April 20, 2014, 02:29:26 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 - skitron

Pages: 1 ... 28 29 [30] 31 32 ... 34
436
EOS Bodies / Re: Micro Focus Adjustment on 60D
« on: August 05, 2011, 12:53:30 PM »
So why wouldn't they utilize it in their warranty program since it is less time consuming to 'fix' things this way? Not saying it's true because I have no evidence, just saying it is logical therefore entirely possible.

They wouldn't utilize it because then the user could easily 'unfix' the issue by turning off AFMA or by resetting the settings on the camera (which would not erase the adjustment, but would set the C.Fn back to the default 'no adjustment' setting). 

People who've sent cameras and/or lenses in for adjustment have reported service reports stating, "Electrical adjustments were carried out on the AF assembly...," and for lenses, "The auto focus did not operate properly. Electrical adjustments were carried out on the circuit board..."  That's not AFMA.

That assumes any service menu functioned identically to the user menu...which if such a thing existed I would assume it would not.  It's easy enough to code to only flash the addresses you want upon reset and leave others alone so it has no technical barrier. And it is only logical to do this vs disassembly of lens and body simply for a lack of access to afma.

As for the service reports, I wouldn't be surprised if that language is used even on stuff they check out and is fine.  ;) Again, no proof of this with Canon, just speculation based on how I've seen other places work where I do have proof.

I suppose if we had a single 60d and two copies of whatever lens with one off -8 afma units and the other off +8 and sent everything in we would have all the info we needed to definitively confirm or dismiss my speculations upon return of same.  :)

437
EOS Bodies / Re: Micro Focus Adjustment on 60D
« on: August 05, 2011, 11:32:56 AM »
If they applied MA in the camera to make it match the lens, it wouldn't AF accurately if you bought a new lens.

That is not known, another lens may be fine, it may be off the same as the first lens, it may be off the opposite of the first lens. Taking care of all of these anomalies is the entire point of micro adjust, no? So why wouldn't they utilize it in their warranty program since it is less time consuming to 'fix' things this way? Not saying it's true because I have no evidence, just saying it is logical therefore entirely possible.

Of course you could argue if they were going to do it via a hidden service menu to save time and expense, it takes even less time and expense to simply push it to the user and let him adjust his own lens, to which I would agree 100%.  ;)

438
EOS Bodies / Re: Micro Focus Adjustment on 60D
« on: August 04, 2011, 09:41:43 PM »
Sad part is I bet its still in the 60d but its hidden. I just don't see them not having it for when people send their new body/lens in for warranty because its off a few clicks.  I'm guessing they have a hidden service menu like most other electronic gizmos with menus have. I'm sure it would make the warranty program cheaper for them.

439
Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM
« on: July 07, 2011, 12:22:58 PM »
The 100L's center resolution is very good, but there are some lenses that outresolve the 100L, and many lenses that outresolve the 100L at the edges.  At f/5.6-f/8, even the cheap nifty-fifty (50mm f/1.8 II) outresolves the 100L across the whole frame.

Not saying I disagree, but where are you finding data for this? If there is a site that has it for various lenses I'd like to get a link for reference.  :)

440
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 50D Firmware 1.0.8
« on: July 02, 2011, 04:18:17 PM »
FWIW, I fell for doing the update and now my Sigma 50 autofocus is abysmal. It was working fine before but is now completely useless. And of course there is no way to roll back the firmware update...

[EDIT] I found a copy of the v1.0.7 firmware and was in fact able to roll back to it and the autofocus on the Sigma 50 seems to be fixed. I'll retest v1.0.8 and post later with results of a more definitive test...

441
EOS Bodies / Re: A grateful end to the DSLR video "revolution"
« on: June 16, 2011, 02:03:57 PM »
The "modern" way seems to require tools that are jack-of-all-trades rather than be the best they can be at one thing.

But this isn't the philosophy behind a video capable DSLR. The philosophy is "Since we have liveview for our DSLR still shot cameras, we can add value to our products by simply capturing that liveview output and allow users to video thru their current investment in glass." The whole thing is a byproduct of liveview for stills, which was designed in an effort to improve stills. It just so happens that the byproduct turned out to be very good.

As for me (enthusiast, not pro), I'll be buying both videocams and still cams for the forseeable future because they are still way too different. I'm not giving up the anti-shake of the CX550 nor the stills IQ of a 50d and will only want to improve on both. But I'm very pleased with the idea of being able to do both functions with either device (well at least when I get a 5d3  :) ) so I can choose which function is "primary" for the day without giving up the other entirely or resorting to toting both devices. Bottom line is I'm all for improving the stills on a videocam and the video on a still cam and this doesn't mean I want a "jack of all trades". It only means I find value in the secondary function when it is good quality.

442
Lenses / Re: Canon 135mm on full frame
« on: May 13, 2011, 11:52:15 AM »
I think the technique is still used, but instead of a dial on the lens, people just use photoshop.


It's just gaussian blur right? Are there any real differences in IQ between lens and (good) software?

443
Lenses / Re: EF 50 f/1.4 II & EF 50 f/1.8 III [CR2]
« on: May 13, 2011, 11:34:20 AM »
Concerning price point, I would imagine this new 1.4 will need to be priced according to how much it can tangibly outperform the Sigma. The Sigma is a great lens on a crop body and is doing very well marketwise, and some even like it for full frame. So I'd think Canon will need to demonstrate a reason not to buy the Sigma, which will hopefully means better autofocus (though my Sigma is actually doing well in this regard) and better off center sharpness when used on FF. I think Canon will be successful, otherwise why even do the new version, and imagine that puts it about $599. I'll be shocked if it has IS though I'd be all for it since it shoots like an 80 on a crop body. Of course it'd have a completely different price point in that case.

444
EOS Bodies / Re: We cant rule out any more quakes
« on: May 13, 2011, 11:08:55 AM »
Small correction: the Richter Scale is a logarithmic scale (to the base 10).  Thus, a magnitude 9 quake is 10 times more severe than a magnitude 8, and 100 times more severe than a magnitude 7!

Well I reviewed the stuff I learned 25 years ago and it turns out we're both wrong, though you are more right than I was... First the Richter scale is not used much any more (at least I did remember that much) and certainly wasn't used to calculate the intensity of the mag 9 Japan event because Richter is problematic beyond mag 7. Second, the energy released is about 32x per magnitude digit, so 5 is 32x energy released than 4. But 5 is 100x in terms of the measured amplitude on the seismograph than a 4, meaning the needle moved 100 times further on the paper (or virtual equivalents). FWIW, amplitude is actually measured in 3d these days meaning up/down, east/west, north/south and of course they can all be significantly different for any given event. All of this gets folded into modern 'magnitude' numbers from USGS and similar organizations around the world. Now how all of this translates to "how it feels" I have no idea...does a 5 "feel" 32x or 100x or some other multiplier more than a 4? Interesting question that would probably generate as much debate as "which lens produces the better IQ". All I can say is hopefully it isn't shaking over there when they are doing final adjustments to the 5d3 I end up with! :)

445
Lenses / Re: EF 50 f/1.4 II & EF 50 f/1.8 III [CR2]
« on: May 12, 2011, 08:42:16 PM »
This is very good news if true. Not surprising given the success of the Sigma. I have a very recent copy of the Sigma and it has very little focus shift and hits focus most of the time and is a nice lens. But I would imagine the Canon 1.4 II would hit focus more often plus do much better on full frame. That would make me very interested in this lens since I plan on going full frame when 5d3 hits.

446
EOS Bodies / Re: We cant rule out any more quakes
« on: May 12, 2011, 02:41:59 PM »
The value of a college degree - any degree is that it generally shows that you are able to learn, that you are a hard worker, and that you can research and gather information to solve problems.

Very true. I think I read a stat where only 50% of college grads go on to work in the field of their major. And for me, it opened some lucrative doors over the years that would have been closed without it, so I'd definitely do it again even including the market bust.

447
EOS Bodies / Re: We cant rule out any more quakes
« on: May 12, 2011, 01:07:52 PM »
FWIW Japan sits atop a subduction zone and consequently will always have significant quake activity. Google "subduction zone" or "Pacific ring of fire" if you want to read up about how they work, it's pretty interesting stuff. The following link is a very nice and easy way to review seismic history of Japan since 1900 (be sure to play with the date sliders!) :

http://maptd.com/interactive-map-japans-seismic-history/

An interesting fact about the most recent quake in Japan is that land masses above subduction zones are known to rise and fall significantly in relationship to mean sea level (up to tens of feet) as pressures are built and released in the subduction zone below...and this has in fact occured as is seen in a few reports of previously developed coastal areas now experiencing tidal flooding. So even though the earth's crust is rock, it very much behaves as plastic (in fact geologists use a term "plastic deformation" when describing)

A second interesting fact is that the so called "warning quakes" and "aftershocks" for the mag 9 event both measured over 7 magnitude and didn't make the news as individual quake events while a 5.6 in Spain just made the headlines. Since Japan is atop a subduction zone a mag 7 in Japan is not that uncommon and so they build for it (as does Canon) and therefore the damage isn't much and not newsworthy. That is why we didn't hear anything about the 7.3  two days before (Mar 9).

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqarchives/significant/sig_2011.php

http://www.fnet.bosai.go.jp/waveform/view.php?plot=1day&code=KSN&comp=Z&tm=2011030900&LANG=en

Of course a 9 is a big deal anywhere since the magnitude scale is not linear but exponential, meaning a 7 is twice what a 6 is and 8 twice what a 7 is and so forth. LOL, I knew my geology degree would come in handy one day...I got mine right in time for the big oil bust of the '80's and the joke back then was if you had your PhD it stood for 'Pizza Hut Dude' since no jobs. 

448
Lenses / Re: Macro
« on: May 09, 2011, 12:07:53 PM »
Has somebody tried the combination of:
Canon EF 100mm macro + Kenko 2x (non L lens) ?

FWIW I tried the 100 L with Kenko 1.4x and it was not good IMO. Had a large degree of increasing softness from center to edges and it was much worse on the right. I also noticed on the Kenko documents in the box that it is only recommended for > 100mm and actually designed for longer telephoto.

449
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III & More
« on: May 06, 2011, 12:42:48 PM »
A camera is not a computer. It's primarily an optical device. Increasing processor speed, implementing software multithreading, making a smaller body, adding GPS or 3G capabilities doesn't produce better images.

Actually it is a computer, just not a very good one...leading folks to shoot RAW (fortunately this is an option) and using a good computer and good software to process the data into the nicest image possible. Digic5 should be better though, primarily thru increased processor speed so it can run higher quality code for NR and jpeg operations and still get a good framerate.

450
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III & More
« on: May 03, 2011, 10:03:33 AM »
In body jpg are useless to me...the noise reduction I'm referring to is everything from the sensor, through the signal amps, the AD conversion, and then signal processing(de-Bayer).

+1

Pages: 1 ... 28 29 [30] 31 32 ... 34