CNY_AP

CNY_AP

Lives in United States United States
Joined on May 24, 2008

Comments

Total: 151, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

lacikuss: If you alredy own canon gear I'd recommend save a litle bit more money and get the FF 6d at $1,399 Body only in Adorama.

If you're looking into APS-C sensored camera without any past equipment then the Sony A6000 is the best overall for the price.

Lots of fixed costs - engineering/labor, profit, advertising; etc. Large cars don't cost more to make than a small car (and don't sell for much more either if similarly equipped).

Direct link | Posted on May 30, 2015 at 14:08 UTC
In reply to:

lacikuss: If you alredy own canon gear I'd recommend save a litle bit more money and get the FF 6d at $1,399 Body only in Adorama.

If you're looking into APS-C sensored camera without any past equipment then the Sony A6000 is the best overall for the price.

I'm somewhat surprised that m43 lenses are not much cheaper than larger lenses actually...they need to make a profit and pay for engineering...lots of costs are fixed regardless of lens size apparently. Similar to how a small car isn't much cheaper to manufacture than a larger car.

Direct link | Posted on May 25, 2015 at 15:04 UTC
In reply to:

nananananana: I'm not convinced the sailboat example is an issue related to not having micro adjustment.

Why, because it's a non-STM L lens on a crop body. The 760D focuses much better with STM lenses.

(On the "recommended lenses" on the canon site for the 760D, they have STM lenses as the choices, 18-55 STM, 15-135 STM, 24 STM, 40mm STM , 50-250, STM new 50mm STM, and so forth. None of them are older USM lenses. Canon does recommend STM for the 760D)

The lens you used is an older $2000 USM lens, not a recommended STM. Also not a standard lens at all for a crop body, I don't know that many people putting $2000 glass on low range cameras.

As several youtube peeps have shown, non-STM lenses, are focusing slower and less accurate. I have not heard of anyone having STM focus issues.

If you can reproduce this issue on an STM lens, but I have my doubts.

I wonder if they expect/suspect users will mostly use Live View.

Direct link | Posted on May 23, 2015 at 19:17 UTC
In reply to:

Scott Eaton: One thing, or two things than have driven me nuts with older Canon dSLRs like the 7D is their blatant habit of 'sludging' up warm and saturated colors, especially magenta's and reds. This was an eventual deal breaker for shooters like myself when dealing with macro, or just needing some degree of color accuracy. The second problem is colorblind Canon fanbois who are blatantly oblivious of the problem when it's obvious looking at the test chart here compared to the 7D.

For a consumer orientated camera it's nice to see Canon has finally fixed the problem. At the least the 750D has come close to matching the detail and color resolution of the Nikon 7100, although it can't match the Nikon's low noise floor at higher ISOs.

I think some cameras reduce/hide red because that's where the noise is.

Direct link | Posted on May 23, 2015 at 14:41 UTC
In reply to:

nananananana: what I like about them

-horizontal level assist on T6S
-top LCD on T6S
-considerably lighter than a 70D
-pictures all look natural on them, true to life
-3X video zoom is LOSSLESS, that's amazing, it makes a 300mm into a 900mm lens by choosing center pixels

what I don't like about them
-1080p at 30FPS, ugh, make it 60FPS already
-viewfinder, 0.82 pentamirror. ugh (less than the much cheaper SL1 with 0.87, seriously, what the hell?)

what I don't care about
-the fact they don't have micro adjust, frankly I don't care, I think it'[s overrated, most are going to be using the kit / pancake lenses and 50-250mm crop tele, it's not going to be an issue, too much fuss about this, personal opinon

Overall I think they will ge good camera, all considered.

Also, I want an SL2 with the new sensor!

Can use CDAF/Liveview for landscapes, and I always manual focus when shooting a baseball pitcher, for example.
At 24MP though, there should be a micro adjust option.

Direct link | Posted on May 23, 2015 at 14:38 UTC
In reply to:

lacikuss: If you alredy own canon gear I'd recommend save a litle bit more money and get the FF 6d at $1,399 Body only in Adorama.

If you're looking into APS-C sensored camera without any past equipment then the Sony A6000 is the best overall for the price.

Larger lenses inherently due to physics do not need as high of resolution per mm because they have a lot more millimeter's.
And the fact that each pixel on a FF sensor is larger helps too.

Direct link | Posted on May 23, 2015 at 14:36 UTC
In reply to:

Joseph Black: You say this occurred in most sailboat shots. Were the all moving away from you at a speed that might get them a couple of feet outside the focus plane between your focus lock and shutter release? I guess I'm asking, was this a swift click or was there a delay between focus and release?

Sailboat looks far away and isn't going 100MPH...and his focus point is clearly right on the sail. To test PDAF, he should have shot in CDAF/LiveView mode too, but he didn't know he had an issue until later....

Direct link | Posted on May 23, 2015 at 14:31 UTC
In reply to:

nananananana: I'm not convinced the sailboat example is an issue related to not having micro adjustment.

Why, because it's a non-STM L lens on a crop body. The 760D focuses much better with STM lenses.

(On the "recommended lenses" on the canon site for the 760D, they have STM lenses as the choices, 18-55 STM, 15-135 STM, 24 STM, 40mm STM , 50-250, STM new 50mm STM, and so forth. None of them are older USM lenses. Canon does recommend STM for the 760D)

The lens you used is an older $2000 USM lens, not a recommended STM. Also not a standard lens at all for a crop body, I don't know that many people putting $2000 glass on low range cameras.

As several youtube peeps have shown, non-STM lenses, are focusing slower and less accurate. I have not heard of anyone having STM focus issues.

If you can reproduce this issue on an STM lens, but I have my doubts.

If the AF sensor (which is NOT located on the sensor) is not in the exact/expected location (due to random manufacturing differences), the PDAF sensor will think the image is in focus (because it IS in focus at the PDAF location), but it is not in focus at the sensor's location.
None of this has anything to do with the type of lens.

Direct link | Posted on May 23, 2015 at 14:30 UTC
In reply to:

JJ Rodin: Bad photographer or ?

Author complained about the auto ISO in A mode, he said he could 'resort' to M. Well as a reminder, there is also a Tv mode that allows choosing a shutter speed and I would hope the cam would choose an appropriate ISO ? Hmmm.

Intentional lapse of memory or intentionally producing a reason for negative comment - and Yes, a 1/30 or 1/40s shutter is too slow for most situ.

if light is low, and therefore you need auto-ISO, you ought to be shooting wide open anyhow. Yes, more options is always better though.

Direct link | Posted on May 23, 2015 at 14:25 UTC
On Canon EOS 5DS / SR First Impressions Review preview (2995 comments in total)
In reply to:

CNY_AP: To increase ISO, are other cameras/sensors using fixed amplification and software/firmware to brighten the images instead of solely using electronic amplifiers? Amplifiers always add noise, so maybe using them is a mistake???

I agree...seems to me there has to be some amplification (hopefully very close to the pixel) because the amount of energy from each pixel has to be tiny (a pre-amplifier).

With feature sizes of CPU's getting so small, one would think they could fit A/D circuitry on the image sensor...or at least do something such as convert volts to frequency (voltage to freq converter is simple), and then read the frequency off-sensor).

BSI would/should allow them to put more circuitry on the sensor w/o losing/blocking light.

Direct link | Posted on May 15, 2015 at 01:21 UTC
On Canon EOS 5DS / SR First Impressions Review preview (2995 comments in total)

To increase ISO, are other cameras/sensors using fixed amplification and software/firmware to brighten the images instead of solely using electronic amplifiers? Amplifiers always add noise, so maybe using them is a mistake???

Direct link | Posted on May 12, 2015 at 03:35 UTC as 156th comment | 2 replies
On Canon issues product advisory for Rebel T6i/T6s article (139 comments in total)
In reply to:

TriezeA72: It beggars belief how two of the biggest producers of cameras, lenses etc. can allow a dodgy critical component, too casually slip past all quality check points in their modern day state of the art assembly lines, only for it to be brought to their attention by disgruntled consumers and retailers.
Its not as if we're talking about a loose screw or a battery cover lid here either!

I guess that was over the airbag fiasco...which endangered lives. The airbag company seems really unethical..perhaps could go bankrupt over it so they have nothing to lose I guess by fighting it.

Direct link | Posted on May 9, 2015 at 21:16 UTC
On Canon issues product advisory for Rebel T6i/T6s article (139 comments in total)
In reply to:

TriezeA72: It beggars belief how two of the biggest producers of cameras, lenses etc. can allow a dodgy critical component, too casually slip past all quality check points in their modern day state of the art assembly lines, only for it to be brought to their attention by disgruntled consumers and retailers.
Its not as if we're talking about a loose screw or a battery cover lid here either!

Cars and other products have issues all of the time.

Direct link | Posted on May 9, 2015 at 03:15 UTC
In reply to:

RichRMA: The issue is being taken seriously by the mfg? And here I thought a chronic 60% defect rate would be taken lightly.

Something like that makes sense. I can understand QA not noticing this if they ramped up production speed too quickly instead of having QA and the systems/electrical engineers closely examining a few low rate runs.

Direct link | Posted on May 3, 2015 at 01:00 UTC
In reply to:

RichRMA: The issue is being taken seriously by the mfg? And here I thought a chronic 60% defect rate would be taken lightly.

There are so darn many "dots" though! Maybe the "dust" (or "debris") got into the adhesive before being applied to the sensor and filter.
One would hope/think they would check a high percentage of these cameras during the first few weeks...I suppose this could be missed though by a QA person doing quick checks. They would need to take a smaller number for closer inspection, and as per Murphy's Law, those would be OK. :-).

Direct link | Posted on May 2, 2015 at 00:43 UTC
In reply to:

SteB: As I've tried to explain on the forum, this is very uniform distribution, which is the opposite of random distribution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness

If this was just random dust it would not be distributed like this. It could be dust trapped in the sandwich covering the sensor, but there would have to be something in the manufacturing process causing it to be evenly distributed. This is why I'm guessing a fault in the manufacturing process, for it to cause this uniform distribution.

Anyone who has studied distribution, randomness, statistics and probability in depth, will be aware that it is very unlikely that such a uniform distribution like this would be caused by a random fault like dust falling onto something. It could be dust again, but it would be dust formed by part of a process.

I'm fairly certain this will be fixed, once they discover what part of the manufacturing process is causing it.

Seems that if it were air bubbles (my initial "guess"), some bumbles would be randomly larger than others (perhaps due to two bubbles being close enough to combine randomly). I think these spots are way too large to literally be dust though.

The distribution looks random/natural to me, so I doubt two sensors have the same "pattern" of dots.

Direct link | Posted on May 1, 2015 at 23:48 UTC
In reply to:

SteB: As I've tried to explain on the forum, this is very uniform distribution, which is the opposite of random distribution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness

If this was just random dust it would not be distributed like this. It could be dust trapped in the sandwich covering the sensor, but there would have to be something in the manufacturing process causing it to be evenly distributed. This is why I'm guessing a fault in the manufacturing process, for it to cause this uniform distribution.

Anyone who has studied distribution, randomness, statistics and probability in depth, will be aware that it is very unlikely that such a uniform distribution like this would be caused by a random fault like dust falling onto something. It could be dust again, but it would be dust formed by part of a process.

I'm fairly certain this will be fixed, once they discover what part of the manufacturing process is causing it.

It's not uniform at all, look closer.

Direct link | Posted on May 1, 2015 at 11:23 UTC
In reply to:

CameraLabTester: 60% Fail Rate is totally off the scale for a precision instrument.

Quality Control total fail.

.

10 copies of EACH MODEL (there are two models) would be 20 total.

Direct link | Posted on May 1, 2015 at 11:23 UTC
In reply to:

RichRMA: The issue is being taken seriously by the mfg? And here I thought a chronic 60% defect rate would be taken lightly.

I read 6 out of 20 too. It's amazing how stuff gets misquoted, Saw this in my local media recently, totally changed a story.

Direct link | Posted on May 1, 2015 at 11:21 UTC

Looks like air bubbles that got into the glue or glass.

Direct link | Posted on May 1, 2015 at 11:18 UTC as 76th comment
Total: 151, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »