September 02, 2014, 10:51:58 PM

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Lenses / Re: Your favorite older EF lens
« Last post by LetTheRightLensIn on Today at 10:49:38 PM »
Gotta be the 135 f/2.

For the most part I have only their new lenses now since they;ve been on such a roll of producing world beating lenses lately. (Unless maybe you count my 300 2.8 IS as old, but that design came out well past the intro of EOS, well, well past).

Main Canon lenses now are: 16-35 f/4 IS, 24-70 2.8 II, 100L, 135L, 70-300L, 300 2.8 IS L (and 50 1.4 but the AF is poorly created) (also have an old 35-70mm).

Also using Bower 14mm 2.8.
2
Lighting / Re: Help with PocketWizard and multiple flashes
« Last post by neuroanatomist on Today at 10:45:57 PM »
Check batteries.  Turn everything off, connect flashes to TT5s and TT1 to camera.  Turn on PWs, then camera, then flashes. 
3
Lenses / Re: New Lens Information for Photokina
« Last post by LetTheRightLensIn on Today at 10:42:46 PM »
I am not asking anybody to do a hand hold test for me, I am suggesting they do it for themselves and put the "reach advantage" myth to death once and for all.

Maybe you don't see a difference, but I do.

Three cameras (5D, 20D [same pixel size as 5DII]), T2i [same pixel size as 60D/7D]), two different lenses (100-400L, 70-200/2.8L IS II), two different targets, all handheld, all with AF, all the same result - smaller pixels win easily.

Neither lens was shot at optimal aperture or focal length (70-200 at 200mm and f/4, 100-400L at 300mm and f/5.6).



+1

it's trivial to show the difference, even using AF and hand-held
sure in some cases AF may miss enough it won't matter or you set shutter too low, etc. but there are plenty of times you can get the advantage real world
4
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« Last post by LetTheRightLensIn on Today at 10:40:31 PM »
It's interesting that you still don't understand the difference between total dynamic range and dynamic range to arbitrarily selected noise thresholds.

I do. How does that change when they directly said that the Canon was a good 2 stops behind and not up to the standards of other current sensors?

Quote
It's also interesting that you choose to lie and misrepresent to try and make your case.
A) NR does not affect total DR, though it does impact latitude. Likewise it would impact DR measurements which used an arbitrarily high noise threshold or "quality."

B) ACR's default NR settings are mild and fixed. They are not random nor "all sorts of."

C) ALL tested cameras have default ACR settings.

And of course ACR hasn't changed from release to release or how it treats camera to camera, nope, nobody ahs ever noticed any changes there....

Quote
D) DxO is not testing system DR, but sensel SNR. There is no simple or direct conversion of sensel SNR to system DR. If DxO measured film "sensels" or grain they would report a DR of <1 stop. Yet a piece of Portra film held 12-13 stops and with proper development some B&W films can hit 16-18.

Umm, no, they are measuring system DR, they don't measure the best the photosites can do and de-couple the sensor from the camera's downstream ADC and such, the Canon sensor sensor itself has plenty fine DR, but the downstream messes it up.

IR is measuring Camera PLUS RAW converter while DxO measures Camera.
5
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: I had a Blowout... On a Hasselblad.
« Last post by RLPhoto on Today at 10:38:23 PM »
Bummer man. Sorry to hear about that.

I guess that's one of the potential drawbacks of leaf shutter lenses...although for the price, you would think they would last FAAAR longer than 6k actuations...

Big time, and It broke during a nice portrait shoot too. I reverted to my 5D3 + 24-70VC and slapping on ND's, turning up those strobes. I really like the IQ out of the 80mm too. Its a shame.  :-\

I bet it was a beautiful lens with beautiful IQ. Are you going to get it repaired?

Thats the thing, If it costs a 1000+, I probably won't. I'll end up using that cash towards a 50-110MM instead.
6
EOS Bodies / Re: The day of the anti-climatic announcement
« Last post by neuroanatomist on Today at 10:35:54 PM »
Quote from: CanonWatch
DKW: As for the readers of DigiKame Watch, there are many who are waiting for the EOS 7D’s sucessor. Up through the release of last year’s major firmware update, there were many who felt that a new model with even better specs would be released shortly…

MM: Yes, they would be correct. For us, it’s about looking at what the camera has the potential to be and then adding that to what it can currently do. I do think the current model is still very attractive to buyers. And while we are, of course, developing its successor, it’ll be one that incorporates a certain number of innovative technologies. We will not be putting out a product with merely better specs, but one that has evolved into new territory. But then again, we’re not talking about something a long time from now either.

http://www.canonwatch.com/interview-with-canons-tian-rong-makoto-7d-ii-not-a-story-of-the-day-so-far/

Revolutionary would imply that the new camera would allow us to do what we couldn't before (either the 7D or any other camera).

What is described in the rumored specs doesn't meet that test, so it isn't revolutionary. A camera like the GH4 is revolutionary. A camera like the a7s is revolutionary. A camera like the 7D was revolutionary. A camera like the 5D3 was revolutionary. Even the 70D was revolutionary. What is being described for the 7D2 so far is not. And therein lies the problem, but we shall see in a few days, hopefully :)

Sorry, I missed where someone from Canon said the 7D successor would be "revolutionary".  Could you point that out, please?
7
EOS Bodies / Re: The day of the anti-climatic announcement
« Last post by Tugela on Today at 10:35:08 PM »
Quote from: CanonWatch
DKW: As for the readers of DigiKame Watch, there are many who are waiting for the EOS 7D’s sucessor. Up through the release of last year’s major firmware update, there were many who felt that a new model with even better specs would be released shortly…

MM: Yes, they would be correct. For us, it’s about looking at what the camera has the potential to be and then adding that to what it can currently do. I do think the current model is still very attractive to buyers. And while we are, of course, developing its successor, it’ll be one that incorporates a certain number of innovative technologies. We will not be putting out a product with merely better specs, but one that has evolved into new territory. But then again, we’re not talking about something a long time from now either.

http://www.canonwatch.com/interview-with-canons-tian-rong-makoto-7d-ii-not-a-story-of-the-day-so-far/

Maeda said the 7D successor would incorporate a certain number of innovative technologies. He said they would not be putting out a product "with merely better specs", but instead "one that has evolved into new territory."

Guess it depends on how you interpret that whether the product will be anticlimactic or not. It could be considered that 65pt AF, 20.2mp sensor, and DPAF is "incorporating a number of innovative technologies." It could also be considered that those new technologies are "merely better specs."

What is the definition of a product that has "evolved into new territory?" DPAF isn't new, and neither is 20.2mp. A 65pt AF might be new, although it does sound a lot like the 61pt AF system...it would be "evolution" rather than "revolution." Overall, none of the rumored improvements really seem to take the 7D II into a "new area" per-se...but, it's still all just rumors.

Whole thing is still exceptionally vague.

Revolutionary would imply that the new camera would allow us to do what we couldn't before (either the 7D or any other camera).

What is described in the rumored specs doesn't meet that test, so it isn't revolutionary. A camera like the GH4 is revolutionary. A camera like the a7s is revolutionary. A camera like the 7D was revolutionary. A camera like the 5D3 was revolutionary. Even the 70D was revolutionary. What is being described for the 7D2 so far is not. And therein lies the problem, but we shall see in a few days, hopefully :)

I wouldn't necessarily call the 70D revolutionary. The DPAF technology in the 70D wasn't really even revolutionary...it was an evolutionary improvement on previous PDAF technology. It is actually very difficult to create something that is truly revolutionary, when you get down into the details. Very few things are going to be "revolutionary" in the camera industry. The 5D III was a MAJOR improvement over the 5D II, however relative to the whole market...it wasn't necessarily revolutionary. It got many of the things it required to remain a competitive DSLR line, and it inherited most of those improvements from other cameras that were previously released. The 61pt AF system came from the 1D X. The iFCL metering came from the 7D. The sensor inherited improvements originally designed, not even for the 1D X, but I believe the 1D C.

I don't even know that I'd call the A7s revolutionary. It uses extensive in-camera processing to reduce noise. That was actually done by Canon with DIGIC 6, long before BionzX came out. Canon used the technology in pretty low-end devices, and therefor it did not really make many waves...but Canon started doing much of what BionzX is doing long before Sony did.

The only thing I would call truly revolutionary was the design of Exmor itself. It was a rather radical departure from conventional sensor design. The massive reduction in read noise it achieved (even in high-grade scientific CCD sensor design, read noise less than ~5e- is VERY rare, practically unheard of)...to have 3e- RN at ISO 100 is phenomenal!

Some would even argue that Exmor isn't even revolutionary, but that it was evolutionary, and cobbled together concepts and ideas from prior art. CP-ADC wasn't invented by Sony, it was actually described in papers years before. I think the amalgamation of CP-ADC and DCDS, along with moving the high-frequency clock to a remote die location, packaging the whole entire thing onto a single die with a purely digital readout system, was ultimately Sony's invention...but even the great Exmor could still be considered an evolution on top of previously devised concepts.

The 5D III (taken as a whole, the sum of all it's improvements), and Exmor, are probably the only two still photography camera improvements in recent years that I think legitimately qualify for the term "revolutionary."

I doubt the 7D II will be considered the same, if most of it's technology is not really new.

Well, every "new" tech is going to come from something that existed in one form or another. The main thing is how the product it is integrated into is used. Perhaps elements of what was in those other cameras already existed somewhere else, but it is the application that represents the revolutionary step, not the tech itself.
8
Landscape / Re: Moon photos
« Last post by jrista on Today at 10:32:16 PM »
I've been getting into lucky imaging lately for planetary and solar system stuff. Here is a recent moon photo I took, the best 5% of frames chosen out of 3000, merged with a superresolution algorithm:


9
EOS Bodies / Re: The day of the anti-climatic announcement
« Last post by Tugela on Today at 10:31:29 PM »
Quote from: CanonWatch
DKW: As for the readers of DigiKame Watch, there are many who are waiting for the EOS 7D’s sucessor. Up through the release of last year’s major firmware update, there were many who felt that a new model with even better specs would be released shortly…

MM: Yes, they would be correct. For us, it’s about looking at what the camera has the potential to be and then adding that to what it can currently do. I do think the current model is still very attractive to buyers. And while we are, of course, developing its successor, it’ll be one that incorporates a certain number of innovative technologies. We will not be putting out a product with merely better specs, but one that has evolved into new territory. But then again, we’re not talking about something a long time from now either.

http://www.canonwatch.com/interview-with-canons-tian-rong-makoto-7d-ii-not-a-story-of-the-day-so-far/

Maeda said the 7D successor would incorporate a certain number of innovative technologies. He said they would not be putting out a product "with merely better specs", but instead "one that has evolved into new territory."

Guess it depends on how you interpret that whether the product will be anticlimactic or not. It could be considered that 65pt AF, 20.2mp sensor, and DPAF is "incorporating a number of innovative technologies." It could also be considered that those new technologies are "merely better specs."

What is the definition of a product that has "evolved into new territory?" DPAF isn't new, and neither is 20.2mp. A 65pt AF might be new, although it does sound a lot like the 61pt AF system...it would be "evolution" rather than "revolution." Overall, none of the rumored improvements really seem to take the 7D II into a "new area" per-se...but, it's still all just rumors.

Whole thing is still exceptionally vague.

Timing is everything, so allow me to clarify yours.  The interview you quote was from January 2013.  The 70D was announced six months later, in July 2013.   DPAF was not known publicly at the time of the interview, and I'd certainly say that DPAF constitutes an evolution into new territory.

Alright, fair point.

However, given how far after both the 7D II is coming...DPAF IS known publically, and Canon has already evolved into new territory with it (and with the 20.2mp sensor.) One would also have to assume that Maeda is intelligent enough to know that the 70D, which was clearly already in the pipeline and planned for release, would be "evolving into new territory" with DPAF...thereby taking the that particular feature out of the running for the 7D II, at least as far as new territory goes.

So maybe the timing between the interview and the 70D release is off. Does it actually change the core point of my previous point?

If the point with the 7D II was to take that particular line into new territory, to not mere give it a bump up in feature specs, but make it something new and innovative...does reusing most of what the 70D brought to the table, and maybe dropping in a slightly evolved 1D X AF unit and meter...really achieve that goal? I'm not going to say it goes against what Maeda stated...he said the 7D II would "evolve into new territory"...so no one should really be expecting radical things with the 7D II.

All I am saying is...if people ultimately see the 7D II release as "anticlimactic"...I would understand. It doesn't sound like it's going to be bringing any major new technological innovations to the table, unless there is something particularly amazing and new about the 65pt AF system. It'll probably be like the 5D II-5D III upgrade. The whole package deal together, a complex of features combined, makes it a larger leap from the prior model....but no single feature will really stand out as being truly amazing or unknown or new.

I think what he said, subject to the vagaries of translation, is consistent with the 70D representing some of the evolution. 

Your final point is quite likely to be the case.  Evolution ≠ revolution. 

People build stuff up in their mind, based on hearsay, conjecture, and rumor.  That's a sure fire way to be disappointed later.

We all know that every time Canon announces a new body, there's much whining and complaining.  The only point I see to this thread is someone wants the whining and complaining to start even earlier.  We call that type of someone a troll.

No, the reason for starting the thread is to draw attention to the looming announcements, which will not only be about the 7D2. There are lots of other goodies probably coming as well.

The 7D2 one will probably be less than originally expected, hence the thread title. It is a joke, which some of you are apparently too serious to get ;). But there are other things as well, and that is something for all us to look forward too, even if it is just to get some idea of Canon's direction.
10
EOS Bodies / Re: The day of the anti-climatic announcement
« Last post by jrista on Today at 10:30:39 PM »
Quote from: CanonWatch
DKW: As for the readers of DigiKame Watch, there are many who are waiting for the EOS 7D’s sucessor. Up through the release of last year’s major firmware update, there were many who felt that a new model with even better specs would be released shortly…

MM: Yes, they would be correct. For us, it’s about looking at what the camera has the potential to be and then adding that to what it can currently do. I do think the current model is still very attractive to buyers. And while we are, of course, developing its successor, it’ll be one that incorporates a certain number of innovative technologies. We will not be putting out a product with merely better specs, but one that has evolved into new territory. But then again, we’re not talking about something a long time from now either.

http://www.canonwatch.com/interview-with-canons-tian-rong-makoto-7d-ii-not-a-story-of-the-day-so-far/

Maeda said the 7D successor would incorporate a certain number of innovative technologies. He said they would not be putting out a product "with merely better specs", but instead "one that has evolved into new territory."

Guess it depends on how you interpret that whether the product will be anticlimactic or not. It could be considered that 65pt AF, 20.2mp sensor, and DPAF is "incorporating a number of innovative technologies." It could also be considered that those new technologies are "merely better specs."

What is the definition of a product that has "evolved into new territory?" DPAF isn't new, and neither is 20.2mp. A 65pt AF might be new, although it does sound a lot like the 61pt AF system...it would be "evolution" rather than "revolution." Overall, none of the rumored improvements really seem to take the 7D II into a "new area" per-se...but, it's still all just rumors.

Whole thing is still exceptionally vague.

Revolutionary would imply that the new camera would allow us to do what we couldn't before (either the 7D or any other camera).

What is described in the rumored specs doesn't meet that test, so it isn't revolutionary. A camera like the GH4 is revolutionary. A camera like the a7s is revolutionary. A camera like the 7D was revolutionary. A camera like the 5D3 was revolutionary. Even the 70D was revolutionary. What is being described for the 7D2 so far is not. And therein lies the problem, but we shall see in a few days, hopefully :)

I wouldn't necessarily call the 70D revolutionary. The DPAF technology in the 70D wasn't really even revolutionary...it was an evolutionary improvement on previous PDAF technology. It is actually very difficult to create something that is truly revolutionary, when you get down into the details. Very few things are going to be "revolutionary" in the camera industry. The 5D III was a MAJOR improvement over the 5D II, however relative to the whole market...it wasn't necessarily revolutionary. It got many of the things it required to remain a competitive DSLR line, and it inherited most of those improvements from other cameras that were previously released. The 61pt AF system came from the 1D X. The iFCL metering came from the 7D. The sensor inherited improvements originally designed, not even for the 1D X, but I believe the 1D C.

I don't even know that I'd call the A7s revolutionary. It uses extensive in-camera processing to reduce noise. That was actually done by Canon with DIGIC 6, long before BionzX came out. Canon used the technology in pretty low-end devices, and therefor it did not really make many waves...but Canon started doing much of what BionzX is doing long before Sony did.

The only thing I would call truly revolutionary was the design of Exmor itself. It was a rather radical departure from conventional sensor design. The massive reduction in read noise it achieved (even in high-grade scientific CCD sensor design, read noise less than ~5e- is VERY rare, practically unheard of)...to have 3e- RN at ISO 100 is phenomenal!

Some would even argue that Exmor isn't even revolutionary, but that it was evolutionary, and cobbled together concepts and ideas from prior art. CP-ADC wasn't invented by Sony, it was actually described in papers years before. I think the amalgamation of CP-ADC and DCDS, along with moving the high-frequency clock to a remote die location, packaging the whole entire thing onto a single die with a purely digital readout system, was ultimately Sony's invention...but even the great Exmor could still be considered an evolution on top of previously devised concepts.

The 5D III (taken as a whole, the sum of all it's improvements), and Exmor, are probably the only two still photography camera improvements in recent years that I think legitimately qualify for the term "revolutionary."

I doubt the 7D II will be considered the same, if most of it's technology is not really new.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10