Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: gdeliz on February 10, 2007, 11:00:47 pm
-
http://www.imx.nl/photosite/comments/c031.html (http://www.imx.nl/photosite/comments/c031.html)
I wonder if Canon gave MR a 1DSIII for use on his Antartica trip.
George Deliz
-
Bullshit! Canon would never repeat a model name, the 1Ds, in a 22mp form. That's a dead giveaway regarding the authenticity of this article. Pure fiction!
-
Canon has been aiming for around 25mp in their cameras for a while now so them releasing a 22mp (assuming for the moment the article is true) camera is not that far fetched.
Anyway, now that people are talking about a possible 1Ds MKIII, I feel I need to show you my insider picture of it once again. Honestly, I don't know why people don't believe me that it's real! Sheesh!
-
Canon has been aiming for around 25mp in their cameras for a while now so them releasing a 22mp (assuming for the moment the article is true) camera is not that far fetched.
Anyway, now that people are talking about a possible 1Ds MKIII, I feel I need to show you my insider picture of it once again. Honestly, I don't know why people don't believe me that it's real! Sheesh!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=100276\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Daniel, sign me up for one!
-
At least Puts is a "real" person - with a bit of a record for breaking NDA's - or so I understand.
OTOH, Chuck Westfall not too long ago seemed to be trying to dispell the thought that all 1's would be ff in the near future. I wouldn't get too caught up in the naming conventions at this point.
-
Whether or not this particular rumour is true, there does remain a persistent expectation that the next Canon pro body will be 22 mp FF. What I can't wrap my mind around is the idea that such a sensor would not be lens-bound - except perhaps for a few non-wide primes?
I would also expect an increase in noise at a given ISO, unless Canon R&D has increased the percentage of the area of each pixel that collects light.
A related question: would they be able to do without an AA filter at that res? My vague understanding is that, if the pixel count is high enough per sensor size, then moire is by-passed. But if the sensor is lens-bound, whether intrinsically or due to a less-than-perfect lens being used for a given shot, I'd think the potential for moire would return; and Canon cannot afford any such controversy, esp. on the flagship model. Perhaps then, a removable AA or even a series of interchangeable, graduated AAs?
Image quality is about far more than resolving power. At a minimum one wants lack of noise, exposure latitude, colour gradations, and colour accuracy. So a broader debate might be: a) is there an optimum pixel count for a given sensor size (excepting very specialized applications)? b) if the answer to a) is yes, then given the current state of sensor technology, what is the optimum pixel count for APS and FF sensor sizes?
-
Bullshit! Canon would never repeat a model name, the 1Ds, in a 22mp form. That's a dead giveaway regarding the authenticity of this article. Pure fiction!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=100266\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Not the same, but remember the D30--and then the 30D. That pretty much astounded me. Of course, they weren't the 'same' name--and I agree--they won't repeat the name as such.
Diane
-
Canon has been aiming for around 25mp in their cameras for a while now so them releasing a 22mp (assuming for the moment the article is true) camera is not that far fetched.
Anyway, now that people are talking about a possible 1Ds MKIII, I feel I need to show you my insider picture of it once again. Honestly, I don't know why people don't believe me that it's real! Sheesh!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=100276\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
With reference to the illustration of the camera - I particularly like the wide range of options in Adam's mode - hilarious! The 'money' button would come in handy in direct printing mode.
Julie
-
I particularly like the wide range of options in Adam's mode - hilarious! The 'money' button would come in handy in direct printing mode.
I think the lack of a direct print button is what clearly shows that Daniel's inside scoop is more than two years old, but the lack of an ISO button or wheel proves that it was a genuine prototype at the time.
-
I think the lack of a direct print button is what clearly shows that Daniel's inside scoop is more than two years old, but the lack of an ISO button or wheel proves that it was a genuine prototype at the time.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=100356\")
As far as I know, the latest iteration of the Canon flagship camera not only has the direct print button but also a new [a href=\"http://www.campaignforrealbeauty.com/flat4.asp?id=6909]Dove Evolution[/url] button!
-
As interesting as the article is it is more memorable for what it misses out than what it includes. The focus on megapixel count does not do justice to the new Canon cameras, nor does it explain the slight delay in their launch. This delay was primarily caused be a need to wait for Microsoft to launch Vista to the general public as so many benefits of the new camears are tied in with the workflow benefits that Vista brings for the working photographer.
I think Mr Puts's understanding of the new Canon cameras is slightly wrong - they do include internal memory. However, if using Windows Media Photo it is possible to compress the image to such an extent and transmit the image over WiFi (wireless-G) without effectively saturating the link. This means the image does not need to be stored in the camera but can be immediately transmitted to the software on Vista for further display and/or processing and printing.
Other benefits of Windows Media Photo are that it can handle full 16-bit compressible images with a range of compression options from uncompressed to compressed. It is a bit like being able to generate an instant TIFF/JPEG with 16-bit per channel image depth and a fully adjustable compression setting.
-
I think the fact that the file can no longer be found is a good indication of how accurate the article was.
To summarize (if I remember correctly) , he said there will be two models both full frame in a package of similar size to the Canon 1V film camera. And both fully sealed as are the current 1D models.
2:3 aspect will be kept. The lower megapixel model (16mp?) will sell for around $4500. There will be also a 22mp model. Thats about all I remember. Anyone else remember more?
-
... The focus on megapixel count does not do justice to the new Canon cameras, nor does it explain the slight delay in their launch. This delay was primarily caused be a need to wait for Microsoft to launch Vista to the general public as so many benefits of the new camears are tied in with the workflow benefits that Vista brings for the working photographer.
...[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=100444\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Canon delaying a release because of something Microsoft is doing?
I really don't think so.
George Deliz
-
Well the wait is about over. Can't wait (and waiting probably will be the norm) to see the new offerings at PMA in March.
Problem is even if there is something great coming it probably won't be available for shipment for a while. More waiting.
Fun to speculate
-
I think the fact that the file can no longer be found is a good indication of how accurate the article was.
To summarize (if I remember correctly) , he said there will be two models both full frame in a package of similar size to the Canon 1V film camera. And both fully sealed as are the current 1D models.
2:3 aspect will be kept. The lower megapixel model (16mp?) will sell for around $4500. There will be also a 22mp model. Thats about all I remember. Anyone else remember more?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=100462\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Doug,
I usually don't bother with these never-ending rumors too much, but for some reason I saved it as a webarchive file on my MAC:
"In my original article about the Canon 5D I reflected on the technical and more philosophical aspects of the ?barnack?-format for digital cameras. I noted that the 5D was a milestone camera because of feasibility of a large sensor at an affordable price. It was and it is my view that the 35mm format and the matched optics to create classical viewing angles and classical depth of field gradients, in addition to the artistic aspects of using the 2:3 format that has to be mastered before you can compose interesting pictures.
Olympus went for the easy way with the 4:3 format, that is much easier to use and conforms to the ubiquitous TV screen format that is a constant visual companion on today's culture.
In the current issue of AP, Geoffrey Crawley looks at the aspects of image quality tht is attainable with the full format (35mm) and the APS-C format that is roughly equivalent to half frame, and retains the 2:3 relation. He concludes that image wise there is a draw: both sensor areas deliver the same imagery. He compares two systems that have about the same pixel size and then it is not surprising that theoretically and with test charts the same image quality is possible. But there is much more to analyse here. In my comparison of the M8 with the 5D, the Canon gave somewhat better resolution despite having a larger pixel size. It is the software stupid! You can hear Bill Clinton shouting. And my Siemens star results indicated that the MTF values in the region from 30% to 10% of the Nyquist maximum are critical for effective image quality.
Presumably the debate will go on for a while and that is fine. We simply do not know that much about digital capture and digital processing as we know about chemical processing the silver halide grain. Here we have an history of 100 years of cumulative experience, but in the digital arena our knowledge spans hardly a decade. And myths are already all over the place!
You can like or hate Canon, but one theme is obvious: here we have a company that has a very steady course and a very clearly defined goal for the next ten years. Some cameras that were introduced over the last thirty years might draw negative comments and did not become world beaters. There main fault in retrospect has been to focus too long on the amateur market and leaving Nikon alone in the professional pond. But since the EOS body emerged around 1985, the company exhibits a singular drive.
The new D1 packs the sensor of the 5D in a really robust body, the film-loading 1V (end to that era?). The capture speed is very high and there is that mysterious comment that the 1D has no memory buffer, presumably wring directly to the flash card. The new 1Ds shares the same body and brings the pixel count to 22 million on a 24x36mm area. The most intriguing remark is Canons statement that from now on there will be no more 1.3 crop sensors. The strategy then is clear: the amateur market will be served by APS-C with 1.5/1.6 crop factor and a new range of lenses. The professional high-end market will be exclusively served by full-format sensors allowing all Canon lenses to operate at the true computed focal length and viewing angle. Canon seems to be quite confident that the problems with the 35mm format can be addressed and overcome. There is now also an ISO 6400 value available. The new cameras will be formidable instruments, the 1D attacking the professional market for mobile photography and the 1Ds (with 22 M pixels) attacking the medium format stationary (studio) photography. There is a risk here: many professional reportage photographers do not want nor need that huge amount of pixels. Is Nikon smarter in this respect and listening more closely to the market?
Nikon continues to state that they will not embark on that route and stay faithful to the APS format derivatives. For how long we may ask?
The 1D will retail for 4500 dollars and will be cheaper than the Leica M8. This is not a clash of civilisations, but a minor clash of belief. The M8 couples a mechanical film-loading body to a solid state sensor and retains as much of the classical values as can be done within the technological constraints.
The 1D couples a fully electronic film-loading body to a full 35mm format solid state sensor and skips as much of the classical values as can be accomplished within operational constraints. There is no doubt in what direction the mainstream buyer will move. Canon is shaping the market and the others are more or less responding to market trends as they are perceived by the gurus.
Leica has been troubled over the last decade by a most erratic decision making process by a series of CEO's and this decision making is reflected in the current stable of products. One really hopes that there will be now a steady developing strategy with a clearly defined future vision for the product range to be developed.
The Canon strategy is very consistent and very profitable. Their choice for the classical 35mm format for the high-end camera system is somewhat surprising, given the fact that they are alone in this choice, but then the market power of Canon is quite strong.
Now the competition must react. "
Other than the availability of ISO 6400 and the apparent demise of the high-speed 1.3 crop versions I did not notice much else that was of interest to me. But I guess we will all know the full details soon enough.
Ian Donald
-
Other benefits of Windows Media Photo are that it can handle full 16-bit compressible images with a range of compression options from uncompressed to compressed. It is a bit like being able to generate an instant TIFF/JPEG with 16-bit per channel image depth and a fully adjustable compression setting.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=100444\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Then there's that great benefit of it being a proprietary file format and companies having the pleasure of paying MS licensing fees to use it. Top that off with Mac users (a significantly large portion of our industry) will love not being able access them.
I highly doubt that format will go anywhere with our industry heading towards non-proprietary formats (i.e. DNG). The tech industry already has been burnt twice by proprietary formats. Once with .gif and its LZW compression and once again with jpeg. Why would anyone want to risk the cost and hassle of history repeating itself a third time? WMP will fizzle off into oblivion like Jpeg2000 has.
I really don't see where you got the idea WMP came anywhere into the picture. You seemed to have pulled that one out the back end along with your idea Canon is waiting for Vista. Neither make a lick of sense.
-
A related question: would they be able to do without an AA filter at that res? My vague understanding is that, if the pixel count is high enough per sensor size, then moire is by-passed. But if the sensor is lens-bound, whether intrinsically or due to a less-than-perfect lens being used for a given shot, I'd think the potential for moire would return; and Canon cannot afford any such controversy, esp. on the flagship model. Perhaps then, a removable AA or even a series of interchangeable, graduated AAs?
You have it backwards. The greater the pixel count of the sensor, the less likely moire becomes. An AA filter blurs the image slightly; just enought to prevent moire. When the sensor can outresolve the lens by a significant enough margin, the lens itself proveides enough blur that an AA filter is not necessary to prevent moire. At 22MP, a few lenses might be sharp enough (like the 135/2L) to need an AA filter to prevent moire in some cases, but most lenses probably wouldn't.
Now if the rumor of a new line of "ultra-L" lenses designed to meet the demands of the 22MP sensor is true, then Canon would probably keep the AA filter to avoid being crucified for moire by those who bought them.
-
Then there's that great benefit of it being a proprietary file format and companies having the pleasure of paying MS licensing fees to use it. Top that off with Mac users (a significantly large portion of our industry) will love not being able access them.
Sort of like PSD, then, only cheaper?
I highly doubt that format will go anywhere with our industry heading towards non-proprietary formats (i.e. DNG). The tech industry already has been burnt twice by proprietary formats. Once with .gif and its LZW compression and once again with jpeg. Why would anyone want to risk the cost and hassle of history repeating itself a third time? WMP will fizzle off into oblivion like Jpeg2000 has.
Why indeed.
Why did people get burnt by Word 2.0, 6.0, Office 97, 2000, XP, 2003, and why will they get burnt by Office 2007?
Just face it: Microsoft's market power is currently great enough -- and it has been for quite some time! -- to define standards, and violate them at will, thereby redefining them.
Who else recalls when ".doc" implied that the file was a plaintext document?
Who else recalls HTML before Microsoft?
-
Now if the rumor of a new line of "ultra-L" lenses designed to meet the demands of the 22MP sensor is true, then Canon would probably keep the AA filter to avoid being crucified for moire by those who bought them.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=100502\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm not 100% sure about this, but doesn't the 10mp 400D still have an AA filter? This level of pixel density on a full frame 35mm sensor equates to about 26mp, doesn't it?
-
Sort of like PSD, then, only cheaper?
Why indeed.
Why did people get burnt by Word 2.0, 6.0, Office 97, 2000, XP, 2003, and why will they get burnt by Office 2007?
Just face it: Microsoft's market power is currently great enough -- and it has been for quite some time! -- to define standards, and violate them at will, thereby redefining them.
Who else recalls when ".doc" implied that the file was a plaintext document?
Who else recalls HTML before Microsoft?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=100519\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
MS's WMP is offering something that pretty much already exists in a market that is well established. It does not offer anything compelling enough to cause people to abandon what is available already nor is it tied to any specific software application that will be used in a professional market.
The file formats for MS Office became as widely used because of the success of MS Office at a time when the market was fairly small and much younger than it is today. MS's domination of Office formats is coming to an end however. Office 07 uses a partially open XML-based format and MS has released a document converter that will convert files to the Open Document standard used by Open Office.
HTML? That is not a MS owned standard. It's an open standard controlled by the WC3 and has been around long before MS was even remotely interested in the internet. Everyone follows the HTML standard in their web-browsers, even MS.
-
Whether or not this particular rumour is true ...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=100309\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I have now been persuaded that it is not: Putts apparently reproduces exactly some acknowledged speculations published earlier at another site.
A related question: would they be able to do without an AA filter at that res?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=100309\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Not even close, I would say. At center field at least, Canon lenses are keeping up with the 5.7 micron pixel size of the 400D, smaller than the pixel size needed for 22MP in 24x36mm. There is a long transition zone between "some detectable loss of resolution to lens limitations, maybe only at the edges of the frame" and "resolution totally limited by lenses, not sensors". [See footnote.]The former might be happening at the edges of the 24x36mm frame with 7.2 micron pixels, but I would guess that the latter will not happen until about about 2 microns or smaller. You probably cannot rely on the image from the center of the field of a 35mm lens of a given focal length (say 50mm) being less sharp than with good smaller format lenses, like digicam lenses, which do resolve down to about 2 microns and maybe even below.
An intermediate approach might be using a very mild AA filter combined with further low pass filtering in the digital domain. After all, moiré is rather rare, so it would be nice to be able to do full strength AA filtering only as necessary, without sacrificing resolution on every image including moiré-free ones.
Footnote: I think that this is the mistake in some interpretations of Myrvold's calculations on diffraction effects on resolution: he determines roughly the first threshold, but seems to misinterpret it at places as saying that diffraction alone determines overall resolution as soon as one is beyond that threshold.
-
MS's WMP is offering something that pretty much already exists in a market that is well established. It does not offer anything compelling enough to cause people to abandon what is available already nor is it tied to any specific software application that will be used in a professional market.
Newsflash: the professional market may not be what Microsoft is aiming for here.
As is usual, their "gratis" software is targeted at the casual user, in business or private.
It doesn't have to be "compelling enough to cause people to abandon" anything else, Microsoft proved that with Word (vs. WordPerfect), Excel (vs. several competitors), Internet Explorer (vs. Netscape and other competitors), and so on.
The file formats for MS Office became as widely used because of the success of MS Office at a time when the market was fairly small and much younger than it is today.
Not too dissimilar to the image editing market today, then.
People are just discovering that they can fiddle about with their images. Guess which OS they'll mostly do it in, and whether they'll prefer to do it with a pre-packaged tool from Microsoft, or from a third party vendor.
MS's domination of Office formats is coming to an end however. Office 07 uses a partially open XML-based format and MS has released a document converter that will convert files to the Open Document standard used by Open Office.
I'm a bit confused. Didn't you just claim that the XMP (HD Photo) format wouldn't catch on? Yet you seem to claim that their partially open format just might. Are you unaware that the image format for XPS is, in fact, the HD Photo format?
HTML? That is not a MS owned standard. It's an open standard controlled by the WC3 and has been around long before MS was even remotely interested in the internet. Everyone follows the HTML standard in their web-browsers, even MS.
Are you serious? One of the major problems in web development the past ten years or so has been that Microsoft has had their own, non-compliant interpretation of HTML and associated standards (like CSS and in-browser scripting).
I'm perfectly aware that HTML doesn't "own" HTML, but the message I was trying to get across, was that Microsoft "embraced and extended" HTML to something that only worked well in Internet Explorer, and that worked mostly well in Opera because it emulated (well, attempted to emulate) Internet Explorer on demand.
As of Internet Explorer 7, Microsoft has nearly gotten to the point of following the current standards. I expect that Internet Explorer 9 might actually get there, but by then the standards will be far beyond again.
No, I seriously think that we'll be dealing with HD Photo as a format in the coming years. Whether it will be long-lived like various TIFF derivatives and JPEG remains to be seen.
-
Not even close, I would say. At center field at least, Canon lenses are keeping up with the 5.7 micron pixel size of the 400D, smaller than the pixel size needed for 22MP in 24x36mm. There is a long transition zone between "some detectable loss of resolution to lens limitations, maybe only at the edges of the frame" and "resolution totally limited by lenses, not sensors".
Indeed! This appears to be the case and I guess anyone who owns both a 400D and a 5D could confirm this by shooting the same scene with both cameras, using the same lens and f stop.
I have no doubt that resolution near the edges and corners of the 35mm frame is limited by lens MTF, using either the 5D and 1Ds2, with some lenses, particularly wide-angle lenses and particularly at wide apertures. The Photodo MTF charts demonstrate how poor the MTF response can be at just 40 lp/mm, towards the corners with some lenses. At 50 or 60 lp/mm I would deduce that MTF would sometimes be non-existent.
But the fact remains that resolution at and near the centre of the image generally has a higher priority because the main focus of interest in most compositions tends to be in the central area. There are always exceptions of course.
Another issue here is that we simply don't see MTF tests of the fixed lenses in P&S cameras. All we see are 'system' resolution tests. It's therefore not clear to what extent the greater resolution, shown on line test charts, is due to a lens that begins to be diffraction limited at wider apertures (than is generally the case with 35mm lenses), or a sensor that is simply higher resolving.
-
Are you serious? One of the major problems in web development the past ten years or so has been that Microsoft has had their own, non-compliant interpretation of HTML and associated standards (like CSS and in-browser scripting).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=100575\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You're confusing "browser extensions" and ActiveX controls with HTML. Extensions are something every web browser does (the ActiveX controls are what Opera is emulating). My comments on HTML on it's own still stand.
The problem web developers have had (something I'm very familiar with BTW developing my site for the last 4 years) was with the terrible implementation of CSS v1 in IE6 along with the 6 year stagnation of IE 6. IE 7 updates support for CSS up to cover CSS v2 along with some of the pre-release CSS v3 specs.
As to your rest, whatever you say man. You are entitled to your theories but we'll see what will happen soon enough now that Vista is out.
-
Now if the rumor of a new line of "ultra-L" lenses designed to meet the demands of the 22MP sensor is true, then Canon would probably keep the AA filter to avoid being crucified for moire by those who bought them.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=100502\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
When I've heard stories what what Leica and Zeiss go through to get some of their top lenses, I seriously wonder if Canon would be able to do this (if they have the technology to mass produce real ultra L's) I mean, you hear about glass cooling for *years*...At some level, glass production seems more complicated, more artisan-related, than computer systems; and not especially amenable to Canon-style mass production.
JC
-
When I've heard stories what what Leica and Zeiss go through to get some of their top lenses, I seriously wonder if Canon would be able to do this (if they have the technology to mass produce real ultra L's) I mean, you hear about glass cooling for *years*...At some level, glass production seems more complicated, more artisan-related, than computer systems; and not especially amenable to Canon-style mass production.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=100592\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think you have a very good point here. If their rumored new lenses are anything like the EF 16-35/2.8L, I will not be pleased. The EF 24-105/4L IS and 70-200/2.8L IS have served me well but some of the others have not been so good, especially the EF 16-35/2.8L!
Bryan
-
and not especially amenable to Canon-style mass production.
JC
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=100592\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
A lot of their L lenses are hand built (I visited one of the lens factories when I worked for Canon). For a more up to date look:
www.canon.com/camera-museum/tech/l_plant/f_index.html
-
the artistic aspects of using the 2:3 format that has to be mastered before you can compose interesting pictures
Interesting counterpoint to Michael's article on cropping (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/und-crop.shtml) the other day!
-
You're confusing "browser extensions" and ActiveX controls with HTML.
No, I'm not.
Extensions are something every web browser does (the ActiveX controls are what Opera is emulating). My comments on HTML on it's own still stand.
In that case, you have not had experience with the non-standard rendering of elements that's been present in most versions of Internet Explorer so far. And no, we're not just talking about CSS.
-
I think you have a very good point here. If their rumored new lenses are anything like the EF 16-35/2.8L, I will not be pleased. The EF 24-105/4L IS and 70-200/2.8L IS have served me well but some of the others have not been so good, especially the EF 16-35/2.8L!
In what way are you dissatisfied with the latter?
I must admit to only having tested one sample of the lens, but that was noticeably better than the 17-40 f/4L I have, which I'm fairly satisfied with image wise.
Since we're using the same camera (EOS 20D), I thinkg that it ought not be corner sharpness and vignetting.
-
As interesting as the article is it is more memorable for what it misses out than what it includes. The focus on megapixel count does not do justice to the new Canon cameras, nor does it explain the slight delay in their launch. This delay was primarily caused be a need to wait for Microsoft to launch Vista to the general public as so many benefits of the new camears are tied in with the workflow benefits that Vista brings for the working photographer.
WTF?
Canon would wait for an OS of unproven stability; one which even existing Windows users are unlikely to have hardware to run; one for which drivers for many devices are notable by their absence; and of course ignore the subset of photographers (a larger subset by percentage than the proportion of Mac users in the entire PC market) who use Macs?
Yours in dumbfounded disbelieving astonishment,
Giles
P.S. If I didn't recognise your name, I'd assume you were trolling. Bad day at the office?
-
HTML? That is not a MS owned standard. It's an open standard controlled by the WC3 and has been around long before MS was even remotely interested in the internet. Everyone follows the HTML standard in their web-browsers, even MS.
Well, they think they do. The implementations in Internet Explorer so far have been highly idiosyncratic (to put it politely) and blatantly non-standards conformant to be accurate.
We'll see what they've done with IE7. But I'm not optimistic.
Cheers,
Giles
[ Deleted original reply and reposted: confused 61Dynamic with DiaAzul for a moment, making my original reply nonsensical. --giles ]
-
In what way are you dissatisfied with the latter?
I must admit to only having tested one sample of the lens, but that was noticeably better than the 17-40 f/4L I have, which I'm fairly satisfied with image wise.
Since we're using the same camera (EOS 20D), I thinkg that it ought not be corner sharpness and vignetting.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=100861\")
My tests of a Canon 17-40, 16-35, Nikon 17-35 and a Sigma 15-30 on a 1DsMKII.
My current wide lenses of favor are the Sigma 12-24, Canon 24-70 and the 24-105.
sorry...forgot the link!
[a href=\"http://www.pbase.com/infocusinc/wide_zoom_test]http://www.pbase.com/infocusinc/wide_zoom_test[/url]
-
Well from what i have been hearing the 1DsmkIII or whatever it is to be called is not ready for release at this years PMA. I am not willing to bet either way