Page 81 ... seems to indicate that the level will indicate both horizontal & vertical. I think someone had indicated it would only serve one direction.
p.19 #3 · Official: Canon Announces the EOS 6D Mark II
Blair Maynard wrote:
I do not know the science of it, but I once had a car with some kind of antiglare coating on the stereo head unit which made it unreadable through polarized sunglasses without turning my head sideways. The solution was to install a thin piece that I cut out of a sheet of 8.5 by 11 inch polarizing plastic -- but first I had to put the whole sheet in place over the stereo and test it by turning it certain directions while looking at it with my head in the normal driving position. Once I got the right angle, I cut a piece out of the plastic and inserted it over the radio display.
It worked well. So my conclusion is that since the screen protector also had this effect of blocking my display on the back of my 6D from being viewed through my polarized glasses, it must also function as a glare protector. Now of course I may be wrong....Show more →
Continuing the off topic segue!
OK, I think I understand what’s going on.
First, for the science part that to some degree I think you already know. When light hits the surface of clear glass like surface at an angle (not straight on) it mostly passes through with a small amount reflected that is polarized. This reflection can be filtered/cancelled out or reduced with a polarizing filter depending on the angle of the reflection and the filter rotated/adjusted to an optimal position. This occurs with a bare glass like surface as well as if it’s anti-reflection coated since these coatings not absolute or perfect meaning that they normally only reduce the reflection without completely eliminating it.
Here’s what I think’s going on with the head unit. Since the head unit is usually mounted in the center of the dash board of the car and you are probably sitting off to the side in the driver’s seat while viewing the face of the head unit at an angle to its face such that any polarized light still reflecting off of it, in spite of the anti-reflection coating, may still be enough to interfere with viewing the screen of the head unit. This reflection can be reduced or removed with a polarizing filter which is what you did with the polarizing plastic you added which was a very clever solution.
What I think is going on with your polarizing sun glasses is that they are not adjusted to the correct angle for the face of the head unit as they are manufactured pre-adjusted to reduce reflections off a thin layer of hot air to a cold air boundary on the surface of the road that is at a different angle than the face of the head unit. When you say that “without turning my head sideways” I think you are saying is, correct me if I’m wrong, that you are leaning your head to one side effectively rotating your polarizing sun glasses in order to reduce the reflection off of the face of the head unit. If so the polarizing plastic you added will do all that’s needed without the help of polarizing sun glasses.
Now, in the case of the rear screen of the camera which my earlier response was based on, the rear camera screen is usually viewed from straight on and any light reflected will not be polarized. Anti-reflection coating will reduce the brightness of the reflection however a polarizing filter or polarizing glasses will not help. As I described earlier the glasses can be a hindrance due to the light coming from the screen itself being polarized causing excessive dimming that can occur depending on the angle of rotation of the polarizing filter in relation to the screen.
p.19 #4 · Official: Canon Announces the EOS 6D Mark II
RustyBug wrote:
Ultra Wide Angle ... I'm not a fisheye fan.
16mm lens on FF = 16mm
16mm lens on 1.5X crop = 24mm
In order to achieve a similar fov on crop body, you have to have an 11mm lens ... and to achieve an 11mm fov you'd have to have a 7mm lens, etc.
In the case of a crop camera, I'd have to get an 11mm lens to equate to my 16-35/4 IS. To get the same IQ and performance in an 11mm lens is an additional expense and gear to manage. Having FF lets you get widest fov out of your (FF) glass. Sure, there are crop sized lenses ... but, apples to apples means keeping it at FF vs. FF ... I mean, after all the original beef presented was that the 6D2 was a FF without 4K video ... i.e. FF is the foremost requisite parameter....Show more →
Sorry about that. I was going for a humorous way to get UWA on an APS-C.
p.19 #6 · Official: Canon Announces the EOS 6D Mark II
RustyBug wrote:
...I for one am glad to see Canon bring a fully articulating display to FF (yes, Sony did first with the A99).
You know, back in 2010, Canon came out with the 60D with the flippy screen. I bought it. Everyone lambasted the camera saying the flippy screen was evidence that the camera was for amateurs. I'm glad others embrace it. It is one of the most useful features of any camera that I have owned.
p.19 #9 · Official: Canon Announces the EOS 6D Mark II
scrappydog wrote:
You know, back in 2010, Canon came out with the 60D with the flippy screen. I bought it. Everyone lambasted the camera saying the flippy screen was evidence that the camera was for amateurs. I'm glad others embrace it. It is one of the most useful features of any camera that I have owned.
When the PowerShot G1 came out, about a decade before that, it was considered a pro-sumer feature. Tempus fugit.
Jul 02, 2017 at 08:40 PM
Everythingis1 Offline • • [X]
p.19 #10 · Official: Canon Announces the EOS 6D Mark II
It's really quite sad. Instead of thinking "It's a shame this nice camera has terrible video capabilities" , like a normal thinking person, some people would rather make excuses of any type necessary to defend their brand of choice as if they personally were attacked in some way.
"You don't deserve 4k on a $2000 camera."
"That other camera might have $5000 more worth of features (in Canon world) but it's grip is smaller for when I'm taking pictures with my 6 pound lens with one hand"
"No other Full frame camera at exactly this price has 4k, so this one shouldn't either"
You people sound like battered spouses. Arguing against the absolute truth, that this camera would be better with 4k video capabilities, is substantially more crazy than them leaving it out.
p.19 #11 · Official: Canon Announces the EOS 6D Mark II
Everythingis1 wrote:
It's really quite sad. Instead of thinking "It's a shame this nice camera has terrible video capabilities" , like a normal thinking person, some people would rather make excuses of any type necessary to defend their brand of choice as if they personally were attacked in some way.
"You don't deserve 4k on a $2000 camera."
"That other camera might have $5000 more worth of features (in Canon world) but it's grip is smaller for when I'm taking pictures with my 6 pound lens with one hand"
"No other Full frame camera at exactly this price has 4k, so this one shouldn't either"
You people sound like battered spouses. Arguing against the absolute truth, that this camera would be better with 4k video capabilities, is substantially more crazy than them leaving it out. ...Show more →
This camera has a really great system for taking video. It just isn't 4k capable. The camera is the first to add the 5 axis in-camera stabilization, just for video. That's what gets me. Everyone is complaining about the lack of 4k, to the point where most amateur videographers will be more than happy to take amateur video's with it. I haven't read the entire thread front to back, but the new stabilization was completely overlooked. That is stunning to me. This is the first implementation of this system in a Canon DSLR, as far as I know, and there isn't anyone who has even mentioned it.
p.19 #12 · Official: Canon Announces the EOS 6D Mark II
Red Marx wrote:
When the PowerShot G1 came out, about a decade before that, it was considered a pro-sumer feature. Tempus fugit.
I have a Canon Elura DV camcorder. It has the tilt flippy screen and I purchased it in 2000. I really thought all cameras were going to have it, as I really like the system a lot.
Jul 02, 2017 at 09:23 PM
Everythingis1 Offline • • [X]
p.19 #13 · Official: Canon Announces the EOS 6D Mark II
Its just software image stabilization which some call "fake" image stabilization.
p.19 #14 · Official: Canon Announces the EOS 6D Mark II
Everythingis1 wrote:
The vast, vast majority of people feel the exact opposite. Nearly everyone feels that it is substantially more of a pain to lug a huge DSLR around for 6-8 hours than a Sony mirror-less camera; again almost the sole reason they have been successful.
The A9 is going up against the 1DX2/D5. A slightly wider body was not going to suddenly make it a brick to hold and a little more heft would improve it's balance with the larger telephotos that the sports/wildlife market uses.
The vast, vast, majority could have still kept using the A7 style bodies while the A9 could have been designed to appeal to those wanting a larger more comfortable body to use. If ML wants to be the future it needs to diversify and not have tunnel vision towards body styles.
p.19 #17 · Official: Canon Announces the EOS 6D Mark II
Everythingis1 wrote:
It's really quite sad. Instead of thinking "It's a shame this nice camera has terrible video capabilities" , like a normal thinking person, some people would rather make excuses of any type necessary to defend their brand of choice as if they personally were attacked in some way.
"You don't deserve 4k on a $2000 camera."
"That other camera might have $5000 more worth of features (in Canon world) but it's grip is smaller for when I'm taking pictures with my 6 pound lens with one hand"
"No other Full frame camera at exactly this price has 4k, so this one shouldn't either"
You people sound like battered spouses. Arguing against the absolute truth, that this camera would be better with 4k video capabilities, is substantially more crazy than them leaving it out. ...Show more →
This is FM ... not some other Cyber Forum. Psuedo hyperbolic ad hominem of your fellow FM'ers probably isn't the best form to present, nor aids credible establishment. I realize that you have a sum total of only a few dozen posts ... but, you might want to review what the FM decorum expectations are.
The fact is that you are (group) attacking your fellow FM'ers through your incessant assault on those who are of a different opinion than you with the name calling, etc.. Most seasoned FM'ers are polite enough to let it slide, or simply "go quiet". But, I think you might want to review the forum decorum before you go too far astray. If you don't like hearing a "gentle nudge" from me ... shoot Fred himself a PM and inquire his opinion / expectations. You haven't broken any rules of ad hominem directly per se ... but, I think you are missing the intended spirit of FM a bit.
That said, I'll add a belated ... "Welcome to FM. FM ROCKS !!!"
p.19 #18 · Official: Canon Announces the EOS 6D Mark II
bootster wrote:
The camera is the first to add the 5 axis in-camera stabilization, just for video. That's what gets me. Everyone is complaining about the lack of 4k, to the point where most amateur videographers will be more than happy to take amateur video's with it. I haven't read the entire thread front to back, but the new stabilization was completely overlooked. That is stunning to me. This is the first implementation of this system in a Canon DSLR, as far as I know, and there isn't anyone who has even mentioned it.
It's already been implemented in the 77D (as well as the M5). No one is really talking about it because it's electronic image stabilization, and not really any more useful than using software to do the same thing.
p.19 #19 · Official: Canon Announces the EOS 6D Mark II
Photonadave wrote:
Continuing the off topic segue!
OK, I think I understand what’s going on.
First, for the science part that to some degree I think you already know. When light hits the surface of clear glass like surface at an angle (not straight on) it mostly passes through with a small amount reflected that is polarized. This reflection can be filtered/cancelled out or reduced with a polarizing filter depending on the angle of the reflection and the filter rotated/adjusted to an optimal position. This occurs with a bare glass like surface as well as if it’s anti-reflection coated since these coatings not absolute or perfect meaning that they normally only reduce the reflection without completely eliminating it.
Here’s what I think’s going on with the head unit. Since the head unit is usually mounted in the center of the dash board of the car and you are probably sitting off to the side in the driver’s seat while viewing the face of the head unit at an angle to its face such that any polarized light still reflecting off of it, in spite of the anti-reflection coating, may still be enough to interfere with viewing the screen of the head unit. This reflection can be reduced or removed with a polarizing filter which is what you did with the polarizing plastic you added which was a very clever solution.
What I think is going on with your polarizing sun glasses is that they are not adjusted to the correct angle for the face of the head unit as they are manufactured pre-adjusted to reduce reflections off a thin layer of hot air to a cold air boundary on the surface of the road that is at a different angle than the face of the head unit. When you say that “without turning my head sideways” I think you are saying is, correct me if I’m wrong, that you are leaning your head to one side effectively rotating your polarizing sun glasses in order to reduce the reflection off of the face of the head unit. If so the polarizing plastic you added will do all that’s needed without the help of polarizing sun glasses.
Now, in the case of the rear screen of the camera which my earlier response was based on, the rear camera screen is usually viewed from straight on and any light reflected will not be polarized. Anti-reflection coating will reduce the brightness of the reflection however a polarizing filter or polarizing glasses will not help. As I described earlier the glasses can be a hindrance due to the light coming from the screen itself being polarized causing excessive dimming that can occur depending on the angle of rotation of the polarizing filter in relation to the screen.
I hope my explanation helps. ...Show more →
So I couldnt read the stock stereo display in the car with my polarized sunglasses on unless I rotated my head about 90 degrees. So it wasnt a problem with the reflection coming off the face of the display, it was the light being emitted by the display. Just like spinning a polarized filter on the end of a camera lens to remove a window reflection, I could do the same with my head, but that wasnt safe for driving.
This was my indication that there was some kind of anti-reflective coating on the face of the stereo, which makes sense. Now I didnt have a problem reading the back panel of my Canon 6D with my polarized sun glasses UNTIL I applied the anti-scratch LCD protector, then I had problems. My little brain put one and one together and I figured there must be some kind of anti-reflective coating also baked into the anti-scratch lcd protector, just like my stereo had. I know there could be other reasons, but in some cases I will take the simple lazy explanation that I can wrap my head around and run with it.
p.19 #20 · Official: Canon Announces the EOS 6D Mark II
AvianScott wrote:
It's already been implemented in the 77D (as well as the M5). No one is really talking about it because it's electronic image stabilization, and not really any more useful than using software to do the same thing.
Is the 1080 full frame then? Or does it have a crop of some sort to allow for the electronic stabilisation?
