February 28, 2015, 12:26:46 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 - LetTheRightLensIn

Pages: 1 ... 126 127 [128] 129 130 ... 283
Canon General / Re: Where's the competition for the 24-105?
« on: August 20, 2013, 03:34:23 PM »
Theres no announcement for an update and even if there was an announcement it would still take over 1 year for the newer version to be released. So nothing to worry. Lenses dont lose their value fast anyway. Some never :)

The 24-105 lost its value fast though recently. It went from $850-1300 to $500-700 pretty quickly a while back. Of course that was a long time from introduction.

That said, I think it has had it's big price drop at this point and it probably doesn't have much room to go below the $500 kit add on, $650 split kit new pricing it is at now.

And the Canon replacement for it is already out, the 24-70 f/4 IS.

You can get the much better 24-70 f/4 IS for the old 24-105 price now and the Tamron for the very high side of the old price of the 24-105 if you want better performance (24-105 was always among the least impressive of the L class lenses optically, although very convenient with wide range, fast AF and IS, but optically it was fairly weak on FF especially at the ends) or the 24-70 II for well more than the 24-105 ever cost even at intro.

Canon General / Re: Where's the competition for the 24-105?
« on: August 20, 2013, 03:11:16 PM »
   IMHO, 24-105 F4L will not be updated if it's still a kit lens. I think when the 24-70 F4L fully replace 24-105 F4L as the new kit lens, then 24-105 F4L will be updated.

   Have a nice day.

I'm pretty sure the 24-70 f/4 IS IS the update.

Lenses / Re: Can 24-70/2.8 II replace 35/1.4?
« on: August 18, 2013, 03:25:35 PM »
I would say that is one of the few primes it wouldn't replace since 35mm is where you might frequently make use of f/1.4.

"Canon and Nikon released the 1D X and D4 FF DSLRs, respectively, both of which sacrificed fill factor to add transistors serving as floating diffusion (FD) node switches. These switches add the flexibility to perform charge-domain binning for video modes."

I'm not trying to restart the flameware against video in our cameras, but I do want to say that I am very disappointed that two flagship stills cameras are sacrificing stills performance for video.


I doubt it makes much practical difference with the relatively large 1DX photosites though and the video feature is pretty awesome.

What was interesting was that so and so and so and so and so and so were doing this innovation and that trick and every body under the sun was mentioned.... other than Canon.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon's Stock Hit Hard
« on: August 14, 2013, 11:46:47 PM »
Its a reflection of the tough financial climate and higher prices.  When the average buyer goes to Best Buy for a camera and sees a Canon DSLR like the 60D for much less money than a D7100, guess which they will buy?  They are not looking so much at the capabilities as the price.  That 60D is nice, looks professional, and its cheaper.
Canon's roots stem from producing good but not the best cameras for low prices.  They spend a huge amount of development cost designing a camera / lens to be mass produced at a low target cost.  Even when they are forced to slash prices, there is a little profit.  Their new plan calls for robotic assembly of all their products.  Its hard for me to see how that could be done, but its going to happen in steps over the next several years.
That is bad news for the competition if it works.

Which is bad news for us since they will be able to get away with 2005 sensors in 2025 and marketing dribbling out things over 20 years (so far it's been more than 10 years and they still haven't finished dribbling out something as simple, basic, and zero cost as a truly functional AutoISO, certainly not for anything less than 1 series).

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: 7D2 video
« on: August 13, 2013, 05:51:32 PM »
If the 7D sensor has an impossibly large pixel pitch and base ISO of 320 then the source may well be correct.

I think it's boll@cks though

The total surface area is about the same though and that is what really matters the most.

Canon General / Re: More Medium Format Talk [CR1]
« on: August 13, 2013, 05:50:19 PM »
Interesting. One known source says 100% no way and the other known source says 100% yes in a big way.  ;D

Lenses / Re: Need Help with a 24-70 lens
« on: August 13, 2013, 01:12:16 AM »
I'm thinking of selling my Canon 24-105 f/4 with IS lens.  The two lenses I'm thinking of replacing it with are the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 Mark I or the Tamron f/2.8 24-70 with VC. Has anyone used and/or compared both of these lenses?  I would like to hear of your experience if you have as well as your thoughts, inputs and recommendations. I would use this lens as my walk around lens, indoor functions, sunrises and sunsets on beach and video. As much as I'd like to have the Canon 24-70 MK II, it's a bit out of my budget.  For portraits I'm truly enjoying my 85mm f/1.8.

Tamron VC if you need f/2.8 and can't afford the 2.8 II.

EOS Bodies - For Video / 7D2 video
« on: August 10, 2013, 03:07:22 PM »
Now this may well be made up whatever, but at NL, in the post about the 7D2 they added: "I asked about the video and was told that the new sensor can easily best the C100/500, but won't be allowed to."

Great. Way to snap defeat from jaws of victory.

I wonder if they will reduce liveview quality too on the upcoming cameras to prevent ML workarounds like on the 5D3 which get to the liveview buffer before the pipeline applies MAJOR Gaussian Blur in stage 2  ;D?

Of course who knows with these 'sources' many could be some random guy in the street. Perhaps speculating based upon 5D3 ML RAW quality vs. uncompressed HMDI out quality and then imagining what Canon marketing might do to future models, maybe trying to shame Canon away from potentially doing such things? Or maybe it really is true, it actually sounds an awful lot like what Canon marketing has sadly become over the last 7 years.

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Basic Specs [CR2]
« on: August 10, 2013, 03:04:45 PM »
Of course this entire source could be some random whatever. But "I asked about the video and was told that the new sensor can easily best the C100/500, but won't be allowed to."  Nice. As soon as they realize they have something big they go an squander it. Maybe in the 5D3 video pipeline they actually DO apply a Gaussian blur at some stage. How else to explain why the RAW liveview feed is 10x crisper than even clean HDMI uncompressed out?

EOS Bodies / Re: 70D what do you think?
« on: August 10, 2013, 03:38:36 AM »
The noise has never bothered me in these things it has always been the banding.

I'd have kept my 5d2 and 7d if it were not for the plaid/stripes.
FWIW, the 5d2 felt pretty crude in some ways anyway so I certainly don't miss it as much as the 7d.

I'm also interested in seeing whether the outer area of the 70d sensor that is NOT dual-sensel equipped will provide a slightly different noise pattern than the main area.
I can sometimes make out the crop area of my d800's sensor IF I do things just right and push it really hard from a dark frame shot; and that's not as much of a structural difference as dual vs single sensels.

I'll do a lens cap shot as soon as I can get my hands on a 70d.  I'd like to see how much better it may be than my 60d in terms of FPN.
A lens cap shot would be good to see.  I think that is the best way to see what is really lurking down there.

They must be doing something different in this sensor because all of the sudden they are able to read out 40MP at 7 FPS in this thing while the best they seemed to be able to do with the 5DIII was 22 MP at 6 FPS which is almost 2x the processing speed still using the so-called DiGiC 5+.   Maybe in the process of doing that whey also cleaned up the FPN somewhat.

There has always been confusion on the forums and the threads with regard to the DxO measurements and some of the so-called “comparison tests” that people love to show.  The DxO result is really showing random noise effects but the thing that shows up so strongly in the ad-hoc demos is really the pattern noise.

I find that the 5DIII is a significant improvement over the 5DII and supposedly the 6D is even better so perhaps they have finally figured out how to read out the sensor nicely.

It will make the threads a lot more fun for a while anyway ;-)

Well the 5D3 solved the pattern banding at low ISO in ONE direction but it still has oooodles of it the other direction so IMO it does no better in that regard than the 5D2, hatched or striped it still sticks out to the eye.

Now the 6D did do better more like back to the old 1D3/40D days.

It seems that the 70D MAY, still no full black frame so it's hard to be sure, also the test pre-production cameras have often had much better banding than release cameras, bit it seems it may have fixed the banding and clumping problems so that the low ISO shadow noise now has the nice character of Exmor more or less.

However, at least going by the masked area, the regular fine grained shadow noise is actually maybe a trace worse than the 7D if anything.

So on engineering DR it seems they have still made zero progress, most likely. But at least they may have finally fully solved the low ISO banding issues so you will at least be able, most likely, to get the most out of the shadow SNR that they do provide you with (although it seem still maybe 2+ stops behind Exmor for that). It may be all but entirely free of pattern banding and chroma and luma blobbing. But still quite noisy for the fine pattern noise. Anyway it might be a lot, lot nicer to deal with than most canon cameras other than the 1Ds3 and 6D and 1Dx and a decent deal nicer to deal with than those and like Exmor in that regard. But again the StdDev of the random black frame noise appeared to be very old school again.

The 5D3 did seem to improve high ISO banding of all types over the 5D2.

EOS Bodies / Re: The last Canon crop sensor - ever
« on: August 10, 2013, 03:31:31 AM »
and whats this 80MP camera you're on about? I certainly don't want that.

Well that is the latest rumor. Anyway you'd need 48MP FF just match the same reach as a 7D has.

Street & City / Re: Reprimanded for a photograph
« on: August 09, 2013, 10:32:22 PM »

To be honest with the OP, I wouldn't even try this in a Glasgow shopping mall.

Any specific reason Paul? Other than the possibility that the lady in the picture was accompanied by a gorilla sized boyfriend.

Most malls, even in the US, tend to not be big fans of any photography taking place on their grounds. Many have rules against it, although not super duper enforced.

EOS Bodies / Re: The last Canon crop sensor - ever
« on: August 09, 2013, 03:19:02 PM »
Being a nature / wildlife photographer, I would not want to see APS-C disappear if only for the crop factor advantage.  In fact, I would love to see a 1-series crop sensor body....

With increased pixel densities, cropping can be a setting in your FF camera, like with Nikon.

I cant see the point in the cropping being set in camera. Sure you save some on storage and transfer time, but I can't see that it would be very useful. How often is that going to be the crop you want. I crop almost all my shots a bit. But I bet its hardly ever just the center part of the image at exactly that crop size.

Man that would be INSANELY useful!! Canon needs to dump the sRAW/mRAW garbage and give high speed crop modes. All sRAW/mRAW is give you a pseudo-RAW file at much reduced quality, while a cropped mode gives you a real, full quality (in reach limited situations) RAW file at potential higher fps (of course it is true that the mechanical mirror box has to keep up and that is really the expensive part but we definitely have been transfer speed limited more than mirror box limited quite a few times so....) and a BIG savings in storage space.

You use the mode when you are reach limited, not to make minor artist cropping decisions, which as you say, doesn't even make any sense.

What if you are shooting distant birds/wildlife? Why not have a 80MP FF jump from say 3fps to 7fps and why not have each file go from 80MP storage to like 30MP storage? Why do you need to store all the extra border junk that you don't care about and have it slow the fps down? For quite a few people, APS-C is solely about fps and reach so with a FF with crop mode it becomes an APS-C when in crop mode once sensor densities start getting to be like 48MP and above for FF.

EOS Bodies / Re: The last Canon crop sensor - ever
« on: August 09, 2013, 03:07:13 PM »
So here we are ... 2013, almost 2014.  Canon has over a decade of churning out APS-C based cameras.  Canon releases the 6D with FF sensor, that you can now pickup for less than a 7D.  Bodies are made smaller, functionality is increasing, and seemingly limited only by firmware.

Is there an evolutionary path which leaves APS-C behind or exclusively for the point and shoot market?

What if Canon just said 'No more crop for us.  We're in the FF business.  Our cheapest DSLR is 999.99 and that's just the way it is.'

I think this is coming.  3 years from now ... APS-C is going the way of the buggy whip.

I doubt it. You can make the body smaller with aps-c, the sensors still cost a bit less and FF sensors with enough reach to make up for things will probably only just be starting to get established in FF then. Perhaps in 10 years, although maybe the costs and size will always make at least a few aps-c models stick around.

You certainly can't say the 6D replaces APS-C, since the body performance specs are lower than a 7D and it has a ton less reach.

Also there is the fact that a tamron 17-50 non-VC or heck even an 18-55 IS kit can deliver pretty sharp edge to edge results on APS-C and they cost like maybe $500 and $150 or something? To get those ranges on FF sharp edge to edge you need to spend at least $1025+ or rely on a couple primes (especially when you talk 80MP density FF, you might almost need the $2000+ 24-70 II zoom).

Pages: 1 ... 126 127 [128] 129 130 ... 283