August 01, 2014, 12:59:26 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 - unfocused

Pages: 1 ... 96 97 [98] 99 100 ... 129
EOS Bodies / Re: 7D Mk2 ..... APS-H
« on: January 26, 2012, 02:15:16 PM »
i only wonder why they put so much effort in R&D of an 120 MP APS-H sensor?
why did they spend the R&D resources on APS-H and not FF or APS-C?

Perhaps because while there are other FF and APS-C sensors, Canon was the only one using APS-H - therefore, Canon's claim to having the only 120 MP APS-H sensor will likely stand unchallenged.

One explanation that always seemed logical to me was law enforcement and security cameras. High resolution combined with low-light sensitivity would greatly improve the success rate when the cameras snap a shot of your license plate as you roll through a stop light. APS-H might be the perfect tool for these cameras.


Before people go too crazy though, they might want to read the blog post cited in the story:

This is one judge, in one case.

Note too, that apparently the second photographer was quite candid about having copied the first work. Remember, that at their heart, copyright infringement cases are about the value of an image. In this case, the original image had an established track record of being of commercial value. Bottom line to me: it's probably always a bad idea to copy someone else's idea and try to profit from it.

On the other hand, you can copy Walker Evans' and call it art:

I did enjoy this line in the barrister's blog regarding another case: The judge dismissed that argument on the ground that it is the person who takes the photo (that is to say, presses the shutter button) who can ordinarily claim to be the author of the work.

Seems we had a whole thread discussing this issue and who knew a court had already made a ruling. :)

EOS Bodies / Re: 7D Mk2 ..... APS-H
« on: January 26, 2012, 11:12:01 AM »
canon said it will not abandon the APS-H sensor format.

I'd like to see that statement. All I am aware of are some vague statements about keeping their options open and similar non-denial denials.

Here's the thing: Canon only made one model with APS-H. Canon never spent a penny on designing a single lens for APS-H. No other manufacturer offers APS-H.

The one thing Canon was very clear about was that the 1Dx would replace both the 1D and 1Ds. The 1D was their newest high-end body at the time and they had no reason to announce it's demise if they had any thought of retaining the format. But they made a conscious choice to declare the 1Dx as the replacement for both bodies.

APS-H is the Betamax of sensors. The technology may be superior, but the market didn't support it.

I think Canon was only too glad to come up with an excuse to abandon it. And, of course, they aren't going to alienate APS-H fans by an outright declaration that it's dead and they probably are truly keeping their options open. I would put the chances of a new APS-H camera just slightly greater than the chance of finding Bigfoot riding a unicorn.

Whoa! Am I doing this calculation right: $90,000 yen = $1,153?

Sigma typically lists outrageously inflated MSRP, but I didn't think Tokina did. Or maybe things are just more expensive in Japan?

Anyway, it says the new lens won't be out in a Canon mount until July. Can you wait that long?

Test reports have identified chromatic aberration as an issue with the 11-16 so it would be nice if they could reduce that. Although I have to say I've never noticed an unusual amount in real life. I am very, very fond of my 11-16 and have never found its supposed flaws to be a problem. Some people complain about distortion, but it seems to me that if your shooting an ultrawide, you ought to expect some distortion and, in fact, that's half the fun.

I'd probably see what the real street price is going to be and decide then, but it doesn't sound to me like the improvements are that significant.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: RAW and ISO
« on: January 25, 2012, 11:06:10 PM »
Thanks all. Now we'll see if the student got the lesson.

My takeaways:
  • Traditional black and white film ISOs like 100, 200, 400 are what the sensors are designed for;
  • Those in-betweeny ISOs are compromises;
  • If you're a perfectionist, some of those compromises can actually yield a little less noise is you select an ISO that "pulls" the sensor (slight overexposure to capture a bit more data, but not too much);
  • Your actual mileage may vary;
  • For most normal ISOs, this isn't going to matter a heck of a lot, although shooting at ISO 100 may be a reasonable goal to keep in mind if you have that option;
  • It's at the margins (high ISO, low light) that things get critical.
  • Don't try to outsmart yourself (or Canon) by getting too creative playing with the exposure in the camera and then pushing or pulling in RAW.
  • Get the exposure as close as possible in the first place and then tweak in RAW
  • By the time it gets into print, nobody's going to be able to tell anyway

Did I pass?

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: RAW and ISO
« on: January 25, 2012, 05:52:03 PM »
Okay, so what you are saying is that when shooting RAW it is better to set a lower ISO and underexpose by as much as two stops, than to set an ISO above 100 and expose for that ISO. (Obviously, you don't want to set ISO 100 and then expose at 1,600)

But, I believe I have read that with digital files, it is better to expose for the shadows (overexpose) slightly, to capture more data. Do you disagree with that?

And, I guess, a more basic question. What exactly are we doing when we change ISO on a digital camera? Are we making the sensor more sensitive to light (I doubt that) or are we instead, programming in some sort of compensation through the camera's software? (Again, shooting in RAW, I couldn't care less about shooting JPEGs).

Finally, should I even give a rat's behind? Am I better off just relaxing and shooting at my preferred ISO (400) and not thinking too much about it.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / RAW and ISO
« on: January 25, 2012, 04:09:24 PM »
Aargh! Somewhere buried in the posts of the last week or so (I think) was a discussion of RAW files, native ISO, how digital cameras read the data, etc. etc.

Now I can't find it. But, at any rate, it was way more technical than I could follow. I'm wondering if some of the more technically-minded participants might be able to give us non-techies a simplified explanation of what they were talking about and why it matters (if it does indeed matter).

When I go out to take pictures and set my 7D to ISO 400 (hey! I shot Tri-X most of my life) and shoot RAW am I really setting the ISO to 400 or am I making some compromise that I am not aware of. And, should I care?

How much life does the 7D have left in it?

If it is taking good pictures today, why won't it be taking good pictures next year or the year after, etc. etc.? I had my F-1 for about 35 years. Today we are programmed to think that we have to have the newest models. I'm as bad as anyone about that, but the honest truth is any digital SLR today is going to be just fine until it dies. A new model with new bells and whistles isn't going to suddenly mean your old one stops working. It might make you want the new model (it probably will make me want it) but that's what marketing is all about.

Quote it really all that likely that a 7D II will hit the streets within the next year?

If the 5DIII is announced in the next several months, I think you'll see a 7D II sometime around the Photokina show in September. I don't think Canon would want to go to that show without a new camera to brag about. But that's just my opinion.

The EF-S f2.8 is one of the two best general purpose EF-S (crop frame) lenses available. The 15-85mm being the other.

It comes down to a choice between speed of the lens and range of the zoom (and price). My guess is that for the product photography you are describing, either would work. The f2.8 will give you a little more control over depth of field; the 15-85mm will give you more flexibility at the long end to foreshorten the products, which can be a more appealing look, especially on smaller products.

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III (or other) Followup
« on: January 24, 2012, 11:55:42 AM »
There does not seem to be a lot of info trickling down to Craig on the ISO performance of this new camera.  Could this mean the 5DmkII replacement will get a pro-grade AF, maybe a slightly newer sensor, surely some improved video stuff but could retain the existing ISO performance, such that the 1DX is the ISO champion for Canon as well as the speed demon!

Anyone with thoughts on this one?

Pretty much my thoughts exactly. The only thing Canon has to "fix" on the 5DII is the autofocus. They could probably even get away with recycling the current sensor (not saying they will, just that they could). I also agree that they will add some video improvements (I think Canon was shocked by how popular the 5DII became for low-budget video and they want to keep that market satisfied. It may amount to a small percentage of their buyers now, but the growth pattern is far healthier than the DSLR still market.)

I posted on another thread, but will ask the question here as well: if the autofocus is the only major upgrade, is that enough for people to buy the 5DIII?

EOS Bodies / Re: *UPDATE* 5D Mark III Sighting?
« on: January 24, 2012, 10:26:59 AM »
With four threads all covering the same topic, it's hard to know where to post anything. But, I am curious about peoples' reaction to this thought.

If the 5D MkIII offers a "pro-style" autofocus, but if the sensor is essentially unchanged (no significant increase in Resolution, ISO speed, noise or dynamic range) will people buy it? Maybe throw in some bells and whistles, which this body seems to have.

That would be one way to differentiate between the 1DX and address the major concern/problem with the 5D II. Canon could easily do that and retain the same price-point as the current 5D.


EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 5D X Speculation
« on: January 23, 2012, 11:24:45 PM »
I'm a little hesitant to jump in on a conversation that seems to me to be going in some pretty wild directions. But I just can't help myself.

I'm going to predict that this is the 5D Mk III. Why?

Here is what Stephen Oachs said:

I'm currently on a shoot in Kenya, Africa, and I ran into a Japanese man sporting some gear I didn't recognize. While his English was very limited, I was able to confirm that he works for Canon and is doing in-field testing with the new Canon 200-400mm with built-in teleconverter. He also was testing the new Canon 600mm.

My thought: I don't believe Canon would send a photographer out to do field testing in a public location using a body that is not close to being released. The absence of the on-camera flash probably rules out the 7DII. The grip is clearly an add-on. So, my money is on the new 5D III.

As far as this being some sort of conscious effort on Canon's part to "leak" something, I'm doubting it. I'll leave that to the conspiracy theorists. But, I suspect that the Canon employee was instructed to tell anyone who noticed that he was field testing the lenses. No trade secret there. The 200-400 was announced a year ago. I'm guessing that if he were asked about the camera, he'd simply pretend not to understand or give some other, non-committal answer.

Not nearly as fun as speculating about some grand, secret strategy. But, when simple, obvious answers are available, it's usually best to go with them.

MPix has a partnership with Zenfolio that allows you to sell images directly.

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III Sighting?
« on: January 23, 2012, 04:41:25 PM »
I'm just curious as to how many people here actually bothered reading the article this post materialized from?   The photographer clearly states that he (Stephen Oachs) was on a shoot in Africa when he ran across the other photographer also doing the same.  That photographer identified himself as a Canon employee (Stephen is not) who was field testing two new lenses.  According to said employee, the 200-400 will be release in March or April.

The camera was not discussed and Stephen didn't notice the irregularities until later.  Seriously guys, before you go down the rabbit hole, at least read the original post if for no other reason than there are more photos of the new gear.

What? You think facts might actually be more important than wild speculation.

Of course this means the 5DIII is right around the corner, after all, the photographer was field testing a lens that was announced...let's see...just under one year ago with a promised delivery date in 2011 and still hasn't been released.

This may be one reason why Canon and other manufacturers seem to be placing more and more emphasis on high ISO instead of fast lenses.

Having grown up on prime lenses (and film) I'm always a little amused that today we think of f2.8 as a "fast" lens. But, it seems manufacturers have determined that they will compromise on lens speed and put more emphasis on ISO. I'm sure it comes down to cost/benefit analysis.

As the long lenses you mention demonstrate, the marginal cost of adding an extra stop of speed is far greater than the marginal cost of adding added ISO sensitivity to a sensor.

But, I do wonder if it's always the best choice. The new G1-X is a good example. If you read the interviews and literature, it's clear that Canon is arguing that the bigger sensor and improved ISO compensates for the slower lens. But, isn't the opposite true as well. Does the faster lens of the Fuji X-10 for example compensate for the smaller sensor? I suppose the only way to know will be when both models are available and we can see side by side comparisons.

Speaking of sensors, there is also another factor at play here that has an even greater impact and that is the crop factor.

For your 5D, you can get a 300 mm f2.8 for $7,300. But, with a 7D you can get an effective 320mm from the 70-200mm f2.8 zoom for $2,100. The 300mm f4 is still a cheaper option for the 5D, but again, on the 7D that's effectively almost a 500 mm f4 (actually 480mm), which is a $6,800 lens.

Two points really.

1) Right now, it comes down to what your needs and wants are. Some will prefer having the higher ISO options of a full frame should they need it. Others prefer the longer reach of the APS-C sensor. And, then there are those that need the speed of the fastest available primes, plus either the reach of the crop sensor or the high ISO sensitivity of the newest full frame sensors. And, as others have pointed out, there are also aesthetic considerations in both the speed of the lens and the size of the sensor.

2) This is one more example of the convergence that I think camera manufacturers are struggling with. As technology improves, the differences between camera bodies and lenses are getting smaller and more nuanced. As you point out, it gets harder and harder to justify spending thousands of dollars for relatively small improvements in technology.

Good news for "average" enthusiasts and even professionals. We are the winners in this because it gives us more choices.

Not so sure about the true specialists. Canon threw the 1.3 crop shooters under the bus. Probably because they determined they just weren't a large enough market and improvements in APS-C and Full Frame sensors were squeezing that market at both ends. I wonder if the same might happen at some point with the big white lenses. Can Canon and Nikon keep making $10,000-plus lenses and keep finding a market for them?

Pages: 1 ... 96 97 [98] 99 100 ... 129