AP7

AP7

Lives in Canada Canada
Joined on Feb 24, 2007

Comments

Total: 56, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »

No built-in wireless flash controller !

Nikon should also go for on sensor phase detect AF system and stepper/linear motorized lens technology for better live view and video AF (like their system 1 camera).

These two features are very serious missing.

Link | Posted on Oct 17, 2013 at 14:38 UTC as 18th comment
On article Just posted: Canon EOS 100D / Rebel SL1 Review (366 comments in total)
In reply to:

AP7: Some people here are so funny! They are so obsessed by the sensor and dxomark. Looks like they want to buy the sensor, not the camera. Just remember, sensor is only a part of the whole camera system. There are so many thing to consider when you buy camera, and sensor is only one of them. I am happy that Canon is not into Sensor and megapixel race. Rather, they improved other parts of the camera (touch screen interface, live view and STM lens technology, size, etc). This camera is much improved than the T2i although they shares the same sensor. No camera from Nikon or Sony has so many real and useful features than this camera.

A comparison with other camera in the group:

Nikon D3200 lacks the following:

1. No touch screen interface
2. No STM lenses and smooth AF in live view. Aperture cannot be changed in live view.
3. No exposure bracketing
4. No Auto FP high speed sync
5. No DOF preview
6. No Mirror lock up option
7. No 14-bit RAW
8. Bigger
9. Crappy software support
10. Too much yellow color cast in the pictures

Sony SLT-A58 lacks the following:

1. No touch screen interface
2. In movie mode, No AF when Aperture is chosen. AF only works for Auto exposure.
3. No Full HD 30fps movie mode
4. Flash sync speed is 1/160 sec only
5. 12-bit RAW only
6. Bigger
7. Inferior LCD resolution
8. Plastic Lens mount

Of course, between Nikon D3200 and Sony A58, Sony A58 looks better in terms of features, like High speed sync, wireless flash, in camera HDR, panorama making, better AF (cross sensor) and metering (higher sensitivity to lower light) systems, depth of field preview, etc.

Link | Posted on Jul 29, 2013 at 14:56 UTC
On article Just posted: Canon EOS 100D / Rebel SL1 Review (366 comments in total)
In reply to:

marike6: Now that this camera got a Gold Award, maybe Canon will use this same sensor for another five years.

But seriously, I handled this camera at Costco the other day, and the body is really quite nice. IQ is behind it's competitors but at the entry level this may not matter since images at lower ISOs do look very good.

The problem is lenses. The lenses I'd be interested in mounting like the new Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 or the excellent EF 70-200 f/4 would balance extremely poorly. The shallow grip helps keep the SL1 small, but ultimately hurts ergonomics. In this case a standard Rebel T5i / 700D or 70D would be a significantly better choice.

Many assume (including DPR) that small size is desirable, but it only helps portability. That's it. And since the SL1 is not pocketable anyway, the sacrifice in handling is really all for naught.

What is the point of mounting Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 or EF 70-200 f/4 with this camera? Why not considering other appropriate (bigger camera in your view that is bigger in size and has deeper grip) camera if you like to mount those lenses?

Link | Posted on Jul 29, 2013 at 02:25 UTC
On article Just posted: Canon EOS 100D / Rebel SL1 Review (366 comments in total)

Some people here are so funny! They are so obsessed by the sensor and dxomark. Looks like they want to buy the sensor, not the camera. Just remember, sensor is only a part of the whole camera system. There are so many thing to consider when you buy camera, and sensor is only one of them. I am happy that Canon is not into Sensor and megapixel race. Rather, they improved other parts of the camera (touch screen interface, live view and STM lens technology, size, etc). This camera is much improved than the T2i although they shares the same sensor. No camera from Nikon or Sony has so many real and useful features than this camera.

Link | Posted on Jul 29, 2013 at 00:37 UTC as 25th comment | 2 replies
On article Just posted: Our Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM lens review (81 comments in total)
In reply to:

white shadow: Once in a while, Canon would produce some exceptional and affordable lenses, the 40mm f/2.8 being one of the latest.

The others are:
1) 70-200mm f/4.0L IS
2) 135mm f/4.0L IS
3) 50mm f/1.8

and the not so cheap but excellent 70-200mm f/2.8L IS MkII.

A very convenient lens to have on a full frame camera, not so bad even on an APS-C DSLR.

However, for me, I still prefer my Zeiss 35mm f/2.0 on my 5DMkII as it balance better, have better micro-contrast, more neutral colours and have an infinity stop. Obviously, the Zeiss is in a different league and price range but if quality is your main priority this is it. Good to have choices.

For those on a budget, the Canon 40mm f/2.8 is hard to beat.

50mm f/1.8 II is a great lens optically. But to be competitive with Nikon and Sony, it needs update, such as, 7-blade circular aperture, quiet AF motor (may be STM). Plastic mount is not a problem. Optical performance is adequate, but can be improved wide open like Nikon and Sony.

Link | Posted on Jun 14, 2013 at 13:20 UTC
On article Just Posted: Canon EOS 700D / EOS Rebel T5i review (178 comments in total)
In reply to:

AP7: Excellent camera with TONS of features albeit AGED sensor and relatively slower Liveview AF.

The kit lens is cheaply built, e.g., the front element of the lens is not finished well in the corner. Just see circumference of the front lens element, you'll find rough edges. Shame on you Canon for making such an optically excellent, but cheap finishing and feeling lens! When you wipe the lens with cloth, you'll feel rough edges. Shame Shame .....

You don't need to buy Zeiss. Of course, you can buy if you like. That's your choice. Nobody is preventing you. But, I expect the same quality as original CANON EF-S 18-55mm IS, or Nikon, Sony, Panasonic, Olympus, Pentax, etc. like finishing. They all produce kit lens with smoother finishing in front element. Go to any store and compare all the kit lenses.

Link | Posted on Jun 12, 2013 at 00:14 UTC
On article Just Posted: Canon EOS 700D / EOS Rebel T5i review (178 comments in total)

Excellent camera with TONS of features albeit AGED sensor and relatively slower Liveview AF.

The kit lens is cheaply built, e.g., the front element of the lens is not finished well in the corner. Just see circumference of the front lens element, you'll find rough edges. Shame on you Canon for making such an optically excellent, but cheap finishing and feeling lens! When you wipe the lens with cloth, you'll feel rough edges. Shame Shame .....

Link | Posted on Jun 11, 2013 at 18:37 UTC as 13th comment | 3 replies

Best feature: Electronic Shutter with maximum flash sync speed 1/60 sec !

Link | Posted on Jan 8, 2013 at 15:12 UTC as 11th comment
In reply to:

AP7: The definition and interpretation of terms: Acutance in Field Map (Acutance Map) and Profiles (Acutance Profiles) are not clear in dxomark website.

Both show % acutance as a function of field position for different focal lengths and apertures. While first shows in color code, the latter shows in % value from 50% to 90%.

Acutance is defined as follows:

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/About/Glossary/A-B-C-D

My concern is how do we interpret the curves? For example, the acutance values in % at 35mm and f/5.6 are 68.6%, 67.6%, 65% and 61.4% at the center, 1/3 field, 2/3 field and corner respectively. The measurements are done on Canon 7D with 18 MP sensor (5184 pixel x 3456 pixel) and Canon EF 35mm f/2 lens.

Then, what does 68.6% mean? Does it mean that P-Mpix is 68.6% of 18MP at centre for that focal length and aperture combo? or perceptible horizontal resolution is 68.6% of 5184 pixels or what? The interpretation should be made clear with enough examples.

Interesting enough, even DxO Labs does not know the answer of what they are doing. Crazy metric, I believe!

Link | Posted on Dec 20, 2012 at 14:45 UTC
In reply to:

AP7: The definition and interpretation of terms: Acutance in Field Map (Acutance Map) and Profiles (Acutance Profiles) are not clear in dxomark website.

Both show % acutance as a function of field position for different focal lengths and apertures. While first shows in color code, the latter shows in % value from 50% to 90%.

Acutance is defined as follows:

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/About/Glossary/A-B-C-D

My concern is how do we interpret the curves? For example, the acutance values in % at 35mm and f/5.6 are 68.6%, 67.6%, 65% and 61.4% at the center, 1/3 field, 2/3 field and corner respectively. The measurements are done on Canon 7D with 18 MP sensor (5184 pixel x 3456 pixel) and Canon EF 35mm f/2 lens.

Then, what does 68.6% mean? Does it mean that P-Mpix is 68.6% of 18MP at centre for that focal length and aperture combo? or perceptible horizontal resolution is 68.6% of 5184 pixels or what? The interpretation should be made clear with enough examples.

@DxO Labs: Do you know the answer of the above question? If yes, could you explain?

Link | Posted on Dec 18, 2012 at 20:54 UTC

The definition and interpretation of terms: Acutance in Field Map (Acutance Map) and Profiles (Acutance Profiles) are not clear in dxomark website.

Both show % acutance as a function of field position for different focal lengths and apertures. While first shows in color code, the latter shows in % value from 50% to 90%.

Acutance is defined as follows:

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/About/Glossary/A-B-C-D

My concern is how do we interpret the curves? For example, the acutance values in % at 35mm and f/5.6 are 68.6%, 67.6%, 65% and 61.4% at the center, 1/3 field, 2/3 field and corner respectively. The measurements are done on Canon 7D with 18 MP sensor (5184 pixel x 3456 pixel) and Canon EF 35mm f/2 lens.

Then, what does 68.6% mean? Does it mean that P-Mpix is 68.6% of 18MP at centre for that focal length and aperture combo? or perceptible horizontal resolution is 68.6% of 5184 pixels or what? The interpretation should be made clear with enough examples.

Link | Posted on Dec 18, 2012 at 17:57 UTC as 24th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

AP7: More interpretations of the test data is better than the less. I believe that this M-Pix score is not going to replace other test score, such as, standard MTF, etc.

So, I don't see anything wrong. DPReview can certainly use this.

It'll be certainly useful.

@micksh6: You are not completely right.

I just checked dxomark website and checked few tested lenses. They only replaced Lens Metric Scores for Sharpness. Previously, they had average resolution lp/mm, now they have P-Mpix. Both are single valued (So, no problem of accepting P-Mpix instead of lp/mm).

However, all the detailed measurements for Sharpness (Global Map, Field Map, Profiles), Transmission, Distortion, Vignetting and Chromatic aberration are still there. Nothing is changed in that section.

So, I am not worried at all for the change. Its kind of renaming. I welcome the change.

Link | Posted on Dec 17, 2012 at 21:16 UTC
In reply to:

AP7: More interpretations of the test data is better than the less. I believe that this M-Pix score is not going to replace other test score, such as, standard MTF, etc.

So, I don't see anything wrong. DPReview can certainly use this.

It'll be certainly useful.

Then, it is an extremely bad idea.

Link | Posted on Dec 17, 2012 at 19:57 UTC

More interpretations of the test data is better than the less. I believe that this M-Pix score is not going to replace other test score, such as, standard MTF, etc.

So, I don't see anything wrong. DPReview can certainly use this.

It'll be certainly useful.

Link | Posted on Dec 17, 2012 at 18:30 UTC as 76th comment | 3 replies
On article Nikon marks production of 75 millionth Nikkor lens (81 comments in total)
In reply to:

jim stirling: @Henry M. Hertz

You might want to check the accuracy of your claim or maybe not . Or provide an genuine link to the data

Well, newer lenses have latest optical formula, state-of-art coating technology optimized for digital DLR camera and latest fast focusing motor. It does not make sense counting obsolete lenses that is no longer in production due to no use with current DSLR. IMO, Canon is in right track!

Link | Posted on Dec 17, 2012 at 18:25 UTC
On article Nikon marks production of 75 millionth Nikkor lens (81 comments in total)
In reply to:

jim stirling: @Henry M. Hertz

You might want to check the accuracy of your claim or maybe not . Or provide an genuine link to the data

Some correction:

"In 53 years, Nikon produced 75 million interchangeable lenses (Nikkor F-mount FX/DX and Nikon 1 CX-mount lenses) (1959-2012)"

Link | Posted on Dec 17, 2012 at 16:37 UTC
On article Nikon marks production of 75 millionth Nikkor lens (81 comments in total)
In reply to:

jim stirling: @Henry M. Hertz

You might want to check the accuracy of your claim or maybe not . Or provide an genuine link to the data

Looks like some peoples are not happy with Henry M. Hertz because of mentioning some true facts. Why not use google then?

This what I got from google search:

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/about_canon?pageKeyCode=pressreldetail&docId=0901e024806188ec

EF Lens Introduced: March 1987
60 million mark: January 2011
70 million mark: October 2011
80 million mark: August 2012

In 25 years, Canon produced 80 million EF lenses (1987-2012)

In 53 years, Nikon produced 75 million F-mount lenses (1959-2012)

Nikkor Lens Introduced: 1959
Nikkor 65 million mark: October 2011
Nikkor 75 million mark: December 2012

http://www.popphoto.com/gear/2011/10/nikon-celebrates-65-million-nikkor-lenses

Cheers !

Link | Posted on Dec 17, 2012 at 16:05 UTC
In reply to:

Lelitsch: I have one question about the tests: Why do all the lenses tested so far seem to have much worse sharpness on a D7000 compared to the 7D? The glass is basically the same as well as the sensor resolution.

Also, one request: Would it be possible to match the intermediate tested focal lengths? The 18-250 has 80mm and 135mm while the 18-270 has 100mm and 200mm.

I also have similar question. When I compare, I found that the test data for 35mm is missing from Sigma 18-200mm II lens.

I think it is better to fix the focal lengths (15/17/18mm, 24/28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 70/80/85mm, 105/135mm, 200mm, 250/270/300mm) and f-stops in all test.

Link | Posted on Dec 4, 2012 at 02:13 UTC
In reply to:

AbrasiveReducer: Surprising performance; sharp at wide angle (the hard part) and inferior to a Sigma lens at the other end. But I guess the whole point is convenience.

The optical performance of Sigma is getting very close to what you overall get from two kit lenses combo. The only issue is the price, which will get down over time.

Other than convenience, Sigma is better built, its front element does not rotate, has faster AF motor and distance scale, etc.

Link | Posted on Dec 4, 2012 at 01:06 UTC
In reply to:

Retzius: 99% of the people who buy this lens won't read a review about it, or even check to see if one exists. Instead, how about we review the types of lenses that enthusiasts use, you know, the people who actually read lens reviews.

Probably, his own research results. BTW, where it is published, any URL, etc?

Link | Posted on Dec 4, 2012 at 00:38 UTC
Total: 56, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »