Messages

211

Lenses / Re: EF 35 f/1.4L II & EF 24-70 f/2.8L II on January 3, 2012? [CR2]

« on: December 13, 2011, 05:27:44 AM »

If the current (Adorama) price is $1300 then by historical inference the IS version would be some $2500+. Now if we do the same for the 16-35 then the price would increase by some $1400. So to add IS onto these two lens would get close to the upgrade to a 1DX, which would happily accomodate 1 or 2 stops to eliminate any need for IS.

I think you are confused about IS again. IS in no way adds $1400. It costs Canon very little to add it without any IQ hit. Easily $250 or so for the module and upgraded lens optics. This is based on several hours of research into the spare parts prices of similar lenses. Canon would probably introduce the lens at $2000 no matter what but the price would soon fall to $1600. Canon probably in either scenario would eat the cost of IS. So there would be zero price change. To them it is likely more about if the additional sales from including IS justify the reduced profit that would result.

As for the 1Dx having 1-2 stops better ISO. That is a fanciful proposition. A half stop would be the most you could expect, which is still biblical. The photo detectors in cameras are already gathering near their maximum theoretical number of photons. It is just impossible to get much more out of them. In fact since the 20D Canon's pixels have improved a half stop only in efficiency. The real improvement of the 1Dx is in noise reduction which trickles down to all cameras through updates to RAW processors.

If you want to talk strict price comparisons for IS vs non-IS:

Lens introductory prices adjusted for inflation and exchange rate:

70-200mm f/2.8 $3008
70-200mm f/2.8 IS II $3005
70-200mm f/2.8 IS $3630

70-200mm f/4.0 $1675
70-200mm f/4.0 IS $1817

The intro price for the 24-70mm f/2.8 adjusted for inflation and exchange was $1893, based on the historical data I presented this pegs it around $2000 with IS. If you look at adjusted historical data for many other lenses Canon has upgraded without adding IS over the years, adjusted for inflation and exchange rate they have nearly identical prices at intro.  So that supports my original assertion that no matter what the lens will cost the same varying maybe $100-$300 if not $0 with IS.

I think maybe Canon wants to milk the market more before they release the IS version. The problem is that Canon needs an IS lens like this NOW for videographers. There are absolutely no image stabilized fast normal lenses available.

212

Lenses / Re: EF 35 f/1.4L II & EF 24-70 f/2.8L II on January 3, 2012? [CR2]

« on: December 12, 2011, 03:11:10 AM »

I think releasing this lens without IS is a mistake. It will cut out several key demographics:

- videographers
- those who are looking to shoot in low light
- amateur prosumers who need all the help they can get with fast lenses and IS
- people on crop bodies looking for a high end walk around lens other than the 17-55mm
- everyone shooting at or slower than, 1 / focal length.
- most importantly: those looking for an upgrade to the 24-105mm


Simply put Canon could make a "must have" lens that would be an instant hit for anyone or one that isn't.

These people would be SO disappointed to buy a $2000 lens to find that they get pictures with motion blur when they think that IS will buy them tack sharp images.  Think how many returns there would be because the image was 'soft' as they took pictures of people or pets at 1/30.

Higher ISO performance on modern bodies means higher shutter speeds which in turn means that ISO is no longer needed for short lens.

I have yet to hear a real life justification for IS in such a short lens:

- the f2.8  helps those  looking to shoot in low light/shallow DOF
- the IQ should be better than the 24-105 (which is actually very good in firld use)

IS buys nothing for these users - it would only be a marketing gimic. In the budget, prosumer ranges IS has a use as the users dont buy bodies with high ISO capability so IS is needed for lens such as the 55-250. The 24-105 only has IS as it was designed in the days where bodies struggled to get more than ISO 400 so the argument was to shoot at ISO400 and rely on IS for speeds at 1/80 or so ( but still fast enough to get rid of motion blur).

To illustrate what I mean here is a picture at 1/30 - tack sharp except where there is motion blur. Even using the formula of 1/focal length this should work -it does except the subject moved. Imagine how I would have felt if I had upgraded to a 24-70 with the magic IS and got exactly the same blur .....

You seem to have these delusional ideas about how Canon implements IS and how people use it. IS is not a party trick that is going to completely dissapear when Canon gets its high ISO performance down. In fact as someone versed in the physics of cameras I can tell you IS will be beneficial until the end of time. IS is not going away. I am confident also that the vast majority of people using a $2000 lens will know how IS works. You really do not seem to understand the strong points of IS and when to use it and who needs it. It is very useful on a wide lens and I use it all the time at 24-50mm so do many people. For example there are these things called still life photos which have no motion blur, I take several of these at night all the time which I get paid for. Furthermore when you combine IS, faster lenses and high ISO you get a breakthrough in low light performance, that pushes the limits of technology, which is why a lens like this would be significant. To avoid pushing the limits of technology will make Canon a dinosaur besides gimping a great lens.

213

Lenses / Re: EF 35 f/1.4L II & EF 24-70 f/2.8L II on January 3, 2012? [CR2]

« on: December 11, 2011, 11:57:27 PM »

I think releasing this lens without IS is a mistake. It will cut out several key demographics:

- videographers
- those who are looking to shoot in low light
- amateur prosumers who need all the help they can get with fast lenses and IS
- people on crop bodies looking for a high end walk around lens other than the 17-55mm
- everyone shooting at or slower than, 1 / focal length.
- most importantly: those looking for an upgrade to the 24-105mm


Simply put Canon could make a "must have" lens that would be an instant hit for anyone or one that isn't.

214

Lenses / Re: EF 35 f/1.4L II & EF 24-70 f/2.8L II on January 3, 2012? [CR2]

« on: December 11, 2011, 01:13:28 PM »

As an FYI IS makes images even at a shutter speed of 1 divided by your focal length noticeably sharper. It's also nessesary for hand held video without a rig. I think for almost any photographer IS would be a selling point.

215

Lenses / Re: EF 35 f/1.4L II & EF 24-70 f/2.8L II on January 3, 2012? [CR2]

« on: December 11, 2011, 08:33:47 AM »

An I the only one who is beyond livid about a 24-70mm f/2.8 without IS?

Seriously that would be a horrific tragedy. If Nikon releases a 24-70mm VR pro lens I will switch in an instant.

A 24-70mm would be the best hand held lens you could make. It would be 2/3rds of a stop better than an f/1.2 lens. Canon is a maddening brand to work with and they don't seem to listen to their customers at all.

Without IS this lens will probably sell 1/10th of the number of copies it would otherwise. Higher ISO will in no way compensate for lack of IS, which gives you 4 stops more. It is impossible to compensate for losing 4 stops - getting one stop is a revolution. 4 stops is a massive difference.

Only if you are shooting in the dark.

I was shooting last night in the near dark at 1/30, f/8.0, iso 12800 with my 17-40/1d4.

So what would an extra 4 stops buy you? Motion blur from the subject? Lower ISO - which we have already said would be not needed?

Why would you be livid? When do you need 4 stops extra now?

Well if current technology is good enough for you that's nice. That's not an argument for living in the stone age. Your oddly specific situation is a good counter example but there are a million situations where IS is beneficial such as nearly every situation where IS has ever been used to effect on an f/4.0 lens. 1 stop isn't a big difference so I'm sure IS on an f/2.8 lens is as useful as IS on an f/4.0 lens.

The main draw for me is that this would help consolidate my lens collection and add flexibility for tight situations. Technology is there to help you get the shot. Once it stops doing that it is pointless. A lens that adds more flexibility both by having to change and carry fewer lenses and by getting better low light performance is what is ultimately best serves photographers.

216

Lenses / Re: EF 35 f/1.4L II & EF 24-70 f/2.8L II on January 3, 2012? [CR2]

« on: December 11, 2011, 06:42:45 AM »

An I the only one who is beyond livid about a 24-70mm f/2.8 without IS?

Seriously that would be a horrific tragedy. If Nikon releases a 24-70mm VR pro lens I will switch in an instant.

A 24-70mm would be the best hand held lens you could make. It would be 2/3rds of a stop better than an f/1.2 lens. Canon is a maddening brand to work with and they don't seem to listen to their customers at all.

Without IS this lens will probably sell 1/10th of the number of copies it would otherwise. Higher ISO will in no way compensate for lack of IS, which gives you 4 stops more. It is impossible to compensate for losing 4 stops - getting one stop is a revolution. 4 stops is a massive difference.

217

EOS Bodies / Re: How can Nikon remain in business with 12MP FF?

« on: December 07, 2011, 03:51:54 AM »

12 mp is plenty for almost any usage. In fact for most pro photographers more than 12 mp serves literally no purpose whatsoever. To this majority therefore Nikon provides cameras that have much higher ISO performance, much better A/F and much better ergonomics than Canon, Nikon devastates Canon in performance on it's bodies. Even the 1Dx is better for studio stuff. Personally though I like to crop my images a bit so 18mp is a must for me but beyond that i have no use for more MP. Either way Canon has superior lenses which is why I chose Canon. However Nikon really does have better bodies not the other way around and they are driving technology. Canon's dynamic range and USO are laughable in comparison.

In any case for me the 1Dx is the holy grail cropping + ISO + Dynamic range. It's perfect.

218

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

« on: December 01, 2011, 03:14:31 PM »

With the current state of the Canon lens line up I think that an 18 MP camera with much better image quality in a 5D III is the best solution.

It depends on what you expect. A 7D shows how the center portion will look of a 46 megapixel full-frame sensor. You will see dropoff in the corners, especially at large apertures of course, but at say f/8 you'll see good performance from many current lenses.

Here's a few example of current lenses that I think would work well with a high resolution sensor (in the 36 - 48 mp range):
TS-E 17, TS-E 24 II, 50/1.4, 85/1.8, TS-E 90, 100/2, 135/2, 70-200/2.8 II, 400/5.6, + high end tele lenses. These will provide good corner-to-corner performance at f/8, noticably less sharp when pixel-peeping yes, but no extreme differences. In short DoF photography corner performance is usually not very important. At 36 megapixels the pixel pitch is only 25% smaller than current 5Dmk2, so it is not extreme resolution increase we are talking about. If lenses were really bad at 36 megapixels, it would clearly show already at 21.

25% is actually a huge difference. Keep in mind we're talking about area here, the pixels would be 42% smaller. Lenses are already struggeling at 21 megapixels. If you make the pixels 42% smaller the problems will be severe.

That list of high resolution Canon leneses is more or less comprehensive, the 400mm f/5.6 does not belong there, and the TS-E 17 50mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.8 are limited around 24 MP based on APS-C tests. There are a few other rarer lenses missing from the list, but yes those are the ones one would have to work with, most of which would have to be stopped down. Realistically with a 36mp camera you'd just see etremely marginal benefit outside of the 24mm TS-E, 70-200mm, and the supertelephotos, which isn't very good at all.

There are definitely some exceptions to the limited resolution of Canon's current lenses and even some cheap lenses the could eek out marginal benefit from a few more MP, but the reasonable conclusion is that the benefit of more resolution is just too marginal at this point. On the other hand more DR and iso has a much much more wide reaching benefit.

Wide angle and standard zooms will probably show the weakest performance (70-200 is a much better performing zoom range), and won't be the choice for a high res photographer. On the wide end we have the new TS-Es which are great, but I'd like to see a new TS-E 45mm, the current is not too good from a high res perspective.

Getting the most out of high res sensor does require expensive lenses on the wide end and on the tele end, but in the range 50 - 100 sharp is cheap.

It is not necessary to limit the sensor to what the worst lenses can provide. There will be binning modes, sRAW etc, for hand-held, high ISO, and less sharp lenses, you won't have to use max resolution when you don't need it.

There's also another aspect - "sharp pixels" (=aliased, jaggies) don't enlarge well. Is is good if the sensor has so high resolution that you get fairly soft pixels which can be stretched around in PP and enlarging without showing any artifacts. Low-res images without AA filter (i e Sigma) is the worst for enlarging.

I think the biggest benefit of going to 36mp would be a 10% or so bump in resolution accross the board by the presumed removal of the AA filter. There are definitely many side benefits to more megapixels.


The thing is just that even most landscape photographers would have very marginal benefit from a 36mp camera, and going with an 18mp one that has way more DR and iso is much better for everyone.

I personally want Canon to release a 36mp camera even without the right lenses for it because it will drive innovation but if I worked at Canon I would make their 18 mp sensor a priority and the 36mp one a niche product.

219

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

« on: December 01, 2011, 11:14:46 AM »

i personaly dont really mind more megapixels however seeing the lenses at the moment cant deliver enough detail for the 18+ mp sensors its a good point to stick to 18MP sensors for a year and perfect those.
maby if they find a way to imporve lenses further there is a point in adding more megapixels for this cheapass cropfreak.

I've heard this before and find it hard to believe. Do you have any data to back up that claim? The top shelf lenses today have (give or take) been around for decades in one way or another and have always been resolving high enough for film. How could they be not good enough for 18 or 21 or whatever MP sensors? There are certainly many issues today that could see improvement. Lens quality doesn't seem to be one of them really to me (other than the fact that we're pretty much married to AF these days and that lenses aren't that haptically appealing anymore).

There is a reason by the way why Leica decided to develop M-series cameras that take all of their old lenses. Seems to work really great.

All you have to do is look at MTF data taken from test charts. The simple fact that we can even get an MTF figure by shooting a test chart with a camera means that the lens at some point cannot out resolve the sensor. MTF is actually a measure of resolution, just like megapixels, and you can convert between the two without much difficulty. If you look at the MTF data at the mid frame and use that as a marker for the whole lens you will find that many Canon zoom lenses can only resolve 10-18 megapixels at their sweet spot a kit lens generally resolves 10 and an L lens or some high end non-L lenes resolves 16.5-18. Many Canon prime lenses also only resolve 18 megapixels. ONLY a very select few super expensive lenses resolve more and are probably good for 30-40 MP, which we can figure out by looking at APS-C test charts.

The sharpness of a good lens is usually relatively consistent over the image circle, except at the very corners. The sharpness tends to vary less than 30% across the vast majority of the frame, so there are benefits to having more mexapixels to some of the image, but the majority of it will not benefit. Around 24 megapixels you see less than around 90% of the frame gaining from additional resolution.

Canon would not benefit from going up in megapixels until it introduces a new series of primes and normal zooms for full frame. They have the technology to make these high resolution lenses, but simply do not have products capable of doing the job.

I was personally hoping that Canon would introduce a much sharper line of lenses along with pushing the megapixels higher but obviously that's not been the case.

With the current state of the Canon lens line up I think that an 18 MP camera with much better image quality in a 5D III is the best solution.

220

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

« on: November 29, 2011, 10:10:15 PM »

I welcome our new 18 MP high iso overlords. I could really use some more iso, as long as the camera is definitely 18 MP. I can't do with less than 18.

221

EOS Bodies / Speculation on new Canon lineup.

« on: October 21, 2011, 01:12:27 AM »

I was just speculating on how the new Canon lineup might work and here's what I would love to see.

1DX $6800  -  18 MP, 14 FPS, advanced autofocus, excelent low light performance

3D - $3500  -  18 MP, 4 FPS, excelent low light performance, - good autofocus

5D III - $3500  - 32 MP, 4 FPS, last gen low light performance - good or average autofocus

Wouldn't this satisfy everyone?

222

EOS Bodies / Re: The 1DX may have higher resolution than the 1Ds III in the real world...

« on: October 19, 2011, 04:03:44 PM »

I appreciate the response Doug and you make a valuable point. I used middle gray as a fair point of comparison.  As you said the noise is not constant but depends on luminance, so the effect is more prominent in the shadow areas than the highlights. In other words your mileage may vary.

The argument is just useful information. For me as a studio photographer that shoots hand held at 400-800 iso it's useful to consider.

223

EOS Bodies / The 1DX may have higher resolution than the 1Ds III in the real world...

« on: October 18, 2011, 01:58:54 PM »

I just thought I'd post an interesting piece of info for everyone that's bothered by the reduction in megapixels for the 1DX.


Mathematically speaking the noise in an image actually contributes to a reduction of resolition of an image. You can't make out individual specs of sand on a picture of a beach when there are grains of noise for example. In less technical terms if you look at the MTF50 of a high noise image versus a low noise image of an identical test chart, the resolution is lower for the high noise image. Noise reduction suppresses the distraction of noise, but cannot improve the physical signal to noise ratio. This is why high noise images lack fine detail.

So while technically the 1Dx has a maximum resolution of 18 megapixels, if the reduction in noise on the 1Dx compared to the 1Ds is a bit over one stop the 1Dx would practically and technically speaking have superior or equal resolution at anything above 400 iso.

This is just something to consider for those that think it's a downgrade in resolution. The reality might be that it's identical or superior in practical terms, although anything above a 1 stop increase in noise handling is very unlikely.

224

EOS Bodies / Re: How many people just want Canon the 5DIII and 24-70mm f/2.8 IS already?

« on: September 20, 2011, 12:44:13 PM »

I don't know about anyone else, but I've been waiting for 2 years for Canon just to release these two products. In my mind it's an absolute no brainer for Canon.

5D Mark III

- 32 Megapixels

I know lots of people who have either FF or APS-C cameras, and never needed more than 8MP after cropping. People who need to crop more than 100% of the pixel regularily are either the exception or novice photographers.

I do know plenty of people who want cleaner images, more DR, higher ISO, higher FPS, and smaller images to improve performance (less processing time, less disk space, etc).

It's certainly not a no brainer - there are plenty of people who would prefer less MP. Of course there are people who do need more, but there's no reason their needs would decide what everybody else should have.

With regard to the megapixel debate, I'm a high end professional digital artist and a low end pro photographer. If you look at the software side of the equation more megapixels means that noise reduction and sharpening alogrithms are going to be much much much more effective. This is one of the driving forces behind how modern photos with high noise look so good compared to photos from just a few years ago. While I do agree that point and shoot cameras have too many megapixels already, they are the ones which are at the dividing line where the net benefit of more megapixels doesn't outweigh the net loss. If you scaled the pixel density of a point and shoot to a full frame, you'd have a 350 megapixel camera, so we are very very very far from being anywhere near having more megapixels being worse on full frame. More megapixels means cleaner, sharper images when taken a higher iso.

225

EOS Bodies / How many people just want Canon the 5DIII and 24-70mm f/2.8 IS already?

« on: September 20, 2011, 12:08:22 AM »

I don't know about anyone else, but I've been waiting for 2 years for Canon just to release these two products. In my mind it's an absolute no brainer for Canon.

5D Mark III

- 32 Megapixels
- no more low iso noise problems
- 7D Autofocus
- Improved Dynamic Range
- Lower noise (signal to noise ratio not just noise reduction)

24-70mm F/2.8 IS

- Capable of resolving around 32 megapixels wide open or nearly wide open.

Seriously. They would sell these things faster than they could produce them.