Hybrid Viewfinder Coming To Canon DSLRs? [CR1]

[jiphoto]

It's a Bower. I think it's the same generic brand as Rokinon/Samyang.

It may not be the Bower TC that causes the IQ loss. I mean, it will cause some, but the 100-400 sucks even with the EF 1.4x III (which it doesn't even function properly with), and while it functions properly with the much-loved Kenko Teleplus Pro 300 GDX 1.4x TC, the IQ still sucks (a little bit more than the Canon 1.4x, but the differences aren't huge.) I think it's just that the old 100-400mm lens design was built in the film era, at the early dawn of the digital era, and the bar for quality wasn't as high back then. It is most definitely a softish camera at f/5.6 and f/6.3, and only really starts to sharpen up by f/7.1 and f/8. With a TC, you would be at f/11, which imposes a significant hit on either shutter speed (which increases softness from camera shake) or ISO (which packs on the noise, especially on a 7D).

It is possible that your $80 Bower TC is just fine, and that it just doesn't pair well with 100-400 (because, well, NO TC pairs well with that lens. )

There's probably something to do with the age of the 100-400 and its dislike of TCs, but I've tried the Bower TC on my old 28-135, and the TC definitely degraded the sharpness there too. Maybe I got a bad copy. I imagine the Kenko brand is a tad better than Bower. I hear the Bower/Rokinon/Samyang conglomerate makes fairly good lenses, so maybe they just don't make good teleconverters. It's probably very difficult to optimize a teleconverter for a bunch of very different lenses.

 

[jrista]

It's a Bower. I think it's the same generic brand as Rokinon/Samyang.

It may not be the Bower TC that causes the IQ loss. I mean, it will cause some, but the 100-400 sucks even with the EF 1.4x III (which it doesn't even function properly with), and while it functions properly with the much-loved Kenko Teleplus Pro 300 GDX 1.4x TC, the IQ still sucks (a little bit more than the Canon 1.4x, but the differences aren't huge.) I think it's just that the old 100-400mm lens design was built in the film era, at the early dawn of the digital era, and the bar for quality wasn't as high back then. It is most definitely a softish camera at f/5.6 and f/6.3, and only really starts to sharpen up by f/7.1 and f/8. With a TC, you would be at f/11, which imposes a significant hit on either shutter speed (which increases softness from camera shake) or ISO (which packs on the noise, especially on a 7D).

It is possible that your $80 Bower TC is just fine, and that it just doesn't pair well with 100-400 (because, well, NO TC pairs well with that lens. )

There's probably something to do with the age of the 100-400 and its dislike of TCs, but I've tried the Bower TC on my old 28-135, and the TC definitely degraded the sharpness there too. Maybe I got a bad copy. I imagine the Kenko brand is a tad better than Bower. I hear the Bower/Rokinon/Samyang conglomerate makes fairly good lenses, so maybe they just don't make good teleconverters. It's probably very difficult to optimize a teleconverter for a bunch of very different lenses.

The Kenko is decent, but it is definitely not as good as the Canon TCs. It allows just barely visible improvements when attached vs. when not attached. Subjects are definitely larger in the frame, but you don't get the same kind of increase in overall detail as with a Canon TC.

Something else I've noticed with the Kenko TC...boke circles look TERRIBLE. They have this funky warped star effect which just looks rather bad, so I don't really use it much anymore. It's great though, for people who want f/8 AF on camera bodies, like the 7D, that don't normally support it (so the boke issue just doesn't matter in those cases). It does allow f/8 AF, and in good light, even the 100-400 will focus automatically, albeit slowly.

If you have a good lens, and a body that supports AF at the smaller apertures, get a Canon TC. No question they offer better quality. If you have a body that does not support f/8 AF and you need it (probably best with the 400/5.6 L prime), the Kenko is the best bet. (Actually, the Kenko MC4 seems to produce better IQ overall than the Kenko Pro 300 DGX, so I actually recommend getting that one...I simply couldn't find one for sale when I bought mine.)

 

[scottkinfw]

I would have to say that the iQ from the 5D3 is awesome, and the ISO performance is spectacular in low light and high ISO's, so the new crop sensor along with the body it ships in would have to be very interesting for me to consider giving up that quality, when I can just get a 1.4X tele-extender and more or less get the same reach, and do it for ~$425 USD with current sales going on now.

My two cents.

And what do others think of that take on it?

Scott

It's looking more and more like I am going to be investing my money in a 5D III.

I just wrote this (below) in another thread.
5D3 + Daniel is looking like a likely couple to me.

*****
Something just occurred to me now... How likely is it that a new 7D will have many advantages over the current 5D3?
Possible advantages I see (sure many debatable):
- Crop factor for birding, wildlife and sports
- Compatibility with EF-S lenses
- Built-in flash
- Higher burst rate and bigger buffer
- Price
Is that it? I am aware, from reading previous discussions here, that the crop factor is not a huge advantage (if at all), and compatibility with EF-S lenses is probably not relevant. The built-in flash may not even come with the new 7D anymore, and some people even dislike it. Burst rate, well, here I see a difference, but it is not important to me (I understand other folks may need it, though).
Anyway, when the 7D2 finally arrives costing US$ 2,000-2,200 body only (more? less?), how much will a 5D3 be costing? I have just found prices under 2,900 on canonpricewatch.com, and rythercamera.com has the 5D3 for 2,499 right now. Even Canon sells it refurbished for under 2,800.
What do you guys think? Will the 7D2 be worth buying when the price of the 5D3 drops even further? I am not so sure anymore.
Cheers
Daniel

 

[weixing]

It's a Bower. I think it's the same generic brand as Rokinon/Samyang.

It may not be the Bower TC that causes the IQ loss. I mean, it will cause some, but the 100-400 sucks even with the EF 1.4x III (which it doesn't even function properly with), and while it functions properly with the much-loved Kenko Teleplus Pro 300 GDX 1.4x TC, the IQ still sucks (a little bit more than the Canon 1.4x, but the differences aren't huge.) I think it's just that the old 100-400mm lens design was built in the film era, at the early dawn of the digital era, and the bar for quality wasn't as high back then. It is most definitely a softish camera at f/5.6 and f/6.3, and only really starts to sharpen up by f/7.1 and f/8. With a TC, you would be at f/11, which imposes a significant hit on either shutter speed (which increases softness from camera shake) or ISO (which packs on the noise, especially on a 7D).

It is possible that your $80 Bower TC is just fine, and that it just doesn't pair well with 100-400 (because, well, NO TC pairs well with that lens. )

There's probably something to do with the age of the 100-400 and its dislike of TCs, but I've tried the Bower TC on my old 28-135, and the TC definitely degraded the sharpness there too. Maybe I got a bad copy. I imagine the Kenko brand is a tad better than Bower. I hear the Bower/Rokinon/Samyang conglomerate makes fairly good lenses, so maybe they just don't make good teleconverters. It's probably very difficult to optimize a teleconverter for a bunch of very different lenses.

The Kenko is decent, but it is definitely not as good as the Canon TCs. It allows just barely visible improvements when attached vs. when not attached. Subjects are definitely larger in the frame, but you don't get the same kind of increase in overall detail as with a Canon TC.

Something else I've noticed with the Kenko TC...boke circles look TERRIBLE. They have this funky warped star effect which just looks rather bad, so I don't really use it much anymore. It's great though, for people who want f/8 AF on camera bodies, like the 7D, that don't normally support it (so the boke issue just doesn't matter in those cases). It does allow f/8 AF, and in good light, even the 100-400 will focus automatically, albeit slowly.

If you have a good lens, and a body that supports AF at the smaller apertures, get a Canon TC. No question they offer better quality. If you have a body that does not support f/8 AF and you need it (probably best with the 400/5.6 L prime), the Kenko is the best bet. (Actually, the Kenko MC4 seems to produce better IQ overall than the Kenko Pro 300 DGX, so I actually recommend getting that one...I simply couldn't find one for sale when I bought mine.)

Hi,
I use the Kenko Pro 300 DGX 1.4x (blue dot version) on my 400mm F5.6L and 6D all the time and the bokeh look normal to me... focusing speed is only slightly slower. Anyway, bokeh is cause by the aperture blades, right? So the quality of the bokeh should be determine by the lens design.

Have a nice day.

 

[Jack Douglas]

scottkinfw, that makes sense only some of us already have the 1.4X or 2X attached and still need (would like)more reach.

My plan when I bought the 6D was that it would be great for travel and landscape and then I'd buy a second body. I'm toying with the 7DII idea because all this season I shot 90+% with 300 X2 and the reach for birds is just about enough but more would be really great. The 7DII would have to be very good for me to accept a crop after using FF, I know.

I might consider 1Dx but that's big $$$ and worse it's a heavy camera combined with heavy lenses, not the greatest for hiking. Of course, there is the 5DIII that I might consider if something new doesn't show up from Canon by about April.

Jack

 

[jiphoto]

It's a Bower. I think it's the same generic brand as Rokinon/Samyang.

It may not be the Bower TC that causes the IQ loss. I mean, it will cause some, but the 100-400 sucks even with the EF 1.4x III (which it doesn't even function properly with), and while it functions properly with the much-loved Kenko Teleplus Pro 300 GDX 1.4x TC, the IQ still sucks (a little bit more than the Canon 1.4x, but the differences aren't huge.) I think it's just that the old 100-400mm lens design was built in the film era, at the early dawn of the digital era, and the bar for quality wasn't as high back then. It is most definitely a softish camera at f/5.6 and f/6.3, and only really starts to sharpen up by f/7.1 and f/8. With a TC, you would be at f/11, which imposes a significant hit on either shutter speed (which increases softness from camera shake) or ISO (which packs on the noise, especially on a 7D).

It is possible that your $80 Bower TC is just fine, and that it just doesn't pair well with 100-400 (because, well, NO TC pairs well with that lens. )

There's probably something to do with the age of the 100-400 and its dislike of TCs, but I've tried the Bower TC on my old 28-135, and the TC definitely degraded the sharpness there too. Maybe I got a bad copy. I imagine the Kenko brand is a tad better than Bower. I hear the Bower/Rokinon/Samyang conglomerate makes fairly good lenses, so maybe they just don't make good teleconverters. It's probably very difficult to optimize a teleconverter for a bunch of very different lenses.

The Kenko is decent, but it is definitely not as good as the Canon TCs. It allows just barely visible improvements when attached vs. when not attached. Subjects are definitely larger in the frame, but you don't get the same kind of increase in overall detail as with a Canon TC.

Something else I've noticed with the Kenko TC...boke circles look TERRIBLE. They have this funky warped star effect which just looks rather bad, so I don't really use it much anymore. It's great though, for people who want f/8 AF on camera bodies, like the 7D, that don't normally support it (so the boke issue just doesn't matter in those cases). It does allow f/8 AF, and in good light, even the 100-400 will focus automatically, albeit slowly.

If you have a good lens, and a body that supports AF at the smaller apertures, get a Canon TC. No question they offer better quality. If you have a body that does not support f/8 AF and you need it (probably best with the 400/5.6 L prime), the Kenko is the best bet. (Actually, the Kenko MC4 seems to produce better IQ overall than the Kenko Pro 300 DGX, so I actually recommend getting that one...I simply couldn't find one for sale when I bought mine.)

Interestingly, even though the Bower TC doesn't report itself to the camera, the 7D fails to confirm focus, just racking back and forth until it gives up. I'd expect it to focus at least in bright, contrasty situations, but even the live view contrast-detect focus has a very hard time with it. It seems like the teleconverter is just not good enough to allow autofocus... which has bad implications for image quality!

I've thought about buying a Kenko, but the teleconverter isn't really worth much to me for nearly all my usage of my 100-400, so why spend another $150 for slightly better IQ?

 

[jdramirez]

I missed the left turn some where. Why are we talking about tc's?

 

[jiphoto]

I missed the left turn some where. Why are we talking about tc's?

The thread went on a tangent about crop cameras vs. TCs on FF... I think I was involved : .


Back on topic... I'd love the "hybrid viewfinder" to be capable of something like a heads-up display, showing more options, like changing AF modes in a more complex way than highlighting points, maybe a couple custom AF presets, or a histogram?

 

[photonius]

No, I can't say I have used any of the designed-for-video cameras, but I completely agree that a viewfinder will help those cameras. However, an SLR form factor is much less ergonomically designed for video, so I don't know how effective a viewfinder would be, especially since it's so close to the camera body (difficult, if not downright uncomfortable).

I totally agree, the dSLR form factor is not optimal. This form factor is simply dictated by the mirror.
With an electronic viewfinder only, it could be placed (as it is in a few cameras) to the side, so that your nose doesn't bump into the back of the camera.

 

[photonius]

. Anyway, bokeh is cause by the aperture blades, right? So the quality of the bokeh should be determine by the lens design.

Have a nice day.

Not really, the shape of the aperture blades determines the shape of the light circles in out of focus areas when the lens is stopped down. Ideally you want a circle, not a hexagon or pentagon (as with older lenses). That's only one parameter.
But you are right, it is influenced by the lens design (the glass). An important aspect of bokey is also the quality of such out of focus light circles. It should be smooth. And it's not always, for example aspherical elements cause ring like structures. http://toothwalker.org/optics/bokeh.html The worst offenders are the mirror lenses, which give a circle bokeh.

 

[jrista]

Hi,
I use the Kenko Pro 300 DGX 1.4x (blue dot version) on my 400mm F5.6L and 6D all the time and the bokeh look normal to me... focusing speed is only slightly slower. Anyway, bokeh is cause by the aperture blades, right? So the quality of the bokeh should be determine by the lens design.

Have a nice day.

Boke is determined by the whole lens design, not just the number of blades in the aperture. The shape of the blur circle is ultimately determined by the number of blades, and whether they are rounded or not...but the QUALITY of the blur is determined by the quality of the lens design, it's glass, what kinds of aberrations it has, etc. It is quite clear that the Kenko design is not as high quality as the Canon design, as there are definitely differences in the quality of boke. Canon blur circles are much cleaner.

 

[Sella174]

Even though this is just CR1, it is typical of the Canon trend of targeting wannabee movie-makers, instead of concentrating on serious photographers.

 

[jdramirez]

Even though this is just CR1, it is typical of the Canon trend of targeting wannabee movie-makers, instead of concentrating on serious photographers.

Maybe it's like the 50's... you know your wife isn't going to leave you regardless of how many cocktail waitresses you court.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

Even though this is just CR1, it is typical of the Canon trend of targeting wannabee movie-makers, instead of concentrating on serious photographers.

At the end of the day Canon, like every other camera manufacturer, is a company responsible to make money for its shareholders ... there are LOTS of companies making decent to great cameras that can take awesome images, so, "topping" every spec or the performance of every camera out there (in its class) isn't necessarily a wise business decision ... Canon caters to the masses, who at the moment happens to be those who are interested in both great stills and great video ... remember, 5D MK II? it had the worst AF possible but it became a rage and a run away hit, because of it video capability and literally changed the camera industry ... believe it or not fusion photography (stills and video mixed together) is the "in" thing right now. Personally I really like it that way, it makes for a very interesting watch, especially if they are 3 to 5 mins long ... I make many such videos for my company, and our CEO likes them very much and frequently requests me to make short "fusion" stuff for our Board of Directors presentations or for our town hall meetings.

 

[Don Haines]

Even though this is just CR1, it is typical of the Canon trend of targeting wannabee movie-makers, instead of concentrating on serious photographers.

What if they didn't? What if canon removed video features from their cameras and produced stills only cameras?

For one thing, look at how much simpler the controls would be. You would no longer have a movie button on the back of the camera and there would no longer be a movie stop on the mode dial.... This would make using the camera so much easier to use that it staggers the mind!

You would not have live view, because that feature is only good for video. Real photographers ALWAYS shoot looking through the viewfinder. I, for one, enjoy lying in the muck and ooze when I take low level pictures in the swamp....

The real advantage is price, get rid of all those video features and you could reduce the price.... Even though sales would plummet because the vast bulk of consumers want video features and would not buy a camera without it, I am sure that the remaining fraction of a percent would remain loyal to Canon, and that even though Canon would loose all manufacturing economies of scale, they would be willing to reduce camera prices even though their cost per unit tripled and their production facilities are now lying deserted.....and I am sure that Canon shareholders would support such a move and rally behind the management team that reduced the worth of their shares from billions of dollars to pennies....

IT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!

 

[Sella174]

Even though this is just CR1, it is typical of the Canon trend of targeting wannabee movie-makers, instead of concentrating on serious photographers.

At the end of the day Canon, like every other camera manufacturer, is a company responsible to make money for its shareholders ... there are LOTS of companies making decent to great cameras that can take awesome images, so, "topping" every spec or the performance of every camera out there (in its class) isn't necessarily a wise business decision ... Canon caters to the masses, who at the moment happens to be those who are interested in both great stills and great video ... remember, 5D MK II? it had the worst AF possible but it became a rage and a run away hit, because of it video capability and literally changed the camera industry ... believe it or not fusion photography (stills and video mixed together) is the "in" thing right now. Personally I really like it that way, it makes for a very interesting watch, especially if they are 3 to 5 mins long ... I make many such videos for my company, and our CEO likes them very much and frequently requests me to make short "fusion" stuff for our Board of Directors presentations or for our town hall meetings.

True. But is the "DSLR movie-maker" market sustainable in the long run, as compared to stills photography? How many current DSLR movie-makers will stick with DSLR's through their entire career (provided, of course, that they actually make a career out of movies and it is not just a "student" thing), instead of migrating to "real" movie cameras?

I am not advocating that Canon goes the route that Don Haines suggests above (and Nikon did with the Df), but rather that they stop trying to make DSLR's into movie cameras that can also do stills photography. If I should actually make a suggestion, then it would be that Canon introduce a seriously cheaper movie camera that utilises EF lenses - kind of like BlackMagic does for Micro-4/3, only better.

But back to the original rumour, which states that the overlay will only be available in movie mode, which is the crux of my gripe. As others have suggested, an overlay - as compared to an EVF - would in certain parts be most useful for stills photography, as well. But, just like the dual-pixel AF of the EOS 70D, it will be for video use only!

 

[jiphoto]

Even though this is just CR1, it is typical of the Canon trend of targeting wannabee movie-makers, instead of concentrating on serious photographers.

What if they didn't? What if canon removed video features from their cameras and produced stills only cameras?

For one thing, look at how much simpler the controls would be. You would no longer have a movie button on the back of the camera and there would no longer be a movie stop on the mode dial.... This would make using the camera so much easier to use that it staggers the mind!

You would not have live view, because that feature is only good for video. Real photographers ALWAYS shoot looking through the viewfinder. I, for one, enjoy lying in the muck and ooze when I take low level pictures in the swamp....

The real advantage is price, get rid of all those video features and you could reduce the price.... Even though sales would plummet because the vast bulk of consumers want video features and would not buy a camera without it, I am sure that the remaining fraction of a percent would remain loyal to Canon, and that even though Canon would loose all manufacturing economies of scale, they would be willing to reduce camera prices even though their cost per unit tripled and their production facilities are now lying deserted.....and I am sure that Canon shareholders would support such a move and rally behind the management team that reduced the worth of their shares from billions of dollars to pennies....

IT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!

This is so accurate - for a supporting example, look at Nikon's Df. A "stills-only" camera that somehow manages to be the same price as a common discount on the 5D 3... and the same price as a D800, both of which are known for great image quality and good video. I'm sure Nikon could have made the Df cheaper, but the fact that they didn't gives us a good idea of what Canon could do too. It wouldn't be our dream stills-only DR/high ISO monster for $800.

I am not advocating that Canon goes the route that Don Haines suggests above (and Nikon did with the Df), but rather that they stop trying to make DSLR's into movie cameras that can also do stills photography. If I should actually make a suggestion, then it would be that Canon introduce a seriously cheaper movie camera that utilises EF lenses - kind of like BlackMagic does for Micro-4/3, only better.

I really like that idea - imagine what Canon could do with an EF-mount camcorder using the 70D's sensor! It wouldn't have all the pro-style inputs and outputs of the C series, but it could definitely have clean HDMI out (look at the Vixia mini X recently announced, clean HDMI is available on it). Filmmakers have been using dSLRs for the video quality, not necessarily their ease of use, so making something that caters to the video people while cutting out the stills portion of the camera is a completely valid idea. If you think about the hardware necessary to produce stills versus videos, it's actually substantially more cost-effective to cut out the stills portion, which involves viewfinder, phase-detect AF system, mode dial and accompanying surfaces, all the RAW processing capabilities... you get the idea.


I agree, it would be completely disappointing to find that Canon went the route of the 70D's DPAF and allowed the hybrid viewfinder to be used only for video shooting. The question is whether they go the route of some of the old Sony cameras, and divert the viewfinder view from the mirror to a separate screen, or the Fuji X-Pro 1's route and make the EVF capable of overlaying the viewfinder as well as taking over entirely.

 

[linus]

I can't believe I overlooked this post the other day.

This is exactly the direction I've been hoping Canon would take dslrs and will be a very exciting development, if true.