7 hours ago
 |
Erik Magnuson
Lives in
Cape Canaveral, FL, United States
Has a website at
http://www.pbase.com/maderik
Joined on
Dec 29, 2000
About me:
View
|
   |
|
Connect with dpreview
|
Second major flaw in this test. on p159 of the manual Canon warns that the system may have trouble when there is only horizontal detail, I.e. the Hybrid system only sees vertical detail. What did DPR use as a test subject?
Missing the Hybrid AF zone -- look the the diagram of the Hybrid AF area here:
http://2.static.img-dpreview.com/previews/canon-eos-650d-rebel-t4i/images/AFcoverage.jpg (page 3 of the preview) . The outer two targets are definitely not in the active hybrid zone and would not use this focus mode! Even the "center" press is near the top of the zone and may have missed using hybrid mode to any good effect.
chrisnfolsom: This is bizarre - who takes pictures with an slr by pressing on the screen on the back of the camera?
1. The experience would be better looking through the viewfinder.
2. With low light and exposure the mirror will be down longer creating the illusion of speed - this exposure time is very slow - please test this in the sunlight.
3. We need to see if the actual focusing is better for the phase detection. Some final prints from each with a very shallow lens would let us know much more.
4. Please test this with moving objects in movie mode - moving at different speeds in different directions - pausing at different speeds to test overshoot - that would be interesting - as well as their vibration control.
Interesting though - DPR should include some movies of the camera's in actions to put some actual real world association to all those numbers that are shown - I love the numbers personally, bit it is hard to actually know what they all mean - thanks for all the hard work!
For stills, most people care about total shutter lag rather than AF speed. In live view Quick AF mode, the Canon would lose every time due to mirror flap. There is a reason almost no-one does eye-level AF+lag testing - it's darn hard and the results are lens and target specific.
qwertyasdf: Does a hybrid mean putting 50% effort into PDAF and another 50% into CDAF?
And end up with a system that is 2 times slower than the competition either way?
I'm a Canon user, and has no intention to upgrade my xti.
Since focus speed can be quite lens dependent, it's only directly relevant to the EOS-M if using the same 18-135mm STM on an adapter.
Nappe1: wait a minute, this new Hybrid AF is exactly the same hybrid AF as in my _over 4 years_ old Olympus E-420? It seems to do exactly the same things (first contrast af with mirror up and then pdaf with mirror down.) as E-420 with liveview when the lens is not supported by CDAF only function. Canon seems to be slightly faster, but the difference ain't big enough considering Oly's version has been available over four years already.
So what's the new thing here? Or is it just Canon inveting something again and by having more name trying to get the credit?
No, dropping the mirror to focus is what Canon calls "Quick AF". Hybrid AF is the one where the mirror only goes up /after/ the shot. You'll notice the lens overshoots and then iterates a bit to lock focus. That suggests that either the lens focus mass is too great or the phase-detect is not getting a good solution on the target. I wonder if there is any vertical vs. horizontal sensitivity to the Hybrid focus like with non-cross sensors.
Ideally you'd like to use more similar lenses if you are just comparing the AF system. The 7x Canon lens has larger, heavier elements to move for focus than the little 3x Panasonic. So as a test of systems you can buy today, it's sort of valid although perhaps one of the 10x u4/3 lenses would be more similar in capability. For judging if hybrid AF can improve focus vs optimized CDAF, the lenses are really too different to make any firm conclusions.
Octane: Awesome that a manufacturer spends a lot of time and effort to make an 'old' camera much better and provides it as a free upgrade via software. I hope this will set an example!
Well, they could have moved a few controls around and then sold it only as the new "7Ds" so you'd have to buy a new body to get the upgrade. Somehow this approach seems preferable.
richard2012: Incidentally, camera makers are going mirrorless simply to save money (no mechanical mirror box and required motor, no dedicated PDAF chip, no viewfinder metering chip), as a mirrorless is simply in a sense, a compact camera without its lens(albeit with a larger sensor)....so much cheaper to manufacture (just one or two boards). Removing mechanical adjustment (of mirror/screen/AF/metering chip) reduces production labor, time and costs. Err.., more importantly, increases profit(that is, until the next price war). The short flange back is a bonus, to make cameras not only more compact, but also more platable with the promise of ability to use legacy (MF) lenses. But, really, no maker wants their customers to use old lenses, but if such a feature sells more cameras, so be it. All makers hope that users will eventually prefer to buy new AF lenses in their new 'compact' mounts.
In short, everyone is going mirrorless just to stay competitive (lowering manufacturing costs).
Why does a Nikon V1 "cost" more than a 5100? Why does a NEX-5N cost more than an SLT-A37?
Paul Greenwood: As a Canon rebel 350 D then 550D userI had been waiting to see what Canon mirrorless offered before proceeding to micro four thirds as that system now offers quality acceptable to me. The appeal of M4/3rds being the weight of the lenses especially long zooms. Increasingly I have been using a travel compact and leaving the Canon system at home. The use of the APC sensor means no significant weight reduction for longer zoom lenses compatable with this system.
My move from Canon to M4/3 rds proceeds
PMG
Manuel, the u4/3 flange distance is 19.25mm while the Canon and NEX are 18mm, so your logic here is backwards!
Paul Greenwood: As a Canon rebel 350 D then 550D userI had been waiting to see what Canon mirrorless offered before proceeding to micro four thirds as that system now offers quality acceptable to me. The appeal of M4/3rds being the weight of the lenses especially long zooms. Increasingly I have been using a travel compact and leaving the Canon system at home. The use of the APC sensor means no significant weight reduction for longer zoom lenses compatable with this system.
My move from Canon to M4/3 rds proceeds
PMG
Weight of the long lenses? Long lenses are essentially unaffected by mirrorless. The current Canon EF-S 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS zoom is 390g. The u4/3 equivalent is the Panasonic 45-200mm f/4-5.6 OIS at 380g. Right now you need a 50g adapter tube (not clear if the 50g includes the removable tripod mount or not.)
Jim Evidon: What do they consider high ISO. I have used my Panny 20mm on my OM-D E-M5 and haven't seen a problem. At what ISO and up does the banding occur?
If it's like the Canon issue cited below (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1019&message=1213477) then it's most likely to happen when using continuous focus or otherwise if the final focus motor movement is too close to sensor reset/exposure.
Martin_Kay: Hmmm, how does a lens cause 'banding'- surely its a sensor problem. I've never seen any problems with my 20mm on the GX1.
I see this question has been answered- almost, further down the list.
Possibly via electrical interference - something in the lens is "noisy" in a way that Olympus did not anticipate/filter. I vaguely recall reading of a similar issue with Canon cameras and continuous focus on the 50mm f/1.4.
weput: I've allways had a position on the mirror/no mirror thing.... as an engineer i tougth about putting the sensor directly to feed the liveview screen as a doable thing.... even removing the shutter as the image could be captured electronically
virtually no moving parts inside the camara
virtually unlimited time of service for the device... and given the speed and capabilities of chips nowdays.. (imagine a quadcore qualcom inside one of this things)...
however... sometimes i'm just an idiot dreaming...
Canon DSLRS have had electronic 1st curtain shutter in live view since the 450D.
JonB1975: To all the equivalency people:
What do you use to calculate exposure?
- ISO setting, shutter speed, f-stop. This is the reason why the lens is described as f1.8 - so the camera behaves the way people expect.
What do you use to calculate depth of field?
- focal length and f-stop. This is the reason why the lens is listed as 75mm, again so depth of field calculations would be correct - if it was listed as 150mm naysayers would REALLY be up in arms!
f/1.8 is a simple mathematical ratio - a dimensionless number w/o any meaning unless you put it into context of light level, shutter speed and noise. If you don't care about equivalency, then ignore it. The others are commenting on the practice of converting focal length to equivalent FOV but ignoring aperture equivalence for DOF/total light gathered.
abi170845: Bravo Olympus for churning out lenses, unlike SONY Nex system with non existent ultrawides and fast telephoto. I love it that Olympus is serious about this.
If it is as good as my 135mmf2 L, I think I might dump the dslr for my Dan Ballard Grand TetonTrip.
@ StephanSchmidt. The exposure doesn't change and even the per-pixel noise does not change. But now you need to enlarge the noise 2x to get the same print or screen size so it's more visible. Just like noise would be less visible if you reduced the FF image 50%.
JonB1975: To all the equivalency people:
What do you use to calculate exposure?
- ISO setting, shutter speed, f-stop. This is the reason why the lens is described as f1.8 - so the camera behaves the way people expect.
What do you use to calculate depth of field?
- focal length and f-stop. This is the reason why the lens is listed as 75mm, again so depth of field calculations would be correct - if it was listed as 150mm naysayers would REALLY be up in arms!
mapgraphs, that's *not* what anyone else means w.r.t to equivalency because you used the same sensor size for both shots. Repeat your experiment with a 4/3 and FF camera under low light conditions that require an exposure of 1/60 and f/2 at ISO 1600 using say 25mm focal length for 4/3. If you also shoot the FF camera with a 50mm from the same position at ISO1600 1/60 and f/2 you will have less noise and less DOF. So now change the FF camera to ISO 3200 and f/2.8, now what do you get? ISO 6400 and f/4?
JonB1975: To all the equivalency people:
What do you use to calculate exposure?
- ISO setting, shutter speed, f-stop. This is the reason why the lens is described as f1.8 - so the camera behaves the way people expect.
What do you use to calculate depth of field?
- focal length and f-stop. This is the reason why the lens is listed as 75mm, again so depth of field calculations would be correct - if it was listed as 150mm naysayers would REALLY be up in arms!
Why do you care about ISO setting? Noise. Why do you choose a focal length? Field of view & framing. The equivalency people are saying the numbers are equivalent only if they have the same impact on the same photo taken under the same conditions. When the sensor size is different, the photographic effect is different.
No-one is suggesting that the lens be labeled with anything other than 75mm or f/1.8. But those numbers are only useful when comparing the lens directly to another lens for a 4/3 sensor.
Eric Glam: The F3 is an entry-level NEX, but its first-impression photos look quite good.
I'm more looking forward to a NEX with a fixed zoom lens (18-125, f2.0).
No need to bother with carrying extra lenses, or worrying about dust on the sensor.
Just one proper lens, factory-matched to the body for optimal results.
Those who read the LensRentals.com articles will understand the importance of factory-matched copies of lenses and bodies.
Not gonna happen. Have you ever seen/held a 135mm f/2 lens? For a hint of practical lens size/features, look at the old Sony R1 (14-72mm f/2.8-4.8) or Canon G1X (16-50mm f/2.8-5.8).
Nikonworks: The LCD can not face downward for overhead shots. A real waste.
99% Of familiess/friends do not carry a tripod for self portraits.
And how often are you going to hold a nex camera toward yourself to take a picture?
A real waste of a camera's capabilities IMHO.
Yep, upside down and pressing the shutter with your thumb is actually easier and it lets you hold the camera higher. The only thing it sacrifices is the monopod/remote-release overhead trick.
Plastek: D3200 killer :)
Better high ISOs, tiltable LCD, much bigger viewfinder with 100% coverage, AF motor, better continuous shooting mode, immersely better video (one that's usable by people who don't have entire rig set up for filming with manual focus or strugglig with contrast detection which doesn't work more often than does) including stereo sound (! lol nikon Mono mode), stabilization for all lenses including Primes, lighter, smaller, 100$ cheaper! (for 100$ you can get 50mm prime in addition to kit lens which is something must-have for beginners IMO).
Nikon gets nicer accessories and +-5 EV exposure compensation which is good feature in did, but... on the other hand you get crapload of fun-features in Alpha: panoramas (including 3D), build-in teleconverter, and god-knows-what-else (cause I don't care about them).
IMO: Now there's no reason to get Nikon besides being proud of Nikon sticker at the front of camera.
" Buying into the F mount provides a gateway into this treasure trove from the 1950s until present."
With a D3200, you don't have metering with non-chipped lenses (pre-1988). With D7000, you can't safely mount non-AI lenses (pre-1977). You actually have more old Nikon lens compatibility with a Canon DSLR or Sony NEX!