November 26, 2014, 10:03:19 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 - LetTheRightLensIn

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 268
1
Probably Sigma 24-105 does not sell as well as expected. They should concentrate on the manufacture of 35 and 50 Art, which seem to disappear from the shelves quickly.

Possibly. At least for the Canon mount it never really made any sense.
It came out right when:

Canon 24-105L were being let go for a fire sale, plus the Canon was lighter, by a lot.

The Canon 24-70 f/4 IS came out and had better IQ and was vastly smaller and lighter and had much better macro too.

Now the Canon 24-105 variable non-L is coming out and it should also be less expensive, better and lighter (if variable aperture).

Heck, if weight and size matter, the Tamron 24-70 VC 2.8 and Canon 24-70 II 2.8 are the same size and weight as the Sigma but offer f/2.8 and much better IQ (although cost more and way more).

Maybe it made some sense for Nikon, but perhaps that was not enough?

2
EOS Bodies / Re: Another 50mp FF DSLR Mention [CR2]
« on: November 25, 2014, 01:47:26 PM »
Thank you for pointing outside of in certain select situations, such as sports and wildlife photography, there's no reason to buy Canon.

Other situations may also include (a) spontaneous photos of active kids (b) macro photos of relatively active insects (e.g. in the summer or tropical countries). Personally, MILC offerings do not offer the solutions I want either because of the response time of EVF or limited macro lens solutions (let me know when you find a MILC macro lens with equivalent f > 150 mm).

So, apart from relatively inactive subjects and landscape photos, I cannot find enough reasons to buy non-Canikon stuff.

haha, and so it goes.

Everyone keeps saying "but what about the Canon camera system." Less than 10% of the marketplace buys into that. Less than 10%.

What about those macro or TS/E lenses?

They're niche products. Regular people taking regular photographs are not likely to be interested. So too are the big, fast, primes/zooms. When it comes to units moved, they're niche products compared to the mass market for DSLR gear.

So for the vast majority of DSLR owners, there is no benefit from the "camera system", be it Canon, Nikon, Samsung or Sony.

What's important is that first camera body and lens and the most likely resultant impact of that is that some number of years later, good/bad experience with that camera and lens may influence further buying decisions.


Well Canon does have the nicest 24-70 2.8, 24-70 f/4 IS and 70-300 too. (perhaps this also goes for the 100-400, although I guess Nikon did come out with some sort of 80-400 relatively recently, don't know much about it though)

3
EOS Bodies / Re: Another 50mp FF DSLR Mention [CR2]
« on: November 25, 2014, 01:43:25 PM »
If the 7D Mark II's sensor is the best demonstration of where Canon's sensor technology is at then I'm not going to wait for a full frame version of that sensor because Canon haven't fixed the read noise problem at low ISO.

Wow, that sucks for all those people using Canon sensors and shooting at low ISO.  How do they ever manage to take a good picture, get images accepted by clients or published in magazines, win prestigious awards, or anything like that?

Hey why don't you jsut sell all your current gear and go get a 1960s camera. People won prestigious awards and got images accepted back then too.

Back then, in the past?  We're talking about today.  Your implication is that current Canon sensors are not capable of delivering publication or award-winning images today.  That implication is totally asinine and only serves to make you look silly.   But thanks for sharing your opinion.

When the heck did I say that? I've actually repeatedly said that you could take a billion images with a current Canon and not have the sensor matter too much at all.

(Of course it is also true that you can easily find scenarios where the Exmor would help considerably. Of course that you always try to minimize and scoff at and you attack and trash anyone who dares suggest that. Some will care about this and some won't. But if it matters to you at all, don't dare mention it near a Canon fanboys (and I sadly have to admit that Canon fanboys are way worse than Sony or Nikon fanboys; case in point on one Nikon thread a lot of D300 users were saying they wished Nikon would come out with this and that that the 72 has and guess what? it was a nice discussion and people were able to mention what they wanted, complain about what Nikon was way behind on and nobody got jumped all over by raving Nikon fanboys who had to insist that Nikon is the ultimate perfection in all.)

4
EOS Bodies / Re: Another 50mp FF DSLR Mention [CR2]
« on: November 24, 2014, 06:43:12 PM »
Odds are they will run their older production lines as soon as they can sell these sensors.
that statement makes no sense.

I admire the skillfull argumentation on your side. Would you care to elaborate further?

If you'd be the Canon CEO, you'd close down every older production line as soon as a new tech is available that cannot be implemented as an in-place upgrade? Well, you're company wouldn't be in business for long :-)

Btw: Is it just me, or are fewer and fewer people actually attempting to have a civilized conversation around here? If it continues this way, I hope Canon won't release anything new for the next years as any new release seems to legitimize rudeness.


Actually you should hope for the opposite, that they release a lot and good stuff soon. Then the forum will become civilized as those who want more DR and more MP and 4k and so on and so forth will have it and those who claimed that none of that stuff matters will be able to crow about how it is all amazing and utterly critical (now that Canon has it/leads) and all the rudeness will go away (at least within the Canon forums, the fanboys will then go troll Nikon forums and the like).

5
EOS Bodies / Re: Another 50mp FF DSLR Mention [CR2]
« on: November 24, 2014, 06:40:37 PM »
That may be, but people that own Canon aren't going to wait another 2 years for a 5D Mark III replacement. Instead, next year they'll be buying Sony's latest thing and selling off Canon.

YAPODFC.  Yawn.


If the 7D Mark II's sensor is the best demonstration of where Canon's sensor technology is at then I'm not going to wait for a full frame version of that sensor because Canon haven't fixed the read noise problem at low ISO.

Wow, that sucks for all those people using Canon sensors and shooting at low ISO.  How do they ever manage to take a good picture, get images accepted by clients or published in magazines, win prestigious awards, or anything like that?

Hey why don't you jsut sell all your current gear and go get a 1960s camera. People won prestigious awards and got images accepted back then too.

Hello and goodbye.

6
EOS Bodies / Re: Another 50mp FF DSLR Mention [CR2]
« on: November 24, 2014, 06:38:15 PM »

you know, a quick google would have told you how silly your post is.  5D was replaced in 3 years, 5dII in 3.5 years...

sept 2015 (next year) would be .. what? 3.5 years.

Silly is thinking 5D4 will be 2015.
The 50MP is just a scaled dual pixel 7D2 sensor.
So 2015 is 1D2 and 50MP.
5D4 is 2016 if all goes well, but it may slip to 2017.
Canon took 5 years to replace the 7D, when it was completely obsolete, even the 70D was better.
5D3 is still the king, so I don't see it being replaced any time soon.

Wow so you really think Canon should wait til 2017 for the 5D4? With D800 out there for years by then and even the D810 getting replaced around then perhaps just about?
And with 4k coming out all over?

7
EOS Bodies / Re: Another 50mp FF DSLR Mention [CR2]
« on: November 24, 2014, 06:36:31 PM »
<p>The world continues to wait for Canon to jump back into the resolution race,


i kind of doubt the world is :p

it's possible - the 7DII sensor scaled up would be 51.2Mp - close enough to 50Mp to call it spades.

the noise and response on a per pixel basis would be at the same as the 7DII with the obvious increase of image quality.

the 7DII going by sensorgen is a quantum leap up for canon - and well, is pretty top notch overall for QE.  they still need to tame the low ISO beast so that people stop whining.

the 18Mp sensors were rolling around 40% QE, the latest with the 7DII - an impressive 59%.

The new sensorgen data was not correctly calculated, it's all random, I mean some old Nikon DSLR have better than 100%  ;D ::) so most doubt the 59% for the 7D2.

8
EOS Bodies / Re: Another 50mp FF DSLR Mention [CR2]
« on: November 24, 2014, 06:35:12 PM »
The 5D MK IV will have high 20s MP (maybe around 28 MP) , 5 FPS, Low Light close to the 1 DX MK II and AF around what the 7d MK II is


D810 already does 36MP at 5fps and 6fps at 25MP and 7fps at 14MP and it'll will already have been out for a while so why the 5D4 dropping slower than the 5D3? just to get like 4-5 more MP after all these years?

9
EOS Bodies / Re: Another 50mp FF DSLR Mention [CR2]
« on: November 24, 2014, 06:31:03 PM »
what about sensor quality

Indeed. Personally I'd be more excited by a 24MP high DR sensor than the same old, same old 50MP sensor.

10
Canon General / Re: Does Canon really deserve this?
« on: November 22, 2014, 06:20:14 PM »
And whatever is happening in their firmware people are complaining that their 1080p output is not as sharp as that from other cameras. (And this is a firmware issue because with 18-22 MP to work from there should be no issue producing sharp 1080p. I'll note their JPEG engine might be great in terms of color, but similarly sucks in terms of sharpness/fine detail vs. their RAWs in ACR.)

Yeah I wonder what is going on. Is it using really bad parameters and something that could be a firmware fix or does the DIGIC chip just utterly stink at de-Bayer and image processing in general (I do note the Cxx line didn't use the latest DSLR DIGIC chips but they stuck some much older Canon DV chips inside instead....)? Or is marketing literally having them apply a Gaussian blur or something right before sending to the compression codec?

They also refuse to put even the most basic video usability aids like zebra, focus peaking, zoomed focusing boxes and insist those are 'extremely high-end features'  ::). And even on a wildlife cam like the 7D2 they fail to put in a zoomed video mode  ::).

Magic Lantern fixes all of that (although the IQ only when shooting RAW video which avoids both most of what DIGIC does and whatever most of the firmware settings apply to the RAW video output). But Canon simply refuses. Reminds of the way they took more than a decade to finally dribble out fully functional AutoISO, such a minor 10 cent feature, and yet they treated it like their precious, such an utterly silly marketing game that probably didn't make more than 10 people total over the last decade upgrade to something higher-end and yet probably left a bad impression in thousands and tens of thousands of customers and all those dinky little moves maybe look good in the short run, but in the long run they make the userbase become less and less loyal and quicker to get get upset and go nuts over every little thing. Seems like a foolish way to do business, but I guess that is just me. I mean just look at how nuts people went over the silly minor impossible ad campaign in the USA. Half a decade ago it might have gone down fine or at least neutral, now people went nuts in anger. I said years ago Canon was heading this way, nobody believed me, but you could see the writing on the wall as to their userbase eventually becoming jumpy and easily agitated.


11
Canon General / Re: Does Canon really deserve this?
« on: November 22, 2014, 06:17:03 PM »
In regard to mirrorless? Yes.
Canon deserves flak. The M had potential but Canon blew the launch and then failed to follow up. Sickening considering how good and economical their initial lenses were, and how good the M actually was once the AF was fixed.

In regard to sensors? No.
Fantasy: Canon stands still while Sony delivers us wonderful, ever increasing DR, resolution, and high ISO. Now Canon is best used for Facebook.

Reality: Sony had the jump on base ISO DR when they moved ADCs on chip. That difference hasn't changed, if anything it has shrunk as Canon has gotten banding under control. But this is the one respect in which Canon is truly, actually behind.

Canon has improved high ISO over time...even in the 18 MP line...and the 7D2 is the best crop right now at high ISO. Despite its age the 5D3 holds its own against the A7/A7R and D750/D810 at high ISO.

You will never see differences in print between 18 vs 20 vs 22 vs 24 MP, and to see the differences 22 vs. 36 MP your technique better be perfect and your prints 36" or larger. All of the sensors over the past few years have had nearly identical output, but if you bump the MP count the average consumer thinks "shiny new sensor" and "ohhh...if i get this camera my pictures will have 24 MP and that has to be better then 20 MP because 24 > 20, right?"  ::)

Speak for yourself. I don't care a whit about mirrorless and yet the ways they are behind in sensors does matter to me. And 36MP vs 22MP difference can be seen in prints and even much more when shooting wildlife and you are distance limited (7D vs 5D3 the difference is clear for wildlife).

12
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Is IQ better with smaller files?
« on: November 18, 2014, 06:48:24 PM »
I mean, I have printed like 40 files of size 8x10 and nothing bigger. So if I can get cleaner images that will print at that size amazing ... Awesome.. 

here you go way off track though. Shooting at a tiny size and then printing does not get you a better image than shooting at a large size and then printing (well I mean it depends, if you really hate noise and don't mind less detail and don't want to bother with more advanced do it yourself NR and targeting to the output size, etc. in a quick and dirty way maybe you might say it gives a better print, but not for most and don't forget that whatever noise you do have left will be all at a larger 'grain' size which tends to bother the eye more, sometimes some little bitty noise on top of that can actually look better as you print to the same size....).

And at 8x10" you'd be giving away, with a shot taken with decent technique in a reasonable scenario where you were able to get details reasonably close to the max that the sensor can handle, details by doing this and not gaining much.

As I said if noise really bothers you more than loss of some details, then you can use advanced NR software and end up with less noise and more detail than simply shooting small image sizes. If you crank NR way up the noise goes down but so does the detail. Lots of NR algorithms can tend to head towards a waxy, plasticky look if dialed up much, so it's easy to end up with a result weirder than shooting small if you just use the NR tool in an unpracticed way. OTOH it can also allow you to retain a smaller 'grained' look which tends to look better to the eye even if noise were even to be left higher.


13
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Is IQ better with smaller files?
« on: November 18, 2014, 06:32:03 PM »
I read a comment or a post recently which inferred that a 7D II file shot as a jpg at one of the smaller sizes was inherently cleaner than a larger file at similar settings (ISO etc).

Is there any truth to that statement?  If this is crazy talk just say so.

  I bring this up because I own a 7D and if someone can tell me that a Medium Jpg is 10x cleaner than a Large or Raw ... I'm locking those settings in today.  Moreover, is that the case with all cameras?  Is this phenomenon a jpg exclusive or is it the same with Raw?  I mean, I have printed like 40 files of size 8x10 and nothing bigger. So if I can get cleaner images that will print at that size amazing ... Awesome.. 

Why isn't this 'feature' advertised?

It does filter away a lot of the high-frequency noise and average noise away. Of course you trade off spatial resolution for that so you also get less detail and detail signal so there is no free lunch of course (unless the original image was so blurred it didn't have any actual detail signal at those higher frequencies anyway).

(Of course if you shoot it at larger dimensions and then use fancy software out of camera you can use advanced NR which could do a better job than this simple quick and dirty squish down and it might also preserve a bit more detail with a bit less aliasing so you could do better shooting max RAW in camera and then scaling down later. Of course there isn't a reason to scale down per se other than to fit an output if the output is lower res or you need to transmit files taking up less space or don't want to share the full resolution.)

14
Lenses / Re: Two New 24-70's Coming in 2014? [CR1]
« on: November 16, 2014, 09:46:07 PM »
Too bad this rumor didn't pan out this year.  We saw another patent for an EF 24-70 f/2.8 IS USM in April of this year, but no additional hints as to whether Canon plans to expand its 24-70 offerings any time soon.

The first part of the rumor came true, an IS, variable aperture, STM, non-L 24-105 arrived or is about to.
But yeah not the second part.

15
EOS Bodies / Re: what is the body you want to see canon release next ?
« on: November 15, 2014, 03:26:25 PM »
the D810 in Canon mount (with 4k video 10bit and 4:2:2 10bit 1080p) and since it will probably take another 5+ years better up the specs over the D810 too for stills

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 268