Posts

Besisika · Sep 9, 2016

I am not or have been interested in mirrorless cameras and most likely will stick to Canon for a while, and yet I strongly suggest you find someone who has the Sony camera that you had in mind and if he can allow you to test it, that would be even better.
My point is that using a stabilizer is not a matter of just stabilization, there are many factors that you have to take into consideration; and the most important of them - my opinion - is weight. Smaller cameras may have advantage in many respect depending on what you do, especially if you are a one-band man shooting a wedding video for few hours. Many stabilizers nowadays accept only (or work better with) smaller cameras and you may end up with limited options.
Speed and time to balance the gear is another one, especially if you have to mount and un-mount it few times during the wedding.

chauncey · Sep 9, 2016

Thanks for that...it's impressive that, where applicable, it matches what I use on my 1Ds3

crashpc · Sep 9, 2016

I believe it will have fairly strong 80D AA filter. I would propably jump on that camera without even checking its capabilities, if it had AA-less sensor.

3kramd5 · Sep 9, 2016

bmwzimmer said:
You know why Sony has a higher sharpness score? Because the Canon stops down to f/32 while the Sony stops to f/22.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but how do you know that the sony wouldn't have a higher score even if the Canon went to f/22?

Their sharpness charts, to me, have such poor presentation that it's impossible to tell what the data are. Which shade of green of the thin line against a white background is darker?

Even if you click them, the charts are practically unintelligible. Which lens is sharper wide open rather than averaged over the aperture range? I have absolutely no idea. They should include a mouseover readout.

Their acceptance charts at least show some differentiation.

TWI by Dustin Abbott · Sep 9, 2016

My previous of the Milvus 135mm f/2 is up today: http://bit.ly/2c4RMXB

Maximilian · Sep 9, 2016

Canon Rumors said:
... the Company’s 120-millionth EF-series interchangeable lens for EOS cameras ...

Horay! - stop -

And now let's move on.

9VIII · Sep 8, 2016

sebasan said:
Do you trust this guy?

You can trust Tony to say a lot of things and show you some pictures.
Practical value not guaranteed.
Really every reviewer should be approached with the same skepticism.
(Especially in this case since none of the reviewers so far have demonstrated an understanding of DPRAW.)

FEBS · Sep 8, 2016

Mario said:
Pleasant surprises: AF during Live View, it's fast, very fast. I can have my 200-400 on it, with a 2x extender, and flip in the internal 1.4x extender and in Live View, AF is still fast. Which brings me to the next pleasant surprise: the 1DXII seems to take extenders better than anything before. I never use the 2x extender a lot before as I could see it clearly having an adverse effect on IQ. With the 1DXII, that adverse effect seems way less, I now use the 2x extender a lot more. With the 200-400 and the 2x extender and the internal 1.4x in place, the IQ is still more than acceptable. This is now my preferred set-up in my garden hide. With this combination I am good for squirrels but also for the tiniest garden birds.

Mario

Hi Mario,

Something to try out. My 2.0 extender is only taking dust the last year. On 600mm I can use iT, but on the 200-400 I defenitely skipped iT. When back from Costa rica, I will give iT a try against on the 200-400.

Francois

Sep 8, 2016

unfocused said:
I know what you are saying Neuro, but another way to look at it is that Canon is very serious about the MILC market. They have seriously studied the market and very carefully balanced their investment with anticipated returns.

Certainly. I meant 'not serious' in the sense of not very invested from a product standpoint.

Sep 8, 2016

The 5D4 image RAWs also appeared soft in DPP 4.5 once I updated and was able to bring them in, not a whole lot better than what was on DPR to begin with. Not sure what is going on other than what I've speculated earlier. However, I'm positive the cause is not DPRAW as these are normal Raw files.

People should be getting this camera in their hands soon, so I expect a lot more follow-up re. this topic.

gts · Sep 8, 2016

The firmware update also requires an update to EOS Utility Version 3.5.0

Changes in the Firmware
Firmware Version 1.1.2 incorporates the following improvements to enhance functions.

1. The addition of a selectable color-tone option for the LCD monitor.
2. The addition of a function to append IPTC data.
3. The addition of a function to transfer only protected images.
4. The addition of a function to set the GPS positional data retention period.
5. An increase in the number of network connection settings that can be saved to a memory card from 20 to 40.
6. When retrying FTP transfer, extension of the minimum auto power off time to 10 minutes.
7. Improvement of wireless transmission when using Wireless File Transmitter WFT-E6.

The Version 1.1.2 firmware being released at this time is for cameras with Firmware Version 1.0.2 or earlier. If the camera's firmware is already Version 1.1.2, it is not necessary to update the firmware.
When updating the firmware of your camera, please first go over the instructions thoroughly before you download the firmware.
The firmware update takes approximately six minutes.

Notes:
(1) Once the camera is updated to Version 1.1.2, it cannot be restored to a previous firmware version (Version 1.0.0 / 1.0.2).
(2) "Camera setting files" generated on a camera with Firmware Version 1.0.2 or earlier cannot be used on a camera with Firmware Version 1.1.2 or later.
(3) EOS-1D X Mark II cameras with Firmware Version 1.1.2 require the latest version of EOS Utility. EOS Utility Version 3.5.0 or later can be downloaded from our Web site.
*EOS Utility Version 3.5.0 is supported on the following OSes:
Windows 10 / 8.1 / 7 SP1, Mac OS X v10.9 / 10.10 / 10.11
(4) Download the latest version of the Instruction Manual which contains information regarding the enhancements provided through this firmware update.

3kramd5 · Sep 8, 2016

privatebydesign said:
chauncey said:

My bad...I often make the assumption that all descent photographers are adept at PS CC.

Click to expand...

You are conflating a third aspect now.

DR is at capture, if your camera doesn't have it you can't get it back. In most shooting situations the cameras native DR is capable of capturing the scene DR.

The need for DR in the age of PS is unconnected. PS can't recover DR never captured, however good you are in PS.

The ability to get your intended output from the file you got at capture is unconnected to that file or the capabilities of PS.

To get your imagined output you need the input, DR, and the ability in PS. Unless you are happy with what you get OOC, and many people are.

Precisely.

PS comes into play as a replacement for wide DR if you plan is to composite multiple captures in order to construct a picture including levels outside the range of the camera I/O. One could just as easily ask "what relevance DOF plays in the age of photoshop".

And that third conflation is really bizarre.

auditom · Sep 8, 2016

Unless you need the reach of the 1.6 cropfactor all Canon full frame options are offering better IQ than the 7D M2.
I'm owning the 7D M2 and 3 Canon full frame machines 5Dc, 1DS M3 and 1DX M2. The look of the full frame images are easy discernible from the 7D images. They have a much more three-dimensional touch. YMHO

rs · Sep 8, 2016

hji1945 said:
szinski said:

I found this in the owner's manual (pg. 212):

With "Diffraction Correction", degraded resolution due to the low-pass filter, etc., is corrected in addition to diffraction.

Click to expand...

So a menu option to disable the effects of the AA filter?

Click to expand...

Will this work with a RAW file or only with JPEG?

Try DPP for converting CR2 files. With lesser cameras, Digital Lens Optimiser is there to claw back what's lost due to diffraction etc. It does a good job, but like any sharpening, it does it at the expense of noise.

IglooEater · Sep 7, 2016

dilbert said:
Jopa said:

Sator said:

The problem is that of all of the photography rumour sites SAR is the least judicious in screening out dodgy rumours, and instead shamelessly publishes any abject drivel they are fed as click-bait for the gullible masses.

Click to expand...

SAR is 99.999% clickbait for the affiliate links, the dude that runs it is a total jerk.
...

Click to expand...

To me it feels like nikonrumors is run by the same guy.

But sometimes this website feels similar in that the stories are about "What's on sale today".

Am I allowed to sing my little Coleridge somg here?

pretty please?

gsealy · Sep 7, 2016

I use the Technicolor Cinestyle on other Canon cameras. It works very well. If I had a 1DxII, then I would use it there too.

Phil Indeblanc · Sep 7, 2016

Imagine if it can be a selectable pixel! Then you have a winning featuer. As of now this feature is pretty useless, and with no doubt will have it OFF for 99.9% of the time.

Once you unlock the capability with selectable dual pixel raw, then maybe it can be like a "stack" focus image.

drs · Sep 7, 2016

I can't wait. I hope we can pre-order soon.

I use the 24; 35; 50 Art here on my Red Epic Dragon, and pulling focus is not fun -- wide open ;o)

If they do a FF 24-70 T2.0 I would be in even more excited (yes it might be a ~T3.0)

Click · Sep 7, 2016

;D Very funny. Thanks for the chuckle

9VIII · Sep 7, 2016

arthurbikemad said:
Only reason I play it down is people seem to think it will fix focus issues from head to toe, when the findings are not the case Canon will get bad press, but then they get bad press anyway haha, a mate of mine has been saying how he thinks it will resolve from nose to eye in portraits, I've said I think you will find its more like mid eyelash to tip.

DPRAW can give you focus correction from head to toe or nose to eye or any amount that you want, because you are in total control of the amount of correction available.
Right now all these ridiculous testers are just complaining about their own ignorance, setting up the camera to have a fraction of an inch of adjustment range and then whining about it.
You basically can't use the feature at 85mm f1.4, but maybe a lot of people would be better off if they did stop down a bit.

Ironically it's going to be people with zoom lenses and cheaper lenses who will benefit most.
Hopefully that fact will push the technology down to entry level bodies sooner rather than later.

Etienne · Sep 6, 2016

AvTvM said:
how much? ;D

I'm guessing over $100,000

Diko · Sep 6, 2016

Finally!

ray5 · Sep 6, 2016

Lovely shots! I really like the Statue with the moon! I am about 3 hrs away from the city. So will have to plan it ahead. PM me an email or something and next time I plan I'll write to you. I have shot from the NJ side as well near the path station in Jersey City, another lovely place after dark. I believe the Tear Drop memorial is a good spot too but never have been there yet. I suspect it will need at least a 400 mm to shoot from there.

1kind · Sep 6, 2016

The sensors are not for other camera manufacturers. The sensors are actually for machines and not for competitor cameras. No way would Canon sell their sensors to be put on competitor cameras.

Canon makes their own sensors for their cameras for the most part but some of the lower end cameras such as powershots use Sony sensors because its more cost effective.

TWI by Dustin Abbott · Sep 6, 2016

TeT said:
First thing I will check is if they work with my 70 300 L, but pretty happy with my Kenko 1.4 in that regard..

One potentially huge advantage for these over the Kenko is IF they are compatible with the Tap In and could have their firmware updated. The Kenko's tend to get bricked by new camera releases.

Posts

Posts

Attachments

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics