line with the T meaning that it's really quality tested and up to the standards advertised.
70
Lenses / Re: Quality control issues with the 24-70 L II?
« on: September 21, 2012, 10:48:37 AM »
@Viggo: Yes, Phase-AF is a big problem. But Lensrentals found out that New Cameras with New Lenses can have a very good phase-AF. (Look for part 2 or 3 of the story)
However, what the test of the two lens samples shows are much bigger variations. Other manufacturers are even worse than that. Maybe Tamron gets tested 3 times and the worst is used while for canon it's the best sample.
For the new lenses it gets harder and harder to achieve near-perfect manufacturing because the tolerances required to achieve the high quality results get lower and lower. This is not an easy problem to overcome. Lensrentals are the only site which sometimes tests a number lenses from one batch. They could provide some numbers on the rate of bad lenses per model. Other sites which only test a few samples cannot provide conclusive evidence on how high the rate of bad lenses is.
However, what the test of the two lens samples shows are much bigger variations. Other manufacturers are even worse than that. Maybe Tamron gets tested 3 times and the worst is used while for canon it's the best sample.
For the new lenses it gets harder and harder to achieve near-perfect manufacturing because the tolerances required to achieve the high quality results get lower and lower. This is not an easy problem to overcome. Lensrentals are the only site which sometimes tests a number lenses from one batch. They could provide some numbers on the rate of bad lenses per model. Other sites which only test a few samples cannot provide conclusive evidence on how high the rate of bad lenses is.
71
Lenses / Re: Quality control issues with the 24-70 L II?
« on: September 21, 2012, 02:54:51 AM »
For the price of L-Lenses, Canon should do 100% testing. Especially early in the production.
TDP usually does a pretty good job in testing lenses so i guess that the second lens really shouldn't have been sold.
TDP usually does a pretty good job in testing lenses so i guess that the second lens really shouldn't have been sold.
72
Lenses / Re: Quality control issues with the 24-70 L II?
« on: September 19, 2012, 03:52:21 PM »Something seems off.
True, there was some image misordering or something really strange about lens 2...
73
Lenses / Quality control issues with the 24-70 L II?
« on: September 19, 2012, 02:16:16 PM »
These two lenses should look exactly the same:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=787&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=787&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=1&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0
At the short end one is better, at the long end the other. But why? They should both look best for all focal lengths and never have passed the quality control.
Maybe the optical design has such low tolerances that Canon can't make it work properly and this was the reason for the long delays.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=787&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=787&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=1&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0
At the short end one is better, at the long end the other. But why? They should both look best for all focal lengths and never have passed the quality control.
Maybe the optical design has such low tolerances that Canon can't make it work properly and this was the reason for the long delays.
74
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: raw processed in camera ...better noise?
« on: September 05, 2012, 06:30:14 PM »
The RAW file should contain all information available about the picture, so an external program could produce identical results.
If you look at recent high ISO JPEGs you will see a loss of detail which can be attributed to algorithms which "blur" the image in order to reduce noise. Since blurring confuses noise measurements it is hard to get an objective measurement on the noise level in JPEGs.
Use your own eye to decide if it works good for you.
If you look at recent high ISO JPEGs you will see a loss of detail which can be attributed to algorithms which "blur" the image in order to reduce noise. Since blurring confuses noise measurements it is hard to get an objective measurement on the noise level in JPEGs.
Use your own eye to decide if it works good for you.
75
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Should I stay with Canon or moving to Nikon
« on: September 05, 2012, 01:52:08 AM »
Think about what you will shoot and then look if there are good lenses you can afford.