September 17, 2014, 01:55:12 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 [4] 5 6 ... 38
46
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 07:02:58 AM »
EDIT: Forgot to add that for some time Nikon is selling better than Canon in Japan. An interesting reversal compared to previously. That Japanese consumers are very prone to switch to have the "newest" and "brightest" electronics has certainly contributed to this.

Not according to BCNRanking for the first half of 2014.

I am also curious about your source of info. Granted BCNRanking does not cover small dealers. So, I am wondering if there is anything better than BCNRanking.

Certainly when it comes to worldwide sales, Canon has been leading the pack for interchangeable cameras in the past few years.

47
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 03:34:58 AM »
Canon knows for sure about its DR limitations, they dont need any proof. If anyway, then, Sonys A7R sales are the proof.

To be fair, I don't think the Sony A7 sales is that great. Certainly not according to BCNRanking and Amazon bestseller lists. Mind you, Sony is selling lots of NEX and A6000 cameras though.

48
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 03:27:29 AM »
... given the patents they've been granted recently, they seem to have technology that would solve the problem (and have had it for years, most of the filing dates were at least a couple years ago)...they just aren't using it.

Can this be related to the new plants Canon set up in Japan and Taiwan? It's possible they have run into production problems.

On a side note, Canon has indicated their plans to automate most of their production process. Some people have taken this as a sign that they will switch to mirrorless cameras once the plants are ready...

49
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 03:23:30 AM »
All this endless debate about dynamic range and camera sensors remind me of a similar situation nearly a decade ago. Back then, Canon CMOS sensors clearly ruled the high ISO arena. Yet, you'll run into countless arguments by Nikon/Olympus/Pentax/Minolta users:

(i) who needs sensors with high ISO performance when there is always the flash, and Canon's flash system is deemed inferior

(ii) Canon images in comparison to those produced by Sony sensors are 'too waxy, buttery and smooth'

(iii) careful NR is all one needs

Ten years later, we are back with our places switched.  ;D

50
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 24, 2014, 10:04:11 PM »
The 7D Mark 2 rumored specs seem interesting (those 65 cross AF points sounds attractive to me).

What I'll like to see:
(a) weight not greater than 70D... Canon execs talk about reduced weight across all imaging products... let's see how real this one is...
(b) improved sensor quality (whether it's at high or low ISO... we are stuck in this same old 18-20 MP APS-C sensor rut for too long now...)
(c) touchscreen... this pairs up very well with DPAF... allows fast selection of AF point... don't care for DPAF if there is no touchscreen... for me...

Doubt my wishes will come true...

51
EOS Bodies / Re: Update on the EOS 7D Mark II Spec List
« on: August 23, 2014, 07:51:53 PM »
Way to go nailing down those specifications!

 ;D  ;D

52
PowerShot / Re: New Large Sensor PowerShot Rumor [CR2]
« on: August 23, 2014, 11:06:52 AM »
If this is true, I wonder how Canon executives find the taste of crow:

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/0336328811/cp-2013-interview-with-canons-masaya-maeda

"...he ruled out the idea of a larger sensor camera along the lines of the Sony RX100 to offer more of an image quality distinction between smartphones and compact cameras. 'I think the market does exist but it wouldn't be very large. We think we have a good balancing point in terms of price, image quality and size. Lots of other combinations are possible, but, once you go below APS-C the next logical size is 1/2.3 inch', he says."

53
...is almost entirely due to the fact that Canon loaned out more equipment than anyone else!   :P

Precisely my first thoughts. :)

54
EOS Bodies / Re: High Megapixel EOS on the Way as Mentioned by Canon
« on: July 23, 2014, 11:41:08 AM »
We were told previously that there would be 3 EOS cameras in 2014, and so far we have seen just one, the white Rebel SL1 (if this counts as a new camera).

I won't count the white SL1 as a new EOS camera. :)

55
Lenses / Re: Photozone Review of the 16-35mm f/4L IS
« on: July 05, 2014, 04:16:08 AM »
I thought I had a good copy of the Tokina 16-28 but Photozone's results show their copy as being significantly superior to both the 17 TS-E and 16-35 IS at the wide end in terms of corner resolution.  This was definitely not my experience.

According to Photozone, @ 16 to 17 mm and f/4, Tokina 16-28, 17 TSE and 16-35 IS all have similar corner sharpness. By f/8, the 16-35 IS lags slightly behind Tokina 16-28 and 17 TSE in corner sharpness.

I do not know if you are looking at the correct numbers.

56
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« on: June 30, 2014, 10:15:13 PM »
Every review/poster of samples has shown similar IQ.
(inferring what you meant) similar IQ... between the two lenses?

Dilbert is refering to your statement 'No Canon UWA zoom has delivered sharp corners... until possibly now.'

57
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon 5 Layer UV, IR, RGB Sensor
« on: June 30, 2014, 02:54:19 AM »
The notion that pixel size affects noise is largely a myth. All pixel size does is make noise finer.

This myth was championed and promulgated by former chief editor of DPReview, Phil Askey.

58
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: 1.03x Magnification APS-C Viewfinder
« on: June 29, 2014, 10:18:19 PM »
Tells us (i) Canon still believes in OVF (so more DSLRs on the horizon...) (ii) Canon has not stopped innovating. :)

....IF a cool new sensor DOES appear and that doesn't make use of anything in the patents so far.

I don't think there was a Canon patent for the original dual pixel AF in 70D although there is one for an improved version:
http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2013-11-11

Other patents for on-sensor phase detect autofocus:
Nikon: http://www.pointsinfocus.com/blog/news/nikon-patents-the-future-of-autofocus/
Olympus: http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2013-09-25
Interestingly, both Nikon and Olympus do not have sensor manufacturing capabilities themselves.

It appears that Canon does not always file patents for technologies they want to protect...

59
EOS Bodies / Re: Comes the next Canon's with a New X-Trans Sensor?
« on: June 26, 2014, 09:53:47 PM »
I've had the same X100S experience, and when I first processed the Fuji files I was pissed that a Canon camera costing three times as much gives me crap files comparatively. The Fuji files are a joy to process; Canon files are drudgery. When I have a choice, the 5D3 sits and the Fuji goes to town.

One sure thing I've learned from the Fuji is that I'll never buy another SLR camera.

Errr... so why maintain the interest in Canon forums now.... their p&s and EOS-M?  ::)

I am curious about Fuji files. Their jpeg stuff is definitely impressive... but what about their RAW files? What software are you using? I understand Adobe software, the staple software for many folks including yours truly, does not process Fuji RAW files well.

60
EOS Bodies / Re: New Sensor Tech in EOS 7D Mark II [CR2]
« on: June 19, 2014, 10:08:39 AM »
I would be happy if this new sensor addresses the shadow noise problem at low ISO settings like 100 & 160.

Crossing my fingers... Not because I need to recover shadow details by 4 stops... Mostly for bragging rights... :D

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 38