October 01, 2014, 04:33:25 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - moreorless

Pages: 1 ... 31 32 [33] 34 35 ... 44
Lenses / Re: 36+ Mp EOS dSLR (rumored): How do existing EF lenses cope?
« on: February 10, 2012, 12:50:32 PM »
Exactly. I think checking lens MTF charts shall be a good hint. The lower the curves off-centre the likely to fail at the edges at very high Mps (FF sensor). There is a built-in correction for light fall-off in the EOS line but resolution is a different animal. I trust the forum's reassurance though.

This seems like a larger problem that people are making out to me considering a large part of the market for 36 megapixel is going to be landscape and other uses where edge to egde sharpness is desired. Alot of the non specialised lenses people use for landscape like the 17-40 and 24-105 already have problems with boarder sharpness at 21 MP.

I wonder if this is the main reason for the new 24mm and 28mm 2.8 IS's? perhaps Canon are antcipating that there current wide zooms are going to be found wanting for landscape shooting on a high megapixel camera so have designed these primes to allow those on a budget to fully exploit such a camera? would seem to explain why the appatures are relatively modest and why they have IS, the MTF's seem to suggest both will have strong boarder performance stopped down.

EOS Bodies / Re: When do you expect to see CR3 rated 5D/3D rumors?
« on: February 10, 2012, 01:50:13 AM »
I'd be supprized if we don't see some kind of annoucement from Canon in the next month or two, even if its a 1DX style preview of something that won't be released until the summer.

EOS Bodies / Re: What's Next? Lenses & Cameras
« on: February 09, 2012, 03:48:46 PM »
Now that the cat is out of the bag, we keep hearing (well maybe more Graig then us!) more and more of the high MP camera some dream of being part of the 2012 line up.  I think it will come after the 5DX or 5DIII and am sure it will blow the D800 out of the water. My two cents.

Well my to cents concerning the rumor " I have heard there will be a very high megapixel camera some time in 2012, possibly in the 40mp range and it won’t be the “5D Mark III":

This is marketing crap to torpedo D800 sales, e.g. people switching systems from Nikon to Canon. *Developing* a high MP camera is not exactly the same as having it in the release pipeline like Nikon, is it? And the updated primes they just released are not high MP but for video - the segment in which Canon is in ahead.

If Canon would be even in the general vicinity of a Camera of the D800 type, they'd call it 5DIII. If this really is released w/ 22MP, we'll know there's no high MP variant on the horizon.

It seems a little silly that people accept one rumour as gospel and dismiss the other out of hand. If Canon were looking to feed info to kill D800 sales I'm guessing this isnt the form it would take.

Why would Canon definately call a high megapixel body the 5D mk3? to me the 5D brand say"high megapixels" but rather "the FF body is the broadest appeal" and I'd argue that if the "22 MP" specs we've seen are real they represent something with a boarder appeal than a 40+ MP camera with limated FPS and ISO performance.

EOS Bodies / Re: 40MP Canon that's not the 5D3?
« on: February 09, 2012, 04:26:16 AM »
If there's any truth to the rumors that the 5DIII will remain in the 21-22 mp range, this makes a lot of sense. The question is whether or not a 40 mp body will offer the balance of resolution and AF of the D800, and the bigger question is price.

I'd question whether many users really want a combination advanced/quick AF, 4-5 fps and high megapixels, the 1ds mk3 and D3x both offered that and had limated sucess. The 1DX and potentially the 5D mk3 seem like they offer more of a balance with boosted ISO and FPS so does Canon need to chase that market anymore?

Personally I'd say the ideal landscape/studio camera would be...

5D sized body with 1D level build/sealing.
40+ megapixels
ISO performance focused on clean lower settings, max 800-1600 would be enough.
100% viewfinder
Fewer high quality AF points spaced as widely as possible.

Compaired to Nikon I'd say Canon maybe better equiped to go up directly agenst Medium Format with lenses like the 14mm 2.8, 17/24 TSE's, 85mm 1.2, 70-200 2.8 IS and from the sound of it the new 24-70 2.8 aswell.

EOS Bodies / Re: Specialised cameras or a good all rounder?
« on: February 08, 2012, 12:47:48 PM »
I'd agree that a middle of the road approach is generally better than a choice of cameras on both extremes.

I'd say that the more expensive a camera is the more focused on a specific task it should probabley be considering that it will be more likely to be bought by professionals or amatures with a serious interest in one aspect of photography.

For FF DSLR's I think sports/jurno/wildlife body needs to be at the top given that its the area where such cameras can claim to provide the highest performance, then a high megapixel landscape/studio body somewhat cheaper as it will not be able to compete with MF for performance and finally a good all round body as the cheapest.

What exactly makes a "good all rounder" is I spose whats up for debate, personally I'd say that ISO performance is probabley more in need of an upgrade friom the 5D mk2 than megapixels. How many people often print at A2 or larger to really exploit 36 megapixels? my guess is not that many, espeically as 18X12 is where most comsumer printers max out. By comparison takling pics of moving subjects indoors does very quickly move you to pretty high ISO's unless your willing to work with a very large appature.

But I assume Nikon have done their market research.  Imagine a situation where you had a choice of three cameras - low light / allrounder / big MP count.  I'd suspect that most people would choose the big MP option.  Some would choose the low light option.  The allrounder would probably be a sales flop?

The impression I get is that Sony are ultimately the ones behind the decision to go with 36 megapixels. I'd guess we'll probabley see it in a new FF body from them reasonabley soon and going for a headline grabbing high megapixel count is probabley viewed as a good way to increase market share.

EOS Bodies / Re: Latest Canon disappoints wants me to switch over to Nikon.
« on: February 08, 2012, 10:50:12 AM »
I'd point out that the Nikon 24-70 doesnt have IS and costs $1900, whats more with Nikon you don't have the option of a good quality F/4 normal zoom given the 24-120's shortcomings compaired to the 24-105's.

When your dealing with these monster megapixel counts my guess is that theres going to need to be more of a movement back towards tripods anyway to get the best out of them.

As far as EF-S goes my guess would be that part of the reason for the 24mm and 28mm's being revamped is to potentially sell them to crop users as 40-45mm standards.  Add in IS aswell and you have the potental for a very compact and versatile setup on a Rebel.

At f / 2.8? That's so slow: in most circumstances outside of landscapes, I suspect most photographers would rather have the Canon 28mm f / 1.8 or Sigma 30mm f / 1.4, shoot at 2 – 2.4, and, if people are involved, increase the shutter speed.

I posited this elsewhere, but perhaps Canon is using these two lenses as "test run" to see if people really value IS and will pay substantially more for it.

Landscapes are going to be part of most peoples general purpose shooting I'd guess plus with the Sigma your looking at a lens that weighs twice as much.

In todays market with decent high ISO and mirrorless options the worth of primes has I'd say become more about space saving.

If anything else follows I'd guess it will be the 35mm f/2 and 50mm 1.4 rather than any of the long/more specialist lenses.

EOS Bodies / Re: How does Canon respond to the D800?
« on: February 08, 2012, 12:58:05 AM »
Obviously, the higher the MP, the more noise you are going to get at high ISO, or at least the more the noise will be magnified.

Your statement make no sense!
The number of MP itself will not affect the amout of noise but the higher MP sensor will give a higher image quality (less noise vs resolution) than a lower MP sensor at high ISO because of the efficiency of nose reduction algorithms.

This is often repeated but to me the comparisons between the new Sony 24 MP crop sensor and the old 16 MP one seems to show that it wasnt the case. When the former was down rezed to the latters size it was clearly still the noiser of the two.

Personally I'd be looking to buy a high MP body if I did upgrade to FF but I do question how much of a market there is for that. The really high end studio/landscape users will go MF, the wedding photographers will I'd guess want more ISO first and will the typical amature user print 30X20 to make use of such resolution? will he be willing to deal with diffraction becoming a big issue?

To me if the the 5D mk3 stats we've seen are correct then it does seem to hint that the D800 has caught Canon a bit on the hop(not now but whenever they discovered its stats) and has convinced them to shift across more of the 1DX features than they were planning to. Ultimately I'd guess losing a few 1DX sales is less important to them than potentially having users switch brands or indeed tempt Nikon users who arent satisifed with a high MP body to do so.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II
« on: February 07, 2012, 12:30:20 PM »
So, why no IS?
- If you are interested in a fast lens - f/2.8, than you are most likely shooting in low light.  Otherwise, you would purchase the 24-105 f/4 IS.
- If you hand-hold, then you need to bump up the shutter speed to compensate, and thereby negate some of the "low light" advantage of the fast aperture.
- This is not a sports lens due to the focal length, (for the most par) - where IS isn't really needed.
- The focal range is in the general purpose/walk-around range.

So, a general purpose, low light lens, not for sports, and used with a tripod?

Without IS, this becomes a very expensive, really sharp, general purpose lens - but not a low-light lens.

Am I missing something?

It depends what your taking pics of I spose, the shutter speed to stop most movement will generally be faster than the shutter speed to prevent camera shake so IS wouldnt improve its low light ability for such subjects.

For landscapes I'd guess Canon's feeling is that less serious users will probabley go with the 24-105 IS while more serious ones will be happy to use a tripod when needed to really exploit the sharpness to the full.

Compaired to the 17-55 the 24-70 isnt as long when you take the crop into account which cuts down the need for IS a bit and its also a good deal heavier/longer. Maybe not so much of a problem on a 1D but this new version looks like it will balance much better on a 5D to me with both being around the same weight.

As far as EF-S goes my guess would be that part of the reason for the 24mm and 28mm's being revamped is to potentially sell them to crop users as 40-45mm standards.  Add in IS aswell and you have the potental for a very compact and versatile setup on a Rebel.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II
« on: February 07, 2012, 08:44:16 AM »
I wouldnt get your hopes up for the Tamron given the negative effect IS had on the 17-50's image quality.

Personally I'd definately give up IS for IQ and size with a lens like this.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 28 f/2.8 IS USM
« on: February 07, 2012, 01:58:32 AM »
No EF-S... Good...

But 2.8? Naah. and really both 24 and 28.... somehow strange...

I wouldnt say that stange, the two existing 2.8 primes at those focal lenghts didnt look to be selling well at all compaired to say the 35mm f/2 or the 50mm f/1.4.

Adding IS and potentially focusing on better performance at 2.8 does also allow them to seperate the market from the L's.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II
« on: February 07, 2012, 01:46:31 AM »
Honestly it just looks like someone took a photo of that lens and photoshopped it. In fact that's exactaly what happened.

Oops, I believe its time for you to go away now.

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D X or Mark III Specs & Release Date? [CR1]
« on: February 07, 2012, 12:59:34 AM »
Possible Martin. Though, if that is the reason...why wouldn't Canon make all their L-series glass white? :) Canon just announced their new version of the 24-70 f/2.8 (II) and it's.........black!

Supposedly, it's to reflect more light and reduce the internal temperature.  The reason it's used on the tele lenses is that the fluorite elements in those lenses are more sensitive to heat. Or so Canon has said...it could still just be a marketing ploy...

A bit of both I'd guess, probabley some small advanatge and now that Canon has "claimed" the white tele if Nikon were to use it they'd merely be confused as one by most people.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II
« on: February 06, 2012, 04:01:17 PM »
Proof the image is fake:

The lens is set at 24mm and is fully retracted. Canon lenses extend when they get wider, and retract when zoomed.

I don't see why thats "proof", the previous Canon lens retracted at 70mm but other similar designs from Sigma and Tamron havent.

Pages: 1 ... 31 32 [33] 34 35 ... 44