Posts

Don Haines · Nov 10, 2014

LetTheRightLensIn said:
Generally good stuff, but I strongly disagree with his claim that 2-3 more stops over Canon doesn't make it enough for many shots. I find that 2-3 more is exactly what is needed to get away without needing to combine multiple shots. So I think he downplayed the utility of it a lot.

I started shooting digital at 320x200 pixels in 16 colours at work. My first personal digital camera was 640x400 with 256 colours. If we listened to the people saying that we didn't need more DR, that's where we would still be.

Every small step forward adds up over the years into big differences, but 2 stops! That's a leap ahead. Three stops is HUGE! Saying it doesn't matter is denial.

Steve Balcombe · Nov 10, 2014

D. said:
Steve, Photozone, in their review of the 20-70 F/4 lens noticed the focus shift issue as well. The good news is that Canon has some other very good general purpose zoom lenses you can get instead.

Mt Spokane Photography said:
The lens has already been reviewed several times as weak on closeups and Macro. I had considered getting one just for the Macro feature, but passed. I have a 100 L, but in many cases, 50mm would be a better focal length.

Like I said, it's embarrassing. I should have done more research, it wasn't exactly hard to find.

Lee Jay · Nov 10, 2014

LetTheRightLensIn said:
well if they screen out the entire CFA effects then the 59% level seems even less believable

Other way around. It could be 59% at the silicon, but the whole thing would be 59% minus whatever the CFA absorbs.

KacperP · Nov 10, 2014

ahsanford said:
Put another way, if Canon gave the world's 7D1 owners a choice of what do with the 7D2 of:

Get one more stop of cleaner high ISO (i.e. a 7D2 shot at 3200 would resemble a 7D1 shot at 1600) and everything else is the same,

OR

Get +2 fps, a bigger buffer, DPAF, and a 1DX-like AF system

I'm guessing those folks would choose the latter. That's why I think the 7D2 is going to be quite successful despite what testers and enthusiasts are heckling the sensor for.

- A

+1
AF performance indeed.
Recently I was invited to a birthday party, that was in fact a surprise wedding party.
Had 60D + Sigma 18-35 1.8 and while I was worried about ISO performance, it was AF in low light that let me down in about 90% of shots

When looking at 7D2 specs and tracking, I suspect the score would be other way around.

canonfuture · Nov 10, 2014

dgatwood said:
Khnnielsen said:

It reminds me a bit of the A7s, where you can attach an audio module via the hotshoe, which is a really cool idea that I would like Canon to do as well.

Click to expand...

That functionality would be better as part of an optional oversized battery grip. Having a stack of XLR cables hanging off the top of your camera would be unwieldy.

canonfuture said:

The best way would be to use a bracket that could be exchanged if you wanted to upgrade to a phone with a different form factor. Maybe reminding of the different data backs Canon used a while ago. As long as the main interface is the same (i e Thunderbolt) it would be quite easy to upgrade the phone.

Click to expand...

In the best case scenario, on iOS, you would be limited to USB 2.0 speeds (the maximum speed supported by the hardware). At CR2 sizes, that's less than 2 fps maximum shooting speed. And I'm not certain whether you could even achieve those rates. I'd expect the same limitation on Android.

Of course, if you use in-camera storage and only transmit a low-quality image during previewing, it could still be viable, but it would be less than ideal, and the software side would be relatively complex.

No, it would make a lot more sense to just build Android (or iOS, ostensibly) into the device itself. As tempting as it would be to be able to have a dockable camera, the performance limitations imposed by USB 2.0 make it very unlikely that you'd see any practical benefits when compared with just adding Wi-Fi to the camera itself (which is how Sony designed their dockable, incidentally). By contrast, if Canon built Android (or iOS) into the device itself, they could easily provide an SDK for camera control so third-party vendors can extend the device's camera features, and the media would be accessible in the same way that any other media is accessible, which would be a much more practical approach than providing a complicated library with a giant pile of custom views that load different data from the camera based on zoom setting and a complicated back-end piece in the camera to generate that data.

Apple only states that the Lightning-CABLE supports USB2. Regarding the hardware limitations on the phone we can only speculate... my own belief is that Apple could quite easily implement USB3 (or another higher-speed interface) in their Lightning-connector - if they wanted to... (I base this belief on the level of performance the other hardware has in iPhone 6...)

Besisika · Nov 10, 2014

Indeed, who doesn't love the toucans?
Nice piece of work. Thanks for sharing.

AvTvM · Nov 10, 2014

Maximilian said:
AvTvM, thanks again for the update and also for your effords.

you're welcome. To me, it is a matter of principle. Don't want to get too political ... but don't see why multinational corporations should reap all benefits of globalization for themselves while denying them to their paying customers.

If I hear more from Canon on this subject, I'll post it.

tayassu · Nov 10, 2014

A little dirt to the nearly perfect image of the 7DII...
Hopefully, AF issues don't get in the way of this great body!!!

But thanks for sharing!

DominoDude · Nov 10, 2014

privatebydesign said:
Only useful if you are hyper critical on colour from multiple light sources in the sub 100k's range. Good studio lights shouldn't be causing you the kinds of issues this meter can help sort out.

Very useful for video when colour is critical and you are using multiple light sources of different types, though colour grading has moved in leaps and bounds in the last few years it is still time consuming and expensive.

Okidey. Thanks a bunch!

dgatwood · Nov 9, 2014

Mt Spokane Photography said:
dgatwood said:

wtlloyd said:

OR, my first thought is that lens is going to remain in the lineup just as it is for years to come, else why shift production of what is basically a loss-leader kit lens? Wouldn't you just introduce a new version and start up the production with fresh tooling?

Click to expand...

Just speculating, but I'd imagine that it would be a lot easier to start up a new plant building a known entity, rather than a new product with unknown manufacturing quirks. Shifting manufacturing of a thoroughly well-understood lens would be a great test case.

By using the existing dies and other similar hardware with new equipment at a new factory, you'd be able to instantly compare those lenses with existing lenses from the old factory and be absolutely certain that the new equipment was working within tolerances, because you would get comparable or better results.

Click to expand...

The Oita plant has been making lenses for almost 40 years, but the new expansion was intended to vastly increase production. I had thought that the 200-400mmL was one of the first made in the newly expanded plant.

Canon had to expand because they were unable to keep up with demand for "L" lenses. They also made or make some lenses at Fukushima. The low cost lenses have been made at various plants over the years, but most come from Taiwan.

Cameras and Cinema lenses come from Oita, Canon has a very large facility there. I think their R&D is there as well. The fact that they moved production there (probably a expensive move) shows that they intent to keep making the 24-105mm L's.

If their R&D is there, then I would actually suspect the opposite—that they are about to update the 24–105 L lens. I assume that their prototype manufacturing happens at the plant closest to their R&D team, and it would make sense to build new lens designs at that plant to allow for more careful testing and scrutiny, then shift production to other plants once the process is fully mature.

This, of course, assumes that much of the tooling for a 24–105 L is likely to be shared with a 24–105 L II. If that isn't the case, then they are probably just moving all of their high-volume lens manufacturing to the newer plant for cost reasons.

At least I hope this doesn't mean that we're stuck with the current 24–105 L for years to come. If I'm wrong, then our best hope for a great 24–105 involves pressuring Sigma to add weather sealing to theirs.... *sigh*

dsut4392 · Nov 9, 2014

I went with the Sigma and have no regrets. No focusing 'issues' on mine with 60D or 6D. Obviously using auto-af point selection will be pointless at f 1.4...

dufflover · Nov 9, 2014

Probably will be for us with the Australia-tax lol

dgatwood · Nov 9, 2014

neuroanatomist said:
LetTheRightLensIn said:

Actually we have no been saying that it gives you the usable DR,

Click to expand...

Perhaps you haven't, but others have. Saying it over and over and over. You know what it's called when something is said over and over and over, right? :

If I remember my politics correctly, it's called a "fact".

Mantadude · Nov 9, 2014

lion rock said:
Dustin,
WOW!!!
Impressed.
My daughter dives and often shoots nudis, just with small stills camera. She's got lots of photos of nudis.
-r

Thank you! Nudis are fun. Glad to hear you daughter dives and does photos.
Dustin

privatebydesign · Nov 9, 2014

msm said:
privatebydesign said:

msm said:

Actual batterylife depends heavy on usage, so its best to do standardized tests. Doing a quick search for the numbers according to the CIPA standard I find that the 1DX is rated at 290 shots in live view, the a7 is rated at 340.

Click to expand...

And standardised testing rarely reflects actual real world use. Find me a single reviewer/user that has ever negatively commented on 1 series battery life, now show me pretty much any A7 reviewer/user that hasn't. Why the disparity?

Click to expand...

Easy, the 1DX is for most applications shot through the OVF while the A7 is forced to use live view or equivalent EVF.

So how does that explain users like myself who rely on 1 series Live View day in day out, for hour after hour, hundreds of shots a day?

Woody · Nov 9, 2014

moreorless said:
Sony know that F/2.8 glass would be too large to balance with the A7 cameras, it might also have issues with the mount size.

Indeed.

As pointed out by Sigma CEO:

"It's a bit more difficult to make ART lenses for the Sony FE system because of the not so large diameter of the mount. We don't know why Sony did this. Likely because the E-mount was meant for APS-C first and only after that they did use it for FF too."

- http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/sigma-interview-mirrorless-is-growing-and-we-will-make-more-lenses-for-it

bluenoser1993 · Nov 9, 2014

In addition to these two lenses, I wonder how big the increase in 70-200 IS II on the market will be? I'm sure I'm not the only one to have bought it with a 2x because it seemed like a versatile option to the very old 100-400, but then discovered 2.8 wasn't really required for my use and not completely happy with the 400 the combo provides. As soon as I see image quality of the new 100-400, my 70-200 is for sale. I'm excited about the new lens bare, as well as with 1.4x on a 7DII. Provided the price is still good for the 70-200, I don't want that much of a hit after only 2 years of light use.

Mt Spokane Photography · Nov 8, 2014

Jim Saunders said:
I appreciate the links, between those and the one glowing review on B&H you can see why I'm curious about anyone's actual experience with it. Maybe I'll send Roger an e-mail, he has one there.

Jim

I wonder if he has tested and used it. He is good at reviewing the build and quality, but he does not always get to run extensive tests on every lens. I'd be interested in his results.

Reviews on B&H are usually less reliable merely because I do not know the knowledge level or ability of the tester. It might look very good to that person, while a experienced tester will pickup on the weaknesses.

fancypaper · Nov 8, 2014

That is a relief to know! Will be calling them on Monday.

Nov 8, 2014

I have been looking at some of the mirror-less cameras simply for their sensors and light weight. However the only use I can think of for one is landscape and a little macro. Unfortunately they are of no use for about 90% of my photography so when I can afford a second/bacup body it has to be a DSLR.
When they produce a mirror-less camera with a big 11.1 volt battery, VERY fast AF, a big grip and a good optical viewfinder, decent frame rate, large buffer etc,etc I will buy one - oops! That is a DSLR!

Maximilian · Nov 8, 2014

Valvebounce said:
Hi Maximilian.
Very nice shots, I too prefer the landscape orientation. I see the cable channel as an integral part of the industrial scene shown. I like the snap with the ICE, I think it adds to the commentary!

Cheers, Graham.

Thank you very much, Graham.

Khnnielsen · Nov 8, 2014

Sabaki said:
Tugela said:

Khnnielsen said:

It looks like a a lot of camera for your money, but it isn't suited for video, so I in that regard I disagree with the review.

Sometimes I wonder if, Canon ever will get around to putting peaking and zebras inside a DSLR body(without Magic Lantern).

Click to expand...

There is absolutely no reason for them not to include it, because it is pure software. And it is not as though they don't know how, because effective versions of those tools have been included in their consumer camcorders for about 5 years. The main reason it appears is that they just don't take video seriously in DSLRs in spite of what their marketing smoke and mirrors claims.

Click to expand...

Could a software upgrade enable these features?

Well of course. And someone have already done that, except it wasn't Canon. The nice and clever people who created Magic Lantern have given us a lot of features(such as these) just by making changes to the Canon firmware.

Unfortunately Magic Lantern doesn't work on all Canon DSLRs, so it would be very nice of Canon, if they actually could be bothered to put the most basic video features in a DSLR, where they have the nerve to emphasize its video features.

Marsu42 · Nov 8, 2014

neuroanatomist said:
Marsu42 said:

neuroanatomist said:

Perhaps the fact that TDP's ISO 12233 crops have a very low amount of sharpening applied relative to what is the default for the 60D with major RAW converters? Process the shots you refer to in DPP with Sharpness = 1, Picture Style = Neutral, and everything else OFF, and then compare them to how they look with your standard workflow.

Click to expand...

But the result with dpp would look like a sooc jpeg with the same settings, wouldn't it (excluding raw benefits like wb adjustments, dr, ...)? And that would be about the same as the in-camera preview or preview in a cr2 file?

Click to expand...

Do you normally shoot JPG in Neutral or Faithful picture style? Default sharpness for those is zero. It's 2 for portrait, 4 for landscape, and 3 for the others (scale is 0-7).

I always shoot neutral (for jpeg preview only as I use raw) and use the neutral picstyle camera emulation in Lightroom. I couldn't stand the pimped up sharpness of the other in-camera picture styles, so for me neutral or faithful are the only options even though you can modify the picstyles in the camera.

But not only for preview sharpness, but because of the colors and tonality: neutral has a more "flat" look unless you dial everything to 11 in postprocessing. Some people want their pictures to give more pop, but I like it this way. Seems to be a big difference in taste. I should probably do another of my famous polls so we can find out what people around here use.

ritholtz · Nov 8, 2014

Re: Canon U.S.A. Demonstrates Commitment To Customer Support With The Openings Of Two Customer Servi

No service centers in TX. There should be something between Austin, Houston and DFW. Same with Sigma.

Brand B · Nov 7, 2014

Used them for what? The imagery in the ride is all CGI. To shoot video for commercials?

Posts

Posts

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics