November 29, 2014, 04:17:05 AM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - traveller

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 45
1
Thanks to everyone who answered,  especially those that stayed on topic  ;)

Apologies for not posting this earlier (I've been offline for over a week),  but for anyone still reading,  here is an update:

Based upon the advice here, availability in my local market and portability requirements,  I have just purchased a new 15" Macbook Pro (base model). Whilst I am grateful for the many alternative suggestions,  I simply couldn't find any available locally (importing isn't an easy option either).

Owning a Mac is a new experience for me, I've never used anything but Windows (unless one counts AmigaOS and Sinclair Basic, but we won't go there!  :D ). I plumped for the 15" model because whilst I'm away from home, I'm not really travelling around. I don't want to commit to an external monitor, but nor do I need to carry the laptop around every day. 16GB of RAM should help in future proofing too. 

Thanks again to everyone! 

2
EOS Bodies / Re: A Real EOS M Replacement Coming Soon? [CR1]
« on: November 17, 2014, 11:48:48 AM »
It needs to be as good as an Olympus E-M1, a Panasonic GH4 or a Fuji X-T1. Anything less will not cause people to switch back to Canon.

I think that getting anyone who has bought into another mirrorless system to switch back to Canon is a big ask for a single camera at this stage. The best that Canon can hope for is to persuade the remaining fence sitters to try the EOS-M, probably those who already own a Canon DSLR.

It's going to be a tough slog for Canon to get back into the mirrorless game; not only are they're behind on just about every metric, but they've demonstrated only luke warm interest in the market so far. If you had to spend your hard earned cash on buying into a mirrorless system right now, what would pursuade you to get an EOS-M? The only sane argument is price; that's not a good place to be when you're a company that has built a reputation upon being the professional's choice.

The next EOS-M needs to be a great camera, because we all know that DXO will tear its sensor to shreds (unless Canon make the unlikely decision to debut new sensor technology in the EOS-M replacement, rather than the 7D Mk2). Some more interesting lens choices are not a just a nice-to-have, but a must-do-now.

3
Apologies for my lack of posts over the past few months, I've been living overseas and only have a tablet with me -the touch sceen interface is very frustrating for use on the CR Forum.

This leads me onto my next request: I am looking for a laptop, on which I can edit my photos. For the past few years I have used a Windows desktop, but I don't like Windows 8 (I know that Windows 10 is coming, but when?). I never thought I'd say it, but I am willing to consider a Macbook, as the price premium doesn't seem so high compared to desktop machines and the Apple laptops are so nice! (side note: can you transfer an Adobe CC licence from Windows to Mac OS?)

The difficulty where I am living is the lack of choice at the higher end of the laptop spectrum: I want a nice IPS screen, SSD (256MB should be enough with external HDD?), enough RAM and cpu speed to run Photoshop CC for the next few years (moving target, I know). I don't play games or edit video. My desktop is early 2013 Core i7 with 16gb Ram (no SSD) and I wouldn't want my laptop to be noticeably slower. My choices boil down to (what is available in the local market):

-Mackbook Pro 13" or 15"
-Dell XPS 13 or 15 (I believe that these may be older versions without the SSD)
-Lenovo Yoga 2
(-any other suggestions, but will depend on local availability)

Are the screen size differences really noticeable? And portability? Will 8gb RAM be enough? What about in 2-3 years time?

I would appreciate any advice that people have on the subject. I'm asking on this forum because I know that you guys know what I need better than non-photographers, who have never touched a RAW file.

(note - I am aware that I've just asked the computer equivalent of the Canon vs. Nikon question, but as this is not Macrumors.com or whatever, please could I not invoke a flame war?!)

4
EOS Bodies / Re: Next Rebel Going EVF? [CR1]
« on: October 05, 2014, 08:06:53 AM »
This thread is a perfect example of how discussions on CR (and most forums) degenerate into personal attacks.  ::)

The title of the thread is "Next Rebel going EVF"; everyone should frame their discussions within this context and stop dragging high-end DSLRs, cinema cameras and large format film cameras into the mix. The question is whether an EVF would be superior to a 0.5x pentamirror optical viewfinder for the majority of that camera's target market, not whether EVFs or OVFs are always superior. Not that our opinions are really that relevant, as for the most part, we are not the target demographic. 

5
EOS Bodies / Re: Medium Format Announcement a \
« on: August 12, 2014, 10:08:25 PM »
I've always struggled to see why talk of "their brand" introducing a medium format system gets certain users (thankfully,  not so many on this particular forum) so excited. Sure, if it offers something truly innovative in the field, be that size, performance or price, then all existing and potential MF users should be happy, no matter which brand. All we are hearing (except maybe from Sony) is vague "Canon/Nikon are plannng a new MF system" rumours. Great, but the key word here is "system" and any MF system would be more or less completely incompatible with any manufacturer's current 35mm systems,  so who cares about brand? Once you've decided to change format, you are a free agent again and no longer tied to a mount by years of spending on lenses etc. (I refuse to use the term "investment" ). Unless of course, you are total Canon or Nikon fanboy  ;D  ;D  ;D

6
Canon General / Re: Canada Post Thefts Halt Lens Rentals Canada Service
« on: August 01, 2014, 10:14:38 PM »
Sorry to hear about your problems.

I haven't trusted the Royal Mail in the UK for years: increasing competition has created a race to the bottom,  where Royal Mail and the private couriers have driven out costs by hiring temps and subcontracting deliveries. Like you state, it's about trust -but where's the trust between a company and staff that it won't even commit to employing?

7
Lenses / Lensrentals Canon UWA FF lens comparison
« on: July 30, 2014, 11:49:46 AM »
Roger Cicala does another short comparison  ;)

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog

8
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon to Make a Big Splash at Photokina? [CR2]
« on: July 30, 2014, 10:10:39 AM »
If they were talking about a camera,  why would they state "Get your camera ready"? My guess -a new online photo sharing service  ;)

9
EOS Bodies / Re: High Megapixel EOS on the Way as Mentioned by Canon
« on: July 23, 2014, 11:05:38 AM »
This sort of machine translated verbal diarrhoea could mean anything; anyone speak Japanese? 

10
Lenses / Photozone review of EF-S 10-18mm is online
« on: June 08, 2014, 05:15:22 AM »

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/874-canon_1018_4556is

This has actually been online for two days, but doesn't seem to have its own thread yet (unless I've missed it,  in which case please accept my apologies), despite having been mentioned in at least one thread already. 

It looks like a great lens,  with vignetting and the plastic mount bayonet being the only real weaknesses. 

11
Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM
« on: June 03, 2014, 08:08:42 PM »
It's too bad the EOS-M is doing as poorly as it is outside of its home market because I think it was Canon's attempt to do what you want:  create a small, mirrorless system that is affordable.  I jumped on the bandwagon during the US fire sale, and I'm impressed.  The 22 f/2 is a treat to use, and the 18-55 IS works well in good light.  M1 has slow AF, but the M-mount design philosophy is sound.  There is no reason why they could not have various M-bodies with various levels of controls and have them share a common mount and family of lenses.  If it had been sucessful, I could see Canon replacing the entire Rebel line in the future with the M system (with a similar system to Fuji).  Unfortunately, the idea has not caught on.

EOS-M is exactly what I didn't want to see, i.e. a proliferation of different lens mounts confusing potential customers and diluting resources (hello Sony  ::)). Whilst I've got nothing against EOS-M from a technological point of view (other than needing a more enthusiast specified body with an EVF -but that's another discussion), it is a bit of a distraction from the best-selling EF-S line. We've ended up with two new lens lines with an incomplete set of options in each.

I've ranted on getting further and further off topic for too long on this thread, so please accept my apologies. I would like to sign off on this matter by restating that in my view, lenses are Canon (and Nikon's) weakness on APS-C bodies as much as they are their core strength on full frame.

12
Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM
« on: June 03, 2014, 01:22:37 PM »
Depends upon your needs. Whilst I think it's a great compact option on full frame, for me it's too long and too slow for a true fast-50 equivalent on APS-C. The Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is the closest you'll get in EF mount, as Canon doesn't think it's worth making one.

Now repeat the exercise for a fast 35mm equivalent? That would be either the 24mm f/2.8 IS (a bit slow) or the 24mm f/1.4L (heavy and expensive).
How about a fast 24mm equivalent lens: Canon 14mm f/2.8L, Samyang 16mm f/2 or Zeiss ZE 15mm Distagon? All have pretty obvious drawbacks!
70-200mm f/2.8? -Third party again (Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 or Tokina 50-135 f/2.8 ) are you're only options.

Is it any wonder that plenty of photography enthusiasts are looking at the increasing capable mirrorless options? Canon are at risk of losing the middle ground between the "Soccer Moms" (a lovely American marketing term!) and professionals. If they want to secure this ground, it's lenses not bodies that they need to address.

When I used crop cameras, I had the 10-22, 17-55 and supplemented it with a 24L and 35L.  The Sigma 30 f/1.4 is not nearly in the same league as the Sigma 35 f/1.4, and at 500 the Sigma 30 is also pricy for what it offers.  The 35 f/2 IS is a nice lens and could be had for less than 500 during one of the Canon refurb store's sales.  Smaller format cameras are at a disadvantage when light levels are low, so faster glass is more necessary and flash will be used more.

If I were looking to outfit a crop kit from scratch, I'd seriously look at Sigma's 18-35 f/1.8.  With that lens, you wouldn't need 24 or 35mm primes.  Add a Tokina 11-16, and that'll satisfy most for the wide and mid range.  I'd then supplement it with a 50mm prime and a 70-200.  I like the f/2.8, and wouldn't give it up.  I used it for sports, events, etc.  I think 3rd party offerings strengthen the APS-C offerings; not everything needs to be Canon.

The 6D can be purchased new for ~1500, which isn't that much more than the X-T1, and I'm sure the price of FF will continue to drop, which will threaten premium APS-C systems like Fuji.  The Fuji system is more compact, but the lens family is much smaller than Canon + 3rd parties.  Plus, the Fuji lenses are expensive too.  I like the idea of a Fuji system, but the lens/flash options are too limiting.  When I need to use something compact, then I use the M.  It's not as nice or capable as the Fuji, but then it had cost a lot less and I can still use all my lenses on it if I had to.

The original Sigma 30mm f/1.4  (non-"Art" and optically identical) version is on run-out special, here in the UK at least, for £279. The "Art" version is £369, which is still cheaper than the EF 35mm f/2 IS at £459 (although I would probably recommend the Canon lens as worth the extra money). None of these is really at the same price point as the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 DX lens, which is why I think that there is still a gap in the market for a Canon equivalent.

I sort of agree when it comes to the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8, but it is very heavy and quite expensive -£629 is quite a put off to the owner of an entry level camera that might have been purchased for half that amount. Whilst a set of fast primes may end up costing and weighing a similar amount, they have the advantage of being purchased over a period of time and not needing to be mounted on the camera at the same time. The problem with Canon's current strategy is that you're forced to use full frame ultra-wides with all the attendant size, cost and speed disadvantages to fill in for non-existent dedicated APS-C wide angles. 

I wouldn't like to comment on the production costs of a 6D versus a X-T1, but one could turn your argument around and point out that the X-T1 currently manages to hold 75% of the 6D's price despite being only APS-C. My guess would be that whatever cost savings can be made on a full frame camera can also be applied to an APS-C camera. Besides, the real cost of jumping up a format size can often be measured in lenses rather than just the body.

I know that one runs into thorny ground with the whole lens equivalence question, but I think that if absolute depth of field and/or low light performance are critical to your style of photography, then you're probably one of the people for whom full-frame-35mm will always make sense. If you're prepared to accept some compromises, sub-frame can make sense; it's just a question of which brand offers the most for the least...

13
Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM
« on: June 03, 2014, 04:34:30 AM »
I bought my EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM when I bought my Canon 20D (2006). I see no reason to replace it. The minimum focus distance is 9.5 inches (24cm). At 10mm (16mm FF) there is some wonderful barrel distortion, but at 22mm (35mm FF) it's rectilinear and I've used it for products shots and people It weighs 13.6 oz. (385 g.) and uses 77mm filters.

The Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM is lighter at 8.5 oz (240g), the minimum focus distance is about the same at 8.64in (22cm) and it uses smaller, less expensive, 67mm filters. It's also a lot cheaper -- $299.99 vs $649.99  (BTW these are Canon USA prices).

Photography is a lot like shooting, Snipers don't have stabilizers on their rifles and TV News Camera-people don't have stabilizers on their lenses. Holding a rifle/pistol or a camera steady is an acquired skill and fairly easy to learn.

I can see the 17-55 and 10-22 being updated over the next few years.  I remember times when the 17-55 was 1000+ and the 10-220 was 850 new.  Although I only had the 10-22 a short time before moving to FF, I liked the lens a lot.  The overlapping FL range with the 17-55 was handy and prevented a lot of lens changes.

I agree with preppyak in that the lens will be popular with the rebel market.  Sell it as a 10-18/18-55/55-250 combo, and Canon will sell a LOT of these.

Updating the 17-55 and producing a high end constant aperture replacement for the 10-22 (f/2.8?) would be a good start to catching up with 4/3rds and heading off Fuji.  The 10-18 is a good idea from Canon to entice the lower end of the market; what other lenses might sell? EF-M has a 22mm f/2 STM that's perhaps the highlight of the entire EOS-M system, why not produce one for EF-S (granted, it's slightly more difficult to design for a DSLR)? Nikon's 35mm f/1.8 DX lens sells pretty well by many accounts, why does Canon not produce a low price normal prime too? How about a premium 15mm f/2 USM?  Combine this with a 50-135mm f/2.8 and you could start to claim that EF-S is a good choice of system for people that don't want the cost or size of full frame.

At the moment, Canon's message seems to be that if you want anything more exotic that a slow zoom, you need to go full frame. Whilst many will (including you and I!), many others will decide it is not worth the extra price and bulk; they will switch to one of the increasingly capable alternatives.

Low price normal lens that's cheap? Hmmm could that be the 40mm pancake perhaps?

Depends upon your needs. Whilst I think it's a great compact option on full frame, for me it's too long and too slow for a true fast-50 equivalent on APS-C. The Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is the closest you'll get in EF mount, as Canon doesn't think it's worth making one.

Now repeat the exercise for a fast 35mm equivalent? That would be either the 24mm f/2.8 IS (a bit slow) or the 24mm f/1.4L (heavy and expensive).
How about a fast 24mm equivalent lens: Canon 14mm f/2.8L, Samyang 16mm f/2 or Zeiss ZE 15mm Distagon? All have pretty obvious drawbacks!
70-200mm f/2.8? -Third party again (Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 or Tokina 50-135 f/2.8 ) are you're only options.

Is it any wonder that plenty of photography enthusiasts are looking at the increasing capable mirrorless options? Canon are at risk of losing the middle ground between the "Soccer Moms" (a lovely American marketing term!) and professionals. If they want to secure this ground, it's lenses not bodies that they need to address.

14
Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM
« on: June 02, 2014, 06:02:46 PM »
I bought my EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM when I bought my Canon 20D (2006). I see no reason to replace it. The minimum focus distance is 9.5 inches (24cm). At 10mm (16mm FF) there is some wonderful barrel distortion, but at 22mm (35mm FF) it's rectilinear and I've used it for products shots and people It weighs 13.6 oz. (385 g.) and uses 77mm filters.

The Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM is lighter at 8.5 oz (240g), the minimum focus distance is about the same at 8.64in (22cm) and it uses smaller, less expensive, 67mm filters. It's also a lot cheaper -- $299.99 vs $649.99  (BTW these are Canon USA prices).

Photography is a lot like shooting, Snipers don't have stabilizers on their rifles and TV News Camera-people don't have stabilizers on their lenses. Holding a rifle/pistol or a camera steady is an acquired skill and fairly easy to learn.

I can see the 17-55 and 10-22 being updated over the next few years.  I remember times when the 17-55 was 1000+ and the 10-220 was 850 new.  Although I only had the 10-22 a short time before moving to FF, I liked the lens a lot.  The overlapping FL range with the 17-55 was handy and prevented a lot of lens changes.

I agree with preppyak in that the lens will be popular with the rebel market.  Sell it as a 10-18/18-55/55-250 combo, and Canon will sell a LOT of these.

Updating the 17-55 and producing a high end constant aperture replacement for the 10-22 (f/2.8?) would be a good start to catching up with 4/3rds and heading off Fuji.  The 10-18 is a good idea from Canon to entice the lower end of the market; what other lenses might sell? EF-M has a 22mm f/2 STM that's perhaps the highlight of the entire EOS-M system, why not produce one for EF-S (granted, it's slightly more difficult to design for a DSLR)? Nikon's 35mm f/1.8 DX lens sells pretty well by many accounts, why does Canon not produce a low price normal prime too? How about a premium 15mm f/2 USM?  Combine this with a 50-135mm f/2.8 and you could start to claim that EF-S is a good choice of system for people that don't want the cost or size of full frame.

At the moment, Canon's message seems to be that if you want anything more exotic that a slow zoom, you need to go full frame. Whilst many will (including you and I!), many others will decide it is not worth the extra price and bulk; they will switch to one of the increasingly capable alternatives.

15
Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM
« on: June 02, 2014, 02:41:23 PM »
It is however, a great completement to your APS-C stills or video kit if you don’t need ultra wide angle very often. If you do, there are better and more expensive options out there.

What "better and more expensive options" are there in the 10-18 range, on an APS-C?
(not trying to trip Northlight up, just genuinely interested)

The 10-18 STM appears to be better than the Canon 10-22mm - at least on paper

Sigma 10-20mm options perhaps?

What options are there around this range? (that isn't a fisheye)

Apart from third party options, the Canon EF-S 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 USM is better built (metal mount, ultrasonic motor), slightly faster and longer. Of course the 10-18 STM has IS, which the 10-22 lacks. I would say that whilst image stabilisation is a really nice feature, even in a wide angle lens, optical performance would override all of these in my decision (not that either of these lenses would fit my camera!). I have a suspicion that the 10-22 might be slightly superior in the corners, but we'll have to wait for Photozone, TDP or Lensrentals (etc.) more formal tests to establish this...

Depending on what you do, not everyone considers USM a plus over STM. And are you sure the actual mount of the 10-22 is metal, or is it just the end piece visible?

For stills use with conventional separate-sensor-phase-detect-AF at least (what a mouthful that's become!), I would always prefer USM to STM: YMMV as the Americans like to say ;-)

As for the thorny issue of plastic versus metal mounts, the new 10-18 is plastic right to the bayonet, whilst the 10-22 has a metal bayonet. Metal bayonets are generally considered more durable. As for your question about whether the 10-22 has an all metal mount, I think you should read this article by Roger Cicala:

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/12/assumptions-expectations-and-plastic-mounts

On the basis of Roger's report, I would think that the 10-22 has a plastic inner mount, just like a high proportion of Canon L-series lenses.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 45