Messages

1

EOS Bodies / Re: A Big Megapixel Discussion

« on: June 18, 2013, 11:36:46 AM »

Big megapixel is a "medium format killer", just as D800 currently is. It's targeting a specific genre, high resolution photography.  It's not a journalist camera like the flagships. Sure, for typical 35mm photography high resolution is just a waste of disk space. But a high resolution 35mm is there to stretch into medium format territory, just as medium format digital stretched into large format film (think 4x5 and 8x10 view camera) territory. In other words expand what you can do with a 35mm system. A pro Canon shooter could have a 1DX for fast handheld action work, and a big megapixel camera for studio/still life/architecture/landscape.

Probably the high resolution genre is smaller, but every landscape hobbyist will want it (those are many!), and some of the pro shooters that use medium format today will drop the costly MF system and use only 35mm for convenience. I think Canon need this type of camera in their lineup in the long-term to provide a cameras for all genres users nowadays expect 35mm to be good at.

In the medium format forums the only camera that is considered as real competition with MF is the D800, and indeed several has ditched MF in favour of the more user-friendly, all-around and cheaper D800. In the same forums Canon is still used as an example to show off how "bad" 35mm is compared to MF, as it still has poor dynamic range and color rendition at base ISO compared to MF, while the D800 actually is competitive and even better in some aspects.

I am not sure I'd call 30-50mp DSLR's "medium format killers". I would probably term it "medium format intruders". When the most important thing for your work is pixel count, there is no denying that medium format has the edge. Medium format sensors have both higher megapixel counts (80mp, or even more with advanced hardware like Hassy's 200mp multishot), as well as larger pixels than any relatively comparable FF DSLR (i.e. the pixel on a 40mp MFD are going to be meaningfully larger than a 40mp FF DSLR). Granted, I think that the per-pixel technology and per-pixel quality is probably a bit higher on DSLR sensors...CMOS sensor technology has been pushed very hard, very far, very fast over the last few years, while the primary innovation in the MFD sector has been...yup, more pixels. I definitely think FF DSLRs are closing the gap, and are indeed intruding on MFD territory...but they aren't far along enough yet to call them medium format killers (and they will probably never really reach that point...in the areas where MFD rule, the only thing that really matters is raw pixel count...and with more surface area per sensor, you can always pack in more pixels than you'll ever get on FF DSLR, even if the DSLR pixels have higher per-pixel IQ.)

Not a single recent sensor out from Canon is even remotely close Sony Exmor sensors in terms of base ISO performance. I'm still waiting to see that Canon actually can produce a sensor which has the properties high resolution photographers desire - ie great dynamic range and great color fidelity at base ISO. High ISO performance (which Canon indeed is good at!) is not irrelevant, but much less important than in traditional 35mm photography.

Canon's problem here is high frequency off-die components (i.e. ADC). With a die shrink (not confirmed by any means, but I think likely, if not even necessary to achieve higher pixel densities), Canon could drop a lot of their off-die components right onto the CMOS sensor die, go column-parallel, and get considerable improvements at low ISO. It should be noted that Canon's per-pixel CDS performs better than Sony Exmor D-CDS at higher ISO...read noise on an Exmor doesn't go below ~2.6e-, where as on a Canon it drops to as low as 1.5e-, which is part of the reason Canon high ISO output is so clean.

I would also dispute the notion that high ISO is less important in digital than in film. There are far more photographers who use higher ISO settings these days than those who use only ISO 100. Sports, wedding, journalists/paparazzi, studio (not ultra high, but frequently enough higher than ISO 200), wildlife, birds, airshows, and pretty much anything with action. Even in good light, when you need to freeze action, it is not very hard to fin yourself at at least ISO 800. Most of the wildlife and bird photographers I follow are increasingly becoming comfortable with ISO settings as high as 10k, and in some cases I've seen a couple professional quality, printable photos taken at ISO 16k taken with a 1D X!! Don't forget night photography, street photography, night sky/deep sky astrophotography (which is usually between ISO 800 and 3200), etc.

The types of photography where ISO 100 is king is far lower. Landscape photographers are probably one of the most obvious groups, studio photographers are also a group that can make good use of low ISO. Still life photography, product photography...probably anything static where you are manually, directly lighting your subject is likely to use ISO 100 and 200. Still, add up all the photographers in the world who do this kind of photography, and you'll still fall far short of sports photographers alone, let alone the entire community of photographers who rarely use an ISO setting below 400. The MFD market is small because it can be small...not as many people need both superior ISO 100 performance AND unparalleled pixel counts. For every studio photogapher with a couple Hassy H4D-50's, there are 50 sports photographers.

Well, Nikon has cooperation with several manufacturers regarding sensors,Nikon/ Toshiba has 1.4 e read out noise  and maximum efficiency of all sensors today. Better than Nikon/Sony, and then you have  Nikon/Renesas with 1,9 e read noise
Being alone in  in the sensor development /manufacturing is no longer a  strength that it was in 2004

2

EOS Bodies / Re: A Big Megapixel Discussion

« on: June 17, 2013, 05:43:23 AM »

Canon wanted to upgrade its glass before releasing the higher MP bodies, and now they have filled out some of the line (never going to keep everyone happy) then they have a complete env. for photographers. Releasing the body before releasing the better lenses doesn't make sense and I would guess does not need the same investment as a new sensor line. Investing in lenses means you get a better return as it appeals to all sorts of shooters, so you've got a larger addressable market than the high mp body will have

Meanwhile develop the next sensor tech to support them for perhaps the next 7 to 10 years (given previous cycles), and also watch and see how the market responds to the d800 - this in itself takes a reasonable time before you can reasonably assess the impact. And while you wait that new sensor tech is still useful for the whole of your product line.

It will be a pro body as I said earlier, and a body in between this and the 5d. Finally it will be in the 7d ii but perhaps a higher pixel density. Interesting times...

And the right   translation would mybe  be: Canon can not with its sensor technology increase the number of pixels without using the sensor line from the  compact sensor line , they can not use the old sensor lines as these are to course / rough. This means new sensors line which there are no indications that Canon have invest in, a investments of several billion dollars as for example Sony has done, or they can use the compact sensor line and stitch together an APS or 24x36mm sensor with a high cost
WE WILL soon  SE WHAT CANON HAVE IN THEIRS SLEAVES, the market outside Canon = Omnivision, Toshiba, Sony, Renesas, Aptina etc are not standing still in theirs own developments of new sensors tech from mobile sensors  up to 24x36mm sensors
When the annual meetings are  regarding  the new  sensor technology  Canon are not involved  in this  meetings, tell me what are the odds that at Canon would come with a new sensor technology before others as Toshiba, Panasonic, Sony etc?
Then they can say that they are improving the  lenses or what ever in the mean time.

OMG! Canon does not attend meetings at Toshiba, Panasonic, and Sony to discuss sensors! I am shocked!

And they can not increase the number of pixels without using the compact sensors? (1.6*1.6*18M = 46M, they could build a 46Mpixel FF sensor with the same technology and pixel size as APS-C).

There is no indication that Canon has invested in new sensors? I would assume that in the 6 years since the current tech was introduced in APS-C that if the design division had not done anything more than playing cards and surfing the web, that they would have all been fired.... Just because you or I don't know the details does not mean that they are all asleep. Oh wait.... there are new sensors... on the p/s cameras... I guess they have been working....

Canon has the ability to do finer lithography on it's circuits than what we see on APS-C and FF sensors. The P/S lineup is proof. (They get the new technology first because that's where the money is).

This is a rumours site. The only thing we can state about future offerings is that we don't know. In looking at the big picture, it helps to realize that that it is not cameras like the 1DX and $10,000 primes that drives Canon...The big money is in the small items.. P/S cameras are more important than Rebels. Rebels are more important than 60D's and 6D's.... which are more important than 7D's and 5DII's, which are more important than 1DX's... Canon will make a lot more profit on a $350 50-250 zoom than the just released 200-400... If you want to guess what will happen at the top, look to the bottom.

yes they have the ability to produce finer circuits when it comes to smaller sensor sizes and it was also mention earlier by me.
And regarding 46Mp, the question is if they can expose a 24x36mm surface  in one seance and if they  the have the  lenses and peripherals that meet this requirements, and will Canon is continuing with their old readout technique?
it requires considerably higher demands from  equipment to expose a large 24x36mm sensor surface than a small compact camera surface in one seance

3

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1DX and 5D3 RAW files

« on: June 16, 2013, 09:25:14 AM »

1DsIII and 1Dx is just better sensor than 5D II and III
the 5D had the closest looking IQ 200-400iso daylight/strobe to 1D series...

here you can read about whats have changed in the different sensors
as you can se the 1dsmk3 sensors is different in QE , FWC , read noise  etc
http://www.sensorgen.info/CanonEOS-1Ds_MkIII.html   compared to 5dmk3  http://www.sensorgen.info/CanonEOS_5D_MkIII.html
Canon has since 1dsmk3 increased the sensivity by making the CFA thinner and improved the micro lenses and modified the circuits.

The 1dsmk3 sensor in it self are inferior compared to  the sensor in 5dmk3 but 1dsmk3 have better read out with less banding compared to 5dmk2 5dmk3
and the banding  is also much  lower in the new 6D compared to 5dmk2 mk3

4

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Is it time to consider Sigma lenses seriously?? competitive to Canon?

« on: June 15, 2013, 06:37:22 PM »

well you can start with 35, 50, 70, 85,  105 ,150, 180 mm lenses
then you have some zooms to choose  regarding if you use APS or 24x36mm sensor

5

Site Information / Re: banning people for nothing at canon rumors

« on: June 15, 2013, 05:14:42 PM »

I can say that I like CR more than Dpreview and others forum because of the knowledge and dedication
of the brand but let the brand  also be open for some criticism when they earn it

6

EOS Bodies / Re: A Big Megapixel Discussion

« on: June 15, 2013, 04:18:52 PM »

Canon wanted to upgrade its glass before releasing the higher MP bodies, and now they have filled out some of the line (never going to keep everyone happy) then they have a complete env. for photographers. Releasing the body before releasing the better lenses doesn't make sense and I would guess does not need the same investment as a new sensor line. Investing in lenses means you get a better return as it appeals to all sorts of shooters, so you've got a larger addressable market than the high mp body will have

Meanwhile develop the next sensor tech to support them for perhaps the next 7 to 10 years (given previous cycles), and also watch and see how the market responds to the d800 - this in itself takes a reasonable time before you can reasonably assess the impact. And while you wait that new sensor tech is still useful for the whole of your product line.

It will be a pro body as I said earlier, and a body in between this and the 5d. Finally it will be in the 7d ii but perhaps a higher pixel density. Interesting times...

And the right   translation would mybe  be: Canon can not with its sensor technology increase the number of pixels without using the sensor line from the  compact sensor line , they can not use the old sensor lines as these are to course / rough. This means new sensors line which there are no indications that Canon have invest in, a investments of several billion dollars as for example Sony has done, or they can use the compact sensor line and stitch together an APS or 24x36mm sensor with a high cost
WE WILL soon  SE WHAT CANON HAVE IN THEIRS SLEAVES, the market outside Canon = Omnivision, Toshiba, Sony, Renesas, Aptina etc are not standing still in theirs own developments of new sensors tech from mobile sensors  up to 24x36mm sensors
When the annual meetings are  regarding  the new  sensor technology  Canon are not involved  in this  meetings, tell me what are the odds that at Canon would come with a new sensor technology before others as Toshiba, Panasonic, Sony etc?
Then they can say that they are improving the  lenses or what ever in the mean time.

7

Site Information / Re: banning people for nothing at canon rumors

« on: June 15, 2013, 02:18:48 PM »

The admins are pretty forgiving, if a banned member were to contact the Admins and discuss the issues and make a commitment to follow the rules, we would likely give yet another chance.  That has happened.  Some chose to burn their bridges by sending a bunch of name calling e-mails, which only serves to assure us that we made a correct decision.

It does not help his cause to have someone posting a one sided view on his behalf, it does not tell the whole story, and its not the place to discuss specifics about a member in any event.

A very good way to get a quick warning or a ban is by insulting members or CR administrators in a public post.  I try to remove insulting posts that directly call someone a name, but obviously we do not read every post and rely on members to report serious issues. 

the question is, was it the case?

or was it a just a sensible MOD who don´t like to be corrected and thinks he is always right?

i don´t know!
i don´t know why he was banned but from what was presented to me.. it looks that way.

You quoted an admin above - did you read what you quoted, particularly the highlighted text?

As for what was presented to you, you seem to be listening to only one side of the story.  Sure, you can look over his posts and see no issues - that's most likely because his insulting posts were deleted after they brought to the moderators' attention.

Maybe you missed the other comments in this thread that seem to present a small part of the other side of the story (e.g., "Now that you mention it canon-f1 had insulted me too.").  Regardless, the key point is:

its not the place to discuss specifics about a member

You've asked the question, you've been answered by the site owner and another admin. I would suggest that now might be a good time to let the issue drop.  Unless, of course, you have another reason for pushing this issue.  For example, if you know Canon-F1 in the same way that Mikael Residal knows ankorwatt - i.e., you see him every time you look into a mirror.  I suppose the mods could deduce that from the IP addresses used, most forum software has the capability to show members that are likely to be the same person.

Risedal, it is Risedal NEURO

and,if you NEURO  think it is  high ceiling here at CR you are wrong =   that  the no-teller have the same opportunity like  the YES teller  have here  at the forum and   the permits  to write on this forum as the yes teller has - you are wrong , really wrong Neuro.

This forum will be dead if we not can discuss facts like where is Canon today regarding sensors tech and other questions
and that  people are being banned because they do not have the same experience or opinion  that the rest of  the YES sayers has/have.
I believe in an open dialogue regardless  it is about Canon or another brand as long we are discussing facts and not what we believe, believe we can do in the church.

Facts: the new 200-400 looks like a killer lens  if we look at the measurements, facts , the Canon sensors looks like a looser today  if we look at the resolution  and read out noise
Facts: for some it looks not nice, for others who knows the physics around the read out  noise and the cell and low DR  we are not suppriced.
Facts , this make not the new  the lens inferior but the sensors from Canon  are not up  to  the standard today
Facts: we must know what we are discussing.
Facts, please use the right name

8

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Is it time to consider Sigma lenses seriously?? competitive to Canon?

« on: June 15, 2013, 02:05:44 PM »

as I said before, chose the right lens from Sigma and they are good as Nikon,Canon, Pentax or whatever to the half price.

9

Lenses / Re: 400 2.8 vs 200-400 4.0 1.4

« on: June 15, 2013, 06:55:00 AM »

The respect for 200-400 increases when I see the results above.
Im often in SA and safaris where 400,500,600/2,8 are to heavy and clumsy to bring around, especially in  the Kruger park where we are  driving around in a own car and  things happens fast outside.
Kudos Canon . it seems to be - a  new classic lens

I myself are often  testing zoom lenses and  compare them with 70-200/2.8ismk2, the best 70-200 zoom on the market today
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=2&LensComp=764&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0 and even here the new 200-400  zoom looks very strong.

10

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Is it time to consider Sigma lenses seriously?? competitive to Canon?

« on: June 14, 2013, 02:58:37 PM »

Hey guys.  I am an amateur/hobbyist photographer that loves to keep up on the forums and on cr.    I was wondering what you guys take on the new lenses that Sigma has been putting out on the market.  The price ranges are very competitive even to the Canon brand.  I am a Canon fanboy (to put it best) but the recent 35mm f1.4, 120-300mm f2.8, and now the 18-35mm f1.8is making me think much more of a third party brand.  A friend of mine had a sigma 50mm f1.4 that pulled some impressive pictures!  I have bought and returned a sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 lens before... horrid lens (possibly the copy). 

Anyways, I want to hear from y'all before buying a few lenses. (10-22, 50 1.4, and 15-85 or 24-105)  Thanks!

there have been lenses from Tokina,Sigma, Tamron etc who are good or better than Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Minolta  etc since 1978 when I started to test lenses
1981 Tokina made  a 80-200/2,8 who had better MTF than Canon, Pentax,Nikon, Minolta original.
A lens that has been outstanding over the years  is for example Tamron SP 90 macro, I had my first 1981. Today we know how the Sigma 35, 50,85,105, 150, 180, and zooms mm etc  presents, likewise with lot of lenses from Tokina and Tamron.

11

Lenses / Re: 400 2.8 vs 200-400 4.0 1.4

« on: June 14, 2013, 12:59:51 PM »

Question to Canon CPS?Why?  Like you ask, you will get a answer.
The ultimate zoom for hockey worldwide football indoor sports, handball etc  have included  the 200-400 from Nikon a long time and the lens has replaced a variety of lenses for the photographers. The quality are now so good from the cameras  that a stop do not give much benefit and  if  Canon can show that their  lens is a good as a couple of heavy fixed lenses  then it is not much to discuss?
Your own choice that you have a 300 or 400/2,8 ?
For a newspaper or magazine there are no difference if the american football has been shooting with a 400/2,8 or 200-400/4 at F-4

12

Lenses / Re: 400 2.8 vs 200-400 4.0 1.4

« on: June 13, 2013, 06:20:38 PM »

it's a bit difficult to change lenses in the middle of a match and even heavier for the back to use multiple cameras and  a  200, 300 and a 400mm lens, I think the Canon sports  Photographers will use 200-400/4 the same way as in international photo agencies use the Nikon 200-400 today and  at sports events and that's why Canon has invested so much in their own 200-400zoom.
The lens has major benefits

13

Lenses / Re: 400 2.8 vs 200-400 4.0 1.4

« on: June 13, 2013, 05:10:01 PM »

if I was a nature photographer or sports photographer,  the choice would not be  difficult, the 200-400/4 seems hard to beat. I've just tested the latest Nikon 80-400 zoom which in no way can be compared with 200-400 zoom, but the lens is good enough for me and the times I use it with d800, and it is light to carry
My camera dealer was the first in Sweden to get the new Canon 200-400 and it was sold to  Swedens biggest news paper, I hope to test the lens in the next shipments.
pictures outside my summer house in  Ystad, the town of Kurt Wallander if you have read  the detective stories of Mankell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henning_Mankell

14

Lenses / Re: 400 2.8 vs 200-400 4.0 1.4

« on: June 13, 2013, 03:15:07 PM »

The new zoom seems to be the best 200-400 lens ,even  better than Nikon, can it be better?
the difference between 400/2,8 and the zoom at F-4  is nothing compared to the benefits of the zoom

15

Lenses / Re: Two classic lenses from Canon

« on: June 06, 2013, 06:30:02 PM »

OK    
cheap

they are seen now as  classic lenses and start command a high value/price  if they are in excellent condition