Rarely when doing BIF shots does a single bird fill the frame. If you can use a smaller, lighter, and less expensive lens and get the best parts of the lens, the edges probably wouldn't have any part of the bird anyway. On Nikon I like the 5:4 format because shooting events I don't have to turn the camera vertical when doing hand held shots because it is similar to the old 2 1/4 Rolliflex I used to shoot at such things. Anyway another tool in the tool chest.

neuroanatomist said:

Tinky said:

I've posted two pictures. Both are XM's so it's a little confusing, both are also amongst my favourite specimens of their product type, but one is a car and one is a camera...

Click to expand...

Man, that is one ugly, boxy-looking camera. I'd never want to use one of those... *


* I remembered the smiley this time.

Click to expand...

on the aesthetic front I prefer the upper versions pentaprism (there were different interchangable versions, much like the nikon f-f5s. WLFs etc.

The SR-Ts and XMs had a few things going for them that were ahead of their time, CLC non stop down metering being one, ahead of Canon and Nikon, the oversized mirror allowed a very bright viewfinder, a joy to use with a split prism screen, and of course the Rokkor glass.

So no matter how you think it looks, in terms of your function over form (which i have never disputed, note like you I'm fairly heavily entrenched in the EOS system) for their time they were tick, tick and tick.

Terry Rogers said:

Given a lighting, to get the most detail of say a head shot, would it be tween to shoot wide open at f2.8 on a 17-55 2.8 and say ISO 800, or stop down to f4 and ISO 1600? I know that lenses don't generally perform at their best wide open, but is the increased noise of ISO 1600 worse than the loss of sharpness when shooting wide open? This is shooting on a T4i

Click to expand...

It depends on the type of detail and how the post-processing noise reduction responds. In the unlikely event that you've got very fine detail that gets "buried" by the noise, high iso hurts. Other than that, iso1600 on crop is still ok-ish *if* you expose properly, i.e. to the right. And if you've got uniform areas you can denoise/sharpen to hell as there's no detail anyway.

... but really, usually you decide on the depth of field you want and worry about tech details unless you really need to. It's not like you're reaching top level iq with your gear anyway. And are you really going to print/view these head shots so large that you'll see the difference on pixel level? Better get some more flashes, softboxes and busy yourself with making a good impression on the client/model, *that* does make a visible difference.

As for the lens: the difference is noticeable, but not very large: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=398&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=398&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=2

Talk about being late to the party! Pentax if finally announcing a development announcement of an upcoming and as yet unnamed full frame camera.
http://www.pentaxforums.com/articles/pentax-news/pentax-full-frame-officially-coming-cpplus-2015.html

takesome1 said:

East Wind Photography said:

takesome1 said:

PureClassA said:

takesome1 said:

Owning the 500mm L II, looking at how many lenses in the list are higher than it is, it is obvious that the rating system is flawed.

Flawed to the point that it is ridiculous.

Click to expand...

It's 18MP+ like everything else. 80-90% resolve on the 5D3... The differences between 1-20 all within 10% or so. Even the Second list it's in the top 10. Thats...pretty damn good for a telephoto length like that. What's the matter??

Click to expand...

I own or have owned many of the lenses that are higher on the list. Again it's ridiculous.

What's the matter? Obviously at some point the data or tests used to arrive at the results are flawed. Or the data and tests were proper and the manner that the conclusion was drawn is flawed. You can decide which.

Click to expand...

I would expect the model with the AA filter will be largely disappointing to most photographers. The video guys will love it, all other lack of features not withstanding. Every time Canon comes out with a higher res sensor, the images get softer. Take the 5DIII and 7DII as examples compared to lesser resolution models of the same sensor size. I would expect that in the end all of these in the chart will have the same soft appearance out of the camera and visually indistinguishable.

I think the real winner will be one without the AA filter...but we will be seeing a lot of post AA processing in our workflows.

Click to expand...

I think even with the AA filter you will see some increase in resolution and most likely it will be similar to what you see out of the 7D II.

Nikon did away with the AA filter in the D810. Did they just not see the need? How will this relate to the 5DsR?
Many questions that I hope are answered on Friday.

Click to expand...

I agree you will see some increase in resolution. However my point was that with the addition of an AA filter with such a high pixel count, you wont be able to distinguish one lens from another in StudentOfLight's top 10% OPE lenses (notwithstanding corner sharpness, CA and whatnot). The MTF data gets thrown out with the bath water so to speak once you add a "fuzzing" filter in front of the sensor.

Take a look at any production 7DII raw image taken with one of the high end lenses and you will see what I'm talking about. Now with the 5DsR we could start seeing what the lenses are REALLY capable of.

I am pretty sure I will get either the 5DS or the 5DSR, but I don't know enough about which one to get and can't find that much information online about the low-pass filter. I've read a few places that with enough resolution, the low-pass filter is less useful. I'm still leaning towards the 5DS though because I read one post that showed the color issues without a low-pass filter. So, if you are going to buy one of the new camera bodies for sure, which one are you leaning towards?

rrcphoto said:

tron said:

Spectrum said:

This lens is giving me G.A.S. I will be selling my 14mm f/2.8L II very soon...

Click to expand...

For astrophotography 2.8 cannot be beaten.... Other than that I agree...

Click to expand...

no, that's nightscapes. Astrophotography is an exacting photographic discipline all in itself that most would laugh at the thought of doing unguided photographs.

Click to expand...

It's pretty clear what tron meant. We are on a photography forum talking about Canon gear. When someone says "astro" or "astrophotograhy" we tend to assume that which is done with a DSLR.

Please don't point out every little detail and flaw in what people write. I noted you also did this with one of my posts.

NancyP said:

Frio cold shoe is pretty tight, but I can get the flash on and off, so that's what counts. Flash won't pop or slide off the Frio accidentally - one has to push down hard to get the Frio to release. For some reason I find it easier to unscrew the Frio from the stand and then remove the Frio from the flash.

Click to expand...

Well, I don't really want to go through the unscrewing process while shooting, period.
Which is why I bought a bunch of these shoes. Fortunately, the ones I purchased are a lot cheaper than the Frio and easy to slide on or off (talk about a double edged sword!).
Anyway, found this on ebay for $ 3.50 for a pair that will probably work even better than the Vivitar replacement shoe option:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/151561760940?var=450775815221

This is basically a 1/4-20 screw with a metal foot on the other end, and a couple of nuts in between. You screw the 1/4-20 end to the bottom of your off camera cord flash end, and tighten one nut- then you slide the foot into a cold shoe and tighten the other nut. Pretty nice.

Marsu42 said:

ewg963 said:

Good news So the upgrade is around the corner I assume?

Click to expand...

Imho not necessarily - it's just that with the "premium" tag now shared with the new 5dsr and the high-fps 7d2 available, they have to re-evaluate their new lineup and lower the price accordingly. Last not least, the price drop of the 4k cine version puts pressure onto it from above.

Click to expand...

Thanks Marsu42 The great points because I did see the Price drop in the 1DC I'm just curious because I'm thinking of purchasing the 1DX to go with my 5D Mark II & III.

Diko said:

rrcphoto said:

jeffa4444 said:

If you want to see an accurate picture of the overall market (not broken out by manufacturer) then the CIPA data is the most accurate. GfK provide data that the manufacturers buy, the Sony Rumors data I would take with a pinch of salt.

Click to expand...

CIPA isn't really that accurate since it deals with shipments.

Click to expand...

I would appreciate if you'd be so kind to elaborate.

Aside from shipments != sales. I agree. And yet what could you more share on that?

Click to expand...

well it's hard to determine trends.

a good example is Fuji rumors today is all excited over MILC growing 5% marketshare this year.

well did it? sony I'm sure stopped shipping as many SLT's once they started up the A7 line. a 3% change in inventory management strategy makes it look like there is a trend.

then you have mass discounting. half the MILC volume in japan is probably sold at 50% of retail. probably less than 10% of DSLR volume is sold at 50% of retail.

(yes pulling numbers out of my arse.. however a quick scan through amazon.jp shows that the top sellers of MILC are all deep discounting - but people are paying full retail for DSLR's).

what's a more healthy marketshare?

is it more healthy for canon to sell a 5D Mark III or a 6D at near MSRP versus a 20-30% discounted A7 that sony is begging for people to use? the 5d Mark III has been out in the wild for nearly three years. the A7? a little over a year.

but some think that's a "hot seller".

stats can lie - but if the market is going to live and die by MILC"s .. the camera industry is in serious trouble.

Spiros Zaharakis said:

The difference is similar to 4k video downscaled to 1080 compared to native 1080p footage.
My opinion is that higher resolution can be very useful sometimes and it's good to have a camera that can offer you that when you need it.

Click to expand...

AFAIK since 4k production/broadcasting is still quite expensive... Aside from Netflix whose "House of Cards"'s reviews are still somewhat with mixed feelings. And yet there's been some time since 4K production equipment is already available it is mostly used for cropping and reframing.

As for the Capture Resolution - never forget that it depends not only on sensor but also on lens, which makes the glass more important since the iterations there are seldom.

StudentOfLight said:

RVB said:

Eldar said:

I am looking forward to see what the Zeiss primes can deliver on a 50MP sensor ...

Click to expand...

The Otus lenses will deliver all 50mp,and I suspect the Sigma Art series will do pretty well.

Click to expand...

Regarding the Otus lenses, I don't think so. The 135mm (which is not an Otus) probably will, but the 55 and 85 are slightly softer in the corners. Of course they will be better than most lenses but will probably not deliver full 50MP worth of detail. IMO the two lenses capable of extracting all the detail of a 50MP sensor are the Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS USM II and the Zeiss Sonnar T* 135mm f/2. We'll have to wait and see.

Click to expand...

Where the hack did you read that? Or you have one yourself? I hardly believe it. :-(((

Crosswind said:

Hi, im new at canonrumors.com. Great stuff to read over here

Click to expand...

Herzlich willkommen. This is a great site to spend some free time. Here you will learn a lot. People are interesting non-haters and rarely there are troll post. People never stop bringing new resources and usually show quite strong arguments no matter contra or pro regarding versatile topics.

As a foreign speaker I can assure you that your English is great. I am no example myself due to too fast writing and bad focus (usually have at least 10 tabs opened).

Often the top of the line will drive sales of lower end products. If Canon can create enough excitement with the 5Ds and the potentially 1Dx II (setting themselves up as market innovators) then sales of other products will follow. They can afford to reduce margins on top products (where volumes are small) to drive the rest of the business.

neuroanatomist said:

Why compete against Nikon's 14-24/2.8? Since that lens came out FF cameras have gained >1 stop in high ISO performance, and the DoF impact for a UWA lens in modest at best.

Having the widest rectilinear FF lens from a major camera maker means Canon is competing with...no one. The 11-24/4 is one more lens in the 'there isn't a Nikon equivalent' list.

Click to expand...

Bingo. I would think for people doing a lot of landscapes, having the ability to get 20% more field of view beats 1 stop of light everyday. Mostly on a tripod and shooting near base ISO anyway. Shutter speed when I do that is of virtually zero concern and I'll be damned if I ever shoot that short of photography wide open anyway.

Stu_bert said:

I think if it was probably 1/4 of the size and weight, and was around $60 then it might pique the interest of the smartphone users.

The problem I see for the camera makers is they aren't doing anything in terms of gradual introduction to photography. It's either a smartphone with no zoom, weak flash, basic AF or it's a full blown camera or in this instance lens adapter & lens.

Smartphone users are the former P&S users in the main. They want simplicity, immediacy, practical (transport wise) and relative low cost. This is not really satisfying that need :-X

Click to expand...

I think for something like this to work it needs to be much better integrated into the phone, either a unit you can really attach properly or a built in lens mount.

I decided to do my own tests, staring pixel by pixel at shots at f/5.6 and f/8 with the 100-400 II on the 5DIII and 7DII of the iso12233 chart and the FoCal chart at 400mm. This was important for me as I want to know the best aperture. On both cameras, f5.6 is slightly sharper for resolving closely spaced lines etc. Also, the bare 100-400 on the 7DII is marginally better than +1.4xTCIII on the 5DIII. The superiority of the f/5.6 setting cannot be due to an error in AFMA as f/8 would have a greater depth of field. Perhaps there is some variation between copies, but I am happy to have one that is best wide open.

K said:

Because in reality, ISO of 12,800 or over on any camera just doesn't have acceptable quality. Yes, it's getting cleaner, but cleaner isn't CLEAN. Thus, people are looking for better dynamic range at more realistic ISO that they commonly shoot at.

Click to expand...

You'd have LOVED shooting on film...

Just recently watched this review made by Matt Granger. The Tamron looks promising, although it was compared to a Nikon lens on a Nikon body, anybody who is waiting for this lens to mount it on Canon can get an idea on how the lens performs. Here is the link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbs4VYlkMjM

I'm also a Mac user (MBP and MBA), wireless printing didn't work straight off, nor did USB via cable. Tried drivers from Apple and Canon. I use it maybe once every couple of months, so I just defaulted to the SD card. That was a couple of OS X versions back, I may give WiFi a try again at some point.

Karlpedal said:

What do you want to know?
The MF sensor is the same Sony as in Nikon D800 series but bigger.

Click to expand...

The two main things I'd like to research are:

1) The incredible DR and shadow recovery of Exmor sensors is well documented, so no need to beat that horse here. What impresses me the most about the 645Z (and MF in general) is it's ability to render final tonal gradations far better than 35mm. My question is, will this actually show up in print?

My editorial clients use very low quality paper, printers, and ink. For that type of work, I feel that the on-screen tonal range advantage of MF wouldn't translate to the end product. On the flip side, my commercial and advertising clients have much higher printing standards and budgets, where there's a far greater chance of the IQ benefits of MF transferring over to paper. In general terms, how good does the quality of printing/paper/ink need to be to realize the tonal range advantage of MF vs. 35mm?

2) How user friendly in the field is the 645Z it vs. a modern 35mm DSLR? Before upgrading to the 5D3, I slummed it with a 5DC for many, many years. I can't image that the AF and overall handling of the 645Z could possibly be more of a pain than the 5DC.

If I gotta go with the 5D, it'll be sans the AA filter...thanks guys.

Glad to help, Pedro.


Regarding Canon's technology. Canon has been investing in layered sensor technology. In regards to light preservation, layered sensors, if designed properly, certainly have a leg up on bayer sensors. You gather the full constituent of light at each pixel.


In regards to whether you preserve 100% of it like MCS, I don't know. Canon has invested some R&D in anti-reflective technologies with their layered sensors. They have both nanocoatings on the lower-layer photodiodes (red specifically, maybe green) as well as anti-reflective coatings on the bottom of each photodiode. That tells me that Canon is still losing light in some ways with their layered sensor designs. I don't know how much...I suspect the losses are primarily to heat, and nanocoatings on the photodiodes should certainly help in that area.


I have not read anything that indicates Canon is developing MCS of their own. I was kind of more hoping Canon might just buy Panasonic's technology...maybe buy their whole sensor patent portfolio. I don't think that is going to happen any time soon, though. I think Omnivision is on the ball with similar technologies as well. Omnivision is probably one of the biggest dangers to Canon. They have already developed their own form of DPAF, so Canon will not be the sole company to have such technology in the not too distant future. I think more of Omnivision's customers are video based, where DPAF truly shines. There is at least one other company developing similar technology as well.


Canon has some key innovations in the image sensor arena, but the hounds are just about ready to bite down on Canon's ass and shred. We'll have to see if Canon brings their lucrative technology to market fast enough or not. Maybe with the 5D IV...I certainly hope.

PureClassA said:

tron said:

3kramd5 said:

StudentOfLight said:

KR says: "12 channel parallel readout."

Click to expand...

He also says 1080/60p, 7 FPS, ISO 100-16,000, and some other stuff that doesn't match any of the other rumor sites. Shrug, it's all guesswork at this point.

Click to expand...

7fps (for full frame mode) would be nice but I do not believe it even for a dual digic 6!

Click to expand...

Isn't the original 7D strapped with dual Digic 4? That was 8FPS and 18.1MP The 7D2 is Dual Digic 6 and 20.2MP with 10FPS. Seems to me there's more headroom in those processors to allow a couple more FPS than 5 even with 50MP. I suspect it's more an issue with the shutter assembly than the CPU power. This of course is assuming the rumor specs are ACTUAL specs. the 5D3 only did 6FPS at 22MP with a single Digic 5+. They save the super high end shutters for the 1 series.

Click to expand...

There is more to slower frame rate than simply whether you have the bandwidth or not. The higher your operating frequency in an IC, the more noise. At a slower readout rate, you can run the ADC units slower, which will introduce less noise. This is actually one of the big reasons serious astrophotographers get CCD cameras...most have a "high speed" mode and a "high quality" mode. The high speed mode usually has a readout frequency for components of 8-10Mhz, while high quality mode drops that to 800khz-1mhz. The difference in read noise can be quite significant, resulting in stops more dynamic range.

For a "top IQ" camera, I am honestly a little surprised by the 5fps...but Canon is probably trying to stay competitive with the D810. Still, better 5fps for the 5Ds models, than 8-10fps.

The increase in readout channels would also help there...as that divides up all the pixels to be read out among more ADC units, allowing each one to be reduced on operating frequency even more. Still, Exmor trounces Canon in this area...with column-parallel ADC. I still think Canon will have a problem with read noise...increasing parallelism from 8 to 12 is nothing.

Andyx01 said:

■50.6mp full frame CMOS
■53mp total resolution

I wonder if it will require a 128GB CF card that is 140GB.

Click to expand...

In fact, a 128 giga memory card will only fit about 115 giga, as it uses a part for the index.

Similarly, a 53 megapixel sensor will only use 50.6 megapixel to effectively capture the image.

Fast lenses are at a crossroads the biggest factor is cost. Yes you can make fast lenses with even field illumination, low disortion, low chromatic & lateral abberations but they are very hard to make. The situation was made more difficult when certain types of leaded crown glass were no longer available like Hoya ADC-1.
Professional lenses from companies like Angeniux, Fujinon, Cooke & Zeiss run many thousands of dollars and are covering a format similar to half-frame. Full frame with say the rumored Canon 53MP sensor makes acheiving high resolution wide lenses even more difficult.
Secondly as sensors become more sensitive with wider DR one of the reasons for fast lenses disappears the remaining being deliberate shallow depth of field for artistic reasons.

Main reason to avoid rear slot-in filters especially gels is focus shift. With digital unlike film you have a single point of focus if you shift that then images will be soft. We designed a lens with rear glass filters and it has to have even a clear filter in at all times otherwise it will not be sharp.