November 29, 2014, 12:32:06 AM

Author Topic: EOS M2 Shows up in DPP Literature  (Read 16381 times)

Orangutan

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 752
    • View Profile
Re: EOS M2 Shows up in DPP Literature
« Reply #45 on: September 23, 2013, 10:25:27 AM »
Thanks for the reply.

Adjusting the EVF isn't sufficient.  What I can do in post is much more than can be done in the 5ms or so available to the processing pipeline in the camera, and it's very often the case that all of that post is what's necessary to get the image to look as it did to my eye.  Further, the sensor can't even do what my eye can do, partly because my eye is a much larger format even than full frame and partly because my eye can do its own pre-processing (different ISO at different locations, lateral inhibition) before the data is even sent to the brain.
I once (20 or so years ago) overheard a conversation with a symphony conductor who was asked whether CD or LP sounded more like what he heard on the podium.  His reply was that the listener doesn't want to hear what he hears on the podium, that the instruments are not properly balanced at that location; but he is accustomed to this, so he knows how to manage the performers so it will be balanced for the audience.  He said the real question is which sounds more like what the audience is supposed to hear.

I see the same thing for VF's.   I completely concede that EVF's do not show "reality," but that's the point: they can show the information needed for the photographer to capture the raw image that will result in a well-adjusted photo.  For example, an OVF doesn't show blown highlights or clipped shadows; an EVF can.  Or think of ML and its focus peaking feature.  Photographers will learn to make the mental translations needed to use the EVF to their advantage.  I don't claim that EVF's are ready now, but I believe it's a matter of a few short years, just as it was very few years between the arrival of the first digital cameras and the time digital overtook 35mm film.

Quote
Video cameras have EVFs because they have to, and they all stink.  Even some users of RED's nearly $4000 EVF have demanded a non-TTL OVF because the EVF isn't suitable to their uses.
It would be interesting to hear the pros and cons from those folks.

Quote
The image circle isn't big enough, and some lenses already have rectangular hoods or rear windows, or both.
I was under the impression that the maximal image circle was 43 x 43, but that the edges (outside of 36mm) are almost completely unusable.  Rectangular baffles can be removed (for a modest fee, of course).  But your basic point is correct: not every lens would be able to make use of this feature.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: EOS M2 Shows up in DPP Literature
« Reply #45 on: September 23, 2013, 10:25:27 AM »

paul13walnut5

  • Guest
Re: EOS M2 Shows up in DPP Literature
« Reply #46 on: September 23, 2013, 10:40:46 AM »

Quote
Video cameras have EVFs because they have to, and they all stink.  Even some users of RED's nearly $4000 EVF have demanded a non-TTL OVF because the EVF isn't suitable to their uses.
It would be interesting to hear the pros and cons from those folks.


The red is a specific device, which has great hype, but not always great user experiences.  Some would have it that the phrase 'EPIC FAIL' comes from Red One users experiencing frequent lock ups.

I would need to see what specific beef the Red users have and in relation to what model before knowing for sure, Red have launched their new wide DR sensor, the Dragon, and it's unlikely anything outside of studio reference quality monitors would do the images justice.

I wouldn't confuse the experiences of Red users as being something that relates to users of all, or indeed any other video camera.

One thing to remember is that video is fundamentally different to stills, even although they can be captured on a DSLR or mirrorless these days.

Video is contiguous.  Each recorded frame (and therefore each monitored frame) has to be accurate.  Video guys don't get to pick out the best frame from their 25fps.  Each frame has to be usable.

Also, generally speaking video guys wouldn't change things like focus, aperture or shutter frame to frame, again as it's contiguous, manual exposure is the order of the day, pre-focusing, clickless aperture stepping... all video things that stills guys might not get.

Basically, to compare the experience of a cinema camera user like those of the RED cameras, to folks shooting stills on an OM-D isn't that valid.  The principles, expectations and requirements are entirely different.

Lee Jay

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1253
    • View Profile
Re: EOS M2 Shows up in DPP Literature
« Reply #47 on: September 23, 2013, 10:43:44 AM »
Adjusting the EVF isn't sufficient.  What I can do in post is much more than can be done in the 5ms or so available to the processing pipeline in the camera, and it's very often the case that all of that post is what's necessary to get the image to look as it did to my eye.  Further, the sensor can't even do what my eye can do, partly because my eye is a much larger format even than full frame and partly because my eye can do its own pre-processing (different ISO at different locations, lateral inhibition) before the data is even sent to the brain.
I once (20 or so years ago) overheard a conversation with a symphony conductor who was asked whether CD or LP sounded more like what he heard on the podium.  His reply was that the listener doesn't want to hear what he hears on the podium, that the instruments are not properly balanced at that location; but he is accustomed to this, so he knows how to manage the performers so it will be balanced for the audience.  He said the real question is which sounds more like what the audience is supposed to hear.

I see the same thing for VF's.   I completely concede that EVF's do not show "reality," but that's the point: they can show the information needed for the photographer to capture the raw image that will result in a well-adjusted photo.  For example, an OVF doesn't show blown highlights or clipped shadows; an EVF can.

An EVF shows the out-of-camera JPEG, not the raw data, nor what can be extracted from the raw data.

Quote
Or think of ML and its focus peaking feature.

Use for manual focusing is the only thing for which I see EVFs as an advantage.  For everything else, they are a massive disadvantage.

Quote
Video cameras have EVFs because they have to, and they all stink.  Even some users of RED's nearly $4000 EVF have demanded a non-TTL OVF because the EVF isn't suitable to their uses.
It would be interesting to hear the pros and cons from those folks.
[/quote]

Many of them hate the lag when shooting fast-moving subjects.  I agree.  I have used a rifle site mounted to my SLR to shoot video because the lag when shooting with the LCD was too great to get the shots.

Quote
Quote
The image circle isn't big enough, and some lenses already have rectangular hoods or rear windows, or both.
I was under the impression that the maximal image circle was 43 x 43, but that the edges (outside of 36mm) are almost completely unusable.  Rectangular baffles can be removed (for a modest fee, of course).  But your basic point is correct: not every lens would be able to make use of this feature.

The image circle is 43.3 mm in diameter, by specification.  Some are larger (telephotos, mostly) but there's no guarantee you won't get a hard vignette outside that diameter.  A 36mmx36mm sensor has a diagonal of 50.9mm.

Lee Jay

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1253
    • View Profile
Re: EOS M2 Shows up in DPP Literature
« Reply #48 on: September 23, 2013, 10:45:51 AM »
Basically, to compare the experience of a cinema camera user like those of the RED cameras, to folks shooting stills on an OM-D isn't that valid.  The principles, expectations and requirements are entirely different.

That's right - it's much, much more difficult to get quality stills of fast-moving subjects than it is to get video.  For one thing, loosely framed video of fast-moving subjects is often quite acceptable, and even preferred, but not for stills.

9VIII

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 666
    • View Profile
Re: EOS M2 Shows up in DPP Literature
« Reply #49 on: September 23, 2013, 12:44:01 PM »

The mirror assembly serves a very useful purpose, and EVFs are many, many generations away from being "good enough" for me (I'd estimate decades away).  The difficulties with 36x36 sensor extend to the entire lens system as well.

You seem to be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Just because the EVF is less than ideal in one range of use doesn't make it inferior on the whole, or even unacceptable for those less than ideal uses. In virtually every circumstance other than long range action, people are going to take a good look at the scene with their own eyes, then take the picture.

If you don't like the in camera image there's nothing stopping you from adjusting things afterwards anyway.

For the few critical things a viewfinder has to do the EVF is generally better, and as a side benefit (almost more important than the EVF itself) on sensor focusing is more accurate. As mentioned, it puts an end to lens-to-camera calibration. That, is a big deal. Especially in long range action. Maybe on sensor AF isn't blazing fast at the moment but I doubt it will be long before you can track a BIF with it (on that point, with 80% of the surface of Canons new sensor performing AF it may end up far superior in that application).
Sure, things can get better, but it doesn't make sense to completely abandon the superior system just because of a few problems with one or two specific activities.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2013, 12:46:15 PM by 9VIII »
-100% RAW-

paul13walnut5

  • Guest
Re: EOS M2 Shows up in DPP Literature
« Reply #50 on: September 23, 2013, 01:09:36 PM »
Basically, to compare the experience of a cinema camera user like those of the RED cameras, to folks shooting stills on an OM-D isn't that valid.  The principles, expectations and requirements are entirely different.

That's right - it's much, much more difficult to get quality stills of fast-moving subjects than it is to get video.  For one thing, loosely framed video of fast-moving subjects is often quite acceptable, and even preferred, but not for stills.

And it's much much more difficult to manually rack focus with a fast moving subject coming right at the camera in video..  the comparisons could go on. 

Video and stills are as different as chalk and cheese.

Which either belies my relatively narrow reference points for things that are different (solids, begin with 'ch', made of calcium) or is a skillful comparison of two things that have some aspects in common, but are quite different on closer inspection.  I mean, you could eat chalk, and you could write on a blackboard with cheese.

Lee Jay

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1253
    • View Profile
Re: EOS M2 Shows up in DPP Literature
« Reply #51 on: September 23, 2013, 02:05:23 PM »

The mirror assembly serves a very useful purpose, and EVFs are many, many generations away from being "good enough" for me (I'd estimate decades away).  The difficulties with 36x36 sensor extend to the entire lens system as well.

You seem to be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Just because the EVF is less than ideal in one range of use doesn't make it inferior on the whole, or even unacceptable for those less than ideal uses. In virtually every circumstance other than long range action, people are going to take a good look at the scene with their own eyes, then take the picture.

If you don't like the in camera image there's nothing stopping you from adjusting things afterwards anyway.

For the few critical things a viewfinder has to do the EVF is generally better, and as a side benefit (almost more important than the EVF itself) on sensor focusing is more accurate. As mentioned, it puts an end to lens-to-camera calibration. That, is a big deal. Especially in long range action. Maybe on sensor AF isn't blazing fast at the moment but I doubt it will be long before you can track a BIF with it (on that point, with 80% of the surface of Canons new sensor performing AF it may end up far superior in that application).
Sure, things can get better, but it doesn't make sense to completely abandon the superior system just because of a few problems with one or two specific activities.

It's not a superior viewfinder.  EVFs are inferior in every way but one - manual focus (and, in fact, they are only superior there because our OVFs don't have split image prisms anymore).  EVFs use a lot of power. OVFs use zero.  EVFs have significant lag, OVFs have none.  EVFs have very limited dynamic range and color gamut, OVFs are limited by your eyes.  It's really not even close.  And before someone says that they like a lot of information covering up their scene, remember the 7D's transmissive LCD, which could be used to display practically anything.

EVFs basically stink, and the only reason I want a hybrid EVF/OVF viewfinder is to use the EVF for video and for manual focus situations.  Other than that, you can keep them.  Their only redeeming feature is that they are better than the LCD on the back of the camera because they are eye-level.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: EOS M2 Shows up in DPP Literature
« Reply #51 on: September 23, 2013, 02:05:23 PM »

paul13walnut5

  • Guest
Re: EOS M2 Shows up in DPP Literature
« Reply #52 on: September 23, 2013, 02:09:06 PM »

EVFs basically stink, and the only reason I want a hybrid EVF/OVF viewfinder is to use the EVF for video and for manual focus situations.  Other than that, you can keep them.  Their only redeeming feature is that they are better than the LCD on the back of the camera because they are eye-level.

But you wouldn't want to shoot video at eye level with a DSLR.  Bracing is all wrong.  Form factor of DSLRs is rubbish for video.

I have a shoulder mount for my 600D and flip out screen.  It sits about 6"-12" in front of my eye, perfect, means I also get to see 'around' my shot with my other eye.  Nothing worse than trying to walk up or down stairs with your eyes pressed to an EVF with either a wide or tele lens.

Lee Jay

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1253
    • View Profile
Re: EOS M2 Shows up in DPP Literature
« Reply #53 on: September 23, 2013, 03:56:12 PM »

EVFs basically stink, and the only reason I want a hybrid EVF/OVF viewfinder is to use the EVF for video and for manual focus situations.  Other than that, you can keep them.  Their only redeeming feature is that they are better than the LCD on the back of the camera because they are eye-level.

But you wouldn't want to shoot video at eye level with a DSLR.  Bracing is all wrong.  Form factor of DSLRs is rubbish for video.

No worse than with a camcorder (palmcorder).

Quote
I have a shoulder mount for my 600D and flip out screen.  It sits about 6"-12" in front of my eye, perfect, means I also get to see 'around' my shot with my other eye.  Nothing worse than trying to walk up or down stairs with your eyes pressed to an EVF with either a wide or tele lens.

I've shot exactly like that with the EVFs on camcorders for years (decades, actually).  I was happy to get shoulder mounts into the dust-bin of history.  Too directly connected to your legs makes for shaky video when walking.

paul13walnut5

  • Guest
Re: EOS M2 Shows up in DPP Literature
« Reply #54 on: September 23, 2013, 06:08:28 PM »

EVFs basically stink, and the only reason I want a hybrid EVF/OVF viewfinder is to use the EVF for video and for manual focus situations.  Other than that, you can keep them.  Their only redeeming feature is that they are better than the LCD on the back of the camera because they are eye-level.

But you wouldn't want to shoot video at eye level with a DSLR.  Bracing is all wrong.  Form factor of DSLRs is rubbish for video.

No worse than with a camcorder (palmcorder).

Quote
I have a shoulder mount for my 600D and flip out screen.  It sits about 6"-12" in front of my eye, perfect, means I also get to see 'around' my shot with my other eye.  Nothing worse than trying to walk up or down stairs with your eyes pressed to an EVF with either a wide or tele lens.

I've shot exactly like that with the EVFs on camcorders for years (decades, actually).  I was happy to get shoulder mounts into the dust-bin of history.  Too directly connected to your legs makes for shaky video when walking.

Horses for courses.

But an OVF isn't any cop for video. 

Don Haines

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3485
  • Posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
    • View Profile
Re: EOS M2 Shows up in DPP Literature
« Reply #55 on: September 23, 2013, 06:10:46 PM »

You seem to be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Just because the EVF is less than ideal in one range of use doesn't make it inferior on the whole, or even unacceptable for those less than ideal uses. In virtually every circumstance other than long range action, people are going to take a good look at the scene with their own eyes, then take the picture.

If you don't like the in camera image there's nothing stopping you from adjusting things afterwards anyway.

For the few critical things a viewfinder has to do the EVF is generally better, and as a side benefit (almost more important than the EVF itself) on sensor focusing is more accurate. As mentioned, it puts an end to lens-to-camera calibration. That, is a big deal. Especially in long range action. Maybe on sensor AF isn't blazing fast at the moment but I doubt it will be long before you can track a BIF with it (on that point, with 80% of the surface of Canons new sensor performing AF it may end up far superior in that application).
Sure, things can get better, but it doesn't make sense to completely abandon the superior system just because of a few problems with one or two specific activities.

I don't think I would agree about "better"... at least, not yet. EVF's are certainly improving, and in some areas they are getting close, but not better yet. A review of the VF-4 by Olympus ( in DPreview) says "Our first impressions of the VF-4 are very positive - it gives an experience that comes remarkably close to shooting with a conventional optical finder, but with the advantage of a detailed overlay of shooting information, including such things as electronic levels and a live histogram. The display lag is minimal (Olympus claims a mere 32ms), and the live view image sharp and detailed into the corners of the frame. About the only negative point is that the view is so large that spectacle wearers may struggle to see into the extreme corners.".... hardly the blanket condemnation that others seem to have, but certainly not better. I have tried it out in daylight and indoors in a well lit store, the performance was good, almost as good as an optical viewfinder. I did not try it in dim lighting, but past experience with other EVF's makes me skeptical as to how well it would work in poor light. I was not able to notice delay on static objects and if you panned quickly a slight delay was detectable.

This one is middle of the road... there are very expensive EVF's that are better, there are cheap ones that are outright crappy... but the point to be made is that we are now close.... give it some time and see what happens. You can't judge the future based on old designs.
The best camera is the one in your hands

Don Haines

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3485
  • Posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
    • View Profile
Re: EOS M2 Shows up in DPP Literature
« Reply #56 on: September 23, 2013, 06:24:03 PM »

EVFs basically stink, and the only reason I want a hybrid EVF/OVF viewfinder is to use the EVF for video and for manual focus situations.  Other than that, you can keep them.  Their only redeeming feature is that they are better than the LCD on the back of the camera because they are eye-level.

But you wouldn't want to shoot video at eye level with a DSLR.  Bracing is all wrong.  Form factor of DSLRs is rubbish for video.

No worse than with a camcorder (palmcorder).

Quote
I have a shoulder mount for my 600D and flip out screen.  It sits about 6"-12" in front of my eye, perfect, means I also get to see 'around' my shot with my other eye.  Nothing worse than trying to walk up or down stairs with your eyes pressed to an EVF with either a wide or tele lens.

I've shot exactly like that with the EVFs on camcorders for years (decades, actually).  I was happy to get shoulder mounts into the dust-bin of history.  Too directly connected to your legs makes for shaky video when walking.

Horses for courses.

But an OVF isn't any cop for video.
My experiences with video tells me to ignore OVF's or EVF's and use live view. I am incapable of looking through a viewfinder and keeping a camera steady for video while moving.... I need to be able to see where I am going as well as what I am recording and I can't do that with a camera stuck in my face. Even when not moving, I need a tripod to keep the camera steady enough for video. For me, shoulder braces do not cut it as the camera dips every time I take a step. I applaud those steady enough to do it, but the big thing that I have learned so far from my attempts at shooting video is a great respect for the professionals and a deep appreciation for why they spend so much time setting up lighting and why they have dollies and rails and all the other specialized gear to make motion smoother.
The best camera is the one in your hands

tnargs

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 138
    • View Profile
Re: EOS M2 Shows up in DPP Literature
« Reply #57 on: September 23, 2013, 09:13:46 PM »
How come it is so close to release that the company is listing it is in its software, but you (running this site) still don't have a clue about it? Why do we bother looking here if you are so clueless?  ???

canon rumors FORUM

Re: EOS M2 Shows up in DPP Literature
« Reply #57 on: September 23, 2013, 09:13:46 PM »

Don Haines

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3485
  • Posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
    • View Profile
Re: EOS M2 Shows up in DPP Literature
« Reply #58 on: September 23, 2013, 09:46:20 PM »
How come it is so close to release that the company is listing it is in its software, but you (running this site) still don't have a clue about it? Why do we bother looking here if you are so clueless?  ???

Because Canon is very good at controlling leaks....

And because if you didn't look here you would probably not know that the camera is mentioned in the software...

The real value of the site is that it brings together a community of interested people and you get to interact with the whole, not just a series of admin postings.
The best camera is the one in your hands

9VIII

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 666
    • View Profile
Re: EOS M2 Shows up in DPP Literature
« Reply #59 on: September 24, 2013, 01:22:11 AM »

The mirror assembly serves a very useful purpose, and EVFs are many, many generations away from being "good enough" for me (I'd estimate decades away).  The difficulties with 36x36 sensor extend to the entire lens system as well.

You seem to be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Just because the EVF is less than ideal in one range of use doesn't make it inferior on the whole, or even unacceptable for those less than ideal uses. In virtually every circumstance other than long range action, people are going to take a good look at the scene with their own eyes, then take the picture.

If you don't like the in camera image there's nothing stopping you from adjusting things afterwards anyway.

For the few critical things a viewfinder has to do the EVF is generally better, and as a side benefit (almost more important than the EVF itself) on sensor focusing is more accurate. As mentioned, it puts an end to lens-to-camera calibration. That, is a big deal. Especially in long range action. Maybe on sensor AF isn't blazing fast at the moment but I doubt it will be long before you can track a BIF with it (on that point, with 80% of the surface of Canons new sensor performing AF it may end up far superior in that application).
Sure, things can get better, but it doesn't make sense to completely abandon the superior system just because of a few problems with one or two specific activities.

It's not a superior viewfinder.  EVFs are inferior in every way but one - manual focus (and, in fact, they are only superior there because our OVFs don't have split image prisms anymore).  EVFs use a lot of power. OVFs use zero.  EVFs have significant lag, OVFs have none.  EVFs have very limited dynamic range and color gamut, OVFs are limited by your eyes.  It's really not even close.  And before someone says that they like a lot of information covering up their scene, remember the 7D's transmissive LCD, which could be used to display practically anything.

EVFs basically stink, and the only reason I want a hybrid EVF/OVF viewfinder is to use the EVF for video and for manual focus situations.  Other than that, you can keep them.  Their only redeeming feature is that they are better than the LCD on the back of the camera because they are eye-level.

OVFs are inferior in every way but... oh darn I can't really think of one.
EVFs with a proximity sensor use no power when you're not looking through it. The horrible EVF lag on my 7 year old P&S never stopped me from taking oodles and oodles of pictures with it, and human reaction time is only around 50ms at best anyway. The EVF tells you exactly where in the scene the sensor is reaching its limits and gives you boatloads of information about how to make your picture better before you take it, it's really not even close.

Your whole argument seems to hinge on the inability to see the image produced by the lens with your own eye, as though some ethereal aspect of your artistic skill is cut off by not directly absorbing the photons bouncing off the subject.


I'm not wholly against the OVF, and I agree that given the current state of on sensor AF it's still the better choice for fast action, I just think that the one thing it can do that the EVF can't is so easily compensated for that you'd be crazy not to jump on all the benefits of the EVF.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2013, 01:24:21 AM by 9VIII »
-100% RAW-

canon rumors FORUM

Re: EOS M2 Shows up in DPP Literature
« Reply #59 on: September 24, 2013, 01:22:11 AM »