Messages

16

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 70D & EOS 7D Mark II

« on: May 16, 2013, 05:52:49 PM »

Canon have  lived on a long time  on their name and early cmos  sensor tech since 2004, sorry but this tech is old 2013 which can been seen if you compare to   Nikon, Pentax, Sony =  DXO scores etc  why are not Canon in the DXO list over best sensors at all ?
Do you have any nuanced view at all  whats going on  ?This is the real difference between 18 and 24Mp APS as one example

17

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 70D & EOS 7D Mark II

« on: May 16, 2013, 05:43:21 PM »

I agree, Canon sensors are to late

Gee, I guess it's a good thing that Canon sells cameras, not just sensors....and they continue to sell more of them than their competition.

you can think what you want, the rest is easy to catch up, speed, AF ergonomic  etc  but not the sensor, and there are the Canon Inc  hopeless bypassed by Sony, Aptina, Panasonic, Toshiba, Omnivision, Renesas, and many more  today
And , bigger companies has fallen than Canon when they are not up to date.

18

Lenses / Re: Canon Tele lenses vs Nikon tele lenses ( both with converters )

« on: May 16, 2013, 05:22:03 PM »

REGARDING  TESTPICTURES I have seen he's test pictures before, http://www.the-digital-picture.com, totally out of control  and no declaration in how many meters etc to the test  target, different combos are optimized for different distance.Different super telephoto lenses are optimized for different distances

Sorry, but your just flat out wrong there. Bryan of TDP is very meticulous. He has also provided a page detailing how he does his ISO chart tests here:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Help/ISO-12233.aspx

According to his explanation, every shot of the test chart is sampled at least 10 times, often 15-20 times. The best shot out of all the samples is used to produce the samples he puts up on his site. Ten to twenty shots is more than enough to get a good reading on how well a lens performs.

True. 

Supertele lenses optimized for different distances?  If so, is that information publicized?  RE the testing distance at TDP, lenses under 460mm are tested on an Applied Image QA-77-4-P-RM chart, which meets the ISO 12233 standard and adds features as well (e.g., squares for SFR analysis).  The 3:2 region of that chart is 1200x800mm, and if you understand ISO 12233 testing, you'll know you need to fill the frame with the chart - so, tested distance can be determined by the angle of view of a given focal length. In fact, if you look at his specs and measurement tool, one of the specs is '1200x800 subject framing distance' - why that spec? It's the testing distance for the ISO 12233 shots.  Lenses longer than 460mm use a smaller chart (QA-77-3, -2 as needed), and the specs page for longer lenses provides those distances for framing the smaller QA-77 charts.  The Applied Image charts are quite nice - I have several sizes (I ran across them originally because they produce excellent standards for characterizing microscopic imaging systems, and I have several for use in the lab).

off course super telen is optimized for different meters, none are optimized for  the horisont, lying 8, most of the tele and super lens are optimized för 30-50m. Think about the optical plane as a U and the telephoto  lenses are not optimized for the the horisont, laying8 and the U backwards', NOPE
Any questions?

19

Lenses / Re: Canon Tele lenses vs Nikon tele lenses ( both with converters )

« on: May 16, 2013, 05:13:53 PM »

Jrista and Neuro , you call a manual procedure with live view and 4 small Canon/Nikon flashes a optimal set up?
well I have news for you, I don't compared to a real MTF test

Again, test charts are just that, controlled tests. Real world results trump test results every day. I can handhold my 400 f/2.8 II for 30-45 minutes without a monopod, can't do that with my friends Nikon. He even agrees the ergonomics are far superior for the lens AND the body (1Dx v D4). We shot kayaking for two days straight (slalom, boater X, freestyle and River test) using 200 f/2's and 400 f/2.8's + other gear with extenders at some points. IQ wise I beat him out most of the time, not due to better glass but a much better AF system, focusing speed and ability of the lens and lighter weight gear that does not tire you out as much so you can hoist up and get that shot. Shooting an event all day (7am-7pm) in the hot sun with 20 kg of gear is much different then 12 hours and 15kg of gear.

So, lets see this Swedish photo mag's real world working photographers test results and not charts, which serve two purposes: Forum arguments and lens calibration.

there are no test who can go against a real mtf test if we are talking about resolution and contrast t, you can think what you want, but no test can compete with a real MTF test and done by for example Hasselblads lab, if you think otherwise its means you have not a clue about resolution and contrast and a real measurements with out any feelings about a brand

20

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS not good for NASA?

« on: May 16, 2013, 05:03:55 PM »

It's not a secret that NASA uses Nikon cameras and lenses (http://www.nikon.com/news/2009/1221_NASA-D3S_01.htm) after using Hasselblad cameras during the Apollo mission.
Could we reveal the reason?

very, very simple reason:

Hassy has a bigger camera body ( more easy to manipulate the settings in a space suit)

Nikon sensors have better DR than Canon.... and in space this performance is crucial.

Yes it must be the DR. NASA has been awaiting that for years up until last year when Nikon introduced the D800...

Do you believe yourself what you're writing?

You.... again 

Well, factually speaking, DR is NOT the most important thing in space. NASA bought into Nikon a few years back because at the time Nikon was the king of HIGH ISO. You don't shoot the dark side of the Earth from space at ISO 100...you shoot it at ISO 6400, 12800 and at high shutter speeds to freeze the motion of 17,500mph! At High ISO, DR is physically limited. You lose about 1 stop DR per stop of ISO increase...you have only 7 or 8 stops at those high ISO, so the most important thing is the total electrons per pixel at maximum saturation. The higher the charge, the lower the noise.

Today, Canon rules the high ISO/SNR realm. By a relatively small margin compared to how much Nikon rules the low ISO/DR realm, but enough to give them an edge now. I believe the only reason NASA currently uses Nikon and has not changed to Canon is there really isn't any reason to. They are invested. They have the gear, have the lenses. Why change? They don't need the compelling features of the 1D X...it was built for sports, so it has an AF system and frame rate to match. I'd figure the most compelling Canon camera for NASA would be a 40-50mp FF monster with good ISO 25600 performance...which doesn't exist quite yet.

hmm what do you mean in all this text?

21

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 70D & EOS 7D Mark II

« on: May 16, 2013, 05:01:24 PM »

I agree, Canon sensors are to late

22

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 70D & EOS 7D Mark II

« on: May 16, 2013, 02:52:12 PM »

We’re told a “surprise” announcement will be made by Canon in July, what that is we’re unsure. However, the source alluded to it being a camera body. I wouldn’t call the EOS 70D a “surprise”, but we’ll see. Could it be…….. something else?

Lets see...
* Canon announces RAW video in official firmware
* Canon announces 4k video in official firmware for 1DX/5DIII with some special add on device
* Canon announces a m4/3 camera plus lenses
* Canon announces a new EOS-M series camera that is radically different
* Canon announces a DSLR wither either hybrid or pure EVF
* Canon announces a DSLR that is modeled on the Ricoh GX-R with a plugable sensor/CPU module
* Canon announces a 70D with the autofocus from the 5DIII
* Canon announces a new APS-H DSLR (not likely)

... other ideas?

canon announces a new sensor with large Dynamic Range and low read out noise. it will start at around  24Mp when all others are around 100Mp

23

Lenses / Re: Canon 200/1.8 and 70-200Ismk2

« on: May 15, 2013, 01:14:15 PM »

200/1,8 is a true legend due the resolution and contrast.  Nikons 300/2. are a rare lens  and sold  for around 26000USD to the film/video industry.  Nikon 300/2 cost about 4200USD 1984.

24

Lenses / Re: Canon Tele lenses vs Nikon tele lenses ( both with converters )

« on: May 14, 2013, 07:16:44 PM »

Jrista and Neuro , you call a manual procedure with live view and 4 small Canon/Nikon flashes a optimal set up?
well I have news for you, I don't compared to a real MTF test

25

Lenses / Re: Canon Tele lenses vs Nikon tele lenses ( both with converters )

« on: May 14, 2013, 07:03:56 PM »

The graphs from the picture shows the MTF at 10cykler per mm a frequency that shows the contrast, super telen as for example 500mm has high contrast but lower MTF values ​​around 40cykler per mm compared with shorter telen,  , therefore all super tele lenses are measured  at 10 cykler per mm , other questions you can  email christian.nilsson@aller.se  technical chief Foto Magazine or Hasselblad LAB look at theirs web site
All info are in the picture above, you can translate the text

26

Lenses / Re: Canon Tele lenses vs Nikon tele lenses ( both with converters )

« on: May 14, 2013, 06:35:29 PM »

I was self shooting with the 300. 400, 500, 600 from Nikon and Canon this mount, the only thing I noticed was that Canon latest tele was lighter, also that the 400mm from both Nikon and Canon  had almost the brilliance of the 300mm/2,8.which have little bit higher resolution than 400/2,8

27

Lenses / Re: Canon Tele lenses vs Nikon tele lenses ( both with converters )

« on: May 14, 2013, 06:21:20 PM »

well, then you now have a real Mtf test to lean your self against, not a test with human errors as taking pictures from a test chart and not look at if something can be wrong with theirs findings. http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/03/d-resolution-tests have the the practice to test more than one  lens, also photo zone and lens tip if something looks strange.

28

Lenses / Re: Canon Tele lenses vs Nikon tele lenses ( both with converters )

« on: May 14, 2013, 05:35:50 PM »

REGARDING  TESTPICTURES I have seen he's test pictures before, http://www.the-digital-picture.com, totally out of control  and no declaration in how many meters etc to the test  target, different combos are optimized for different distance.Different super telephoto lenses are optimized for different distances


So here are a real measurements from real MTF test, and by Hasselblads MTF lab IN GOTHENBURG  and for  the magazine  Foto here in Sweden. They conclude , there are no difference between for example 400/2.8 , 500/4  600/4 FROM NIKON AND CANON,   (sorry Krille you can sue me for showing this sides from your excellent Photo magazine FOTO)
THE 4 TESTED LENSES ARE EQUAL  NOW you  can believe in what you want regarding one or others companies sovereignty and about  for example  fluorite glass and there are a lot more companies than Nikon, Canon  how can build decent lenses . example Zeiss.Leitz, Sigma,Pentax, Tokina,Tamron  etc etc
Im sorry that Im  erasing yet another myth
And if Jrista or Neuro  want to discuss Hasselblad credibility in their measurements, I suggest that they directly address Per Nordlund  via e-mail, he is the lens expert  expert at Hasselblad

pictures taken from the magazine with a iPhone

29

Lenses / Re: Canon Tele lenses vs Nikon tele lenses ( both with converters )

« on: May 14, 2013, 05:31:01 PM »

Nikon claims that fluorite cracks more easily than glass, and is more susceptible to heat

Both are true.  However, do those facts have any practical relevance in terms of lens use in the field?  A 10 M solution of sulfuric acid is more acidic than an eqimolar solution of hydrochloric acid - but if you annoy someone to the point where they push you into a vat of either there no practical difference - you'd be just as dead either way. 

Wow...I guess I won't ever be messing with Nero in the future...

you can google all that , whats new?that fluorite is more sensitive to air pollution, chemicals?etc

30

Lenses / Re: Canon Tele lenses vs Nikon tele lenses ( both with converters )

« on: May 13, 2013, 10:45:07 PM »

Some of you are dreaming and living in a Canon market dreamworld, I shall ask if I can get Hasselblads measurements of  super telen  and show them here

Fluorite has advantage and disadvantage  and have been used  100years in different lenses in for example microscope, this is not a Canon concept  or patent if any one thinks that. Synthetically-grown fluorite has done that larger surface/element can be produced. It is just a design choice whether to use fluorite or other ultra low dispersion material. Nikon claims that fluorite cracks more easily than glass, and is more susceptible to heat , and claim their ED glass performs as well. .