Posts

Mt Spokane Photography · Nov 12, 2014

JohnnyPockets said:
Thank you Mt. Spokane.

Looks like the loyalty program is my best option. I had forgotten about that. Time to hit up craigslist for a broken camera.

Call CLP first, and verify the price and availability as well as any lens deals.

sanjosedave · Nov 12, 2014

I follow Jeff Cable on FB. He photographs the Olympics, some motor sports, hockey and Bat Mitzvahs

Multiple vendors have provided him gear to give away, so there is a drawing

http://bit.ly/10XSeuD

jcable · Nov 12, 2014

Jeff Cable just announced this year’s “Favorite Things” contest, where he is giving away $10,000 in photography equipment, including a Canon 70D kit, DJI Phantom 2 and a ton more. Make sure you enter the contest at http://bit.ly/1zMRtnD

Halfrack · Nov 12, 2014

Why doesn't Chevy make interior accessories for Fords... Why doesn't BMW make rims that will fit on a Kia...

These are all stupid questions, the OP seems to misunderstand what roles companies have. Canon makes PL lenses and PL mount cameras because the movie industry requires it - and they're in the movie business. There is no reason for Canon to make lenses for any other form factor.

Sigma has their own mount, and their own camera. Sigma's profits are based on making glass that works with other manufacturers camera bodies at a discount. Canon sells a camera system - with components that work amazingly together, at a premium. Two completely different business models.

Oh, and Fuji makes the Hasselblad HC lenses because they designed the GX645 - aka the H body.

Jat Riski · Nov 12, 2014

http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-canon-ef-100-400mm-f4-5-5-6-l-is-ii-usm-lens/p1563296

RLPhoto · Nov 12, 2014

I should be using these but I haven't gotten around to it yet.

LarryC · Nov 11, 2014

What exactly is a 25 year warranty worth from a company that doesn't really exist and depends on donations to hope to be able to sell a product?

NancyP · Nov 11, 2014

We might be using tripods more. I have already adapted to the utility of tripods for landscapes, have equipped all my camera bodies with custom L brackets which are mounted 100% of the time. So, I will adapt. Aberrations are likely to be more obvious. I may decide to go for the new Sigma Art 50 rather than make do with film era manual 50mm lens.

NancyP · Nov 11, 2014

Two of my most-used lenses are oldies - the 400 f/5.6L and the 180 f/3.5L. No doubt they could be improved, but the image quality is already excellent. And, they are younger than some other lenses I am using, old manual AIS Nikkors on an adapter (50 mm f/1.2, 55mm f/3.5, 105mm f/2.5).

Lawliet · Nov 11, 2014

bgosselin said:
Is it completly random or it's pixel dependent? What I mean. If you shoot with your caps on twice. With the same exposure time and same iso. Will both raw look exactly the same when push 4 stops?

Neither - It's not fixed, the results change from shot to shot. It's also not random, the readout electronics Canon uses tend to introduce patterns into the noise. You have areas with higher noise next to patches with a cleaner signal.
Now fixed pixels could easily suppressed, and completely random noise can be cleaned up by statistical means or simply left in as it has a mostly local effect.
The patterns OTOH are bad because they remain perceivable even with aggressive noise reduction or image size reduction and introduce large scale artifacts.

jdramirez · Nov 11, 2014

Larry said:
jdramirez said:

I will hit on women with many photography prowess.

You are so striking... I'd love to photograph you...

Click to expand...

Did you mean "manly"?

No clue. I have Swype on my phone, so it could be any number of other options.

2n10 · Nov 11, 2014

jrista said:
lb said:

I was reading on the internet, I usually don't bother but this really caught my eye, are we that far behind these days.?

Click to expand...

No, were not as far behind as DXO indicates. The 7D II "SCORES" poorly on DXO because it hasn't gained anything on the low ISO or color depth front. DXO scores are a very bad way to compare cameras, always have been, always will be.

Ignore DXO scores. Look at the measurements. Look at the ISO chart, and compare it with the original 7D chart (the likely upgraders to the 7D II). What do you see? Has anything improved?

The 7D II did gain about 2/3rds of a stop improvement at higher and very high ISO settings over the 7D. It did not gain at low ISO as it still has roughly the same read noise, and it barely gained on the color fidelity front. Until Canon does something about their readout system, I wouldn't expect the low ISO or color accuracy performance to improve. Canon has a distributed system...the sensor is only one part, there are additional off-die components involved, and I believe it is those off-die components that are really holding them back (and, if the information is correct, those components are not even manufactured by Canon, they are relatively cheap third party components). That's low ISO, though, just low ISO.

(Personally, I was really hoping Canon would do something special with the 7D II sensor, something way out of "normal park" for themselves...but they did not. It would have been nice to see Canon show some real out-of-the-box innovation on the sensor front, but as far as low ISO performance goes, it's pretty run of the mill for Canon. I found that quite disappointing when the 7D II was first released, but in the grand scheme of things...they improved the sensor where it mattered for the 7D II's primary use case.)

The 7D II DID make gains at high ISO, and they are very reasonable gains. The 7D II sensor Q.E. has improved, the total sensor size also increased a little bit (the 7D II has more of a 1.55x crop at 336mm^2 rather than the classic Canon 1.6x crop at 330mm^2...slightly more total sensor area, better high ISO performance), and the FWC increased (by almost 10ke- over the 7D, which is quite considerable, and even 4ke- over the 70D. So, despite the fact that the 7D II barely gained much in terms of total DR at ISO 100, the increased charge capacity of the pixels is still going to mean lower photon shot noise, which is going to mean an improvement in IQ at midtones and highlights.)

Those improvements at ISO 100 ultimately trickle down to the higher ISO settings, allowing more charge at each setting, which is probably where most of Canon's high ISO improvement comes from: more light, less gain, lower noise.

Are the gains as much as many of us hoped? No. Are they reasonable gains for the intended use case for the camera? Yes. Plus, throw in all the rest of the improved features...65 cross type AF points. Unless the new AF system has the same jitter issues that the 7D had, that should be a winner.

Great description. I haven't noticed any jitter like the 7D yet on the 7D2 but I have only had one day with it. Metering is much better, focus stays on much better and recovers faster if it is lost, focus is quicker if you have good contrast. Everything seems improved from the 7D.

Dylan777 · Nov 11, 2014

Viggo said:
Based on previous experience, nothing is quite like canon AF. And I don't mean that some Sigma's are AF duds, but the sheer speed and presicion of new canon L lenses are unmatched.

+1

neosec · Nov 11, 2014

Peter Forum said:
That's good that you worked out a technique that works for you, tho personally I'm always nervous about zooming while shooting as, you prob know, the 70-200 doesn't hold focus through a zoom movement. ...

Right, that's what necessitated the need for keeping a high f-stop (small aperture). As the cars passed close to be they were a bit out of focus... for about a tenth of a second as they passed. This wasn't noticeable while watching the video, which by the way was SD quality on DVD disk.

e17paul · Nov 11, 2014

AcutancePhotography said:
AvTvM said:

. Am really looking forward also to play around with that Eye Control Focus feature to see, whether I should clamour more often for it on future Canon DSLRs and MILCs.

Click to expand...

ECF was pretty cool on my A2E. But it is important to remember that the A2E had only 5 AF points. Made ECF easier. I don't think Canon could do ECF with the modern cameras with the increased number of AF points.

But on the A2E it WAS pretty cool technology!

Could eye control focus not select a one of several groups of focus points. I was surprised and delighted to find choosing from the five single points on the Eos 5 (A2E) to work instinctively without the 'required' calibration.

TeT · Nov 10, 2014

if the pictures on CR of the product are legit, then it is a twist

MichaelHodges · Nov 10, 2014

I'm in the field in Montana with a new Canon 1.4x III. I'm pairing it with a 300 F4 L IS. Across multiple camera bodies and numerous, varied settings, I notice I'm either getting shutter lag or what sounds like shutter lag. It's totally random, but you can definitely tell.

I bought the TC new from Amazon, but it didn't come with the soft pouch. Images seem okay, not much different from my Canon 1.4 II.

I'm wondering if this is standard behavior with the new 1.4x III?

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...)

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*

Posts

Posts

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics