November 22, 2014, 04:16:05 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 - Woody

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 44
1
EOS Bodies / Re: A Real EOS M Replacement Coming Soon? [CR1]
« on: November 19, 2014, 10:09:50 PM »
Seriously, the new M is going to be a mirrorless beater because it will have some movie AF tweets?

In my books, even the old EOS-M beats out other competing MILCs because of
(a) price (b) 22 f/2 lens (c) wireless remote control (without resorting to the battery draining WiFi feature) (d) the flexibility to mount EOS lenses without significant loss in AF capability.

As for AF, unless MILCs can beat DSLRs in overall AF response (in terms of AF servo and as well as EVF related lag), they will always play a secondary role in my bag. For serious stuff, I can only rely on my DSLR. As such, it does not matter to me whether the AF in EOS-M can ever match that of other equivalent MILC products.

I owned and used an OME EM5 for a year before I sold all my m43 stuff.

2
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon EF-S 11-24mm f/3.5-4.5
« on: November 18, 2014, 09:23:47 PM »
kind of moronic because there's already an exceptional 11-22mm EF-M out there.

Ya... was wondering about that too.

Canon is now giving users multiple choices for ultrawide zooms:
EF - 16-35 f/2.8L USM II vs 16-35 f/4L IS USM vs 17-40 f/4L USM
EF-S - 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 USM vs 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM
EF-M - 11-22 f/4-5.6 IS STM vs maybe 11-24 f/3.5-4.5?

Apart from 16-35 f/2.8L and 17-40 f/4L whose performances are somewhat controversial, all the other ultrawide lenses have top notch optical quality. Perhaps, they are trying to prove they are just as good in the ultrawide world as their telephoto stuff.  :P

3
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon EF-S 11-24mm f/3.5-4.5
« on: November 18, 2014, 11:03:42 AM »
Also the back focus of just 3.26mm means its not even EF-S, as that has a 44.0mm flange distance and a mirror box to clear.

This appears to be an EF-M lens.

Exactly my prediction. :)

4
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon EF-S 11-24mm f/3.5-4.5
« on: November 18, 2014, 06:11:20 AM »
Canon must be crazy to have so many iterations of their EF-S ultrawide lenses.

It may make sense if this is an EF-M lens.

Still, as rightly pointed out by others, I'll rather adapt an EF-S 10-22 or 10-18 to the EOS-M due to the extra 2 mm at the wide end.

5
EOS Bodies / Re: A Real EOS M Replacement Coming Soon? [CR1]
« on: November 18, 2014, 12:05:24 AM »
Actually, if Canon is losing customers to the mirrorless camp, Nikon is in a worse situation. :P

For a start, Canon chose their sensor size right. As many folks have already indicated, myself included, all Canon needs to do is introduce an EOS-M2 update with DPAF and they are nearly there. Throw in features like EVF, Wifi, articulate screen, more lenses etc and they are almost ready to duke it out against the A6000/EM1/XT1.

Nikon, on the other hand, probably needs to throw out their over-priced small sensor 1 series cameras, lenses and accessories, and return to the drawing board.

6
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: New Sigma Lenses Coming Q1 of 2015 [CR1]
« on: November 17, 2014, 09:52:56 PM »
I am curious about the 14-24 f/4 lens. If it does not have a bulbous front element and has decent optical performance, I'm all for it.

7
EOS Bodies / Re: A Real EOS M Replacement Coming Soon? [CR1]
« on: November 17, 2014, 08:36:23 AM »
Darn, I just paid US$320 for an EOS-M 22 f/2 kit.  :P

Realistically speaking, that would probably mean the 70D sensor, a mediocre AF system, no VF and some little handling changes... :/ come on, Canon, prove me wrong! :D

Actually, if it has the 70D sensor, DPAF should be fast enough. Will like to see some kind of VF and definitely a wired remote connection.

8
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Samsung NX1 First Shots
« on: November 13, 2014, 12:48:02 PM »
Here are some crops of images downloaded from Imaging Resource.  We all see things a little differently, I looked at the dark red fabric to see detail.

I will wait for RAW files.

9
Reviews / Re: G7X Review by Dpreview
« on: November 13, 2014, 07:24:18 AM »
I just bought the cheapest point-and-shoot camera with the best image quality: EOS-M with 22 f/2 lens. Loving it! ;D

10
Lenses / Re: Did Canon Leak the EF 11-24mm f/4L?
« on: November 11, 2014, 12:09:06 PM »
Why is Canon making a 11-24 f/4 lens? What segment, issue, reason, gap would make this light up to Canon's marketers as an opportunity to them?

Landscape photographers like Marc Adamus love ultrawide lenses.

They don't necessarily care about the use of filters.

Canon is currently marketing their telephoto lenses and 7D2 to wildlife and sports photographers.

Next up should be the landscape folks. I expect 11-24 lens to be released together with a high pixel count monster to appeal to folks like Marc Adamus.

11
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7D Mark II - Finally using Canon's newer fab?
« on: November 10, 2014, 11:37:47 AM »
Regarding Sensorgen.info data, he regenerated it all recently. After the site went down, a lot more data was brought over. I think there is a bug in whatever code brings the data over, because some sensors have wild read noise values and several hundred percent Q.E. I don't believe any of those numbers are valid...I think they are flukes generated by a buggy algorithm.

If so, how then can we trust their QE value of 59% for 7D2? Or for that matter, any sensor listed on that site?

12
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7D Mark II - Finally using Canon's newer fab?
« on: November 10, 2014, 11:23:35 AM »
Higher Q.E. means more photons are collected in a given time span.

Not quite. QE is the number of electrons created per incident photon. If QE > 100%, then more than 1 electron is created per photon.

This begs the question: if the D3 has QE of 90%, then why doesn't Sony/Nikon maintain that number for later models (e.g., D4, D800, D610 etc etc)?

13
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7D Mark II - Finally using Canon's newer fab?
« on: November 10, 2014, 02:41:08 AM »
I don't think sensor QE tells us much. Consider the following Nikon camera models:

Camera    QE
D3   90%
D3X   42%
D3s   57%
D4   52%
D4s   52%
D610   51%
D800   56%
D810   47%

14
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7Dii vs Nikon D750 Dynamic Range Test
« on: November 10, 2014, 02:39:02 AM »
From Thom Hogan, a Nikon supporter for decades...

http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/do-you-believe-in-dxomark.html

"...The DxOMark Overall Score is one of those faux statistics that attempt to put a lot of test data together with a lot of assumptions and come up with a single representative numeric value....

I’ve written before how the digital camera world has basically followed the old high fidelity world in terms of numbers-oriented marketing and testing. Back in the 70’s and 80’s people got crazy about frequency or power ratings for high fi gear. Yet in the long run, people who listened to the products found that slavish devotion to buying better numbers didn’t actually get them “better sound.” ...

It’s interesting to note that DxO seems to be playing a lot of angles. First, they are presenting themselves as impartial, numeric oriented testers (e.g. the scores). Second, they are presenting themselves as reviewers (e.g. "If Canon could only address performance at base and low ISO, the EOS 7D Mk II would make a thoroughly convincing all-round choice, but in this category the Sony A77 II looks to be the more compelling option."). Third, they sell their test equipment and software test suites to camera companies (Nikon, for instance, but I don’t believe Canon is one of their clients). Fourth, they present themselves as the best demosaic option, better than the camera makers’ options (e.g., DxO Optics Pro). They have some clear conflicts of interests that are not easily resolved. So be careful of just gobbling up their “results” as absolutes...

Even though those DxO-reported numbers aren’t what I’d expect in my images, they do tell me something: I might be able to dig more shadow detail out of the D7100 image than the 7DII image at base ISO, all else equal. That’s actually no surprise. This has been true of the Sony versus Canon sensor difference for quite some time now. If you’re a big fan of cranking the Lightroom Shadow slider to max, you’re going to be doing more noise correction on a Canon than a Nikon. Nothing’s changed here. However I’d point out that neither camera is likely to be able to hold extreme landscape situations in a single exposure: I’d still be bracketing and applying HDR type techniques to construct images in such cases. Thus, whatever the actual numeric difference in dynamic range between the 7DII and D7100 is at base ISO, it really wouldn’t make much of a difference to my workflow. I might adjust my bracket sets on the Canon to be a bit different than the Nikon to account for the difference in how they handle shadows, but that’s it. Bottom line, I’d get the same image."

15
EOS Bodies / Re: Focus problems with the Canon 7DII?
« on: November 10, 2014, 02:16:22 AM »
it's giving me sweats (and nightmares of my old 7DI, which was a victim of the melted-hay syndrome, even after 4 replacements from Canon Irvine).

I'm not seeing the classic melted hay 7D look on my 70D as much. My hope is the 7D2 will be the same.

I don't think the 70D is that much better than 7D. That is why I sold both 7D and 70D.

Hopefully, the 7D2 complaint is a one-off thing. We'll see.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 44