Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Canon's lack of a roadmap  (Read 7288 times)
Deardorff
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 103


« Reply #20 on: October 31, 2013, 09:37:25 AM »
ReplyReply

There is no 'regression' to film. It is a choice many of us make to suit the prints we want.

As for Canon and their lack of a roadmap, or lack of focus - they have shot themselves in the foot after making some great decisions in the past.

Big, fast AF lenses put them way ahead of Canon when it mattered. Nikon was 4-5 years behind in getting 300/400/500/600mm fast glass out after Canon had them which resulted in white lenses on sidelines of sporting events worldwide. Nikon didn't dig itself out of that hole for a long time. Now Nikon seems to be more responsive with higher level gear than Canon.

Nikon puts out the announcement for the D600 and it is on the shelves for purchase 3 days later. Canon announces the 5D MkIII and it is on the shelves in a few months. Nikon announces the D800 and it is available quicklyl while Canon has nothing at all to answer it. 36 MP compared to 18 MP is a no brainer for many who aren't sure what reality is other than one is 'twice the MP' of the other.

In mirrorless Fuji seems to be topping the market right now with their X series. Sony is close but their lack of lenses hurts them. Olympus is where they always seem to be, late but good and with a small market share. Panasonic and others are close but not in the same sentence as Canon and Nikon.

Then there is Leica - plaything of Doctors and such for the most part. Collectors and weekenders love them and a few pros who grew up on them stick with them while the technical lead is going elsewhere.

Canon? Still sitting while everyone else seems to be moving forward. Once they finally announce a big deal it may be too late.
Logged
NancyP
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 792


« Reply #21 on: October 31, 2013, 01:58:46 PM »
ReplyReply

13' x 19' prints? Your living room is a LOT larger than mine!  Cheesy
Logged
Justinr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 955


WWW
« Reply #22 on: October 31, 2013, 03:04:58 PM »
ReplyReply

There is no 'regression' to film. It is a choice many of us make to suit the prints we want.

The remark was made tongue in cheek.  Wink

Quote

As for Canon and their lack of a roadmap, or lack of focus - they have shot themselves in the foot after making some great decisions in the past.

Big, fast AF lenses put them way ahead of Canon when it mattered. Nikon was 4-5 years behind in getting 300/400/500/600mm fast glass out after Canon had them which resulted in white lenses on sidelines of sporting events worldwide. Nikon didn't dig itself out of that hole for a long time. Now Nikon seems to be more responsive with higher level gear than Canon.

Nikon puts out the announcement for the D600 and it is on the shelves for purchase 3 days later. Canon announces the 5D MkIII and it is on the shelves in a few months. Nikon announces the D800 and it is available quicklyl while Canon has nothing at all to answer it. 36 MP compared to 18 MP is a no brainer for many who aren't sure what reality is other than one is 'twice the MP' of the other.

In mirrorless Fuji seems to be topping the market right now with their X series. Sony is close but their lack of lenses hurts them. Olympus is where they always seem to be, late but good and with a small market share. Panasonic and others are close but not in the same sentence as Canon and Nikon.

Then there is Leica - plaything of Doctors and such for the most part. Collectors and weekenders love them and a few pros who grew up on them stick with them while the technical lead is going elsewhere.

Canon? Still sitting while everyone else seems to be moving forward. Once they finally announce a big deal it may be too late.

Good summary but I'd add that Pentax have been particularly disappointing with on/off rumours of a full frame for several years now. The latest word is that next autumn is when they'll finally roll it out. Yeah yeah yeah, Ricoh, we'll believe it when the rubber actually hits the road.
Logged

Lightsmith
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 111


« Reply #23 on: December 04, 2013, 04:48:49 PM »
ReplyReply

I am surprised that more people don't take a hybrid approach. Not unusual for a landscape photographer to use a 4x5 view camera and a DSLR. I see little difference between that and having a Canon with telephotos or to use the Canon PC lens and a Nikon D800e for use with the stellar 14-24mm f2.8 lens. It is less expensive than swapping out all your cameras and lenses and flash gear.

No company produces the road map you mentioned as it would be sharing their marketing and product development strategy with their competitors. The ultra high resolution is beneficial if you have the lenses to match and adjust your shooting technique and plan to make very large prints. There are 20x30 gallery prints that have been selling for years that were produced with the 2MP D1h and even more with the 12MP D3 camera.

It is also a big mistake to equate more megapixels with greater image quality. I did a test with a 12MP APS-C D300 and a 12MP D3 using the 14-24mm and 70-200mm f2.8 VR II lenses and compared the results. The more pixel dense (more per square millimeter and with smaller photosites) D300 produced very noticeably inferior images in terms of tonal range to the D3. The larger the print the more apparent this would be.
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7774



WWW
« Reply #24 on: December 04, 2013, 04:59:50 PM »
ReplyReply

36 MP compared to 18 MP is a no brainer for many who aren't sure what reality is other than one is 'twice the MP' of the other.

The folks who buy those cameras are mostly knowledgeable. Those who are not and are looking for a status thing go all the way to a Leica.

The higher resolution of the D800 is clearly a good initial eye catcher, but I don't believe that this does trigger that many actual sales, especially among Canon shooters.

What drove sales of the D800 among those knowledgeable shooters is IMHO the additional 2 stops DR. That really makes a significant difference in many shooting situations, as the many Canon shooters buying Sony a7r are currently realizing.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Paul2660
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1643


WWW
« Reply #25 on: December 04, 2013, 05:21:21 PM »
ReplyReply

+1 on DR advantages of the D800 over Canon as a main reason to switch. 

Paul Caldwell
Logged

Paul Caldwell
Little Rock, Arkansas U.S.
Photography > http://photosofarkansas.com
Blog> http://paulcaldwellphotography.com
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5121


« Reply #26 on: December 04, 2013, 06:07:43 PM »
ReplyReply

... Pentax have been particularly disappointing with on/off rumours of a full frame for several years now.
I don't think that Pentax can be blamed for the periodic bouts of internet forum speculation and rumor-mongering about Pentax reverting to 36x24mm format: I have not seen anything in the words or actions of Pentax or Ricoh that could be blamed for such rumors.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2013, 09:26:47 AM by BJL » Logged
Rory
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 157


« Reply #27 on: December 04, 2013, 07:26:42 PM »
ReplyReply

+2 on DR. 
Logged
Justinr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 955


WWW
« Reply #28 on: December 05, 2013, 02:33:11 AM »
ReplyReply

I don't think that Pentax can be blamed for the periodic bouts of internet forum speculation and rumor-mongering about Pentax reverting to 36x24mm format: I have not seen anything in the words or actions of Pentax or Ricoh that could be blamed for such rumors.

Yes and no. The rumour mill is used by companies to keep their name up their on the web pages so I rather suspect that they may have let it be believed that they were going to progress dramatically to keep their customer base happy. The black art of internet marketing is not confined to just maintaining a blog or a FB page.
Logged

LKaven
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 788


« Reply #29 on: December 05, 2013, 03:21:54 AM »
ReplyReply

[...]The ultra high resolution is beneficial if you have the lenses to match and adjust your shooting technique and plan to make very large prints. There are 20x30 gallery prints that have been selling for years that were produced with the 2MP D1h and even more with the 12MP D3 camera.

The ultra high resolution is beneficial at any print size.  A better lens helps, but does not erase the benefits.

Quote
It is also a big mistake to equate more megapixels with greater image quality. I did a test with a 12MP APS-C D300 and a 12MP D3 using the 14-24mm and 70-200mm f2.8 VR II lenses and compared the results. The more pixel dense (more per square millimeter and with smaller photosites) D300 produced very noticeably inferior images in terms of tonal range to the D3. The larger the print the more apparent this would be.

This doesn't seem like a test for anything.  Measured *per unit area of the sensor*, the D300 was at least as good as the D3, and at base ISO, likely better.  Comparing an APS-C sensor as a whole with a sensor 2.25x larger, yields incommesurable results.
Logged

BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5121


« Reply #30 on: December 05, 2013, 09:26:20 AM »
ReplyReply

Yes and no. The rumour mill is used by companies to keep their name up their on the web pages so I rather suspect that they may have let it be believed that they were going to progress dramatically to keep their customer base happy. The black art of internet marketing is not confined to just maintaining a blog or a FB page.
If you have any evidence that Pentax-Ricoh is spiking the rumor mill, let us know. Otherwise I find your "suspicions" as unpersuasive as most of the numerous rumors that "brand X is moving to a larger format". The internet's over-amplified feedback loop is perfectly capable of producing a vast amount of wishful/fearful thinking wrapped up as rumors without any corporate assistance. I love it when one site quotes "several anonymous sources", as if several people passing on the same story that they read on yet another website adds credibility.
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5121


« Reply #31 on: December 05, 2013, 09:46:31 AM »
ReplyReply

No sensor in 36x24mm format or larger yet matches the resolution of the finest-grained black and white films like Pan F Plus or Delta 100 or TMAX-100 --- and I mean serious, useful resolution measured at a level like 50% MTF (about 140 cycles/mm for TMAX100, matching about 3.5 micron pixel spacing, or about 70MP in 36x24mm format), not the extinction resolution on 1000:1 contrast test patterns quoted by "film still rules!" partisans.

There has never been much complaining about such films having a pointless superfluity of sharpness or detail, they just motivate photographic enthusiasts to use good technique and seek good lenses ...
« Last Edit: December 05, 2013, 04:26:21 PM by BJL » Logged
Justinr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 955


WWW
« Reply #32 on: December 05, 2013, 11:08:16 AM »
ReplyReply

If you have any evidence that Pentax-Ricoh is spiking the rumor mill, let us know. Otherwise I find your "suspicions" as unpersuasive as most of the numerous rumors that "brand X is moving to a larger format". The internet's over-amplified feedback loop is perfectly capable of producing a vast amount of wishful/fearful thinking wrapped up as rumors without any corporate assistance. I love it when one site quotes "several anonymous sources", as if several people passing on the same story that they read on yet another website adds credibility.

Whoa! Steady on there! The internet is rife with what might be termed black flag operations. Generally I fear that it has become rather corrupt as there are far too many interested parties who would wish to see reduced to nothing more than a shopping channel. To believe that companies do not try and manipulate the PR opportunities presented by the web could be considered a little out of touch, it's just part of doing business nowdays.
Logged

BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3461


« Reply #33 on: December 05, 2013, 11:26:03 AM »
ReplyReply

No sensor in 36x24mm formst or larger yet matches the resolution of the finest-grained black and white films like Pan F Plus or Delta 100 or TMAX-100 --- and I mean serious, useful resolution measured at a level like 50% MTF (about 140 cycles/mm for TMAX100, matching about 3.5 micron pixel spacing, or about 70MP in 36x24mm format), not the extinction resolution on 1000:1 contrast test patterns quoted by "film still rules!" partisans.

Hi,

Two remarks though. First, granted a small niggle, 50% MTF is not a resolution metric as such. It does mean that even at that approx. 140 cy/mm detail level the response is still significant. However, that is for film only! It doesn't tell a thing about what is left after the lens projects its image on the film, the combined MTF as often shown for a digital sensor. And it also doesn't tell what's left after additional digitization, while the sensor image is already digitized without further degradation.

Quote
There has never been much complaining about such films having a pointless superfluity of sharpness or detail, they just motivate photographic enthusiasts to use good technique and seek good lenses ...

While that will help, it's no different for a digital sensor ...

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
Glenn NK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 259


« Reply #34 on: December 05, 2013, 12:10:55 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm not too upset with Canon as many are because:

1)  I think they will develop something that will be a game changer (I don't have a road map either).

2)  In the meantime, many Canon users will jump the fence to get some greener grass and will sell their gear off, thereby lowering the prices.   Then I can pick up some good bargains.

Keep on changing.  Cheesy

Glenn
Logged

Economics:  the study of achieving infinite growth with finite resources
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5121


« Reply #35 on: December 05, 2013, 04:36:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Whoa! Steady on there! The internet is rife with what might be termed black flag operations. ...
I think that the words "Whoa! Steady on there!" apply better to the person who is making a specific criticism (of Pentax) and yet declining to offer any evidence.
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5121


« Reply #36 on: December 05, 2013, 04:56:40 PM »
ReplyReply

First, granted a small niggle, 50% MTF is not a resolution metric as such. It does mean that even at that approx. 140 cy/mm detail level the response is still significant. However, that is for film only! It doesn't tell a thing about what is left after the lens projects its image on the film, the combined MTF as often shown for a digital sensor. And it also doesn't tell what's left after additional digitization, while the sensor image is already digitized without further degradation.
I was comparing to the theoretical maximum resolution of a sensor based on the Nyquist limit alone, not measurements involving further degradation by lenses. The highest possible resolution for any current sensor in 36x24mm format or larger, for the Sony/Nikon 36MP sensors, is about 102 cycles per mm, at which point TMAX100 is still at almost 70% MTF. At any finer scale than that, those sensors effectively resolve nothing while TMAX100 stays above 50% for a significant stretch: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4016/f4016.pdf

Linguistic niggling aside, it is hard to come to any conclusion other than that for people who find the detail/sharpness/resolution/acutance/whatever given by films like TMAX100 worth having, 36MP in 36x24mm format is not yet in the realm of overkill.
Logged
BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3461


« Reply #37 on: December 05, 2013, 06:02:16 PM »
ReplyReply

I was comparing to the theoretical maximum resolution of a sensor based on the Nyquist limit alone, not measurements involving further degradation by lenses. The highest possible resolution for any current sensor in 36x24mm format or larger, for the Sony/Nikon 36MP sensors, is about 102 cycles per mm, at which point TMAX100 is still at almost 70% MTF.

It isn't that high any longer once you scan it ..., and you need to scan it before it becomes digital output like the DSLR produces. I used to scan my film myself, @ 5400 PPI (Nyquist=106.3 cy/mm) which indeed extracted more detail than a 4000 PPI scanner, and I switched to digital 35mm capture for good when my 16 MP DSLR (EOS-1 Mark II) resolved about the same level of detail from Supra 100 and Provia film as the scans @ 5400 PPI. I also tested that with a slanted edge target which has much higher resolution than film. Black and White film resolved a bit better, Technical Pan in particular.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7254


WWW
« Reply #38 on: December 05, 2013, 06:37:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

My take on the issue is that increasing resolution is useful until MTF from the best lens we happen to own drops to a sufficiently low level not to cause aliasing.

With my 70-400/4-5.6G (which is not Sony's best lens) at 85 mm and f/8 I still see aliasing at 3.9 microns, although the sensor probably has some kind of OLP filtering. There is  some loss of DR with decreasing pixel size and the files get larger, of course, so there are other aspects than just MTF.

Best regards
Erik

It isn't that high any longer once you scan it ..., and you need to scan it before it becomes digital output like the DSLR produces. I used to scan my film myself, @ 5400 PPI (Nyquist=106.3 cy/mm) which indeed extracted more detail than a 4000 PPI scanner, and I switched to digital 35mm capture for good when my 16 MP DSLR (EOS-1 Mark II) resolved about the same level of detail from Supra 100 and Provia film as the scans @ 5400 PPI. I also tested that with a slanted edge target which has much higher resolution than film. Black and White film resolved a bit better, Technical Pan in particular.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged

BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5121


« Reply #39 on: December 05, 2013, 06:53:40 PM »
ReplyReply

It isn't that high any longer once you scan it ..., and you need to scan it before it becomes digital output like the DSLR produces. Black and White film resolved a bit better, Technical Pan in particular.
Since I was talking about the attitude of traditional film users to this idea of "too much resolution if not all lenses can make use of it", it is a little strange bringing scanning into the story; I would think that most of those B&W film users were printing in the darkroom rather than scanning! And why do you bring color films into the discussion when I was specifically talking about fine-grained B&W films? I do not dispute that recent 35mm format sensors out-resolve color film.

But thank you for reminding me of Technical Pan: by the measures in that Kodak document and the one above, there is not much between them, but TMAX100 has somewhat higher MTF across most of the frequency range.
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad