Nik, maybe I missed it, but what's the point of having face detection after the shot? Some post-processing help, or? I always considered its primary purpose to be to help with focus. I suppose you could use it to more easily check to make sure your shots were in focus on the face when reviewing them, but I don't think that's a huge deal.
Geoff,
I agree a square sensor would be great, I would certainly be excited about a camera like that. I don't see it happening on the consumer level though, there would be too much confusion with regards to cropping when it came for prints. I don't think an average point&shoot type shooter could handle thinking about the framing properly, they have have enough trouble with it as is.
nikt wrote:
Hi Geoff, I'd love to have some incite into the 1D thats been mentioned. A square sensor would certainly be enough to be 'very excitied' about, wouldn't it. Nik,
I'd love to have some insight into this too... But as mentioned - this is just speculaiton about the possible.... I'd love to be right though - I think I'd
have to have one"
Who knows what Canon Japan marketing people find "very exciting" anyway... (or indeed any marketing people!)
kisielk wrote:
Geoff,
I agree a square sensor would be great, I would certainly be excited about a camera like that. I don't see it happening on the consumer level though, there would be too much confusion with regards to cropping when it came for prints. I don't think an average point&shoot type shooter could handle thinking about the framing properly, they have have enough trouble with it as is.
Exactly - this would be for the 1 series only (which is I guess squarely targetd at Pros) - to differentiate it from the FF in the mid range and APS-C in the entry level DSLR... What a great way to help keep Pros paying 2 to 3 times the 5D price for a 1Ds etc...
Speculation is good. Its what we're here for. Plus, there's always bragging rights.
On the other note, speaking with the Sony rep , they got really excited about what was coming out...... touch screen cameras. Geez, we thought , is that it? However, Olympus were telling us of some really interesting stuff to watch out for, something you've not seen before. It was of course the E-330.
Well, I never saw that one coming. People in the shop would hold up the DSLR and try to use the LCD, and I use to say, "No its a real camera, you have to use the view finder." They would huff and puff. Now I don't argue, I just give them the E330 and say, "here you go, this is what you want".
Yeah, the recent Olympus announcements are very encouraging. Looks like there's room for innovation in this industry yet, just when the last few years were starting to look boring and bleak...
One thing about Olympus, they do try. Waterproof / shock proof cameras. the C-8080 and smaller brother range (these cameras I miss, along with the G6), live view, anti dust. They don't always get it right (a la 4/3rds) no-one ever does, but they have a go at being more 'truely' innovative than the other camera manufacturers.
Oh come on, it's on the first page of the PMA rumour post where I copy/pasted Doug Pardee's little PMA date and Canon announcement information...
So, 3 to 5 days in advance. And since this PMA starts on thursday the 8th, my guess is that Canon will tell something about its plans on monday the 5th.
Imagine it - a 36 x 36mm sensor - that’s 50% more pixels for the same sensor pixel size... If we are thinking 22Mp for a APS sensor this new APS_M format would be 33MP...
Now this is just total speculation (after all the rumours are few and far between)... But imagine it.... All those L series lenses reused... Seriously targeting the Hasselblads etc at 1/2 to 1/3 the price...
[...]
But hang on... Don't most lenses have internal (3:2 shaped) baffles to reduce ghosting and improve contrast by blocking stray light? That would kinda defeat the use of existing EF glass for 1:1 ratio full width use, wouldn't it?
nikt wrote:
One thing about Olympus, they do try. Waterproof / shock proof cameras. the C-8080 and smaller brother range (these cameras I miss, along with the G6), live view, anti dust. They don't always get it right (a la 4/3rds) no-one ever does, but they have a go at being more 'truely' innovative than the other camera manufacturers.
If only they didn't insist on using those horribly slow xD cards..
Tentacle wrote:
But hang on... Don't most lenses have internal (3:2 shaped) baffles to reduce ghosting and improve contrast by blocking stray light? That would kinda defeat the use of existing EF glass for 1:1 ratio full width use, wouldn't it?
Hm, I don't recall this being the case, but it's quite possible. I'll have to take a look at my lenses when I get home and see. If you have any net info on the internal build of the lenses, I'd love to see it.
Hm, I don't recall this being the case, but it's quite possible. I'll have to take a look at my lenses when I get home and see. If you have any net info on the internal build of the lenses, I'd love to see it.
It's an educated guess on my part. I've read in a technical article on lenses that says that internal baffles will help in improving contrast by blocking/absorbing stray light. I also know that lens hoods are shaped to match the aspect ratio of the system. Just look at, for example, the EF 15 mm f/2.8 fish with fixed hood, or the EF 14 mm f/2.8 L USM. Those hoods are clearly not shaped for 1:1 because the sides do not extend as much as the top and bottom lip of the hood.
From that point I would guess that the internals are also shaped to match the aspect ratio, but of that I'm not certain.
XD., ha. I bought a C-7070 because it also had compact flash. If it was only XD, I would have passed. Fuji's got it right though. Their new F40 takes SD and XD, so they are moving away from that silly little card.
announcement season has already begun...canon announced 3 powershot updates on the 18th....not exactly the news you were looking for, but i image the oly announcements were not what their e-system users were looking for either.....
Tentacle wrote:
But hang on... Don't most lenses have internal (3:2 shaped) baffles to reduce ghosting and improve contrast by blocking stray light? That would kinda defeat the use of existing EF glass for 1:1 ratio full width use, wouldn't it?
Ah... Some Googling and it looks like you are right - a proportion of EF lenses do (e.g. the 24-105 F4L)... However I also found some interesting info from Canon US at this link http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0602/westfall.html Chuck Westfall wrote Q: One thing I miss about shooting medium-format film is the square format. Square was better for me because cropping was easier after the fact. I didn't need as wide a lens either, because more information was captured on both the horizontal and vertical. A camera lens creates a round image circle, so it makes sense to use a square format to capture as much information as possible in a single shot. Now that I'm shooting digital SLRs, I have to put up with the shortcomings of the 35mm format again; too long and narrow for portrait framing, and constantly switching from horizontal to vertical to get a variety of compositions. I'm always wishing for a wider lens in a bag already full of lenses, because the 35mm format just isn't efficient. Remember how frustrating it was making an 8X10 print with a 35mm negative? So I'm curious why SLR manufacturers overlook the magic of the square when they embarked on the digital path. A "square" SLR would be simpler to build and use since it doesn't need to be flipped on its side. Easier flash on-camera flash usage too. Bumping up megapixel resolution would be easily accommodated by square sensors. Less time would be wasted from having to flip the camera back and forth, and unique photo opportunities could be captured without regret of original camera orientation. What is the fascination with the 35mm format? It's neither panoramic nor "perfect." It forces a photographer to accept the limitations of its dimensions. I wish camera manufacturers would realize the benefit and power of the square, or at least the "golden" rectangle, which offers probably some of the most interesting compositions due to its mathematical intrigue. And forget trying to sell me a digital back for medium format. It's overkill for publication work, and too expensive. I am thankful, however, for the quality of the images coming from today's digital SLRs.
A: It's hindsight now, but clearly a big reason for sticking with the 35mm format in digital SLRs is the wide range of lenses made for that format. One could argue that these lenses project a circular image, and could therefore be accommodated by a square format SLR design, but it turns out that many lenses like the EF14mm f/2.8L, EF20-35mm f/3.5-4.5, EF 28mm f/1.8, etc. feature built-in rectangular baffles to reduce flare. Using these lenses on a square format camera would result in harsh vignetting. However, your points about the desirability of square format and 8x10 aspect ratio are certainly valid, so other options are being explored, including modified focusing screens that crop or mask the 35mm format to square or 8x10 ratios. This is not the perfect solution, but as new cameras with higher resolutions are developed, there is at least the possibility of providing built-in cropping options that could be reflected in software for easier post-processing. Thanks for the feedback!...Show more →
Interesting
Indeed interesting.
What is more interesting - at least IMHO - is the 28/1.8 USM - is the most flare prone lens I ever used. That leads me to believe that this built-in rectangular baffle is completely useless. My 17-40/4 does not have it and it is extremely flare resistant. I guess that improved design is better than adding all sort of aids.
Yakim Peled wrote:
Indeed interesting.
What is more interesting - at least IMHO - is the 28/1.8 USM - is the most flare prone lens I ever used. That leads me to believe that this built-in rectangular baffle is completely useless. My 17-40/4 does not have it and it is extremely flare resistant. I guess that improved design is better than adding all sort of aids.
You're comparing an apple to a pear. One is fast, 2 1/3rd stop faster, but not L quality, at 2/3rd the price of the other. The other is a zoom, but restricted to max f/4 over the whole range so in effect the aperture is acting as a baffle at shorter focal lengths. 40 mm at f/4 means a light path diameter of 10 mm. If that's unrestricted at 17 mm it'd be f/1.7, but it isn't.
Edited by Tentacle on Jan 26, 2007 at 11:04 AM GMT
I don´t know if it was already published here but in CAMEX , Netherlands it has appear briefly in its web page announced the new Canon 1Ds MkIII by 13.300€ !! > $17.000 two days ago.
The link is reflected in Northlight Web Site with some screen captures.
Tentacle wrote:
You're comparing an apple to a pear. One is fast, 2 1/3rd stop faster, but not L quality, at 2/3rd the price of the other. The other is a zoom, but restricted to max f/4 over the whole range so in effect the aperture is acting as a baffle at shorter focal lengths. 40 mm at f/4 means a light path diameter of 10 mm. If that's unrestricted at 17 mm it'd be f/1.7, but it isn't.
Edited by Tentacle on Jan 26, 2007 at 11:04 AM GMT
I really can't see the relationship between the two. I used most Canon lenses up to 300mm. I had L primes, L zooms, non-L primes and non-L zooms. For example, the 35/2 is very fast and very flare resistant. The 50/1.8 and 50/1.4 are also very fast and show only little flare. The 70-200/4 and 70-300/4-5.6 IS are slow and also show little flare.
I also used a small number of third party lenses. The Sigma 15-30 was VERY bad in this regard but the 28/1.8 USM was even worse...
Juan55 wrote:
I don´t know if it was already published here but in CAMEX , Netherlands it has appear briefly in its web page announced the new Canon 1Ds MkIII by 13.300€ !! > $17.000 two days ago.
The link is reflected in Northlight Web Site with som screen captures.
