Messages

196

Lenses / Re: IS substitute for faster glass in low light? Not convinced.

« on: February 18, 2012, 11:45:02 AM »

IS vs faster glass has many variables.

First off with high megapixel cameras it helps them acheive a sharper image by default, to the equivalent of shooting at 1/focal length x 2. Second most manufacturers exagerate when they say it's 4 stops of light, maybe in some situations, but really it's really more like 3-3.5.

So at 70mm without IS your minimum shutter speed will be 1/140th to get a tack sharp image, but your minimum shutter speed is only 1/17 at 70mm with IS for tack sharp images. As you can see this tends to lend itself more to subjects that aren't moving much.


Hope that helps.

197

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Full Frame body with crop mode ( that can use EF-S lenses)

« on: February 16, 2012, 08:56:12 AM »

There's little to no practical reason to use an EF-S lens with a full frame body. Comprable full frame lenses will always get better resolution. In fact I made a list a while ago of every EF-S lens and the coresponding full frame lens at that price range and in every case the full frame lens was sharper than the EF-S lens in LPPM. Meaning using EF-S lenses would always be more expensive and result in lower quality. There would be some rare situations where it would be a good idea to be cross compatible though I'm sure though.

198

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III/X Information [CR1]

« on: February 15, 2012, 11:02:14 PM »

The sensors I tested were of the same generation and of about the same QE.

That's not true at all. The G12 has an extremely advanced sensor that has a QE of 55% the 5D has a QE of 25%. That's more than a stop of difference. You're comparing stone age technology to the space shuttle.

I think the problem with your test is that you have to account for the number of t/stops in each camera's respective lens. If you actually shot the images above at the same f/stop, shutter speed and iso and didn't just try to get the exposure the same, then most likley the lens you were using transmitted twice as much light onto your 5D as the lens on the G12 due to the quality of the glass.

In any case. The point is that while it is possible to make a 300 megapixel monster of a camera with 55% quantum efficiency, they haven't done so. My guess is that the cost of scaling up the G12 sensor makes it not cost effective.

I'm positive that Canon has the technology to make a camera that has 36 mp and performs better than the D3s in low light and dynamic range. Unfortunately what is most likley going on is that they realize that such a camera would end up costing more more than creating 2 seperate bodies, one for resolution and one for low light.

199

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III/X Information [CR1]

« on: February 15, 2012, 08:57:26 PM »

Where, pray tell, has it been "confirmed" all over the place that pixel size has nothing to do with ISO noise performance? 

Smaller pixels perform better at high-ISO all the way until read noise starts to dominate (which is way, way out there for most sensors).  These were shot at the same ISO, same shutter speed, same f-stop, same focal length, both use the same sensor area, both were shot in raw and processed in the same software.  The pixel area is different by a factor of 16.  The processed images on the far right column tell the story - the smaller pixels preserved more detail with less noise than the bigger pixels did even though they were set at their maximum ISO.

http://photos.imageevent.com/sipphoto/samplepictures/Pixel%20density%20test%20results.jpg

That test is extremely poorly done.

The reality of the situation is that generally the more pixels you have, the more noise a camera will have. Not because the pixels somehow cause the noise, but because it reduces the light gathering ability of the camera's sensor. To actually put more pixels on a sensor you have to make the pixel wells themselves smaller. It's like dividing a house up into rooms. A house with just one big room has a lot more space than a house with walls everywhere. On top of that the current generation of sensors has the wiring for the pixels on the front of the sensor, meaning the more pixels you have the more wiring you have which isn't capturing photons. Now between old low megapixel sensors and new high megapixel ones there have been a lot of advancements. For example micro lenses have been developed which basically help to bend the light around all the non-light gathering real estate of a sensor and focus it onto the light gathering real estate. Also technology has been devloped to make sure the photons are more accurately read.

So in general assuming everything is equal more pixels means more noise. The test you posted obviously has the variables skewed to show otherwise likely by comparing a body which isn't very advanced to one that is. Furthermore most camera manufacturers lie about their iso settings to the point where they are inflated by 80% in many cases. So the camera is shooting at iso 900 but it says iso 1600 on the display. So comparing cameras outside a lab setting isn't very useful.

Anyways I encourage people to read about the quantum efficiency of a sensor:

http://www.sensorgen.info/

Often times a camera will go up from on generation to another both in reducing noise and increasing resolution, like the 1D III to the 1D IV through superior sensor design. Other times you have cases like the D3s and D3x where the D3x has twice as much noise and twice as much resolution than the D3s.

200

EOS Bodies / My body and lens roadmap

« on: February 11, 2012, 07:43:20 PM »

In the spirit of the recent Canon roadmap that was posted I thought I would also post my own roadmap for upgrades.

I'm probably one of the most obsessive photographers about image quality. The reason being that I do photoshop retouching for many of the top photographers in the world. When it comes to editing an image, having the most sharpness, the lowest noise and the highest resolution is absolutaly critical. You can do a lot more with extremely high image quality than you can with low image quality.


For my own purposes I've found that I need at least a minimum of 16 megapixels for cropping, and the lowest noise possible. I also need all 16 of those megapixels to be tack sharp.

With that said here is my roadmap:

Body: I expect Canon to release something with 5D body size with at least 18 MP and much better noise handling than the current 5D II. My number one complaint with the 5D II is the banding noise, and the low dynamic range due to low iso noise, which impacts my style of shooting. It seems likely that Canon will do a 18 MP (1DX sensor)-22 MP body with amazing noise and dynamic range performance (and amazing video) and a 36-45 MP body for the landscape guys.

I will be going for the lower noise body. Noise to me is a significantly more pressing issue than megapixels so I prioritize that as long as I have enough room to crop. I love high MP medium format files but you have to prioritize.

Lenses:


Wide Angle Zoom:

(current) Canon 16-35mm F/2.8 II L - It's the best that's offered with autofocus. I tried an adapted 14-24mm Nikon F/2.8 AF-S and did not like the lack of autofocus. It's nearly as good, though not as wide.

Normal Zoom:

Canon 24-70mm F/2.8 II L - I was dissapointed that this lens lacked a lot of features, it had no IS was not a reverse zoom design like the I version and that it extended when it zoomed. However the image quality that's being reported is nothing short of stunning. So that won me over.

Tamron 24-70mm F/2.8 VC - I'm going to use this lens for low light situations, in effect replacing my 24-105mm with two lenses instead of one. It was An amazing suprise from an unlikley source. This lens means that photographers can get a full stop more light when shooting hand held. It's the equivalent of a F/0.7 lens. Sharpness will be a concern but this is less of a priority in low light.

Telephoto Zooms:

(current) Canon 70-200mm F/4.0 IS L - I chose this lens because while the 70-200mm F/2.8 II IS L is fantastic, I found that the DOF is not usable at those focal lengths and I was always shooting at F/4.0. F/2.8 is better suited to a wider angle lens, so the advantage was in weight.

Macro:

(current) Leica 100mm APO Macro - Self Explanitory, it's an incredible lens.


Primes:

(current) Canon 24mm F/1.4 L II - Amazingly Sharp Lens

(current) Canon 85mm F/1.2 L II - Amazingly Sharp Lens

(current) Canon 50mm F/1.4 - My impression of the Canon 50mm F/1.2 L was that it was too soft so I went with this. I really think Canon needs to release several new 50mm lenses. There have been rumors circulating about this for several years.

Canon 50mm F/1.8 IS - If they release this lens, it will be the king of low light, and hopefully tack sharp. If so that will be my 50mm prime.


I look forwards to reading any reactions you guys may have to my roadmap. I've thought this through very carefully so I'm looking forward to any comments or criticisms.

Thanks.

201

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon EOS-1D X High Resolution Samples

« on: February 07, 2012, 05:37:19 PM »

I took some time to shoot a comparison between the 1Dx and the 5D Mark II, I found a scene with similar tones, then did a 1600 iso shot with the same settings (default jpg)

It appears the 1Dx and the 5D II have nearly the exact same noise levels, which would make sense considering quantum efficiency is likley very similar.

Here's a back to back comparison of a 100% crop of the 1Dx and a 21mp 5DII shot resized to 18mp. The noise has been enhanced with a high pass filter for easier inspection with an identical setting on the final composite:

useless.. post the originals or nothing.

You know what, I'm not going to this forum is incredibly rude and has no respect for people putting forth the effort to do research.

202

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon EOS-1D X High Resolution Samples

« on: February 07, 2012, 04:40:50 PM »

I took some time to shoot a comparison between the 1Dx and the 5D Mark II, I found a scene with similar tones, then did a 1600 iso shot with the same settings (default jpg)

It appears the 1Dx and the 5D II have nearly the exact same noise levels, which would make sense considering quantum efficiency is likley very similar.

Here's a back to back comparison of a 100% crop of the 1Dx and a 21mp 5DII shot resized to 18mp. The noise has been enhanced with a high pass filter for easier inspection with an identical setting on the final composite:



It's worth mentioning though that according to DxO Mark Canon lied about the iso sensetivity of the 5D Mark II, so iso 1600 is really iso 1093 etc, a huge dicrepancy to make the camera seem like it has better noise performance. So this potentially means the camera if it is less deceptive about it's iso is somewhat better. Also let's not forget that it probably has better dynamic range and low iso noise and perhapse it has less banding etc so it looks better at high iso.

203

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC Announced

« on: February 07, 2012, 01:11:01 PM »

IS on a zoom that maxes at 70mm - shake may disappear but motion blur wont ...

You've been campaigning against IS of all things for years for this reason, and it is insane. Some people shoot static subjects in low light hand held, in fact that's most of what I do. Motion blur is only a factor if there is motion. Not only that but you can shoot people easily at 1/20th if they are posing. That's 2 full stops of IS you could benefit from at 70mm. Not only that but people following from the 1 / focal length rule will also benefit because that is still effected by camera shake. That rule was for prints from the film days. You need 1 / 2x focal length with today's high mp cameras.

So yes for the work I do this lens is very welcome, just because it doesn't benefit you doesn't mean you should hate it.

IS is nessesary for hand held video too.

204

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II

« on: February 06, 2012, 09:31:08 PM »

Well I looked at EF 8-15 f/4L pics and the switch on new EF 24-70 f/2.8L II looks simillar to the LIMIT switch of fisheye. Maybe it is some sort of switch to lock on 24, 28, 35, 50 and 70 mm position - that's just my guess. I doubt it's IS on/off switch - it's usually below AF/MF switch.

What do you think ?

Honestly it just looks like someone took a photo of that lens and photoshopped it. In fact that's exactaly what happened.

205

EOS Bodies / Re: Why does Canon hate everyone but sports and wildlife photographers?

« on: February 06, 2012, 05:25:37 AM »

I'm not sure where attitudes like this come from. Canon doesn't 'hate' anybody or group of photographers, nor do they 'like' any. What they like is making money, and their product development plans are guided by what they believe will garner them the most profit.

I feel like that's Canon's core problem. They seem much more interested in making minor tweaks to maximize profit, yet they forget about the big picture and overall market share. If they made a truely epic core system, they'd see a much larger market share and greater overall profits not to mention satisfying more people.

(abbridged) I think its rather unfair to say that Canon isn't paying attention to non-action photographers. Their newest versions of non-telephoto lenses strongly indicate otherwise, especially for lenses released in the last couple years.

I would disagree. The 24mm f/1.4 L II and 85mm f/1.2 L II are stellar, but having owned both the 14mm f/2.8 II and the 50mm f/1.2L , the 50mm is dissapointing, and should be much sharper with much less CA and the 14mm f/2.8 L just isn't good enough. The Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 is not only much better, but it zooms AND it's cheaper. Canon's ultra wide lenses are dinosaurs.

Canon's 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II is stellar yes, it's also an action photographers lens. Simply put Canon non action bodies are way behind the curve, and so are their bread and butter lenses (normal primes and zooms), save a few exceptions. That's why I feel like their offerings below 70mm are really done as an afterthought to make profit.

The 5D MK II is not a sports or wildlife camera, its aimed directly at landscape and studio photographers.  They are not going to go away from that, they sell more 5D MK II's than all their competition to this camera combined.

However, understand that Canon is not in the small market speciality camera business.  They long ago established themselves as a high volume manufacturer that produced excellent quality products for the price.  They are a large company and know how to do high volume production, and do it well.  They make a profit when everyone else is losing money, so from that standpoint, they are doing something right.

The upcoming D800/D800e from Nikon obliterates the 5D II. 36 mp and optionally no AA filter. Canon's response is the reported 22mp 5D II successor. If Nikon gets their primes and zooms from 24mm to 70mm up to par it's game over. Either way anyone shooting from 14mm to 24mm just found their definitive camera.

Between the D3s and the D800e Nikon will have the best bodies, their lenses are lacking but Nikon is in the perfect position to dominate if they fix that.

Canon really needs to come up with an answer to the D800 and all the fantastic low light high dynamic range cameras from Nikon. Something with the 1Dx sensor in a compact body and a D800 clone. I feel like Canon could possibly challenge Nikon if the 22mp 5D sensor is as good as the 1Dx sensor, it's resolution is designed so it is great at video (it works out to exactaly 4 pixels per pixel on a 1080p video) but that's no reason it can't have 1Dx low light and dynamic range performance, that would be ideal, considering the autofocus system is rumored to be exceptional.

Canon's lenses above 70mm are superb and so are their 24mm prime lenses. Everything else is pretty mediocre however. Canon needs to simply clone the: Nikon 14-24mm, Leica 35–70mm f/2.8 Vario-Elmarit-R ASPH (yes I realize this was a $7000 lens made at a loss, but it's the best normal zoom ever made at any aperture, and I'm sure it would be profitable if made in high volume at half the price, and including IS would really be ideal). Then all they need is to come up with a sharp CA free 50mm L prime.

That's 2 bodies and 3 lenses that would corner the market for the pro wedding, studio and landscape guys. (one body which they're hopefully already making)

206

EOS Bodies / Why does Canon hate everyone but sports and wildlife photographers?

« on: February 05, 2012, 09:04:29 PM »

Canon seems overly focused on cameras with longer focal lengths. Their lenses above 70mm are nothing but perfection. So are their bodies oriented towards action photography.

I feel like they simply are mediocre and lacking for the majority of pro photographers though. Sure they are better than the competition, but nowhere near where they could be.

Their offerings for non-action photographers are mediocre by industry standards, Leica has way better lenses and the Nikon has way better bodies with the upcoming D800e And D3S being perfection in their respective roles.

What gives? Its like Canon is content with incremental improvements for the masses.

I've decide to further explain this, here's my post from page 2:

I'm not sure where attitudes like this come from. Canon doesn't 'hate' anybody or group of photographers, nor do they 'like' any. What they like is making money, and their product development plans are guided by what they believe will garner them the most profit.

I feel like that's Canon's core problem. They seem much more interested in making minor tweaks to maximize profit, yet they forget about the big picture and overall market share. If they made a truely epic core system, they'd see a much larger market share and greater overall profits not to mention satisfying more people.

(abbridged) I think its rather unfair to say that Canon isn't paying attention to non-action photographers. Their newest versions of non-telephoto lenses strongly indicate otherwise, especially for lenses released in the last couple years.

I would disagree. The 24mm f/1.4 L II and 85mm f/1.2 L II are stellar, but having owned both the 14mm f/2.8 II and the 50mm f/1.2L , the 50mm is dissapointing, and should be much sharper with much less CA and the 14mm f/2.8 L just isn't good enough. The Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 is not only much better, but it zooms AND it's cheaper. Canon's ultra wide lenses are dinosaurs.

Canon's 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II is stellar yes, it's also an action photographers lens. Simply put Canon non action bodies are way behind the curve, and so are their bread and butter lenses (normal primes and zooms), save a few exceptions. That's why I feel like their offerings below 70mm are really done as an afterthought to make profit.

The 5D MK II is not a sports or wildlife camera, its aimed directly at landscape and studio photographers.  They are not going to go away from that, they sell more 5D MK II's than all their competition to this camera combined.

However, understand that Canon is not in the small market speciality camera business.  They long ago established themselves as a high volume manufacturer that produced excellent quality products for the price.  They are a large company and know how to do high volume production, and do it well.  They make a profit when everyone else is losing money, so from that standpoint, they are doing something right.

The upcoming D800/D800e from Nikon obliterates the 5D II. 36 mp and optionally no AA filter. Canon's response is the reported 22mp 5D II successor. If Nikon gets their primes and zooms from 24mm to 70mm up to par it's game over. Either way anyone shooting from 14mm to 24mm just found their definitive camera.

Between the D3s and the D800e Nikon will have the best bodies, their lenses are lacking but Nikon is in the perfect position to dominate if they fix that.

Canon really needs to come up with an answer to the D800 and all the fantastic low light high dynamic range cameras from Nikon. Something with the 1Dx sensor in a compact body and a D800 clone in other words. I feel like Canon could possibly challenge Nikon if the 22mp 5D sensor is as good as the 1Dx sensor, it's resolution is designed so it is great at video (it works out to exactaly 4 pixels per pixel on a 1080p video) but that's no reason it can't have 1Dx low light and dynamic range performance, that would be ideal, considering the autofocus system is rumored to be exceptional.

Canon's lenses above 70mm are superb and so are their 24mm prime lenses. Everything else is pretty mediocre however. Canon needs to simply clone the: Nikon 14-24mm, Leica 35–70mm f/2.8 Vario-Elmarit-R ASPH (yes I realize this was a $7000 lens made at a loss, but it's the best normal zoom ever made at any aperture, and I'm sure it would be profitable if made in high volume at half the price, and including IS would really be ideal). Then all they need is to come up with a sharp CA free 50mm L prime.

That's 2 bodies and 3 lenses that would corner the market for the pro wedding, studio and landscape guys. (one body which they might even be already making)

207

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II [CR2]

« on: January 22, 2012, 12:03:56 AM »

the good thing is no IS & keeping external zoom shouldn't mean a dramatic price increase.

Pure, unfettered optimism.     The 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II was the same basic physical design as its predecessor (internal zoom, with IS), and still Canon managed to set an MSRP that was a 32% premium over the original (translating to >$1800 for the 24-70mm II).

Actually if you adjust for inflation and exchange rate both lenses cost the exact same price. In fact Canon has charged the exact same price with almost no variation for every lens they have upgraded since the 80's. The lens will cost the same at intro no matter what, profit per lens will instead vary, though total profit is the goal.

I'm sure total profit would be higher with IS and the same weight and size but would be lower if it is too bulky, IS is not very expensive at all. Still it can't hurt to release both with a higher profit margin on the IS. Say $2000 for the regular and $2700 would work from my research into the cost of IS on Canon's end.
 

208

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II [CR2]

« on: January 21, 2012, 11:53:27 PM »

Here's a brilliant idea. Why not let the consumer decide? Release BOTH the 24-70mm II and bulky and heavy 24-70mm IS side by side. This worked amazingly for the 70-200mm line.

209

Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/2.8L II [CR2]

« on: January 16, 2012, 07:29:37 PM »

I hate hearing the continued reports of this lens not having IS.

Simply put this lens will be a must-have killer-app lens with it and just an incremental upgrade without.

How much would you be willing to pay for that?

If the 24-70 II were to be $1500 and the 24-70 II with IS were to be $2000, would you be ok with that?
Would everyone else?

Actually I did some extremely extensive research on the cost of the IS mechanism based on lens repair parts pricing and on Canon's historical pricing for IS vs non IS lenses corrected for exchange rate and inflation. Canon's pricing strategy with almost no deviation has over the past 20 years picked a price for a lens based on it's market segment in yen adjusted for inflation, they know what they can charge in each segment, and their margin on a lens has little connection with the price until 5 years down the line and major price cuts. Because IS is not a terribly expensive part it is not relevant to the price Canon will charge, which they have already decided based on the market segment and their past sales.

The simple fact is that this lens will cost the exact same price, $2000 with OR without IS. The real issue is if Canon wants a slightly lower profit margin in exchange for higher sales volume. There is no doubt in my mind that including IS in this lens will pay off big time. Specifically I feel the inclusion of IS will probably cut Canon's profits by 20% on the lens, but will increase sales by over 100%. I would easily pay $6000 for this lens with IS personally but would not even consider it without. I know twice as many people will buy it if it has IS.

210

Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/2.8L II [CR2]

« on: January 16, 2012, 04:47:56 AM »

I hate hearing the continued reports of this lens not having IS.

Simply put this lens will be a must-have killer-app lens with it and just an incremental upgrade without.

It feels like Canon isn't willing to take the risk which isn't what they should be doing, especially with the release of the 1Dx