December 21, 2014, 06:30:56 PM

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Canon General / Re: Thanks Adorama and Helen Oster !
« Last post by tolusina on Today at 06:26:22 PM »
We had a FedEx order that went from New York to Atlanta to London to Atlanta to London to Atlanta to London to Atlanta to Montreal to Ottawa..........
That's pathetically humorous.
Sounds like some clerk in Atlanta had never heard of London, ON, and again........
Photography Technique / Re: EC - adds or subtracts light?
« Last post by Don Haines on Today at 06:17:48 PM »
For those somewhat less technically  or mathematically inclined...

Put camera in live view.... push compensation button, turn thumbwheel. One direction (+) the exposure gets brighter, the other direction (-) it gets darker...
Landscape / Re: Please share your snow/ Ice Photos with us in CR.
« Last post by dpc on Today at 06:14:07 PM »
The BBC Scotland headquarters in Glasgow, overlooking a frozen River Clyde.

Nice picture. I love the BBC. I listen to their radio programmes frequently.
Lenses / Next Lens Purchase...where is the gap in my gear?
« Last post by rmfagan on Today at 06:13:01 PM »
Title says it all... I'm planning to purchase another lens and I wanted to get opinions on where I might gain the most.

At present:

Rokinon 14
Rokinon 24
16-35L IS
24-70L II
70-200 IS II
50 1.4
100L Macro
TC III 1.4 and 2.0
600EX-RT x 3 and SR-E3-RT

I had a 17 TS-E but sold it as I felt it lacked the sharpness I'd hoped for and while shift was great, tilt wasn't as noticeable at 17.

I recognize a gap in telephoto coverage at the long end, and debated the 500 II, but got a 1Dx instead, and will get the 500 next fall, and rent that for now when needed.

I'm most strongly considering the 85L II and the 24 TS-E. The 70-200 is great for portraits, but can be unwieldy for more intimate settings or when my primary focus is portrait. Also, 1.2 would be sweet. As for the TS-E, I love landscape, and this is bread and butter for the TS-E. I also have enjoyed playing with architecture, but mostly outdoor thus far.

Is having so much wide coverage contraindicating the TS-E? Is the 100L and 70-200 a knock on the 85? Would there be other suggestions? Basically, where does my gear stand to gain the most?

Before it's suggested, I have 2 Gitzo tripods, RRS Gimbal/Pano/Macro set ups.

EOS Bodies / Re: Poll: Most wanted new features for 5D Mark IV
« Last post by V8Beast on Today at 06:11:28 PM »

and a built-in radio trigger for Speedlites?

Probably a model policy problem: More expensive metal camera bodies cannot have it due to transmission/range problems, and so cheaper plastic cameras like 6d/70d can't either...

Interesting info. Didn't know about the transmission problems. I thought Canon didn't include built-in transmitters because they're greedy and want to force people to buy a $300 transmitter. I'm sure that plays some factor in it, though :)
Technical Support / Re: Repair cost cf card bent pin
« Last post by nc0b on Today at 06:09:37 PM »
My friend's 20D had the CF assembly replaced by a third-party shop for $116.00.  My iPhone fell on the top LCD of my 60D, while the plastic "window" escaped damage, the LCD itself was ruined.  Canon repaired it for about $220.00. The part was $10 or something like that.  All my equipment is insured against loss or damage, but of course I pay annually for $14K of coverage. 
Canon General / Re: Thanks Adorama and Helen Oster !
« Last post by tpatana on Today at 06:04:38 PM »
99% of the time, I have no problems. Day or two delay occasionally. During the holiday season, I understand some delays are normal. Season probably adds some 5x amount of packages, so they can't scale up their capacity to take 5x since rest of the year they need only 10% of that. If they did scale up, it'd cost us (=customer) more.

I'm sure they do some amount, like hiring some temp drivers, adding extra hours etc. But it's still impossible task. Yes, if I was waiting for the 1DX+200-400F4L, I'd be dying for each delayed day.

No reason to blame there, they'll do their best.
EOS Bodies / Re: 2015 wishlist
« Last post by The Bad Duck on Today at 06:03:15 PM »
1 and 2, yes please! F 1.4-2.0, I don't really care as long the IQ is great and AF is accurate and fast.
Lenses / Re: EF 100-400mm II - first impressions
« Last post by AlanF on Today at 06:02:27 PM »
My 7D II arrived yesterday, and I did a series of experiments to decide when to use it rather than the 5D III and with what lenses and with or without TCs.

First I did a series of shots with the iso12233 chart at distance where 100-400 II on the 5DIII was on the verge of being resolved (not close up like with TDP, and all the shots were from the same distance, and not at different distances as done by TDP for the chart to fill the frame). I compared the 300mm f/2.8 with the 100-400.
a) The bare 300mm on the 7DII outresolved the 100-400 on the 5DIII, as expected, as did the 100-400 on the 7D II.
b) The 100-400 is not as good as the 300/2.8 + 1.4xTC, but is still a very good performer.
c) The 100-400 + 1.4xTC outresolved the bare 100-400.

The next question is as the 100-400 + 1.4xTC outresolved the bare 100-400 on the 7D II, should I always use the TC for bird photography? For the 300mm on the 5DIII, I always use the 2xTC at 600mm and f/5.6. But, there are real differences for the 100-400 on the 7DII - addition of the TC increases the f number to 8, affecting the AF and gives a very narrow field of view from the equivalent of a 900mm on FF. In the next collage, I compared the effect of the TC closer to the iso12233 chart where resolution was not as critical. There isn't much difference between the 100-400 + 1.4xTC (at f/8) and the bare 100-400 (f/5.6) upresolved 1.4x using PS. So, I argue that using the bare 100-400 I would be losing a small amount of resolution but would be gaining 1 stop in iso, better AF, less effects from camera shake and, also very important, a wider field of view. My conclusion is that I will use the 100-400mm bare on the 7D II, with a fov of a 640mm on a FF.

Edit - I posted this reply to weixing within seconds of wickidwombat's - and clearly agree with him. My combos are going to be the 5DIII + 300mm+2xTC for optimal (for me) or the 7D II +100-400 II for longer hikes or travel, what luxury!
Have to admit I was surprised that BSI is just now arriving at this level of sensor - my naivety - assumed it would have been here long ago.

My presumption was that gapless microlenses were supposed to make BSI unnecessary, but perhaps there's some marginal improvement using both.

Maybe one of our resident EE's can answer this question.
I think BSI more about increasing the full well capacity rather than just preventing light from seeping between pixels.

Hmmm...I'd like to hear more explanation of this: I had thought that fwc was not strongly dependent on the surface area.

FWC is dependent upon surface area...the surface area of the photodiode. With an FSI design, some of the pixel area is dedicated to wiring and transistors, which thus necessitates that the photodiode (the actual light-sensitive part of the silicon) become smaller. By flipping the die and etching on the back, the photodiodes can become larger, since the wiring is all on the other side. That increases FWC, which means for the same size sensor, with even the same size "pixel pitch", your actually gathering more light.

There are other benefits with BSI. With FSI, the structure of a pixel ends up being relatively deep. There are layers of wiring and transistors built up around the photodiode. The photodiode sits at the bottom of what is basically a physical "well" (Technically, the "photo well" refers to the potential well, the electronic charge capturing capacity of a photodiode, not a physical thing...but there is a physical "well" as well). The depth of that physical well affects the amount of incident light that can actually be captured, or more specifically, the amount of incident light on the pixel that actually reaches the photodiode and frees and electron. Microlenses helped with that, by bending the light at the periphery of the pixel around the wall of wires around the photodiode. Microlenses aren't perfect, though, and really need to be aspheric, to fully direct all light onto the photodiode. As such, even with them in place, you lose some light to heat as they strike the wiring walls, or they reflect off the walls and hit exposed substrate and don't actually reach the photodiode, etc.

Lightpipe designs improved FSI designs, by filling the well with a highly refractive material. This helped bend the light and keep more of it focused on the photodiode. Lightpipe designs also lined the wiring walls with highly reflective material, which combined with the high refractive index material, focused a lot more light onto the photodide with FSI designs. That's more complicated, though, and still wasn't as efficient as simply flipping the wafer and etching the photodiodes on the other side.

With BSI, you can basically flatten the light-sensitive side of the sensor. There is no longer a physical "well"...all you have is a microlens, a color filter, and the photodiode. It's a very short, flat "stack", the photodiodes are larger, basically covering the entire surface area of the sensor. It gives you the highest efficiency thanks to the very high fill factor.

Given what I've seen so far of NX1 data, the BSI design gives it about a stop better sensitivity than any Canon sensor. I don't know if it's as good as an Exmor, but it doesn't seem to have any banding that I could see...the noise is very random.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10