October 24, 2014, 08:51:30 AM

Author Topic: Hybrid Viewfinder Coming To Canon DSLRs? [CR1]  (Read 7034 times)

Marauder

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 184
    • View Profile
Re: Hybrid Viewfinder Coming To Canon DSLRs? [CR1]
« Reply #30 on: January 15, 2014, 07:14:04 PM »
I'm not anti-video and I grasp how important it is to provide good, or great, video performance on the new 7D II.  That being said though, I too worry that the camera will be compromised too much towards video.  Or, more accurately, that the still capability will be compromised in order to achieve the video goals.  It's a worry every time they post another video oriented "gee whiz, lookatthat!" rumour. 

However, I do think that the 7D II is still going to be a stellar stills camera.  I think the long-rumoured 24 MP wildlife/action/sports powerhouse for which many of us have waited is still coming, with a stellar AF and amazing 10-12 fps tied to a deep buffer.

Although I haven't longed for a hybrid viewfinder, I can see its benefits as a stills shooter as well. Particularly if they offer a "Heads Up Display" sort of arrangement, much as Fuji has done in some of the X series.  For example, a  transparent, live Historgram overlaid over a corner of the optical view might be useful in challenging lighting conditions.  Only time will tell if this is the sort of thing they plan to implement into this new hybrid viewfinder. 

As for Canon's lack of innovation in sensors, well that may be coming to an end.  Certainly DPAF has shown that they can be inventive and innovative.  Insofar as the technology is more useful for video, some might think that it's a sign that Canon is favouring video over stills, but I don't think that's the case.  We've already been told that using Dual Pixel technology for AF is just the beginning of what it can do, so it could be an interesting 3 or 4 years for Canon if that promise can deliver new tricks for stills. 

I also think it is wise to keep in mind how amazing the original 7D was when it first came out.  Given how the 5D series has moved from strength to strength, I don't think Canon will compromise on the quality of the 7D II, simply because they will lose a golden opportunity to build on an already incredibly popular product line.  If they "blow it" with this product, it will hit them hard where no corporation wants to get hit--their reputation.  Although the bread and butter Rebels may be what pays the bills and keeps the lights on, it's the high-profile "flagship" products that allow them to sell those rebels.  Delores from Idaho may not know which end of a 1DX is which, but she knows there are lots of Canon cameras at the Olympics and as well as in the hands of pro photographers, and that is what makes her decision to buy a T3i, or SL1 (or a little Canon pocket camera, for that matter).   Companies can afford to "blow it" with a low end camera, then replace it with a nearly identical model some months later.  Witness the "oops--T4i had a problem with the grips turning white.  Better add a fully rotating dial and call it a T5i six months later!" situation.  But the same isn't true for a high-end camera.  A bad rap in a premium camera is harder to shake. 

Another point to consider is the time factor.  Given how long people have been waiting for it, Canon doesn't want the 7D II to underwhelm.  It may actually be a positive that it's been so long, insofar as it might mean Canon is waiting till the product is "right" before they release it.  Consider the 200-400 F4 IS with 1.4TC--the wait was so long it became a running gag that it was more akin to Bigfoot than a real lens.  Yet it delivered all that was promised of it when it finally shipped.  I know, for most of us that's a moot point--we can't afford it.  But we all still wanted it to be phenomenal anyway--and it is!  I think it will be like that for the 7D II--except this camera WILL be affordable (if still expensive compared to the other APS-C cameras). 

I've said it before but I'll say it again, I think Canon will make the 7D II (and I hope they choose that name for continuity) will be great, because they don't dare make it anything less than phenomenal.  I could be wrong--in which case it will likely flop and flop badly.  But I still hold out hope that it will be everything the 7D was in its time---and more!  ;D
Canon 7D, Canon T3i, Canon 100-400L, Canon 200 f2.8L & Various other lenses

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Hybrid Viewfinder Coming To Canon DSLRs? [CR1]
« Reply #30 on: January 15, 2014, 07:14:04 PM »

jiphoto

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 36
    • View Profile
Re: Hybrid Viewfinder Coming To Canon DSLRs? [CR1]
« Reply #31 on: January 15, 2014, 07:15:02 PM »
No, I can't say I have used any of the designed-for-video cameras, but I completely agree that a viewfinder will help those cameras.  However, an SLR form factor is much less ergonomically designed for video, so I don't know how effective a viewfinder would be, especially since it's so close to the camera body (difficult, if not downright uncomfortable).
7D, 50 f/1.8 II, 20-35 f/3.5-4.5, 24-105 f/4L, 100-400L, 580EX II

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4481
  • EOL
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Hybrid Viewfinder Coming To Canon DSLRs? [CR1]
« Reply #32 on: January 15, 2014, 07:21:59 PM »
Although I haven't longed for a hybrid viewfinder, I can see its benefits as a stills shooter as well. Particularly if they offer a "Heads Up Display" sort of arrangement, much as Fuji has done in some of the X series. For example, a  transparent, live Historgram overlaid over a corner of the optical view might be useful in challenging lighting conditions.  Only time will tell if this is the sort of thing they plan to implement into this new hybrid viewfinder. 

TOTALLY AGREE!! I've said that very thing a few times in the past...with Canon's existing translucent LCD overlay for their OVFs, they could put in a monochrome histogram, which would be IMMENSELY useful for those times where you can't really take your eye away from the viewfinder, and the basic exposure meter isn't sufficient to gauge proper exposure. I think there are so many things Canon could do with their current OVF technology...would be very cool to see them take it farther.

As for Canon's lack of innovation in sensors, well that may be coming to an end.  Certainly DPAF has shown that they can be inventive and innovative.  Insofar as the technology is more useful for video, some might think that it's a sign that Canon is favouring video over stills, but I don't think that's the case.  We've already been told that using Dual Pixel technology for AF is just the beginning of what it can do, so it could be an interesting 3 or 4 years for Canon if that promise can deliver new tricks for stills. 

I also think it is wise to keep in mind how amazing the original 7D was when it first came out.  Given how the 5D series has moved from strength to strength, I don't think Canon will compromise on the quality of the 7D II, simply because they will lose a golden opportunity to build on an already incredibly popular product line.  If they "blow it" with this product, it will hit them hard where no corporation wants to get hit--their reputation.  Although the bread and butter Rebels may be what pays the bills and keeps the lights on, it's the high-profile "flagship" products that allow them to sell those rebels.  Delores from Idaho may not know which end of a 1DX is which, but she knows there are lots of Canon cameras at the Olympics and as well as in the hands of pro photographers, and that is what makes her decision to buy a T3i, or SL1 (or a little Canon pocket camera, for that matter).   Companies can afford to "blow it" with a low end camera, then replace it with a nearly identical model some months later.  Witness the "oops--T4i had a problem with the grips turning white.  Better add a fully rotating dial and call it a T5i six months later!" situation.  But the same isn't true for a high-end camera.  A bad rap in a premium camera is harder to shake. 

Another point to consider is the time factor.  Given how long people have been waiting for it, Canon doesn't want the 7D II to underwhelm.  It may actually be a positive that it's been so long, insofar as it might mean Canon is waiting till the product is "right" before they release it.  Consider the 200-400 F4 IS with 1.4TC--the wait was so long it became a running gag that it was more akin to Bigfoot than a real lens.  Yet it delivered all that was promised of it when it finally shipped.  I know, for most of us that's a moot point--we can't afford it.  But we all still wanted it to be phenomenal anyway--and it is!  I think it will be like that for the 7D II--except this camera WILL be affordable (if still expensive compared to the other APS-C cameras). 

I've said it before but I'll say it again, I think Canon will make the 7D II (and I hope they choose that name for continuity) will be great, because they don't dare make it anything less than phenomenal.  I could be wrong--in which case it will likely flop and flop badly.  But I still hold out hope that it will be everything the 7D was in its time---and more!  ;D

+1 Great insights. Particularly the points about the great overall leaps forward the 5D III and 1D X were relative to their predecessors. I guess if you apply that logic to the 7D II, which is still a pro-grade DSLR, then that would indicate the 7D II should see a similar overall leap forward. I still fear THE TRICKLE...but maybe that's just Canon's MO for lower end products (which they release far more of far more frequently than pro-grade anything.) Maybe the 7D II will still be what we all hope it will be, plus the Hybrid VF.

(Personally, I am not concerned with timeframe, as you say...the more time Canon takes on the 7D II, the better it should be when it finally arrives. I can get the 5D III in the interim, which I suspect would still be my primary even if I picked up a 7D II in the future.)

Marauder

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 184
    • View Profile
Re: Hybrid Viewfinder Coming To Canon DSLRs? [CR1]
« Reply #33 on: January 15, 2014, 09:19:38 PM »
Thanks Jon.  I'm definitely hoping and expecting for great things for the 7D II.  Truth be told, I think the 70D is an amazing camera and it raises the bar for the 7D II because of it. 

I think the "Trickle" is a very real phenomenon and I concur that they do it, but I think it's mainly their Rebels that tend to embody that phenomenon.  Moreover, it kind of makes sense too.  Rebels come out at intervals of less than a year, so having "too much" appear in a model might hit the bottom line, and hard at that, as it would compromise the viability of older products. 

For example, the T5i is a better overall camera than the T3i, but not so much better that I'd steer a new photographer from purchasing a T3i.  It's still a great little camera.  When I'm not shooting "things that move," I still use it a great deal.  Sometimes it gets used more than my 7D.  Naturally, the 7D is greatly superior for catching BIF, airshows and historical events to get musket or cannon flash, having an amazing burst rate and excellent buffer and much better AF system.  But for landscapes and the like, the T3i does at least as good a job. That being said, "trickling" the tech at the rapidly replaced low end allows Canon to maximise their profit margins on a product that needs a "new" product every 10 months or so, without obsoleting existing models.  So you can have long-duration, solid products like the T2i and T3i (and even viable "super-budget" ones like the T3!), while still offering a worthwhile, but minimum resource upgrade such as the T4i/T5i.  Sensor and IQ of the latter are little changed, but you get decent perks, such as the very highly regarded touch-screen and 9 cross-type AF points, rather than 1 cross-type and 8 standard AF points on the former.

But, when it comes to products like the xxD and the XD series, Canon seems to be willing to really deliver on the goods!  If the 70D blew away the 60D (and it does), then I think the 7D II will do the same to the 7D.  Canon will be making a huge mistake if they don't wow those of us who want this camera to be the most amazing APS-C camera ever.  That's what I think they have to aim for--and that's what I think they will accomplish.  Only time will tell if that assessment is correct! LOL

Jeff


Although I haven't longed for a hybrid viewfinder, I can see its benefits as a stills shooter as well. Particularly if they offer a "Heads Up Display" sort of arrangement, much as Fuji has done in some of the X series. For example, a  transparent, live Historgram overlaid over a corner of the optical view might be useful in challenging lighting conditions.  Only time will tell if this is the sort of thing they plan to implement into this new hybrid viewfinder. 

TOTALLY AGREE!! I've said that very thing a few times in the past...with Canon's existing translucent LCD overlay for their OVFs, they could put in a monochrome histogram, which would be IMMENSELY useful for those times where you can't really take your eye away from the viewfinder, and the basic exposure meter isn't sufficient to gauge proper exposure. I think there are so many things Canon could do with their current OVF technology...would be very cool to see them take it farther.

As for Canon's lack of innovation in sensors, well that may be coming to an end.  Certainly DPAF has shown that they can be inventive and innovative.  Insofar as the technology is more useful for video, some might think that it's a sign that Canon is favouring video over stills, but I don't think that's the case.  We've already been told that using Dual Pixel technology for AF is just the beginning of what it can do, so it could be an interesting 3 or 4 years for Canon if that promise can deliver new tricks for stills. 

I also think it is wise to keep in mind how amazing the original 7D was when it first came out.  Given how the 5D series has moved from strength to strength, I don't think Canon will compromise on the quality of the 7D II, simply because they will lose a golden opportunity to build on an already incredibly popular product line.  If they "blow it" with this product, it will hit them hard where no corporation wants to get hit--their reputation.  Although the bread and butter Rebels may be what pays the bills and keeps the lights on, it's the high-profile "flagship" products that allow them to sell those rebels.  Delores from Idaho may not know which end of a 1DX is which, but she knows there are lots of Canon cameras at the Olympics and as well as in the hands of pro photographers, and that is what makes her decision to buy a T3i, or SL1 (or a little Canon pocket camera, for that matter).   Companies can afford to "blow it" with a low end camera, then replace it with a nearly identical model some months later.  Witness the "oops--T4i had a problem with the grips turning white.  Better add a fully rotating dial and call it a T5i six months later!" situation.  But the same isn't true for a high-end camera.  A bad rap in a premium camera is harder to shake. 

Another point to consider is the time factor.  Given how long people have been waiting for it, Canon doesn't want the 7D II to underwhelm.  It may actually be a positive that it's been so long, insofar as it might mean Canon is waiting till the product is "right" before they release it.  Consider the 200-400 F4 IS with 1.4TC--the wait was so long it became a running gag that it was more akin to Bigfoot than a real lens.  Yet it delivered all that was promised of it when it finally shipped.  I know, for most of us that's a moot point--we can't afford it.  But we all still wanted it to be phenomenal anyway--and it is!  I think it will be like that for the 7D II--except this camera WILL be affordable (if still expensive compared to the other APS-C cameras). 

I've said it before but I'll say it again, I think Canon will make the 7D II (and I hope they choose that name for continuity) will be great, because they don't dare make it anything less than phenomenal.  I could be wrong--in which case it will likely flop and flop badly.  But I still hold out hope that it will be everything the 7D was in its time---and more!  ;D

+1 Great insights. Particularly the points about the great overall leaps forward the 5D III and 1D X were relative to their predecessors. I guess if you apply that logic to the 7D II, which is still a pro-grade DSLR, then that would indicate the 7D II should see a similar overall leap forward. I still fear THE TRICKLE...but maybe that's just Canon's MO for lower end products (which they release far more of far more frequently than pro-grade anything.) Maybe the 7D II will still be what we all hope it will be, plus the Hybrid VF.

(Personally, I am not concerned with timeframe, as you say...the more time Canon takes on the 7D II, the better it should be when it finally arrives. I can get the 5D III in the interim, which I suspect would still be my primary even if I picked up a 7D II in the future.)
« Last Edit: January 15, 2014, 09:33:43 PM by Marauder »
Canon 7D, Canon T3i, Canon 100-400L, Canon 200 f2.8L & Various other lenses

Don Haines

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3364
  • Posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
    • View Profile
Re: Hybrid Viewfinder Coming To Canon DSLRs? [CR1]
« Reply #34 on: January 15, 2014, 10:07:33 PM »
Daniel, I'm no expert to believe! ;)  One thing for sure though is that the 1.4X and 2X if they help you to fill your frame, are better than cropping.  I've proven that with my 300 2.8 II and converters III.

I believe what some like me are hoping for is more reach while still being able to keep the portability of the 300 plus converters, and for AF improvement.  While I might be able to scrimp and afford a 600, I would be seriously challenged to take it where I would most want it.  Thus, I want to try out the elusive 7DII.

If you're thinking wide, go full frame for sure.

Jack
A lot of argument over the relative value of teleconverters and crop/ff depends a lot on the lens.

If you use a teleconverter on a soft lens, you can decrease the resolving power. If you use it on a sharp lens you will increase the resolving power.

Likewise, a soft lens on a FF camera may out-resolve (or at least be close to) that same soft lens on a crop camera, yet with a sharp lens it may be the other way around...

In other words, if you are going long, the lens quality is more important than FF or Crop.

And Jack is definitely right about going wide.... FF all the way! The wider the angle of the lens, the harder it is to design without distortion and the harder it is to make it sharp. If you wanted the same angle of view on a crop camera as 24mm on a FF camera, you would need a 15mm lens. With the same level of design and materials you can not make a 15mm lens as well as a 24mm lens, so just on the glass, FF wins in IQ.....plus there is all the usual stuff about less noise, higher ISO, etc etc...
The best camera is the one in your hands

jiphoto

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 36
    • View Profile
Re: Hybrid Viewfinder Coming To Canon DSLRs? [CR1]
« Reply #35 on: January 15, 2014, 11:34:36 PM »
Daniel, I'm no expert to believe! ;)  One thing for sure though is that the 1.4X and 2X if they help you to fill your frame, are better than cropping.  I've proven that with my 300 2.8 II and converters III.

I believe what some like me are hoping for is more reach while still being able to keep the portability of the 300 plus converters, and for AF improvement.  While I might be able to scrimp and afford a 600, I would be seriously challenged to take it where I would most want it.  Thus, I want to try out the elusive 7DII.

If you're thinking wide, go full frame for sure.

Jack
A lot of argument over the relative value of teleconverters and crop/ff depends a lot on the lens.

If you use a teleconverter on a soft lens, you can decrease the resolving power. If you use it on a sharp lens you will increase the resolving power.

Likewise, a soft lens on a FF camera may out-resolve (or at least be close to) that same soft lens on a crop camera, yet with a sharp lens it may be the other way around...

In other words, if you are going long, the lens quality is more important than FF or Crop.

And Jack is definitely right about going wide.... FF all the way! The wider the angle of the lens, the harder it is to design without distortion and the harder it is to make it sharp. If you wanted the same angle of view on a crop camera as 24mm on a FF camera, you would need a 15mm lens. With the same level of design and materials you can not make a 15mm lens as well as a 24mm lens, so just on the glass, FF wins in IQ.....plus there is all the usual stuff about less noise, higher ISO, etc etc...


This is very true: certain lenses are known to disagree with teleconverters - the 100-400L is a good example of that, for multiple reasons.  The teleconverter quality also matters - a cheap teleconverter can be worse than cropping a photo.  I have an $80ish TC that actually degrades the quality of my 100-400 - a total waste of money.
7D, 50 f/1.8 II, 20-35 f/3.5-4.5, 24-105 f/4L, 100-400L, 580EX II

jdramirez

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2439
    • View Profile
Re: Hybrid Viewfinder Coming To Canon DSLRs? [CR1]
« Reply #36 on: January 16, 2014, 12:07:18 AM »
Daniel, I'm no expert to believe! ;)  One thing for sure though is that the 1.4X and 2X if they help you to fill your frame, are better than cropping.  I've proven that with my 300 2.8 II and converters III.

I believe what some like me are hoping for is more reach while still being able to keep the portability of the 300 plus converters, and for AF improvement.  While I might be able to scrimp and afford a 600, I would be seriously challenged to take it where I would most want it.  Thus, I want to try out the elusive 7DII.

If you're thinking wide, go full frame for sure.

Jack
A lot of argument over the relative value of teleconverters and crop/ff depends a lot on the lens.

If you use a teleconverter on a soft lens, you can decrease the resolving power. If you use it on a sharp lens you will increase the resolving power.

Likewise, a soft lens on a FF camera may out-resolve (or at least be close to) that same soft lens on a crop camera, yet with a sharp lens it may be the other way around...

In other words, if you are going long, the lens quality is more important than FF or Crop.

And Jack is definitely right about going wide.... FF all the way! The wider the angle of the lens, the harder it is to design without distortion and the harder it is to make it sharp. If you wanted the same angle of view on a crop camera as 24mm on a FF camera, you would need a 15mm lens. With the same level of design and materials you can not make a 15mm lens as well as a 24mm lens, so just on the glass, FF wins in IQ.....plus there is all the usual stuff about less noise, higher ISO, etc etc...


This is very true: certain lenses are known to disagree with teleconverters - the 100-400L is a good example of that, for multiple reasons.  The teleconverter quality also matters - a cheap teleconverter can be worse than cropping a photo.  I have an $80ish TC that actually degrades the quality of my 100-400 - a total waste of money.

I have a Canon 1.4 mkii teleconvertor.  Just as a cautionary tale... mind telling people which brand the $80 TC is? 
Upgrade  path.->means the former was sold for the latter.

XS->60D->5d Mkiii:18-55->24-105L:75-300->55-250->70-300->70-200 f4L USM->70-200 f/2.8L USM->70-200 f/2.8L IS Mkii:50 f/1.8->50 f/1.4->100L->85mm f/1.8 USM-> 8mm ->100L & 85L

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Hybrid Viewfinder Coming To Canon DSLRs? [CR1]
« Reply #36 on: January 16, 2014, 12:07:18 AM »

jiphoto

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 36
    • View Profile
Re: Hybrid Viewfinder Coming To Canon DSLRs? [CR1]
« Reply #37 on: January 16, 2014, 12:11:24 AM »
Daniel, I'm no expert to believe! ;)  One thing for sure though is that the 1.4X and 2X if they help you to fill your frame, are better than cropping.  I've proven that with my 300 2.8 II and converters III.

I believe what some like me are hoping for is more reach while still being able to keep the portability of the 300 plus converters, and for AF improvement.  While I might be able to scrimp and afford a 600, I would be seriously challenged to take it where I would most want it.  Thus, I want to try out the elusive 7DII.

If you're thinking wide, go full frame for sure.

Jack
A lot of argument over the relative value of teleconverters and crop/ff depends a lot on the lens.

If you use a teleconverter on a soft lens, you can decrease the resolving power. If you use it on a sharp lens you will increase the resolving power.

Likewise, a soft lens on a FF camera may out-resolve (or at least be close to) that same soft lens on a crop camera, yet with a sharp lens it may be the other way around...

In other words, if you are going long, the lens quality is more important than FF or Crop.

And Jack is definitely right about going wide.... FF all the way! The wider the angle of the lens, the harder it is to design without distortion and the harder it is to make it sharp. If you wanted the same angle of view on a crop camera as 24mm on a FF camera, you would need a 15mm lens. With the same level of design and materials you can not make a 15mm lens as well as a 24mm lens, so just on the glass, FF wins in IQ.....plus there is all the usual stuff about less noise, higher ISO, etc etc...


This is very true: certain lenses are known to disagree with teleconverters - the 100-400L is a good example of that, for multiple reasons.  The teleconverter quality also matters - a cheap teleconverter can be worse than cropping a photo.  I have an $80ish TC that actually degrades the quality of my 100-400 - a total waste of money.

I have a Canon 1.4 mkii teleconvertor.  Just as a cautionary tale... mind telling people which brand the $80 TC is?
It's a Bower. I think it's the same generic brand as Rokinon/Samyang.
7D, 50 f/1.8 II, 20-35 f/3.5-4.5, 24-105 f/4L, 100-400L, 580EX II

jdramirez

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2439
    • View Profile
Re: Hybrid Viewfinder Coming To Canon DSLRs? [CR1]
« Reply #38 on: January 16, 2014, 12:17:13 AM »
It's a Bower. I think it's the same generic brand as Rokinon/Samyang.

I have a Rokinon fisheye... I don't hate the fisheye... but I stopped using it after its initial novelty wore off... so not a bad lens... but a bad decision on my part. 

I've occasionally thought about buying a 500mm f/8 or something like that... but fortunately I come to my senses.
Upgrade  path.->means the former was sold for the latter.

XS->60D->5d Mkiii:18-55->24-105L:75-300->55-250->70-300->70-200 f4L USM->70-200 f/2.8L USM->70-200 f/2.8L IS Mkii:50 f/1.8->50 f/1.4->100L->85mm f/1.8 USM-> 8mm ->100L & 85L

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4481
  • EOL
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Hybrid Viewfinder Coming To Canon DSLRs? [CR1]
« Reply #39 on: January 16, 2014, 12:22:11 AM »
Daniel, I'm no expert to believe! ;)  One thing for sure though is that the 1.4X and 2X if they help you to fill your frame, are better than cropping.  I've proven that with my 300 2.8 II and converters III.

I believe what some like me are hoping for is more reach while still being able to keep the portability of the 300 plus converters, and for AF improvement.  While I might be able to scrimp and afford a 600, I would be seriously challenged to take it where I would most want it.  Thus, I want to try out the elusive 7DII.

If you're thinking wide, go full frame for sure.

Jack
A lot of argument over the relative value of teleconverters and crop/ff depends a lot on the lens.

If you use a teleconverter on a soft lens, you can decrease the resolving power. If you use it on a sharp lens you will increase the resolving power.

Likewise, a soft lens on a FF camera may out-resolve (or at least be close to) that same soft lens on a crop camera, yet with a sharp lens it may be the other way around...

In other words, if you are going long, the lens quality is more important than FF or Crop.

And Jack is definitely right about going wide.... FF all the way! The wider the angle of the lens, the harder it is to design without distortion and the harder it is to make it sharp. If you wanted the same angle of view on a crop camera as 24mm on a FF camera, you would need a 15mm lens. With the same level of design and materials you can not make a 15mm lens as well as a 24mm lens, so just on the glass, FF wins in IQ.....plus there is all the usual stuff about less noise, higher ISO, etc etc...


This is very true: certain lenses are known to disagree with teleconverters - the 100-400L is a good example of that, for multiple reasons.  The teleconverter quality also matters - a cheap teleconverter can be worse than cropping a photo.  I have an $80ish TC that actually degrades the quality of my 100-400 - a total waste of money.

I have a Canon 1.4 mkii teleconvertor.  Just as a cautionary tale... mind telling people which brand the $80 TC is?
It's a Bower. I think it's the same generic brand as Rokinon/Samyang.

It may not be the Bower TC that causes the IQ loss. I mean, it will cause some, but the 100-400 sucks even with the EF 1.4x III (which it doesn't even function properly with), and while it functions properly with the much-loved Kenko Teleplus Pro 300 GDX 1.4x TC, the IQ still sucks (a little bit more than the Canon 1.4x, but the differences aren't huge.) I think it's just that the old 100-400mm lens design was built in the film era, at the early dawn of the digital era, and the bar for quality wasn't as high back then. It is most definitely a softish camera at f/5.6 and f/6.3, and only really starts to sharpen up by f/7.1 and f/8. With a TC, you would be at f/11, which imposes a significant hit on either shutter speed (which increases softness from camera shake) or ISO (which packs on the noise, especially on a 7D).

It is possible that your $80 Bower TC is just fine, and that it just doesn't pair well with 100-400 (because, well, NO TC pairs well with that lens. :D)

jiphoto

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 36
    • View Profile
Re: Hybrid Viewfinder Coming To Canon DSLRs? [CR1]
« Reply #40 on: January 16, 2014, 12:41:32 AM »

It's a Bower. I think it's the same generic brand as Rokinon/Samyang.

It may not be the Bower TC that causes the IQ loss. I mean, it will cause some, but the 100-400 sucks even with the EF 1.4x III (which it doesn't even function properly with), and while it functions properly with the much-loved Kenko Teleplus Pro 300 GDX 1.4x TC, the IQ still sucks (a little bit more than the Canon 1.4x, but the differences aren't huge.) I think it's just that the old 100-400mm lens design was built in the film era, at the early dawn of the digital era, and the bar for quality wasn't as high back then. It is most definitely a softish camera at f/5.6 and f/6.3, and only really starts to sharpen up by f/7.1 and f/8. With a TC, you would be at f/11, which imposes a significant hit on either shutter speed (which increases softness from camera shake) or ISO (which packs on the noise, especially on a 7D).

It is possible that your $80 Bower TC is just fine, and that it just doesn't pair well with 100-400 (because, well, NO TC pairs well with that lens. :D )
There's probably something to do with the age of the 100-400 and its dislike of TCs, but I've tried the Bower TC on my old 28-135, and the TC definitely degraded the sharpness there too.  Maybe I got a bad copy.  I imagine the Kenko brand is a tad better than Bower.  I hear the Bower/Rokinon/Samyang conglomerate makes fairly good lenses, so maybe they just don't make good teleconverters.  It's probably very difficult to optimize a teleconverter for a bunch of very different lenses.
7D, 50 f/1.8 II, 20-35 f/3.5-4.5, 24-105 f/4L, 100-400L, 580EX II

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4481
  • EOL
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Hybrid Viewfinder Coming To Canon DSLRs? [CR1]
« Reply #41 on: January 16, 2014, 01:12:35 AM »

It's a Bower. I think it's the same generic brand as Rokinon/Samyang.

It may not be the Bower TC that causes the IQ loss. I mean, it will cause some, but the 100-400 sucks even with the EF 1.4x III (which it doesn't even function properly with), and while it functions properly with the much-loved Kenko Teleplus Pro 300 GDX 1.4x TC, the IQ still sucks (a little bit more than the Canon 1.4x, but the differences aren't huge.) I think it's just that the old 100-400mm lens design was built in the film era, at the early dawn of the digital era, and the bar for quality wasn't as high back then. It is most definitely a softish camera at f/5.6 and f/6.3, and only really starts to sharpen up by f/7.1 and f/8. With a TC, you would be at f/11, which imposes a significant hit on either shutter speed (which increases softness from camera shake) or ISO (which packs on the noise, especially on a 7D).

It is possible that your $80 Bower TC is just fine, and that it just doesn't pair well with 100-400 (because, well, NO TC pairs well with that lens. :D )
There's probably something to do with the age of the 100-400 and its dislike of TCs, but I've tried the Bower TC on my old 28-135, and the TC definitely degraded the sharpness there too.  Maybe I got a bad copy.  I imagine the Kenko brand is a tad better than Bower.  I hear the Bower/Rokinon/Samyang conglomerate makes fairly good lenses, so maybe they just don't make good teleconverters.  It's probably very difficult to optimize a teleconverter for a bunch of very different lenses.

The Kenko is decent, but it is definitely not as good as the Canon TCs. It allows just barely visible improvements when attached vs. when not attached. Subjects are definitely larger in the frame, but you don't get the same kind of increase in overall detail as with a Canon TC.

Something else I've noticed with the Kenko TC...boke circles look TERRIBLE. They have this funky warped star effect which just looks rather bad, so I don't really use it much anymore. It's great though, for people who want f/8 AF on camera bodies, like the 7D, that don't normally support it (so the boke issue just doesn't matter in those cases). It does allow f/8 AF, and in good light, even the 100-400 will focus automatically, albeit slowly.

If you have a good lens, and a body that supports AF at the smaller apertures, get a Canon TC. No question they offer better quality. If you have a body that does not support f/8 AF and you need it (probably best with the 400/5.6 L prime), the Kenko is the best bet. (Actually, the Kenko MC4 seems to produce better IQ overall than the Kenko Pro 300 DGX, so I actually recommend getting that one...I simply couldn't find one for sale when I bought mine.)

scottkinfw

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 770
    • View Profile
    • kasden.smug.com
Re: Hybrid Viewfinder Coming To Canon DSLRs? [CR1]
« Reply #42 on: January 16, 2014, 01:51:22 AM »
I would have to say that the iQ from the 5D3 is awesome, and the ISO performance is spectacular in low light and high ISO's, so the new crop sensor along with the body it ships in would have to be very interesting for me to consider giving up that quality, when I can just get a 1.4X tele-extender and more or less get the same reach, and do it for ~$425 USD with current sales going on now.

My two cents.

And what do others think of that take on it?

Scott

It's looking more and more like I am going to be investing my money in a 5D III.

I just wrote this (below) in another thread.
5D3 + Daniel is looking like a likely couple to me. :)

*****
Something just occurred to me now... How likely is it that a new 7D will have many advantages over the current 5D3?
Possible advantages I see (sure many debatable):
- Crop factor for birding, wildlife and sports
- Compatibility with EF-S lenses
- Built-in flash
- Higher burst rate and bigger buffer
- Price
Is that it? I am aware, from reading previous discussions here, that the crop factor is not a huge advantage (if at all), and compatibility with EF-S lenses is probably not relevant. The built-in flash may not even come with the new 7D anymore, and some people even dislike it. Burst rate, well, here I see a difference, but it is not important to me (I understand other folks may need it, though).
Anyway, when the 7D2 finally arrives costing US$ 2,000-2,200 body only (more? less?), how much will a 5D3 be costing? I have just found prices under 2,900 on canonpricewatch.com, and rythercamera.com has the 5D3 for 2,499 right now. Even Canon sells it refurbished for under 2,800.
What do you guys think? Will the 7D2 be worth buying when the price of the 5D3 drops even further? I am not so sure anymore.
Cheers
Daniel
sek Cameras: 5D III, 5D II, EOS M  Lenses:  24-70 2.8 II IS, 24-105 f4L, 70-200 f4L IS, 70-200 f2.8L IS II, EF 300 f4L IS, EF 400 5.6L, 300 2.8 IS II, Samyang 14 mm 2.8 Flashes: 580 EX II600EX-RT X 2, ST-E3-RT
Plus lots of stuff that just didn't work for me

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Hybrid Viewfinder Coming To Canon DSLRs? [CR1]
« Reply #42 on: January 16, 2014, 01:51:22 AM »

weixing

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 309
    • View Profile
Re: Hybrid Viewfinder Coming To Canon DSLRs? [CR1]
« Reply #43 on: January 16, 2014, 02:29:12 AM »

It's a Bower. I think it's the same generic brand as Rokinon/Samyang.

It may not be the Bower TC that causes the IQ loss. I mean, it will cause some, but the 100-400 sucks even with the EF 1.4x III (which it doesn't even function properly with), and while it functions properly with the much-loved Kenko Teleplus Pro 300 GDX 1.4x TC, the IQ still sucks (a little bit more than the Canon 1.4x, but the differences aren't huge.) I think it's just that the old 100-400mm lens design was built in the film era, at the early dawn of the digital era, and the bar for quality wasn't as high back then. It is most definitely a softish camera at f/5.6 and f/6.3, and only really starts to sharpen up by f/7.1 and f/8. With a TC, you would be at f/11, which imposes a significant hit on either shutter speed (which increases softness from camera shake) or ISO (which packs on the noise, especially on a 7D).

It is possible that your $80 Bower TC is just fine, and that it just doesn't pair well with 100-400 (because, well, NO TC pairs well with that lens. :D )
There's probably something to do with the age of the 100-400 and its dislike of TCs, but I've tried the Bower TC on my old 28-135, and the TC definitely degraded the sharpness there too.  Maybe I got a bad copy.  I imagine the Kenko brand is a tad better than Bower.  I hear the Bower/Rokinon/Samyang conglomerate makes fairly good lenses, so maybe they just don't make good teleconverters.  It's probably very difficult to optimize a teleconverter for a bunch of very different lenses.

The Kenko is decent, but it is definitely not as good as the Canon TCs. It allows just barely visible improvements when attached vs. when not attached. Subjects are definitely larger in the frame, but you don't get the same kind of increase in overall detail as with a Canon TC.

Something else I've noticed with the Kenko TC...boke circles look TERRIBLE. They have this funky warped star effect which just looks rather bad, so I don't really use it much anymore. It's great though, for people who want f/8 AF on camera bodies, like the 7D, that don't normally support it (so the boke issue just doesn't matter in those cases). It does allow f/8 AF, and in good light, even the 100-400 will focus automatically, albeit slowly.

If you have a good lens, and a body that supports AF at the smaller apertures, get a Canon TC. No question they offer better quality. If you have a body that does not support f/8 AF and you need it (probably best with the 400/5.6 L prime), the Kenko is the best bet. (Actually, the Kenko MC4 seems to produce better IQ overall than the Kenko Pro 300 DGX, so I actually recommend getting that one...I simply couldn't find one for sale when I bought mine.)
Hi,
    I use the Kenko Pro 300 DGX 1.4x (blue dot version) on my 400mm F5.6L and 6D all the time and the bokeh look normal to me... focusing speed is only slightly slower. Anyway, bokeh is cause by the aperture blades, right? So the quality of the bokeh should be determine by the lens design.

   Have a nice day.

Jack Douglas

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 886
    • View Profile
Re: Hybrid Viewfinder Coming To Canon DSLRs? [CR1]
« Reply #44 on: January 16, 2014, 02:55:39 AM »
scottkinfw, that makes sense only some of us already have the 1.4X or 2X attached and still need (would like)more reach. 

My plan when I bought the 6D was that it would be great for travel and landscape and then I'd buy a second body.  I'm toying with the 7DII idea because all this season I shot 90+% with 300 X2 and the reach for birds is just about enough but more would be really great.  The 7DII would have to be very good for me to accept a crop after using FF, I know. 

I might consider 1Dx but that's big $$$ and worse it's a heavy camera combined with heavy lenses, not the greatest for hiking.  Of course, there is the 5DIII that I might consider if something new doesn't show up from Canon by about April.

Jack
6D  24-70 F4  70-200 F2.8 II  300 F2.8 II  1.4X III  2X III

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Hybrid Viewfinder Coming To Canon DSLRs? [CR1]
« Reply #44 on: January 16, 2014, 02:55:39 AM »