Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: New Canon Camera & Lenses  (Read 30868 times)
DiaAzul
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 777



WWW
« Reply #20 on: August 24, 2006, 04:15:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I suppose the outcome will depend largely on the noise characteristics of those slightly smaller pixels. If Canon pull some more rabbits out of the hat and succeed in making the 400D pixels even less noisy than the 20D pixels, perhaps through greater quantum efficiency, then we can probably look forward to some protracted arguments comparing the 400D image quality with the 5D, especially considering the 400D will be accessing the sweet spot of the image circle.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74297\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Who said that the pixel size is getting smaller, yes there is a denser pixel pitch but the size of the light gathering elements do not necessarily have to change if Canon is using finer lithography and a different cell design. Add-on microlenses and you would have a better performing sensor than the previous incarnation.

On the other hand, it is still the same camera with roughly the same functionality (bar snesor cleaning and AF) as the previous camera - so it will still only appeal to the niche of users that would have gone for the 350D. I don't see that increasing sensor megapixels makes this any more or less attractive camera.

Why all the excitement?
Logged

David Plummer    http://photo.tanzo.org/
Julian Love
Guest
« Reply #21 on: August 24, 2006, 05:41:16 AM »
ReplyReply

What are people's thoughts about the two new lenses? 70-200 f/4L IS and 50mm f/1.2L...

The 70-200 f/4 has been a great workhorse lens for me. Very sharp and quite small and light. I've wanted IS in this lens for years. I am a travel photographer and the extra weight and bulk of the f/2.8 IS put me off. The addition of IS to the f/4 version makes it perfect for my needs. It does make the lens double the price though! If only we had in-body IS...

The new 50 f/1.2 is less interesting to me, at 545g it it too large and bulky, and I very rarely need f/1.2. Like many here I would have prefered to see a 24mm f/1.4 L Mark II that was as sharp as it's Leica and Zeiss cousins. In fact f/2 or f/2.8 would be fine as long as it was very sharp!

Julian
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8939


« Reply #22 on: August 24, 2006, 05:58:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Who said that the pixel size is getting smaller, yes there is a denser pixel pitch but the size of the light gathering elements do not necessarily have to change if Canon is using finer lithography and a different cell design. Add-on microlenses and you would have a better performing sensor than the previous incarnation.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74317\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

David,
I see your point that there's a distinction between pixel size and pixel pitch, and perhaps we shouldn't even be using the word pixel in this context. However, as the pixel density increases, the light gathering area for each pixel must decrease proportionally, whatever the actual size of the photodiode, which is information Canon doesn't publish as far as I know. I'm assuming here that each microlens which directs the light to the photodiode has close to 100% fill factor, even though the photodiode itself doesn't.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8939


« Reply #23 on: August 24, 2006, 06:57:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
What are people's thoughts about the two new lenses? 70-200 f/4L IS and 50mm f/1.2L...

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74324\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Personally, I don't believe in duplicating the FL range I already have unless there's more than a slight improvement in image quality alone. For example, I already have a Canon 50/1.8 which I've used quite often for portraits with my D60 and 20D. I realise the 50/1.4 is a slightly better lens but I can't bring myself to getting it because the advantages seem too marginal to me. It's only 1/2 a stop faster and just slightly sharper. It's more robust but also heavier and in any case I'm a careful sort of person. I tend not to break my gear.
 
If reviews show that the 50/1.2 is even sharper than the 50/1.4 and still good value, as most 50mm lenses are, I would consider getting it.

The range of a 70-200 wouldn't work well for me. My main lenses are Sigma 15-30, Canon 24-105 and Canon 100-400. Basically, continuous coverage from 15mm to 400mm with minimal overlap. Very efficient   .
Logged
Fred Ragland
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 155


WWW
« Reply #24 on: August 24, 2006, 07:20:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
...If reviews show that the 50/1.2 is even sharper than the 50/1.4 and still good value, as most 50mm lenses are, I would consider getting it...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74329\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
And at $1250?
Logged
Huib
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 100


WWW
« Reply #25 on: August 24, 2006, 09:46:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
And at $1250?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74333\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If it has the same quality is mine 85mm f1.2 YES,YES
Logged

Jack Flesher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2595



WWW
« Reply #26 on: August 24, 2006, 12:18:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
On the other hand, it is still the same camera with roughly the same functionality (bar snesor cleaning and AF) as the previous camera - so it will still only appeal to the niche of users that would have gone for the 350D. I don't see that increasing sensor megapixels makes this any more or less attractive camera.

Why all the excitement?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74317\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I think the train of thought is that if Canon has upgraded their entry-level consumer DSLR to 10MP, added a larger rear LCD and automated U/S sensor cleaning and can still keep it under $1,000, that this bodes extremely well for the next  Prosumer DSLR and Pro DSLR upgrades.  

I'd expect the 40D to be released at PMA with 10 or 12MP, Digic 3 processing and ultra-sonic sensor cleaning -- an almost certain 5D killer.  So the 6D is introduced with 16MP and Digic 3 for another set of gains -- and a certain 1Ds2 killer.  

Which leaves the 1-series...  Logic dictates it will have to contain some breakthrough technology to remain a viable product -- better build quality, weatherproofing and slighter better AF with the arguably minor image-qualtiy gains are not enough to maintain the pricepoint over the 5/6D class of body -- so the rumors of a tri-color sensor delivering true-color capture at around 24MP seem not too far-fetched.  (And this camera might indeed be a MF back killer of sorts...) The big question is will we see it at Photokina or will we have to wait until PMA?

Again, fun times ,
« Last Edit: August 24, 2006, 12:22:53 PM by Jack Flesher » Logged

skibum187
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 72


« Reply #27 on: August 24, 2006, 01:45:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I'd expect the 40D to be released at PMA with 10 or 12MP, Digic 3 processing and ultra-sonic sensor cleaning -- an almost certain 5D killer.  So the 6D is introduced with 16MP and Digic 3 for another set of gains -- and a certain 1Ds2 killer. 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74362\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It doesn't really make sense that Canon would kill off the 30D so quickly with a 40D model. I would assume that they would upgrade the 5D to a Digic III, ultrasonic, etc., but now way are they going to kill off the 30D so fast.
My question is this: When do we get a full frame, Digic III upgrade to the 1d Mk2???
Logged
Slough
Guest
« Reply #28 on: August 24, 2006, 03:18:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
However, as the pixel density increases, the light gathering area for each pixel must decrease proportionally, whatever the actual size of the photodiode, which is information Canon doesn't publish as far as I know.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74325\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Not according to a Canon document. We might expect that each micro lens is jammed up against its neighbours, but it seems this just aint so. In fact there is a sizeable gap between adjacent microlenses. Canon claim that they have been able to get a 10 MP sensor to behave like an 8 MP one, in terms of noise anyway, by reducing the gap between micro lenses. Thus the ratio of the amount of light captured by the microlenses divided by the amount of light incident on the 'sensor' surface has increased. From the diagrams I have seen the actual sensor pits are typically much smaller than the micro lenses, and hence the microlenses act to 'funnel' the light to a sensor pit. I presume this is because the sensors are effectively 2D structures, and hence the surface contains not only the sensor pits, but associated electronics and connecting pathways.

Leif
Logged
DiaAzul
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 777



WWW
« Reply #29 on: August 24, 2006, 05:07:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I presume this is because the sensors are effectively 2D structures, and hence the surface contains not only the sensor pits, but associated electronics and connecting pathways.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74374\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Sort of - semiconductors are (complex) three dimensional designs with lots of interactivity between elements and manufacturing issues which make the production of sensors a difficult business. You are correct that the light sensitive part of a cell is only a portion of the theoretical maximum area available with the remainder taken up by supporting electronics. As knowledge improves then the proportion of the sensor taking up space is reducing relative to the light grabbing surface and so sensitivity improves. NB I believe only the 1Ds/II use microlenses to improve performance at the edge of the sensor where light is incident on the sensor at an angle which dramatically affects the performance of the sensor (and I guess the 5D does to, but I have not seen any discussion on its sensor design).
Logged

David Plummer    http://photo.tanzo.org/
OldRedFox
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8


WWW
« Reply #30 on: August 24, 2006, 05:09:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
On the other hand, it is still the same camera with roughly the same functionality (bar snesor cleaning and AF) as the previous camera - so it will still only appeal to the niche of users that would have gone for the 350D. I don't see that increasing sensor megapixels makes this any more or less attractive camera.

Why all the excitement?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74317\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, assuming noise is the same or less, I like the new features.  But, for me they failed to address the single largest problem with the 350 - size.  I passed on the 350 because the grip was too shallow and too small so I could not comfortably hold it - and my hands are not all that large.  If it were the size of a D50 I'd be all over it.

Peace,

Todd Warnke
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8939


« Reply #31 on: August 24, 2006, 05:35:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Not according to a Canon document. We might expect that each micro lens is jammed up against its neighbours, but it seems this just aint so. In fact there is a sizeable gap between adjacent microlenses. Canon claim that they have been able to get a 10 MP sensor to behave like an 8 MP.

[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

If this is so, then it would seem the light gathering area  for each photodiode could well be the same, but I can't believe these schematic diagrams from Canon are to scale. The gap between the microlenses looks huge to me, at complete odds with other verbal descriptions that the gaps are tiny. Here's a quote from their White Paper [a href=\"http://www.robgalbraith.com/public_files/Canon_Full-Frame_CMOS_White_Paper.pdf]here[/url]

Quote
It is widely mentioned that CCD photodiode surfaces are completely light sensitive, so their “fill factor” is said to be 100%. CMOS photodiodes have transistors near the surface, so they are not completely light sensitive and their fill factors are typically less. However, the shift registers between the rows of photodiodes on CCDs are masked and not light sensitive. On CMOS sensors, the metallic overlay of interconnects is not light sensitive either. The fact is that the degree to which an entire sensor either is or is not light sensitive is a matter of varying architecture and clever engineering.

For example, sophisticated new microlenses with tiny gaps between them
appreciably increase the efficiency of Canon CMOS sensor light gathering. Convex
microlenses are arrayed on the CMOS sensor surface with each lens matched to a
single pixel. By shrinking the gaps between these minute lenses, Canon has
enhanced the sensor’s light-gathering efficiency despite increased pixel density,
resulting in the expansion of signal output range at high ISO speeds.

Below this quote from the White Paper, which is now quite old, are a couple of diagrams which seem to be mislabeled. The 1Ds2 is shown as having a particularly wide gap between microlenses and the earlier 1D Mk ll as having a much reduced gap.

One wonders how much of this stuff is marketing hype.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8939


« Reply #32 on: August 24, 2006, 05:53:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
If it has the same quality is mine 85mm f1.2 YES,YES
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74349\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

What sort of photography do you do, Huib? Outside of a studio type environment. that is, in circumstances where either the distance to the subject cannot be easily changed or, if it can be changed, the photographic moment of opportunity will not wait, I find a prime lens very restrictive.

There's no doubt that the 85/1.2 is a very fine lens, but it's not much use when a particular shot requires say, a 65mm lens and the quality advantage tend to disappear if the shot requires say, a 100mm lens.

Beware of technological lust!  
Logged
stever
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1072


« Reply #33 on: August 24, 2006, 10:27:03 PM »
ReplyReply

i was puzzled when the 30D (20D mkII) was released a minor ug-grade to the 20D, now that the 400D is released so soon after the 30D i'm totally confused.

is Canon's marketing out to lunch? does marketing and engineering not communicate? are the design/manufacturing/marketing teams for different camera models outside corporate control? is there some downside to the new technology in the 400D that makes it too risky for a more "serious" camera?

maybe this will be resolved in the next couple months, but i still think the 30D was a curious waste of resources on Canon's part - or maybe Canon's resouces and margins allow products like the 30D to be cranked out for test
Logged
LeifG
Guest
« Reply #34 on: August 25, 2006, 01:59:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
One wonders how much of this stuff is marketing hype.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74382\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

A very wise statement.  

The fact that Canon release a 'White paper', and it is quoted on sites as a 'White paper' is obviously no more than a clever marketing exercise, hiding marketing spiel in a pseudo scientific and pseudo objective form.

Still, I think such things are worth reading. If only to start an argument.  
Logged
Huib
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 100


WWW
« Reply #35 on: August 25, 2006, 05:01:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
What sort of photography do you do, Huib? Outside of a studio type environment. that is, in circumstances where either the distance to the subject cannot be easily changed or, if it can be changed, the photographic moment of opportunity will not wait, I find a prime lens very restrictive.

There's no doubt that the 85/1.2 is a very fine lens, but it's not much use when a particular shot requires say, a 65mm lens and the quality advantage tend to disappear if the shot requires say, a 100mm lens.

Beware of technological lust! 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74386\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I do all kind of photography. The 50mm f1.4 is not very sharp at f1.8 and at f5.6 is not much better then the f2.8 24-70mm. The 85mm f1.2 gives much more contrast and sharpness then the f2.8 70-200mm. And I use this lens a lot at f2 - f2.8 Great quality! If the new 50 mm gives much more contrast and sharpness then the f1.4, its sold! With the new 1DsIII we need this kind of lenses.
Logged

jimhuber
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 147


WWW
« Reply #36 on: August 25, 2006, 04:35:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The differences between the 1Ds2 and 5D are so slight that many folks were unable see them. Jack is now implying that similarly hardly detectable differences might exist between the 400D and the 5D, which might upset a few 5D owners.
I own a 5D myself. If the 400D is that good, I'll buy it as a backup for my 5D. I just can't drop $3k on a second 5D body that's unlikely to be used much, but under $1k I can swallow. I'd lose some wide angle coverage and gain some depth of field, but I can find better ways to spend the $2k difference when we're talking about a spare camera body. On 12x18 prints I doubt there will be much difference. Go up to 20x30 and the 5D still looks quite good. Captures from a 400D at 20x30 inches? Hmmm... I'll wait and see for a bit.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8939


« Reply #37 on: August 25, 2006, 08:26:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I own a 5D myself. If the 400D is that good, I'll buy it as a backup for my 5D. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74491\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You're in a fortunate situation. I already have a 20D as a back-up. I'd feel like a wasteful profligate if I were to buy a second back-up. Anyone want to buy my 20D?  
Logged
jimhuber
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 147


WWW
« Reply #38 on: August 25, 2006, 08:54:28 PM »
ReplyReply

My present backup is a 350D (Rebel XT), for the same reason as above: much lower cost, and good enough up to 12x18 prints. So the real question for me is how much better the 400D is than the 350D. I suspect the answer will be teetering right on the edge of worth it - darn marketing guys. 10 MP versus 8 MP only gives me 1/8th more print resolution: 216 ppi versus 192 ppi on a 12x18 print, but I'm thinking the cost will be well under $1k pretty shortly (like Christmas).

Although I call it a "spare" or "backup", there are times when I leave my 5D set up on a tripod waiting on a shot, or taking a series of shots - like sunsets - and will shoot handheld or on my lightweight tripod with the Rebel. So it's not like it just stays in the bag all the time. And though I have pretty large hands the Rebel XT grip doesn't bother me at all, though the viewfinder does after using the 5D. And the Rebel takes up very little room in the bag with the 17-85 lens that's almost always on it. Hmmm... I'm still going to wait and see some reviews to see what the high ISO performance is like. To me the Rebel XT is good up through 400, not so good at 800, and I'd be hard pressed to use 1600, even with Noise Ninja. On the 5D I don't hesitate at all to use any ISO through 1600 unless I'm pretty sure I'll be making a print larger than 12x18 from it - which is pretty unusual.

Once you've seen both viewfinders, I don't see how you'd ever consider a 400D a possible 5D killer. They're not in the same league.

Now if Canon were to come out with a 22mp sensor in a 5D body, I'd find a way to scrounge up whatever they want for it!
Logged
DiaAzul
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 777



WWW
« Reply #39 on: August 26, 2006, 04:59:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
So the real question for me is how much better the 400D is than the 350D. I suspect the answer will be teetering right on the edge of worth it - darn marketing guys. 10 MP versus 8 MP only gives me 1/8th more print resolution: 216 ppi versus 192 ppi on a 12x18 print, but I'm thinking the cost will be well under $1k pretty shortly (like Christmas).

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74505\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

But aren't you falling into the exact trap that michael was trying to explain in his original  article - the 400D is not just about an increase in pixels (that is really the minor part of the upgrade). It is more about improving the range of features available on the camera at that particular price point - such as improved AF and sensor cleaning technologies (which IMHO have been well thought out and are very comprehensive). Both of these improvements will have more impact on real world photography and quality of produced images (more in focues, fewer dust spots) than any increase in resolution. This is a significant upgrade to the 350D and demonstrates that the marketing department is far smarter and understand the market far better than most people who post to the internet discussion boards.
Logged

David Plummer    http://photo.tanzo.org/
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad