jeffa4444 said:

Lets see what you have to say at the end of 2015. If people like Jrista are convinced Sony are outperforming Canon and therefor prepared to sell Canon equipment to fund purchasing the Sony A7R II then you should take some notice he really understands the science behind the tool.
At the end of the day whats the really difference in concept? replacing the traditional mirror and optical viewfinder the rest is identical including form factor.

Click to expand...

Oh, I understand the science just fine – my research has included digital imaging since it existed. How many camera buyers base their decisions on image sensor science? How many are influenced by anything about the sensor other than the top-line spec (i.e., MP count)? I'd wager a tiny minority, and I think you'd be delusional to suggest that Sony's BSI FF sensor will have any meaningful effect on the overall market this year...or the next...or the one after.

Refresh my memory – did jrista say that Sony cameras outperform Canon cameras? Or was he referring to the sensor? The moment people start buying bare silicon sensors to take pictures, please do let me know.

I've got nothing against mirrorless per se...I own and use one. The main advantage is smaller size, an advantage you toss out the window the moment you put an f/2.8 zoom on one, moreso if you need to sandwich an adapter in there to use a lens with a dSLR-compatible flange focal distance.

@ OP- "why spend in an obsolete system which lacks in performance and other things?"

I have about 20-30 photos with similar results in same 12fps burst. It's hard to pick out the best ones sometime
1Dx + 200f2 IS

correct. affordable memory. constant f2.8 zoom lens.

add a tascam or beachtek and you are away.

Probably worried about cancelled orders I say. Ship it out quickly before customers change their minds.

Thank you

benperrin said:

LetTheRightLensIn said:

No.

(and for the record some of us anonymous bashers have, in the past, pushed tons of Canon sales, but unlike some, we call it as it is and don't get all fanboy and bend over backwards to defend anything and everything Canon has become; also for the record I don't think any of us say that Canon can't do anything right, I've still be praising lots of their lenses, UI for stills, etc. as have most others, heck I even defended the initial 24-70 II price)

Click to expand...

But that's the problem. Lots of the people claiming that they are 'calling it as it is' are basically implying that Canon cameras are useless. Don't get me wrong I believe that Nikon has an advantage in shadow noise and dynamic range but these arguments have been exaggerated to the point where they try to make the Canon cameras sound awful. That is what is annoying. There are even people on this forum who don't even shoot Canon who just come here to troll us and tell us how bad Canon are in comparison to Sony/Nikon.

Click to expand...

Nobody has ever said the Canon bodies are basically all but useless.

And Canon is so resistant to bother, it takes some over the top talk if they are to ever bother to improve.

Canon has a great stills UI, awesome lenses so it would be nice if they bothered trying more for sensors and bodies again. I mean what Canon user would not want that? But they keep applauding whatever they do. Oh low ISO DR doesn't really ever matter so who cares? The 5Ds is meant for slow work so what do you expect for buffer, speed, video, don't be crazy! COme on ability to focus manually while shooting, zebras? THat's $20,000 stuff!!!! Come on 4k???? slog formats? hfps video? clean hdmi out? LOL!

But look, it's not crazy. D810 gives a cropped RAW so it gets AWESOME buffer performance with decent fps in one mode and then FF and tons of MP in another mode, you get both in one. The D810 and Sony and other stuff use sensors made on modern fabs so they can make use of patents to give better DR at low ISO. The new Sony A7R II is like 42MP AND will deliver 4k video with internal 100Mbps recording! and not just jaggy 4k video but in Super35 mode it will deliver not only zero line-skipping but oversampled 4k and slog2 and 120fps 720P and 60fps HD and clean HDMI output....

With Canon it's just "We [our MBAs not our engineers, most likely] see impossible."

If you want Canon to do well and stay on top why applaud when they act like fat cats sitting on top of the hill and not bothering with this and crippling that?

I'd way rather get a Canon than an A7R II, but at this point it seems I'm likely stuck going the A7R II route (or maybe Nikon D820?? maybe it gets the 4k and 42MP and some cropped mode RAW?). Get a top 42MP landscape camera with amazing DR and potentially great 4k video and can still use my Canon lenses.

Sure the Canon stuff is not terrible by any means and many will get it, but you can't but see how they are so into internal segment protection and ultra-conservative milking. It hasn't directly hurt them much for stills yet (although I'd bet they'd have almost wiped the others out now and in that sense it's maybe hurt them from not having doing crazy, crazy well already), but it's already hit them in DSLR video fairly hard.

Anyway whatever. It's not as big a deal this day as the Sony's can take adapters so even if you love the Canon glass you still have ways to get better video and landscape cameras and still use Canon glass (even if the SOny stuff is kinda drag and not so all around compared to a Canon body). (And Nikon is always there too if you can deal with the UI and lack of Canon glass.) So it's really pretty amazing times for video and photo people!

One could hope maybe, just maybe all the video features on the new stuff will finally scare Canon into having to deliver and maybe the Exmor might finally make them go to new sensors for 5D4? (but then why is the 5Ds still and older type sensor in some ways). Whatever, we'll see, at least there are some relative cost effective options to go elsewhere and even still use Canon glass now (even if yes, the Sony stuff is very compromised as a general camera in many other ways so you may still need to hold onto the old Canon body too and decide on your particular compromise for each shoot, but in many cases the compromise should not be too bad now).

chromophore said:

3kramd5 said:

jrista said:

This is an excellent explanation. However, one caveat: I do not believe this has anything to do with increasing the dynamic range of the images...and everything to do with increasing dynamic range and more importantly contrast for the purposes of performing AF with a DPAF sensor. There has never been any indication that Canon intends to use DPAF subpixels in independent reads for the purposes of combining them halves into a supposedly higher dynamic range image. (I don't think that is really viable, as it is not the same thing as what ML does...ML uses FULL pixels with two separate exposures to improve DR...with DPAF, each half-pixel exposure has half the signal...so SNR is even lower to start with.)

Click to expand...

Would creating contrast in the AF sensor which doesn't exist in the scene be beneficial? Seems like it would create uncertainty. Also DPAF is based on phase, so how would contrast improve it? The summary specifically mentions AF sensors, but I'm unsure how exactly this would improve AF.

Pure speculation pertaining to split pixels for imaging purposes, but don't they already read out each subpixel (and send the info to the AF brain) and for imaging use a logic device somewhere in the chain to determine total pixel charge based on each pair of diodes? If so, darkening half of each pixel could open some interesting options for the determination of total charge (i.e. it need not be a pure sum).

Click to expand...

Indeed. Jrista, addressing your comment about the readout, my response is that the ND filter obviates the need for setting pixels at different sensitivities (as Magic Lantern does), because the difference in exposure as seen by "light" and "dark" pixels is done optically--by the filter itself. The information thus captured is superior to that of ML's method: it is analogous to taking two bracketed exposures simultaneously in which one exposure is rendered darker by an ND filter, not by changing ISO.

Click to expand...

Sure, one "exposure" is rendered darker by the ND...without changing ISO...but at HALF the signal. That does NOT improve noise. The lower signal is actually going to reduce SNR.

It also does not improve the kind of noise that causes Canon's DR problem. The improvement in dynamic range achieved by ML is due to the fact that they read the pixels out at different ISOs. A higher ISO read amplifies the signal in the pixels before the signal hits the noisy electronics, so the read noise contribution is, in relative terms, a smaller portion of the signal. Blending that second higher ISO read with lower read noise into the first read's shadows is how you reduce read noise and gain DR.

Slapping an ND filter on a half photodiode and reading each half out independently does not achieve the same thing. Could you do HDR with it? Sure. You could overexpose the photodiode that does not have an ND filter, and properly or underexpose the other photodiode. But both of those photodiodes are going to have lower signal. That would be like using a camera with a sensor half the area, and doing normal HDR. Your going to have considerably more noise in each half signal, which is going to offset a lot of the benefit of doing HDR. Could you actually gain the full 1-2 stops of additional dynamic range? Probably not.

chromophore said:

3kramd5 is correct: phase detection AF does rely in some sense on contrast differences between points that are not in phase, but putting an ND filter on one half doesn't necessarily improve that contrast. In fact, it could decrease or even reverse the apparent contrast between two adjacent AF pixels.

Click to expand...

It depends. Canon also has patents for DPAF pixels of different sensitivities. I was never sure how that would work either...yet if you combine the ND filter patent with the dual-sensitivity patent...then it starts to make sense.

mnclayshooter said:

AcutancePhotography said:

You guys are using confusing terminology here.

What is this "vay kay shun" thing that you are talking about? It sounds interesting. I mentioned it to my boss and he also was confused.

Is this a European thing?

;D

Click to expand...

My pay stubs show it with a big balance of available hours next to it. It exists, at least on paper.

Click to expand...

It's that extra bank account that gets closed out when you leave a company. Essentially GAS money.

Just got my M3 yesterday from Hong Kong. Wow. Really nice camera. It's a bit bigger than my M1 but not much so. Haven't really used it much yet as I'm testing everything out to make sure it passes QA.

I know some people have been having issues with the Tamron 18-200 zoom and looks like they have resolved the M3 issue with a lens fw update.

I was wondering if anyone has used the 18-200 on any of the M models and could give some insight on the IQ it provides. Trying to decide between getting the canon 55-200 or this 18-200.

Jeffrey said:

Most pros who will be using this gear will rent it, just as they do with most of the equipment they use on a shoot. Then simply bill the client for the rental charges. Perhaps obvious to say, big time big budget clients.

Sure there are some amateurs who will want to purchase this equipment. In particular the people shooting technical cameras will want the back for the megapixels and the long exposure that will now be available.

Pretty exciting stuff.

Click to expand...

Sadly the CMOS back (the 50mp) doesn't work well on a technical camera. The CCD backs (60 and 80) do, but a tech cam is where live view would really shine and live view on the CMOS backs is, uh... sub-optimal.

Your welcome. ETTL metering is great technology but sometimes when you shoot against a white background (white wedding dress) it may underexpose and if you shoot someone with a black suite for example it may overexpose. Nothing really wrong it's just the nature of ETTL. It's the pre flash trying to determine how much light to throw out. That's where flash exposure compensation comes in handy or shoot manual and control everything

AlanF said:

The Sigma 35 is indeed very sharp. However, I tested it carefully against my old Canon 24-105 L at 35mm, using an iso 12233 chart. The 24-105 is sharper (at f/4 on both)! This is the second time the old workhorse has outshone the new pretenders (last time a Tamron 24-70 VC).

The Sigma 35 A is reported by Photozone and lenstip as having significantly superior MTFs to the 24-105. Either I have been unlucky with the Sigma and Tamron and getting poor copies or I have been very lucky and have a 24-105 which is an outlier in the right direction.

Click to expand...

Photozone miss out the sweet spot of the 24-105L; they test at 24 and 40. I too find the 24-105L to be really excellent between about 30 - 35mm, from f4 to under f8. In fact that lens is unfairly maligned often as not. Switch the IS off, put it on a good tripod, ignore 24 mil and it's a fine GP lens, even for landscape.

I don't know about the rest of you but I'm very excited about what the 5DS-R has to offer. I can't remember being this excited since the 5D3 was released. I ordered the 5DS-R on the first night it was released. (Yeah, GAS!)

I've been very pleased with my 5D3 and 1DX but I've also added Sony's A7R which uses my Canon and Zeiss glass. The difference in resolution between the 36MP Sony and my Canon bodies is noticeable in large prints.

That said, Sony just now released a new A7R-II with a 42MP CMOS sensor with 5-axis stabilization and 4K video. Interesting to see how that compares to the new 5DS + 5DS-R.

Interesting also will be the DR between these two camera systems.

GMCPhotographics said:

Bernd FMC said:

Please let your Hammer in the Box - but i would like to see an improved Version of the 35 f1.4 L .

If this is affordable ( not 5K$/€ ... ) for me - it could by my next Lens 8) .

AF is relevant for me, so Sigma´s ar not on my Wishlist for now.

It would be used for Streets in the Night, Party´s - whatever ... .

Portraits with 35mm - ok, if the Lens delivers f1.4 - new Possibilities : .

Greetings Bernd

Click to expand...

I have a 24mm f1.4 II L and a 35mm f1.4 L and comparing both side by side...the 24mm is better built and more sturdier feeling. The 24mm feels heavier and has newer coatings...It's AF is snappier and more accurate in lower light. But I prefer the photos I get from the 35mm, which is the focal length and not the quality of the optics. I find that my 24mm flares less and is a bit sharper in the centre. I couldn't care less about the wide open periferal sharpness...I use it for it's intended genre....portraiture and that's one of the features which I like....soft creamy corners.

Click to expand...

So you only shoot center comp? I very often use the outer most points for portrait.

The 40mm is very sharp and a lovely tiny size.
I've always found 50mm on a crop very inflexible. Fine for portraits but almost nothing else.
The 40mm allows you do a little bit more.
On a full frame 40mm is neither here not there.
I like 50mm on full frames for some reason.
I don't use the 40mm much but I do rate it's sharpness highly.

Thanks I must have missed that post

Tugela said:

My response to that would be anecdotal since I am not a market research company, but, from my personal observation:
(A) Everyone I know who has bought a ILC in the last two years has bought a MILC. None have bought a DSLR. These are not professionals, but ordinary people.
(B) When I walk around taking photographs or shooting video on the weekends, the people I see with DSLRs for the most part are middle aged or elderly. The ones with MILCs are almost always young adults. There is a distinct generation thing happening. The people who understand technology and grew up in the digital age are choosing the digital option, those who grew up prior to that are choosing the analog option (on average).

Click to expand...

Bearing in mind that I live in highly urbanised country with a reputation of being early adopters of new technology, but if I go to a camera club event, where the members are generally older people and a mix of professionals and keen amateurs, it's almost 100% DSLR. If I turn up with a Fuji, luckily one of the 80 year olds will give me a kind word of advice and tell me that the easiest way to improve my photography is to buy a real camera. Usually a Canon. (No offence meant to the 80 year olds in my club, they are typically much better photographers than me!).

But out and about in the general population, I'd say its 50:50 between DSLRs and mirrorless with most of the DSLRs being older models.

Rather than sales statistics, I'd be curious to see a comparison of the number of photos taken with current model DSLRs vs current model mirrorless cameras. I also get the impression that mirrorless users are more active and visible than what the sales figures suggest.

Marsu42 said:

My favorite fine print ads are behind the subway rails, mostly from mobile phone companies. They have several lines in very, very small print on the bottom to detail the * why the offer isn't as free as the very, very big might make you think.

The catch: Unless you're using binoculars you have to climb down and stand on the rails to be able to read any of the details. I never understood how they get away with this and no watchdog office intervened yet.

Click to expand...

These ad posters must have been specially designed for subway stations in Berlin

LonelyBoy said:

YuengLinger said:

Who has been advocating no IS?

I'd love every lens to have it, but it isn't the answer to every low-light situation, obviously. There are times when a tripod is necessary, times when a tripod is silly, and times when it is great to have it in the trunk just in case.

Click to expand...

There are people (I can't remember which thread) specifically calling IS "useless glass that can only degrade IQ".

Click to expand...

Maybe they didn't have to use telephoto lenses.


As a SINGLE case however, I have one lens 300 f/4L (NON IS) which is reported better than 300 4L IS.

As an example (since I do not have the IS version) my 300 4L with 1.4XII was better than my 100-400 (version 1) even when the 300+1.4X combination was at f/6.3 and the 100-400 at f/7.1.
All shots were with tripod and LV focusing at 10x.

At the same time there are reports that 300L IS + 1.4XII is worse than 100-400 (version 1). So ...

But as I said this was the past and a single lens model.

bluemoon said:

andrewflo said:

I've been using the 6D for video for about 2 years now. It is an amazing camera. It's low light capability is exceptional.

But if you're shooting ISO 100-400, it won't be drastically different from the T5i. I'd recommend really really learning and understanding how to use DSLRs for video to be sure you're getting the best image possible from your camera.

I do have to say, the moire/aliasing from the 6D is VERY bad. That's where the 5DIII stomps it. But for most amateurs, it's not a big deal.

The only Canon DSLR that has reliable continuous auto focus is the 70D (Dual Pixel). But the 70D's moire/aliasing is as bad or worse than the 6D. So pick your poison.

To be honest, unless you have myriad of Canon glass already, I'd probably grab a GH4 for video in the same price range. The GH4 is substantially more modern and rich in its video features. The 6D will outperform the GH4 in low light but if you're used to the low light capabilities of the T5i, the GH4 wouldn't be too far different.

You won't be disappointed with the 6D, so don't let me make it seem like a bad camera. Just recommending you consider all options when spending that kind of cash

Also, unless there's a very specific reason you need RAW video, I wouldn't recommend pursuing it. First, only a few camera in the sub-$2k price range can shoot RAW (Black Magic for the most part), and second, it's really not a streamlined workflow for beginners.

Click to expand...

wait, 7D2 has the newer generation DPAF, is there a problem with it? I've used it on several occasions and thought it did OK. Having never shot the 70D I don't know the difference so I am curious. . .

pierre

Click to expand...

My mistake! I totally forgot about the 7DII

The 7DII also has quite decent video, and a headphone jack, so it seems like a pretty solid contender for DSLR video.

Is the 7DII's DPAF limited to the center of the sensor? Or can it be moved freely like the 70D?

mkamelg said:

I did my own test of this lens. If anyone is interested then let clicks on the link below:

http://1drv.ms/1FLZozs

All RAW and JPEG files come straight out of camera.

Click to expand...

Wow, I'm pretty pretty impressed. Now I really can't wait for the next 50mm 1.4 (if it happens). Thanks for sharing.

I think you should stay in NY state for the camping part, and here is the park website most are talking about:

http://visitadirondacks.com/stay/campgrounds

says 4 hours from NY City to there.

http://visitadirondacks.com/first-time-visitors/getting-here


I think a campsite along one of the lakes would be the best bet for sunset/astro photography.

I'm pretty sure it is hard to understand how big the US of A is - 6 hours is how long it takes to cross the state of Kansas east to west - that is just one state, and not a really big one at that.

You could easily spend 3 days in NY City proper and not see all there is to see. Very easy to spend way too much time in a car traveling, and not enough time looking and seeing what is all around you. Find a nice park close to you and enjoy the experience!

Dylan777 said:

The lesson I learned when buying lenses. Get a highest quality that you can afford. Don't buy a lens just because it on SALE.

Agree with privatebydesign on 16-35 f4 IS Vs 17-40/16-35 f2.8 II

Click to expand...

could not possibly agree more - with both dylan777 and privatebydesign.

danski0224 said:

When the 5D3 came out, there were many comparisons to the 7D, and essentially the 5D3 cropped to the FOV of the 7D was better in most real world shooting conditions. In the same way, the 1dx loses nothing to the 5D3.

Click to expand...

+1.

I have all three bodies and did the same comparison -- especially when migrating from the 7D to the 5D3. I had to know if and when it was advantages to bring the 7D.

During indoor situations, cropping a 5D3 image is definitely better than a full 7D image. Outside, with lots of light, the differences fade some -- especially when pixel-peeping. However, last fall I shot a kids soccer game with the 70-200 2.8L II as my primary lens and used both the 7D and the 5D3. I was expecting some "reach benefits" of the 7D. But, after culling the best shots of the day, the vast majority were from the 5D3. Other factors, including small DOF and greater color depth gave these images more pop. I see no real benefit with the so-called extra reach factor of crop bodies.