December 20, 2014, 10:58:46 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 - foobar

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 8
31
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon will end the 7D series life?
« on: February 10, 2012, 08:15:17 PM »
I was not talking about technology advances but commercial technology advances. It is easily possible to make a 1.5 litre engine develop 1000bhp. But it is a lot cheaper to develop amd build an 8litre engine to develop 1200bhp.
Wrong methaphor for the subject.

Personally I thisnk the APS-C sensor is coming quickly to the point of commercial technology limitations - ie it becomes cheaper to move to a larger, lower tech sensor to get a bigger improvement.
For sensors the easy (read cheap) way to get more from a sensor is to increase the size - and I believe we are getting close to that point
That's simply not how chip production works. In chip production (and that applies to all kinds of chips, not just image sensors), a bigger area means exponentially higher costs. It's not that important what is actually on the chip.

The price for a chip of a certain size only significantly drops every 5 years or so when the industry is changing to larger wafer sizes. The reason why other chips get cheaper and cheaper is because they get smaller (or you can fit more complex designs into the same space).

Image sensors do not benefit from these effects since their size is fixed.


But even if overall sensor manufacturing costs would be low enough for a rebel-priced FF camera, all other components are more expensive as well: The viewfinder prism, the microlens array, the AA filter and also not to forget that wide-to-standard lenses need quite a bit more glass compared to their APS-C counterparts, thus FF camera systems will always be more expensive than ones with smaller sensors.


Computer technology is ahead of sensor development (in its timeline) - but there hardly been any significant progress in PC 'power' for the last 3 years. The push has been in multi core - ie 2 cores go faster than 1, rather the speed the single core. Even the entry PC's now have a minimum of 2 cores, midrange have 4.
That's because today's quad-core chips fit in the same die size as single-core chips did a few years ago.



So is that why they continued developing the APS-H and even demo'd a 120mps APS-H. I guess that is another myth that is not supported by facts ::) ::)
In my opinion:
- The 120mp APS-H sensor was just a technical exercise (so far there has been no indication that Canon is planning to put it into a product)
- The reason Canon went with APS-H on the 1D for so long was partly because it was the largest size that could imprinted in one shot, as stated in Canon's full-frame white paper
- APS-H was never a mainstream solution for Canon. It was always limited to a single camera model and (unlike APS-C) they never produced a single lens targeted at that crop-factor.

32
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7D on it's way out?
« on: February 10, 2012, 11:11:03 AM »
I expect the next 7D at the end of the year but not before Photokina. I wouldn't be surprised if it gets pushed to early 2013 to be honest. The 7D may now be one of the "oldest" cameras in Canon's lineup but it's still among the best high-end APS-C DSLRs out there and it still has every checklist feature people expect in this camera class.

I also expect the 650D and the 5DII-successor to be released before the 7D-successor.

33
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24 f/2.8 IS USM
« on: February 06, 2012, 05:48:48 PM »
Hmm... interesting... I wished for a new consumer prime in the 24-28mm range from Canon but I thought more about something in the lines of f/1.4-2.0, maybe even as an EF-S lens. Now we get these two lenses and I don't know what to think of them. f/2.8 is putting me off but image stabilization, FF and the fact that these lenses look pretty light and compact makes things interesting again, especially if the price is right and the lenses are sharp wide open.


Looks like no weather sealing, very disappointing  :-[
In an area where annual rainfall is measured in meters this is more important than IS.
Canon wants you to buy the 24L, simple as that. ;)


In one of the other threads, it was mentioned that these images look like renderings rather than product images taken with a camera.

Given the various reflection details, etc, I think that explains why the images of the two lenses look so alike. It would be virtually impossible to recreate the same lighting, reflections, etc, on two objects that aren't identical,.
These look like normal product shots to me, in line with other product shots we've seen from Canon so far.

34
EOS Bodies / Re: 7D Mk2 ..... APS-H
« on: January 30, 2012, 07:05:09 AM »
I REFER ONLY TO THE CURRENT 7D ( not 7Dmk2). it has happened before.
The current 7D? Okay... I think it's safe to assume that Nikon will be able to beat a 2,5 years old camera. ;)

35
EOS Bodies / Re: 7D Mk2 ..... APS-H
« on: January 30, 2012, 06:56:23 AM »
In my opinion, there is no way that the 7D Mark II will be APS-H.
And if there will ever be another APS-H camera by Canon, it will not replace an existing APS-C camera line.


The only way that Canon will ''beat'' the new Nikon D400 (with in my opinion will be a better camera than 7D) is to use an APS-H sensor with say 21MP and the ability to use EF-s lenses on the camera at a 14-15 MP final resolution.
How do you come to the conclusion that Nikon's new camera for which we don't have any specs will beat Canon's new camera for which we don't have any specs?
And while we're at it: What's your definition of "beating"? Being better in any conceivable way? Selling more units? Having the better image quality? The better AF? What's a better AF? More points overall or more cross-type points? IMHO the discussion is pointless at this point. We don't even have rumors to discuss, just wishlists.

36
Lenses / Re: Lens Choice.. 70-200 F4 L IS or 70-300 F4-5.6 L IS
« on: January 28, 2012, 08:24:26 AM »
I tried both (70-200L f/4 IS + 1.4 TC II as well as the 70-300L) and to me, both lenses feel pretty much equal in terms of image quality (= they are both excellent and work very well on a high-resolution APS-C sensor). I haven't shot any test charts with them, though.

Ended up with the 70-300L because dealing with the TC all the time is just a big PITA...

37
My guess for the 7DII announcement date is Photokina 2012.
That would give the 7D a 3 year lifespan, which used to be more or less the norm for their pro-DSLRs in the past.

The 7D does rock, except for the IQ at high ISO, so I ended up getting rid of mine  :-*
IMHO the high ISO is not a problem on the 7D. It's better than any APS-C camera from Canon before it. I've good a lot of keepers from this camera in the ISO 2500 - 5000 range

What bothers me mostly with the 7D is the medium ISO range, e.g. grainy skies at ISO 400.

38
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Tamron AF 70-300mm 4-5.6 Di SP VC USD
« on: January 18, 2012, 04:39:55 PM »
On paper, these lenses look almost the same, but the Tamron sadly isn't as big a bargain as I would have hoped.
If you're going to shoot a lot of moving subjects, don't get the Tamron. The AF of that lens isn't really great for that – I had more keepers with even the 55-250IS in those situations.

But, all in all, the Tamron is not a bad lens for the price. Try both (like I did), and you certainly know why the Canon 70-300L is more expensive. The Canon really plays in a different league when it comes to image quality and autofocus (and of course, it's also weather resistant and its zoom ring turns in the right direction ;) ).

If you have ever tried a 70-200L f/4 IS: The 70-300L performs very similar.

[edit]: I also use a 7D.

39
Lenses / Re: Should I purchase the 15-85mm f/3.5-5.0?
« on: January 08, 2012, 08:22:03 AM »
Hi!
I own this lens since 2010. It is a great walk-around lens. BUT the zoom creep is just awful. The lens extends/retracts wayyy too easily. If you plan on timelapsing with this lens tilted up or down, you need to consider duct-taping the zoom-ring so the focal length doesnt slowly change.
cheers
Don't ruin your lens with duct tape. Use a rubber band (or one of those "lens bands" if you're looking for something a little more fancy).

But I completely agree: The lens creep is the only real complaint I have with the 15-85.
Unfortunately, some 24-105s are affected by lens creep as well.

40
Lenses / Re: Should I purchase the 15-85mm f/3.5-5.0?
« on: January 08, 2012, 06:29:22 AM »
On a crop sensor: 15-85, unless you don't need/want wide-angle or plan to upgrade to FF soon.

41
Lenses / Re: Do all of canons 50 mm lens suck?
« on: January 03, 2012, 03:24:40 AM »
Can't say anything about the 50L (I don't use this focal length often enough to justify the price difference), but I have tried the 50mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.4 and currently own the Sigma.

The 50mm f/1.8 is a great lens for the price, but the noisy AF, shoddy build quality and non-rounded 5-blade aperture means it's not for me.

The 50mm f/1.4 is an okay lens. In terms of image quality, I'd like to see rounded aperture blades here as well. Apart from that, it ticks most of the boxes, but only in theory. I could live with the micro-USM AF if the mechanism wasn't so fragile.

The Sigma has everything I want from a 50mm in terms of image quality. It may not win a sharpness race against Canon's 50mm f/1.4 but it's "sharp enough" and the way it renders is just beautiful. Sadly, its autofocus isn't as reliable as the Canon alternatives, at least on my copy. It's also bloody heavy because of that huge front element (77mm filter thread!).

So in short: Yes, if Canon would release a 50mm f/1.4 USM II (even if it was just a refresh of the old lens with ring-USM and rounded aperture blades), I would buy it in an instant.

42
Lenses / Re: Canon 10-22 vs Canon 17-40
« on: December 24, 2011, 08:51:39 AM »
+1 for the 10-22 on the 7D.
Keep it in good shape and sell/swap it for a 17-40 when you upgrade to FF.

The 17-40 on APS-C is more or less a "standard" zoom lens and won't give you much wide angle (~28mm equiv).
The 10-22 on APS-C is a completely different thing and will give you everything from ultra (~16mm equiv.) to moderate (~35mm equiv.) wide angle.

43
Lenses / Re: EF-S or EF 35 f/1.8? [CR1]
« on: December 19, 2011, 10:53:40 AM »
I don't understand making it EF-S rather than EF. They can make affordable, EF primes, both the 50 1.8 and 501.4 prove that.
Every focal length is different and 50mm in particular is a sweet spot where you can get great image quality with a relatively simple construction and a minimal amount of glass.

That's why a 50mm f/1.4 only costs a fraction of a 35mm f/1.4 for example.

An EF-S 35mm f/1.4 would be much more affordable than the EF-version because less glass is needed.
The effect is less dramatic on telephoto lenses (neuroanatomist has posted a detailed explanation of this in another thread IIRC).

The other thing you can always do to reduce costs is of course making the lens slower.

44
Lenses / Re: EF-S or EF 35 f/1.8? [CR1]
« on: December 19, 2011, 04:47:47 AM »
A "true" normal for APS-C (based on the size of their current 18mp sensor) would be pretty much in the middle between 24mm and 28mm,

Actually 31.25 would be  a 50mm equiv on a 1.6 crop factor APS-c from canon.

Correct, that's because a 50mm is already slightly longer than a "true" normal lens on FF, but a 35mm on APS-C would be even longer than that.

45
Lenses / Re: EF-S or EF 35 f/1.8? [CR1]
« on: December 18, 2011, 10:32:49 PM »
I really hope this is going to be an EF lens. Why? Because for an APS-C-only lens, it's just too long for what it's supposed to be.

A "true" normal for APS-C (based on the size of their current 18mp sensor) would be pretty much in the middle between 24mm and 28mm, so I'd rather like to see something affordable in that focal range (even if they were just updating the 28mm f/1.8 to be better at wider apertures).

However, this seems to be more about an ultra-cheap prime to compete directly with Nikon's AF-S 35mm f/1.8 (which btw. isn't that bad and also does have an ultrasonic motor), so I guess a crap-tastic EF(-S) 35mm f/1.8 is quite realistic.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 8