10mp 10fps 1.3 crop

Started Feb 17, 2007 | Discussions
T3 Forum Pro • Posts: 21,546
Re: 27pt AF is an upgrade? NT

thx1138 wrote:

In the case of the curent 1 series the smaller F point is less
sensitive to low light as Canon have explained.

Less sensitive than what? Less sensitive than their lower-density AF arrays? Less sensitive than previous 1 series AF arrays? They may be less sensitive, but I doubt that is specifically due to the size of the actual focus point. It may be due to the density of the focus array, since a higher density of focus points means there is a lot more information for the AF CPU to process. Or did they decide that, because they were going to have MORE AF points, that they would have to make all of them LESS sensitive to light? I'm not sure that I buy that. So does that mean that, if they halved the number of AF points, they would then automatically increase the sensitivity of those remaining points? I'm not sure I buy that either.

 T3's gear list:T3's gear list
Sony a6000 Fujifilm X-E1 Canon EOS M Olympus PEN E-PL3 Canon EOS 60D +17 more
Jim F. Senior Member • Posts: 2,633
Re: 10mp 10fps 1.3 crop

I started to respond to your post with more detail but I think you're looking for an argument and I don't feel like playing that game.

I've been shooting digitally for 7 years, right along with film, and I know what I want. I don't know what others want.

This does not, I'll repeat, this does not appear to be something that gets me excited. If you like it, great. As I've said several times now, I'm interested in FF, the "other" features, if they exist and not more MP for the sake of MP. I can't be any clearer than that.

T3 Forum Pro • Posts: 21,546
Re: Great chance for us

Julia Borg wrote:

T3 wrote:

Julia Borg wrote:

seems you never read Nikon Full Line catalog. they are very
explicit why they do not use fluorite.

one of the issues is the price of lens repair if the lens is dropped.

Nikon has said many things in the past that need to be taken with a
grain of salt.

same as others.

however Nikon does have fluorite, and for many years. they use it
where they think it belongs. NASA seems also to object agains
fluorite elements in lenses. but you know that...

I love it when people bring up the NASA explanation! With all the extremely sensitive instrumentation and experiments being carried up into space, not to mention the delicate human beings being carried up into space (all of which are obviously secured sufficiently to safely survive a trip into space without any damage), they are worried about damage to fluorite housed inside a robust lens housing! Keep in mind, today's space shuttles have cockpits comprised of very large LCD panels that are significantly larger and probably no more robust than the much smaller fluorite element housed deep inside a Canon L lens! I think there are plenty of other things on a space shuttle that would suffer damage long before a fluorite lens element would.

 T3's gear list:T3's gear list
Sony a6000 Fujifilm X-E1 Canon EOS M Olympus PEN E-PL3 Canon EOS 60D +17 more
Julia Borg Veteran Member • Posts: 7,280
Re: Great chance for us

Nikon does have fluorite, and for many years. they use it
where they think it belongs. NASA seems also to object agains
fluorite elements in lenses. but you know that...

I love it when people bring up the NASA explanation!

it is not an explanation, it is a fact. I think people who create spaceships should have some reasons behind their choices.

-- hide signature --

Julia

T3 Forum Pro • Posts: 21,546
Re: 10mp 10fps 1.3 crop

I'm not arguing. I'm just pointing out that every manufacturing is simply trying to offer the right mix of specs for a target market. The problem arises when people start to think that their SPECIFIC interests are the target that should be aimed at; in your case, a high speed FF body, and the "other" things you mentioned. It appears that Canon is aiming at a slightly broader market: the same market that has made their previous 1.3x bodies such a success. I'm merely pointing out that this 10/10, 1.3x body sounds just like it is: a 1D MKII successor, targeted at the same audience. For some, like yourself, this is not "exciting". For others, they see it as a natural progression and evolution of a workhorse tool that carries on the tradition first established by the 1D, then the 1D MKII. A FF body would be a different beast, regardless of the resolution.

Jim F. wrote:

I started to respond to your post with more detail but I think
you're looking for an argument and I don't feel like playing that
game.

I've been shooting digitally for 7 years, right along with film,
and I know what I want. I don't know what others want.

This does not, I'll repeat, this does not appear to be something
that gets me excited. If you like it, great. As I've said several
times now, I'm interested in FF, the "other" features, if they
exist and not more MP for the sake of MP. I can't be any clearer
than that.

 T3's gear list:T3's gear list
Sony a6000 Fujifilm X-E1 Canon EOS M Olympus PEN E-PL3 Canon EOS 60D +17 more
RJackson Contributing Member • Posts: 976
Re: 10mp 10fps 1.3 crop

Jim F. wrote:

I'm interested in FF, the "other" features, if they
exist and not more MP for the sake of MP. I can't be any clearer
than that.

Yeah, full-frame and some speed. Personally, I wouldn't mind it if the sensor remained at eight megapixels.

david a rosenthal Forum Member • Posts: 55
QE not the issue for noise

Reducing noise has little to do with QE, and lots to do with the engineering of the sensor and readout electionics.

RJackson Contributing Member • Posts: 976
Re: 10mp 10fps 1.3 crop

T3 wrote:

It
appears that Canon is aiming at a slightly broader market: the same
market that has made their previous 1.3x bodies such a success.

It hasn't become a success because of the crop factor. It's become a success in spite of the crop factor.

T'Pol Contributing Member • Posts: 559
Another history lesson, Pete:

T3 wrote:

Probably the more
likely reason is that Canon developed the process to grow the
fluorite crystals, and Nikon didn't.

You may be surprised to learn, Pete, that Nikon have been using fluorite since the 1960s in their microscopes and the odd micro[macro] lens. Once they developed ED glass in the 70s, they discontinued the use of Fluorite in all but microscopy where it is still used to this day, produced [grown] in-house at Nikon's fluorite facility.

Clearly then, Nikon have had the ability and technology to produce fluorite lenses for over 40 years. They just choose not to use them in their long teles due to fluorite's widely known drawbacks of being susceptible to higher thermal changes in it's refractive index [hence the white lenses], thermal and physical shock. Whether or not these drawbacks often present themselves in ordinary lens use is moot. They exist, and companies have to assess these drawbacks on their merits. Nikon choose to avoid fluorite in camera lenses, Canon choose to embrace it.

I wonder what drawbacks Canon see in providing modern battery technology to the 1-series? Or adding GPS support to the 1-series/xxD series?

Once again you've tried to declare that Nikon do something because they can't do what Canon does, rather than because it's just better if they hadn't. And once more, you've been shown to be talking from where the sun don't shine.

-- hide signature --

'Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never
stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and
neither do we.' - Dubbya, the leader of the free world, 8/5/04

bearcat Contributing Member • Posts: 555
Re: 10mp 10fps 1.3 crop

Well, there seems to be a few people here who wanted FF. I can understand Canon not offering it this round, but I really suspect that this will be the last 1.3 crop camera if this rumor pans out.

T3 Forum Pro • Posts: 21,546
Re: Great chance for us

Julia Borg wrote:

Nikon does have fluorite, and for many years. they use it
where they think it belongs. NASA seems also to object agains
fluorite elements in lenses. but you know that...

I love it when people bring up the NASA explanation!

it is not an explanation, it is a fact. I think people who create
spaceships should have some reasons behind their choices.

Yes, and these are the same spaceships that have parts fall off from time to time, and even blow up from time to time?

At any rate, I'm not sure how common it is for NASA to use superteles on their shuttle missions anyways, and I doubt many supertele buyers are going to be taking their Canon fluorite superteles up into space anyhow. So to try to argue that the average Earthbound photographer shouldn't buy a Canon fluorite lens because NASA doesn't use them is a bit of a stretch. Besides, I think the real test would be to take both Canon fluorite lenses and Nikon non-fluorite lenses up into space and see if there REALLY is any difference in survivability. I would think that if delicate human bones (many of which are a lot more delicate than the fluorite crystal elements used in Canon lenses) and a myriad of sensitive electronic components can survive a trip up into space, I don't see why a Canon fluorite lens wouldn't survive just as successfully. But like I said, it's a non-issue because most of us are quite Earthbound. And on Earth, Canon fluorite lenses don't appear to be any less reliable than any other lenses.

 T3's gear list:T3's gear list
Sony a6000 Fujifilm X-E1 Canon EOS M Olympus PEN E-PL3 Canon EOS 60D +17 more
Julia Borg Veteran Member • Posts: 7,280
Re: Great chance for us

T3 wrote:

Julia Borg wrote:

Nikon does have fluorite, and for many years. they use it
where they think it belongs. NASA seems also to object agains
fluorite elements in lenses. but you know that...

I love it when people bring up the NASA explanation!

it is not an explanation, it is a fact. I think people who create
spaceships should have some reasons behind their choices.

Yes, and these are the same spaceships that have parts fall off
from time to time, and even blow up from time to time?

you sound desperate. how many traffic violations you have? and if you have any, isn't it the reason to believe you are all wrong?

-- hide signature --

Julia

T3 Forum Pro • Posts: 21,546
Re: Another history lesson, Pete:

LOL. You're barking up the wrong tree again. And Nikon has developed many things that they've fumble. Have you ever stopped to consider that it's because they didn't do it well? Let's not forget that they were first to develop IS/VR as well. But sometimes, it's not a matter of just doing it first, but executing it well and making it successful. Maybe they just couldn't get fluorite to work for them. That doesn't mean that Canon suffered the same fate. In fact, Canon has enjoyed a completely different result. But the point is, there is a small segment of the population who still choose to argue that fluorite is inadequate, when the market has clearly proven otherwise. The proof is in the pudding. In fact, if we wait for the upcoming 2008 Olympics, we'll likely see quite a lot (probably the overwhelming majority) of Canon fluorite lenses filling the sidelines. If you want a collective laugh, you can walk up to that horde and tell them that the fluorite elements in those lenses are too delicate and fragile to hold up to the usage that they are at that very moment being used for!!!

T'Pol wrote:

T3 wrote:

Probably the more
likely reason is that Canon developed the process to grow the
fluorite crystals, and Nikon didn't.

You may be surprised to learn, Pete, that Nikon have been using
fluorite since the 1960s in their microscopes and the odd
micro[macro] lens. Once they developed ED glass in the 70s, they
discontinued the use of Fluorite in all but microscopy where it is
still used to this day, produced [grown] in-house at Nikon's
fluorite facility.

Clearly then, Nikon have had the ability and technology to produce
fluorite lenses for over 40 years. They just choose not to use them
in their long teles due to fluorite's widely known drawbacks of
being susceptible to higher thermal changes in it's refractive
index [hence the white lenses], thermal and physical shock. Whether
or not these drawbacks often present themselves in ordinary lens
use is moot. They exist, and companies have to assess these
drawbacks on their merits. Nikon choose to avoid fluorite in camera
lenses, Canon choose to embrace it.

I wonder what drawbacks Canon see in providing modern battery
technology to the 1-series? Or adding GPS support to the
1-series/xxD series?

Once again you've tried to declare that Nikon do something because
they can't do what Canon does, rather than because it's just better
if they hadn't. And once more, you've been shown to be talking from
where the sun don't shine.

 T3's gear list:T3's gear list
Sony a6000 Fujifilm X-E1 Canon EOS M Olympus PEN E-PL3 Canon EOS 60D +17 more
T3 Forum Pro • Posts: 21,546
Re: Great chance for us

Julia Borg wrote:

T3 wrote:

Julia Borg wrote:

Nikon does have fluorite, and for many years. they use it
where they think it belongs. NASA seems also to object agains
fluorite elements in lenses. but you know that...

I love it when people bring up the NASA explanation!

it is not an explanation, it is a fact. I think people who create
spaceships should have some reasons behind their choices.

Yes, and these are the same spaceships that have parts fall off
from time to time, and even blow up from time to time?

you sound desperate. how many traffic violations you have? and if
you have any, isn't it the reason to believe you are all wrong?

Huh? Aren't you the one using the "spaceship" arguement to argue that fluorite is no good, while ignoring the fact that Canon has been successfully using fluorite in their lenses here on Earth for the last couple of decades? I think the first sign of desperation popped up when you brought NASA into the discussion, LOL.

 T3's gear list:T3's gear list
Sony a6000 Fujifilm X-E1 Canon EOS M Olympus PEN E-PL3 Canon EOS 60D +17 more
Lee Jay Forum Pro • Posts: 56,673
Re: QE not the issue for noise

david a rosenthal wrote:

Reducing noise has little to do with QE, and lots to do with the
engineering of the sensor and readout electionics.

Most images are dominated by shot noise (photon counting noise). Getting more photons to register is the only way to reduce that and there are only two methods for that - increasing microlens aperture area and increasing overall QE.

-- hide signature --

Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 Lee Jay's gear list:Lee Jay's gear list
Canon PowerShot SX50 HS Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM Canon Extender EF 2x III Canon EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM +10 more
Julia Borg Veteran Member • Posts: 7,280
Re: Great chance for us

Aren't you the one using the "spaceship" arguement

it is not an "argument", it is a fact. but you have not answered the "ticket" question. because if you have tickets, I'm not going to believe your arguments. LOL.

btw Zeiss was making fluorite back in XiX century...

-- hide signature --

Julia

T3 Forum Pro • Posts: 21,546
Re: Great chance for us

Julia Borg wrote:

Aren't you the one using the "spaceship" arguement

it is not an "argument", it is a fact. but you have not answered
the "ticket" question. because if you have tickets, I'm not going
to believe your arguments. LOL.

Sorry, I don't get what you're getting at. If I have tickets, you're not going to believe my arguments? Huh? Next, you're going to ask if I believe in UFO's?!? Or maybe you're going to ask what my cholesterol level is? Or maybe you're going to ask how fast I can run a mile? As far as I know, I don't know how any of this is relevant to your premise that flourite is an inadequate lens material. Talk about a red herring!

 T3's gear list:T3's gear list
Sony a6000 Fujifilm X-E1 Canon EOS M Olympus PEN E-PL3 Canon EOS 60D +17 more
jonrobertp Forum Pro • Posts: 12,880
Re: 10mp 10fps 1.3 crop

Sorry if it's been covered; does this sorta preclude a slower , 5 fps 1.3 , w/o vertical grip, fairly light and under $2,500. ? that's what would suit me.
--

The choices you've made in the past and the ones you make today create your tomorrow.

See Cuba & NYC at http://www.jonrp.smugmug.com

 jonrobertp's gear list:jonrobertp's gear list
Canon PowerShot G7 X Canon G3 X Panasonic ZS100
Julia Borg Veteran Member • Posts: 7,280
Re: Great chance for us

you said: "Yes, and these are the same spaceships that have parts fall off from time to time, and even blow up from time to time?".

that is, you consider NASA opinion unworthy based on that.

well, I consider your opinion unworthy because you have tickets, you believe in UFOs, your cholesterol is high, and you can't run a mile for the life of yours.

most of all, I consider your opinion useless because you are spamming an essentially interesting thread.

-- hide signature --

Julia

T'Pol Contributing Member • Posts: 559
Re: Another history lesson, Pete:

T3 wrote:

LOL. You're barking up the wrong tree again.

Hmm, that's great Pete. How many... can you fit into one post? Where's your old favourite baby-and-the-bathwater line? I'll try to squeeze it in somewhere for you.....

Maybe they just couldn't get
fluorite to work for them.

Time to give up the pharmacy and move into political spin-doctoring, I think. Man, you are good at it!

...but back to the flourite......Nikon can't get it to work, huh? That's why their microscopes, which employ fluorite, are cutting edge and considered by many to be the best in the world, and are also the #1 seller in the world by a sizable margin, with Olympus coming in 2nd. No sign of Canon in this Precision Optics field, I notice.

I also notice that are a very, very distant third in the precision-of-precision optics field, lithography.

That doesn't mean that Canon suffered
the same fate. In fact, Canon has enjoyed a completely different
result.

Still going? Your earlier 'perhaps' has now become fact? That Nikon have failed to produce good fluorite, so gave up and changed to ED glass? Hmmm, remind me to tell all those biomedial research centers that those Nikon fluorite microscopes they're using are obviously no good!

Perhaps they should change to Canon microscopes....oh, sorry, they don't make them. I guess, using your spin, Canon must be incapable of making microscopes....... Maybe they should quit the lithography business while they're behind there too. From their already distant 3rd place they expect shipments to drop by 42% this year in a declining market, while Nikon [already #1] expect no decrease in volume and an increase in market share. It would seem Canon are incapable of producing comparable technology to market leaders Nikon and ASML and continue to fall further and further behind. You'd think a company 'so good' at producing electronics and optics would have this market sewn up....

But the point is, there is a small segment of the
population who still choose to argue that fluorite is inadequate,

Yeah. Like NASA, Nikon, Questar industrial telescopes, University of Arizona, Company7 Astro Optics. They all say that Fluorite is fragile, susceptible to high changes in it's refractive index as temperature rises, highly susceptible to thermal shock.

The proof is in the
pudding.

Woah, there'a another one.

If you want a
collective laugh, you can walk up to that horde and tell them that
the fluorite elements in those lenses are too delicate and fragile
to hold up to the usage that they are at that very moment being
used for!!!

I'll paste what I said again, because you seem to have had some difficulty in reading it:

Whether
or not these drawbacks often present themselves in ordinary lens
use is moot. They exist, and companies have to assess these
drawbacks on their merits. Nikon choose to avoid fluorite in camera
lenses, Canon choose to embrace it.

Now, read carefully. Nowhere did I say that Fluorite is unsuitable for the uses you describe. Nowhere. What I said was that Nikon [and almost every other optical lens maker] have apparently chosen not to use fluorite because of these [scientifically proven] potential drawbacks.

And, here it is:..... I guess that having spent many years developing Fluorite, Nikon didn't want to THROW THE BABY OUT WITH THE BATHWATER, so they continue to employ fluorite where they think it's suitable [microscopy], but not where they think ED or SuperED glass is better [lenses]...... Hey, how was that.

I wonder what drawbacks Canon see in providing modern battery
technology to the 1-series? Or adding GPS support to the
1-series/xxD series?

Notice you didn't answer this. Care to?

-- hide signature --

'Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never
stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and
neither do we.' - Dubbya, the leader of the free world, 8/5/04

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads