Messages

1

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Announcements on April 23, 2013? [CR2]

« on: April 14, 2013, 06:22:55 PM »

Can you elaborate, please? I mean, if you were to take a hypothetical 25.6 MP FF sensor and use scissors to trim it by a factor of 1.6 in each dimension, you'd end up with a 10 MP APS-C sensor. Using the same lens, there should be no difference how it resolves before and after trimming, right?

P-Mpix isn't a measure of resolution, although resolution is a contributing factor.  Resolution ≠ sharpness.  A true measure of spatial resolution involves a physical distance.  Usual units are line pairs / mm (LP/mm). For a spatially normalized measure in LP/mm, the higher density sensor will outresolve the lower density sensor. 

However, that's a per-unit basis - and that's not how we look at images.   MTF₅₀, a commonly used measure of sharpness, is reported in line pairs / picture height (LP/PH).  In that case, the greater 'height' of a FF sensor means higher values.  You can see that on photozone.de - when you compare a lens on FF vs. APS-C, the MTF₅₀ values will be higher for the 5DII tests than the 50D tests, despite the higher pixel density of the 50D.  This isn't just a numerical phenomenon - take a look at the TDP comparison of two 18 MP sensors, the 1D X vs. the 7D (same lens, the 200/2L IS at f/4).  The 1D X is producing a noticeably sharper image.

P-Mpix isn't exactly measuring sharpness, either.  It's basically a measure derived from subjective quality factor (SQF), which simply put is an MTF measurement that's adjusted to match human perception (the psychophysical basis is that humans percieve some spatial frequencies better than others, and viewing distance is relevant to perception of sharpness, too). 

That difference you see in TDP's ISO 12233 crops can be measured by SQF, and that's basically what P-Mpix is telling you.  For example, the Canon 300mm f/2.8L IS II that delivers 22 P-Mpix on the 5DIII achieves only 14 P-Mpix on the 7D.  In fact, the 300mm f/4L IS at $1400 delivers better perceived sharpness on the 5DIII than the $7000 supertele lens on the 7D.

Neuroanatomist, thank you for the reply. I believe I understand your explanation, but I think I am not making myself clear trying to communicate my point.

I agree that sensor size matters if we look at the whole image. In your example, 1D X and 7D have exactly the same number of pixels, but different pixel density. By spreading its pixels over 2.56 times larger area, 1D X is less demanding on the lens and resolves more LP for the same PH.

However, I am not trying to compare the final image in terms of FF vs crop sensors. Instead, I look at the per-unit resolution to show that a good lens should not be the limiting factor for a 22 MP FF sensor. Looking at Photozone.de APS-C tests with different lenses, there is often substantial improvement in LP / PH, going from 8 MP (350D) to 15 MP (50D). 350D with 2304 pixels per 14.8 mm height has vertical pixel density of 156 pixels / mm and 50D has 214 px / mm (3168 / 14.8 ). So, these lenses obviously do not limit the system at 156 px / mm, and can benefit from increasing the sensor density up to at least 214.

Now, 5DIII has 3840 vertical pixels per 24 mm, i.e. 160 px / mm - about the same as 350D. Doesn't that prove that another FF sensor with increased pixel density (more MP) would produce better overall resolution (LP / PH) without being limited by the lens? A FF sensor with the same pixel density as 50D would be 38 MP.

This post from Roger at Lensrentals seems to confirm my speculations. In short, it concludes that Nikon D800E with a good lens (Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 ) out-resolves the 5D III with a great lens (Canon 24-70 f/2.8 Mk II) and that the difference is bigger with the same lens (Tamron 24-70). While P-MPix, being a subjective QF, might not reflect the improvement (thank you for clarifying that), I originally wanted to make a point that a FF camera can benefit from more MP beyond 22 MP, even with the current lenses, contrary to your original claim.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/a-24-70mm-system-comparison

Of course, I understand that these are lab tests and these results may not be relevant in real shooting conditions. Also, they may be partially attributed to removing the AA filter.

2

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Announcements on April 23, 2013? [CR2]

« on: April 10, 2013, 07:44:41 PM »

Aomething is not right with these numbers.

For example, Canon 40D's 10 MP sensor would be 25.6 MP, if enlarged to FF size (10 * 1.6 * 1.6). Similarly, 7D's-FF equivalent sensor would contain 46 MP.

Yet, 7D shows markedly better resolution than 40D in combination with the same lenses. In fact, with quite a few lenses, not only the very best ones.

So, if these systems benefit from increased pixel density from 25.6 to 46 MP FF sensor equivalent, how can the best lenses be the limiting factor at 21-22 MP? Or am I misunderstanding something?

Pixel density isn't the only factor - sensor size matters.

Can you elaborate, please? I mean, if you were to take a hypothetical 25.6 MP FF sensor and use scissors to trim it by a factor of 1.6 in each dimension, you'd end up with a 10 MP APS-C sensor. Using the same lens, there should be no difference how it resolves before and after trimming, right?

3

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Announcements on April 23, 2013? [CR2]

« on: April 10, 2013, 05:37:22 PM »

According to DxOMark, the best prime and best zoom from each are:

Canon 300mm f/2.8L IS II on 5DIII - 22 P-Mpix
Nikon 85mm f/1.4G on D800 - 22 P-Mpix

Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II on 5DIII - 21 P-Mpix
Nikon 70-200mm f/4G ED VR on D800 - 21 P-Mpix

So, by DxO's criteria and definition, Canon's best prime and zoom lens are basically not limiting system resolution (within a 1 MP margin of error).  However, Nikon's best prime and zoom on the D800 are resulting in the 'loss' of 14-15 MP....resulting in a perceived sharpness of even Nikon's best lenses on the D800 as no better than Canon's best lenses.

Interestingly, while the D800 appears to be 'too much' for Nikon lenses in that the lenses are clearly limiting overall system resolution, we don't know from these data if we're at the limit of the Canon lenses.

Something is not right with these numbers.

For example, Canon 40D's 10 MP sensor would be 25.6 MP, if enlarged to FF size (10 * 1.6 * 1.6). Similarly, 7D's-FF equivalent sensor would contain 46 MP.

Yet, 7D shows markedly better resolution than 40D in combination with the same lenses. In fact, with quite a few lenses, not only the very best ones.

So, if these systems benefit from increased pixel density from 25.6 to 46 MP FF sensor equivalent, how can the best lenses be the limiting factor at 21-22 MP? Or am I misunderstanding something?

4

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS Rebel T5i Leaks

« on: March 20, 2013, 01:43:33 PM »

You need a good working SYSTEM to take a decent picture.... the sensor is only one part of that system so why is everyone so fixated on it?

My point exactly.  Camera performance matters.  Sensor performance is part of that, but short of people hyperbolizing to the point of NONSENsical absurdity, it's not the only part. 

I suspect everyone is fixated on it for two reasons.  First, in general, it's easy to measure sensor performance and plot the data or reduce the data to a single 'score'.  Second, in particular on CR forums, it's an area where Canon is not leading, and some people like to create a stir by beating on that horse (we sometimes call them trolls...).

Perhaps because at this point, Canon's APS-C sensors are the weak link that makes their CAMERA performance fall behind the competition, at least in areas like noise, DR, etc.?

Sensors are an important part of the system. After Canon has failed to deliver improvements in that particular area for several years, I don't find it strange that users complain about it.

5

Pricewatch Deals / Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS in Stock at B&H Photo

« on: January 04, 2013, 11:22:55 AM »

...IF u don't like Canon strategy or product's there is an alternative solutions & it is good as Canon just no need to stick with it & complain how bad they are.

I can complain all I want... and I will give my opinion, and my opinion of your opinion.  And I will stick with Canon and the products that make sense and are relatively well priced.  This is not it, and I will, as I see fit, complain about it wherever I want!

If you don't want to read my complaints, don't read them, but don't tell me not to complain.
Rafa.

Apparently you are a complainer & you like the useless debates, Complain whatever you want about Canon, me, my comments with yourself but please stop filling the forums with you moaning posts.

So, if someone does not share your unconditional love for Canon products and provides some valid critique, it makes him a complainer?

Having seen Rafa's contributions in other forums, I can testify that he def is not one. He has just as much right to be skeptical about the lens as you may be excited about it. I personally tend to agree with Rafa on his points. Telling him to "stop filling the forums with you moaning posts" is rude, to say the least. I mean, you wouldn't want to be told to "stop your extolling drivel", would you?

6

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon EOS 6D Rating by DXOMark

« on: December 15, 2012, 12:57:41 PM »

Not all Canon users.  But again, while their Measurements are useful, their Scores are not, because they are biased (only considering base ISO for some parameters) and not fully disclosed (weighted formulae but what weightings?).

Bill Claff's data are also quite good (and mirror DxO in many regards, but give some additional insights - worth a look if you haven't seen them.

I agree that DXOmark overall score does not tell the whole truth. In fact, no single number can do that, because no matter what formula / weights are choosen, somebody's priorities are going to be different.

However, the individual Measurements also show that for the most part (high iso being the exception), Nikon's sensor is superior.  Considering that D700 outperforms 6D on almost every spec besides the sensor - autofocus, fps, viewfinder coverage, dual card slots - it's clear which one is the better camera.

7

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark III Body is $2999 Most Places

« on: December 07, 2012, 07:49:18 PM »

I think our opinions have converged quite close :-). I appreciate you sharing your points and arguments!

I might have created the impression of being a Canon hater... it's not true. I am glad to give them praise where it's deserved. In this case, all I wanted to say is that Canon failed to meet my expectations for fair pricing (however subjective they may be), especially in comparison to their competitors. I don't have illusions that Canon is going to listen to my opinion, but that does not mean I would silently swallow my frustration.

As for the 30% increase, I was not comparing the intro and current price of 5DIII, but rather the launch prices of 5DII and 5DIII. I could probably even dismiss that increase as a fluke, if such or even larger increases were not becoming a rule with Canon's recent lens pricing as well. As you said, they are good at playing that game, but I hope that the new offerings from Sigma and Tamron will help rein in Canon's prices at least as far as lenses are concerned.

8

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark III Body is $2999 Most Places

« on: December 06, 2012, 07:40:23 PM »

well, first of all, unhappy customers vote with their wallets, not with their dreams of social equality among photographers.

and yes, for those who have been around long enough to remember, Canon DID change the FD lens mount to the present EF  mount, and a great many photographers, including some that I know, were impacted.  one even left the business (rather accelerated his retirement) because of the large investment and because he knew his old equipment could not keep up with the competition for very long.  But I didn't see any letters to the UN demanding that Canon preserve a long term relationship with him or make EF backwards compatible with FD.

I'm not trying to be difficult here, but you keep bringing up terms like "gouging" and "long term relationship", as if Canon has some social obligation.  They don't.  Canon doesn't have a relationship with anyone except their suppliers and key product champions, sponsored photographers, or whatever they need to accomplish their profitability goals.  the rest of us make investment versus risk choices.  nothing prevents one from taking advantage of the relatively strong used market prices and switch brands. you can shift the risk to someone else. 

and, if by experience you worry that canon will increase the price of puppy chow, then you can choose not to continue investing in their proprietary system and take the risk of investing in someone else's proprietary system.  I'm not saying thats easy for all, but it is what it is. 

There's no question that in order to remain profitable, Canon has to listen, but I bet their #1 corporate objective is profit, not listening, nor is it  arguing about the morality of a 10% fluctuation in price.

Lol, don't label me a socialist just because I am unhappy with the recent price increases from Canon (including their lenses) :-). My point was simply that the camera was initially overpriced and the significant price drops only months after introduction confirm my observation.

I didn't really mean to go where our conversation is leading, but since we are there... I do believe customers can have expectations. I'm sure you expect your new 5D Mark III to work well beyong the 1 year warranty, even though that's not explicitly promised. Assuming it starts falling apart due to cheap components Canon used to boost their bottom line, is it your problem, because Canon does not owe you anything? On the flip side, if you shoot weddings, do you try to make your customers happy? Or do you do a sloppy bare-minimum job, telling the couple to go somewhere else next time, if they don't like it :-)?

Now, I don't imply that companies should satisfy the (reasonable) expectations because they have social obligations or because of sheer kindness. No, they do that to stay competitive, because a bad reputation would kill the profits in the long run. As you said, unhappy customers vote with their wallets, at least in theory.

In practice it's not so straightforward. The wedding photographer's profit may not be affected, whether the newly-wed couple is happy or not. In Canon's case, it would take a lot of price increases before they outweigh the cost and hassle of switching systems. Until then, all customers can do is complain :-). I bet your friend, who lost his business, did complain, even if he did not write letters to the UN. Is Canon going to listen to us - probably not. But you seem to indicate that we have no rights even to complain and must put up with any crap that Canon chooses to throw our way, because it's OK that they only care about their profit and not about their customers.

On a side note, it's more than a 10% increase. It's a hefty 30% over the initial price of 5DII ($3500 vs $2700). At that rate, Mark V is going to cost close to $6000.

Don't get me wrong, I am not penny-pinching. I overpaid a couple of hundred more than once, when I needed the lens right away. I had no regrets and I did not complain. But that was different. It was a market fluctuation, while this seems like a strategy from Canon to boost its profits at the expense of their customers.

9

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark III Body is $2999 Most Places

« on: December 06, 2012, 02:23:03 PM »

I certainly agree that Canon may make their marketing decisions independently. However, the customers have the right to be unhappy about their pricing - and that's my whole point.

In your example, of course I would rather not deal with a company involved in price gauging, and move on the the next window. However, it's not as simple. It's more like that: the puppy is only compatible with pet food sold at the same store. After you already bought the puppy, the store doubles the dog food prices compared with other stores and without any justification. You can choose not to buy and let the puppy starve. But in reality, most people would keep buying and be frustrated.


It's not a single purchase, but a long term relationship. Because we are locked into their proprietary system, we have certain expectations for the future. For example, if Canon for whatever reason decided to transition their system to a new mount and thus render your expensive lens collection obsolete, would that be legal in a capitalist economy? Yes. Would you be unhappy about it? I would.

10

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark III Body is $2999 Most Places

« on: December 06, 2012, 11:12:54 AM »

Again, they are a business, not a photographers' aid society.  They have to recover their investment and make a profit, the sooner the better.  Grossing 15% more on a hot product is hardly the definition of greed.  What you call "greed" is what others call smart business.  The penalty of doing otherwise is pretty severe.  Compare Canon, Apple, etc. vs. Bronica, Contax, Kodak, Polaroid, etc.

I don't think any of has any factual basis to state what the price of the 5DIII "should" have been.  We can only guess.  Sure, camera technology matures, but there is constant research and development.  How much did the new AF system cost?  Or the new sensor?  Or the new mirror system?  We don't have a clue.  Should it automatically be cheaper because it's 4 years later?  Not necessarily.  The cost of manufacture 3 months ago vs. now is not really relevant when there are several years worth of investment to recover, not to mention the costs of investing in products yet to be developed.

It's not surprising for a technology company to lower prices over time.  It's the same if you're buying this year's newest model television vs. last year's about to be discontinued model television.  Certainly last year's will be discounted vs. the newest.

I don't see how people "overpay" due to a lack of alternatives.  There are so many alternatives, including the alternative of not buying.  On the one hand, who is so desperately in need of a product that doesn't exist yet that they have no alternative but to "overpay" when it finally comes into existence?  On the other hand, if a new product offers such compelling advantages to a photographer that it is worth an immediate purchase, then why not pay the introductory price?  Did a photographer overpay for the 5DIII by $500, or did having the camera earlier reward him by at least that much?  That's a calculation for each photographer to make, based on their needs and budget.

I understand your points, but I also think we are running in circles, so let me try to simplify and go back to my original example of the current 3 full-frame dslr players:

Nikon:
D700 launch: $3000
D800 launch: $3000
D800 current: $3000

Sony:
A900 launch: $3000
A99 launch: $2800
A99 current: $2800

Canon:
5DII launch: $2700
5DIII launch: $3500
5DIII current: ~$3000

How do you explain the discrepancy:
a) Nikon and Sony are photographer's aid societies, because they kept or even reduced the next generation camera prices. Canon recently decided to join them by currently selling the camera at a loss.

or

b) Canon inflated the launch price by $800 to milk the people willing to pay that price, before dropping it to more competitive levels under market pressure.

Which one do you think is correct ?
If b), do you approve of such strategy? I mean, even if you personally don't mind overpaying, why can't other people expect a fair price from the beginning?

11

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark III Body is $2999 Most Places

« on: December 04, 2012, 02:42:42 PM »

The improvements of the 5DIII vs. the 5DII are very substantial.  Canon delivered on a long list of improvement requests, resulting in a highly desirable product.

I don't dispute the improvements of 5DIII. However, as the technology matures - 4 years later - these improvements should be offered without a substantial price increase. That's exactly what Nikon did with D800 vs D700. Heck, even Canon's own 5DII was introduced at $500 less than 5D, despite all the improvements.

Those who paid the early adopter price weren't milked by anyone.  Those who bought it early made the calculation that it was worth paying extra to have the camera 8 months earlier rather than 8 months earlier.  If the camera didn't deliver good value for them at $3,500, they would not have bought it.

What you described is exactly my definition for milking early adopters. What do you call a policy, when the price is initially inflated to take advantage of these people? True, some of them made a calculated decision or may not care about the price. However, I bet many people were disappointed to find out that they overpaid hundreds of dollars.

You can call it "grossly overpriced" but the camera market seems to be very competitive, with plenty of alternatives at many price levels.  If photographers are willing to pay a higher price for a particular camera, then it is worth that price to them at that time.

I disagree again. At this price point, most buyers are heavily invested in a particular system. Due to prohibitive cost of switching systems, there really aren't any alternatives, other that other Canon's models, which have very different specs and therefore are not directly comparable.

It does not cost any less to manufacture the camera now that it cost 3 months ago, so it's pure speculation on Canon's part. As I said, many people may have paid the price because of lack of alternatives, not because they thought it was a fair price.

Canon is a business, not a photographers' aid society, so they're allowed to make a big profit if they deliver something highly desirable to their customers.  Sure, people have a right to complaint about anyone's pricing.  But with the number of the businesses making a big profit in the world, such complaining can become a full-time occupation.

I believe that people's concern is not Canon's big profit, but their pricing. Sure, it's not illegal, but it does not compare well with other companies, which also deliver hightly desirable products but without the increased price. As I said in the previous post, I doubt Nikon users had reasons to complain about their pricing. However, I find it hard to understand why you defend Canon's greed. They did the same thing with the 60D, pricing it at $1200, only to lower the price to $900 a few months later under pressure from D7000

12

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark III Body is $2999 Most Places

« on: December 03, 2012, 07:11:00 PM »

I thought it was a great camera at $3,500 and bought it for that price.  The D800 didn't come into consideration for various reasons (a great camera no doubt, but not exactly what I need).  The 5DIII upgraded just about everything in the 5DII, so I expected it to be priced higher than the 5DII which was introduced at $2,700.  At $2,500-$3,000, the 5DIII is very nicely priced.

It seems that every new product gets complaints about pricing.  Everyone wants every product to be both improved in quality and cheaper.  Sometimes that's possible, but sometimes it isn't.  And the price of most electronics drops over time.

I beg to disagree... I doubt that D800 received complaints about pricing. Nikon offered it at exactly the same price as its predecessor (D700), despite also making significant improvements. How do you justify 5DIII's price increase of $800 ($3500 at launch compared to 5DII at $2700)? The fact that Canon can still make a profit at $2500-$2700 proves that at $3500, the camera was grossly overpriced, so that Canon could milk the early adopters.  I think people had every right to complain about its pricing.

13

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Sigma 35 f/1.4 Available for Preorder

« on: November 07, 2012, 02:00:00 PM »

From what I understand, Sigma's MTF charts only provide result for the lens wide open (this is according to Sigma's own notes in their MTF Chart guide), and performance looks great assuming this is the case.  It basically matches the performance of the 35L stopped down to F8 (judging from Canon's own MTF chart) - which makes me think that I must be reading Sigma's chart incorrectly.

But seriously, that's too good, so I don't think that it's right.  I'm guessing that Sigma's chart is actually stopped down performance, which case it pretty much matches a stopped down 35L.  Either way, IQ should be pretty good.

That's my understanding too, that Sigma uses red lines for 10 lp / mm (constrast) and green for 30 lp / mm (resolution), both at max aperture.

However, I think comparing MTF charts between different manufacturers is not conclusive, as they use different procedures to arrive to their results.

14

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Sigma 35 f/1.4 Available for Preorder

« on: November 07, 2012, 11:31:07 AM »

I bet the USB port was included to reduce the number of warranty service requests.  The Sigma 50mm 1.4 has some of the worst focus shift I have ever seen.

You're probably right about that. Although, technically, the USB dock is not included in the price.

15

Pricewatch Deals / Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS Preorders

« on: November 07, 2012, 09:21:35 AM »

I was really hoping the 35 F/2 would be quite affordable... what was I thinking.

Well, Sigma still have my trust. Plus their 35 1.4 looks nicer

Sigma has just announced the price of their 35 1.4: $899. For about the same price as Canon's 35 f2, on a wide prime I personally prefer the extra stop than IS. Can't wait to see IQ comparisons (and hope Sigma has no AF issues).