September 18, 2014, 12:14:10 PM

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 - AvTvM

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 63
1
PowerShot / Re: The New Canon PowerShot G7 X
« on: September 17, 2014, 01:44:05 PM »
Sony RX100 III vs. Canon G7 X: http://camerasize.com/compare/#555,573
Canon Powershot S-120 vs. Canon G7 X: http://camerasize.com/compare/#475,573
Canon EOS M2 vs. Canon G7 X: http://camerasize.com/compact/#496,573,ha,f
Canon EOS M2 w/ 22/2.0 vs. Canon G7 X: http://camerasize.com/compact/#496.349,573,ha,t
Canon G1X II vs. EOS M2 vs. G7 X vs. S120: http://camerasize.com/compact/#534,496,573,475,ha,f

Panasonix LX100 vs Canon G7 X: not available yet

2
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 14, 2014, 11:07:00 AM »
What's pathetic is the inflated sense of entitlement some of you lot have - "how dare Canon not make me my perfect camera..."
It's infantile - Canon isn't in the business of keeping you happy.

Well, if Canon is not in the business of keeping US happ ... representing pretty much a cross-section of their best, most loyal and longstanding clients who typically have shelled out anywhere from a couple 1000 bucks to a couple 10.000 on Canon products ... THEN Canon has no business. AS far as I am concerned.

And YES, we are fully ENTITLED to demand better products from Canon ... as we are entitled towards any other supplier of gear who fails to deliver products that are not as good as as they could be and that are not at least as good (!) in every which way as competitor's products and "technical state of the art" is.

We are even more entitled to demand this from the self-proclaimed global leader in imaging technology who has claimed on numerous occasions to bring us nothing less than "the future of photography".

Tell that to the many thousands of pros back in the '80's when they swapped from FD to EF mounts. Canon will do what it believes is in the best interests of its shareholders in the mid to long term, coincidentally they very often know better than us what we actually need.

The switch from FD to EF in 1987 was clearly for the better. Not only for Canon shareholders but for any photographer willing to buy their new products and enjoy the advantages of autofocus and alls sorts of beenfits associated with electron communication between lens and camera ... in the best implementation on the entire market. Yes, Canon could also have kept muddling on ... like Nikon did with their long obsolete F-mount and mechanical aprture coupling, but that was and is a very sub-optimal scenario for their clients and one of the reasons why many of us chose and choose Canon over Nikon and other screwdriver-AF companies.

Also, those clients who did not see the benefits of AF for their work had no problem to just hold on to their FD lenses and cameras. After all, those were analogue SLRs and not DSLRs were you need to upgrade to get improvements in image quality. Mechanical Film SLRs were little more than film holders with a shutter and viewfinder in them and progress between mechanical model generations was fairly limited ... real progress was only achieved once that lens mount was changed and electrified.

Even I - being a tough critic of Canon and certainly no fanboy - applaud them for the foresight that went into the EF mount. It has held up during the major changeover from analogue film cameras to digital DSLRs and is only now approaching the end of its lifecycle, as we soon will switch-over to native mirrorless lenses with shorter flange distance. The transitions will not be as painful, because this time round it is easy to privide simple extension tube adapters to keep the EF-glass working for as long as we are willing to accept the inconveniences of such an adpater solution. :-)

3
EOS Bodies / Re: More Images of the Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 14, 2014, 10:57:35 AM »
Looks almost identical to the 5DM3 body ... most buttons in the same place (small variations) which means easy to learn and great to use together. 
...
Lots of 'disappointment' posted on here, but not in my camp.  I'd expect if this camera 'improved' as much as some seem to think it should, then the price point would be more near the $3000 figure than the $1800 figure.
Canon aimed at the 7D crop market with it, and priced it to fit there.  Anyone wants more than this 7D2 (?), should just go up to the 5DM3 and spend the $3000 it requires.  Otherwise, this fits just fine in the niche for which it was built.

Personally, I'm not a tech genius, and have problems even defining the "greatness" of a specific technology, but I am a photographer and use the tools Canon builds to create the best images I can - and don't worry about what Canon didn't build, and use what it did build to create those images - instead of sitting at home wondering why it's not better.  The specs look fine to me, and I'm betting we get a nice surprise when this camera starts showing us what it will produce in the field instead of what it looks like on paper.

I fully agree that it is a good thing Canon keeps the user interface among their DSLRs for similar target groups as similar as possible and that the 7D II/5D III is a rather good user interface overall .

I do not agree, that "we basically sholuld just shut up and take whatever Canon decides to put in fron of us" and "in the field it will perform much better than on paper".

There are a number of specs on paper that you can tell from just looking at them, that it will cause problems in the field any time you encounter a specific shooting situation or task.   Lack of WiFi for example ... is just a pain, when one could be controlling their camera easily from their smartphone in situations were this would be beneficial.  This will NOT improve with use in the field or proven to be not relevant. It is a PITA on paper and it is an even bigger PITA in the field. Unless one never encounters such situations.

Of course at the end of the day we have to capture images using the gear we get ... but there is no excuse for Canon to not equip our gear as best as possible - especially when we are talking low cost items like a WiFi chip (to stick with this as an example) and/or mere firmware issues ... like a truly useful, fully competent AUto-ISO function which also allows compensation correction in M mode for instance. No word on that front, btw as far as the 7D II is concerned.

There is a hige amount of marketing differntiation and crippling and milking of clients going on and we have  every right to call out Canon for doing this to us.

4
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 14, 2014, 10:47:55 AM »
What's pathetic is the inflated sense of entitlement some of you lot have - "how dare Canon not make me my perfect camera..."
It's infantile - Canon isn't in the business of keeping you happy.

Well, if Canon is not in the business of keeping US happ ... representing pretty much a cross-section of their best, most loyal and longstanding clients who typically have shelled out anywhere from a couple 1000 bucks to a couple 10.000 on Canon products ... THEN Canon has no business. AS far as I am concerned.

And YES, we are fully ENTITLED to demand better products from Canon ... as we are entitled towards any other supplier of gear who fails to deliver products that are not as good as as they could be and that are not at least as good (!) in every which way as competitor's products and "technical state of the art" is.

We are even more entitled to demand this from the self-proclaimed global leader in imaging technology who has claimed on numerous occasions to bring us nothing less than "the future of photography".

5
EOS Bodies / Re: How does the reveal of the final 7D2 specs make you feel?
« on: September 14, 2014, 10:01:16 AM »
the duel card slots are a good thing and the tighter weather sealing sounds good the vague standard for the 70d of equal to a eos1-n tells me nothing really still scared of getting caught in the rain

I agree. Those claims are extremely vague and pretty useless.

Camera makers should finally start providing ratings on a recognized scale as to the level of ingress protection on their cameras [with lens cap on], lenses  [with rear lens cap on] and camera w/attached lens (which would always be the lower rating, at best) ... my preferred grading scale would be the IP grid, but I would also be fine with some US mil standard rating grid, as long as I can read up on what the values mean.

Evenn (premium) makers of photobags and other accessories are able to provide IP numbers for their products, but camera makers refuse to do so until now. 

6
PowerShot / Re: The New Canon PowerShot G7 X
« on: September 14, 2014, 04:51:50 AM »
a viewfinder is one of the most valuable features on any camera to me (and others). Adding a good EVF also is significantly more costly than the difference between a touch LCD + user interface and a non-touch LCD.

As far as I am concerned, an EVF might be worth paying something extra. 250 would be a little high, compared to overall camera price. I'd imagine Canon can source those little EVF-screens for less than 50 from Epson or Sony ... depending on number of units  ;D

Anything more than $550 isn't worth the money.  Better value on the RX100 II or III.

The RX100 M3 is selling for $800. While G7X has touch screen, the RX100 M3 has EVF. Is the EVF worth $250? Not to me.

7
PowerShot / Re: The New Canon PowerShot G7 X
« on: September 13, 2014, 09:47:18 PM »
well, no winner. too late. Should have come out with that thing 2 years ago instead of stupid Powershot S 100/110/120 and instead of also stupid G1 X/II

G1X II is not stupid. It is let down by poor sensor. It is incomprehensible how a small RX100 MK3 sensor can perform better.

Let us hope the G7X has a better sensor

The G1 X I and II are stupid. Because Canon did not stick the best APS-C sensor available at production time into them, but chose a weirdo 4:3 format sensor instead. Or otherwise use a 1" sensor and make the damn thing smaller, rather than waiting more than 2 years until they finally come up with a response to the Sony RX-100.

8
Lenses / Re: 18-55 EF-M STM lens
« on: September 13, 2014, 09:38:47 PM »
I can tell from the replies that you are suggesting manual settings - I will need to play with that - in my sample shot I selected landscape so I could not set ISO, shutter speed or aperature.  Those variables were input by the camera.  I will need to learn more about all of those I suppose and I suppose it is my fault for trying to use this as a point and shoot and then complaining about the results.  Thanks for the information - I did try to move some of those settings around before I followed the  landscape shot advice and I could tell it would be too dark for any lower ISO or increased shutter speed - I did not try to move the aperature setting. 

Is there a general rule of thumb as to what settings I should use - I can try another shot tonight using the same conditions but probably cannot duplicate the distance because I did not measure it.  Thanks -Tom

you could try mode "P" for a start. The camera will still set exposure automatically, but using the command wheel in the back you can change the aperture/shutter speed combination.

I find your sample picture actually quite OK for ISO 6400 and weak/difficult lighting. The closer corner of the printer is sharp, for the sharpness to extend further to the back, a higher aperture number would have been required, but this was not possible due to the given amount of light available in the scene.

You can also limit the maximum ISO value for Auto-ISO to something lower than 6400 ... eg 1600 -> hit the Q-button and tap "ISO" to get to this settings screen http://3.static.img-dpreview.com/previews/canon-eos-m/screens/canon/auto-iso-limit.jpg?v=2953 .. however that may result in blurry pictures, because then the camera needs to use a slower shutter speed in order to get a correctly exposed (not too dark) image.

9
Lenses / Re: 18-55 EF-M STM lens
« on: September 13, 2014, 06:16:37 PM »
f/5.6 indoors is tough. Even at ISO6400 the camera needs to slow down to 1/15. That's slow enough shutter to introduce a lot of hand-held shake.

IS is on, right? That should help a little bit. But most of all, you might need more/better light than you have for that example shot.

yes, f/5.6 indoors and red stage light is tough. I got 1/20s @ ISO 1600 and f/5.0 with my M + 18-55 here:



In decent light my 18-55 is really sharp and an excellent performer. Here at 1/30s, 45mm, f 5.0. 

10
EOS Bodies / Re: More Images of the Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 13, 2014, 06:14:03 PM »
This is not a troll attempt, i really would like to hear people's thoughts on the upcoming 7D Mark II when put up against the new Nikon D750.

Technically, the 7DII and the D750 are not supposed to be compared, as one is FF and the one is crop.
The two cameras will be close in price, though. So, they will both be under consideration for enthusiasts looking to step up from their current gear.
And to me at least, the D750 is much more appealing than the 7DII.

When Canon and Nikon announced their entry-level FF cameras, I was underwhelmed.
Despite the 'entry-level' moniker, these are still premium, expensive cameras.
And yet, except for the FF sensors, their specs are somewhat modest (especially the 6D).

The D750 fully addresses my concerns.
With a modern FF sensor and an advanced AF system, it's a camera that can last me for years.
Thus, the higher prices tag becomes justifiable for me.

I can't say the same thing about the 7DII.
I'm still a crop user and I was hoping that the 7DII would have an updated sensor.
From the rumored specs, though, the sensor doesn't promise to be a meaningful improvement.
So, despite the great specs, its appeal as an upgrade option for me is limited.

Not that I'll be switching to Nikon right away.
But it's very nice to know that  there's a very appealing FF camera out there with specs that are tailored to my needs, basically.
And whenever I get the urge to switch to FF, I can do it without a second thought 8).

I agree with you. 7D II really looks more like a specialized solution for focal length limited, good light action shooters (sports, wildlife, birds, etc.). Nikon 750D looks like the most affordable, decently capable, UNIVERSAL digital camera. While in Canon land, the "cheapest" such solution currently is a 5D III. Both 6D and D610 unfortunately are too crippled as serious, longer-term useful, UNIVERSAL cameras - if moving subjects and challenging lighting conditions are also encountered shooting scenarios.

11
EOS Bodies / Re: More Images of the Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 13, 2014, 06:09:39 PM »

you know this no wifi thing has got me pondering a bit.  If the rumor is true that multiple 7DII can sync time with each other, it would seem that they have to have some kind of wifi going there to make that happen.  One could assume that a GPS enabled camera could get it's time from the GPS sats and all should be within 50 ms of each other.  However it was specifically mentioned that the cameras can sync time together.  That to me means some kind of wireless communication is going on.  Wifi would be the easiest way to do that with current tech.

I'd lean more towards the camera having a built in radio commander that can act as a wireless trigger than a true wi-fi setup.

I'd lean more towards you needing to buy a WFT-E7 II for each camera on which you want to sync the time.  I know you think I'm probably joking, I wish I could say that I was...

You beat me, just wanted to reply with the same "suspicion", Neuro. This is Canon, after all. :-)

12
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 13, 2014, 05:04:42 PM »
What's the benefit of using CF and SD in the same camera?

none. Camera body is more than fat enough to house dual CF slot.

It just causes hits to shooting speed due to a slow SD card slot in many settings (eg. RAW to CF, JPG to SD).
Mixed CF/SD slots are likely to cause similar issues as on 5D III.
SD is only UHS I, not UHS II (which is implemented on Fuji X-T1 for example).

13
EOS Bodies / Re: More Images of the Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 13, 2014, 04:59:00 PM »
no WiFi, no NFC, no RT-wireless flash commander built in. Seriously crippled in the communications department, ouch. But GPS which sucks much more battery power and is not needed as often by most users.

Why oh why?  ::)

AF looks promising, everything else is ... ok, but nothing more than minimum to be expected.

14
PowerShot / Re: The New Canon PowerShot G7 X
« on: September 13, 2014, 04:51:51 PM »
well, no winner. too late. Should have come out with that thing 2 years ago instead of stupid Powershot S 100/110/120 and instead of also stupid G1 X/II 

+
at least a 1" sensor
fast lens, useful focal length range
built in fill flash
WiFi + NFC built in ... but not in much bigger 7D II ... so incredibly and utterly ridiculous!
Control Ring ... yes, yes yes (if fully user assignable)
Touch LCD

-
no APS-C sensor
no top-notch EVF
price (whatever it is, it will be way too high)
not Retina/hi Res LCD, only 640x480

=
no buy, as far as I am concerned

15
EOS Bodies / Re: How does the reveal of the final 7D2 specs make you feel?
« on: September 12, 2014, 05:15:29 AM »
it makes me feel ... "i told you so".
Another fairly minimal iteration of a mirrorslapper. So little progress after 5 years. Not even WiFi built in.  ::)

You call that "Another fairly minimal iteration of a mirrorslapper" ?

I wonder what kinda camera you shooting with?

I think he's still using the 7D and M.

Sold the 7D some time ago, along with some Canon EF-S and EF lenses.
Bought the 7D on the first day of availabity 09/2009 as upgrade to my 40D. Never needed and still don't need the fps, but finally wanted a decent AF system and responsiveness in a decent, universal camera with better features and build/sealing than rebels and xxD models. 7D fully delivered to that.

BUT ... I do shoot quite a bit in fairly dark environments (e.g. concerts, events) and am looking to get SIGNIFICANTLY better IQ. Both noise/banding at ISOs 800 to 6400 AND better DR at base ISO.  Therefore my next camera system will likely be FF-sensored. A 7D II with only marginally better IQ [which is what I currently expect] is of no interest to me.

I was hoping there would be a number of (!) good high-end FF mirrorless camera systems with compact bodies and native lenses [yes, I know FF puts some limit to size of lenses] by end of 2014 ... including a serious Sony A7R competitor from Canon. I do prefer Canon's user interface and ergonomics over any other maker.

Currently I only have and use the EOS M. IQ is (technically) slightly better than the 7D and it is a much smaller and lighter package to travel with. OTOH, lack of viewfinder and AF-performance (especially in low light!] are a major pain to me. Touchscreen is a plus, especially for tripod-based work.

Sony A7R is so damn close to what I really want, but just not fully there yet ... AF preformance, vibration-inducing shutter, dismal battery charge, unattractive lens situation ... either too expensive [fixed focals] or not good enough [zooms] plus the fact it comes from Sony.

So I may be forced to buy yet another "hopefully last" mirrorslapper. Canon 5D III or Nikon D810 being the only candidates. 1D-X/D4s  not needed and way too much money, 6D/D610/D750 too crippled. Did not sell my EF 70-200 II yet, but would need to buy 16-35/4 and 24-70/2.8 II ... which is more money than I really want to sink into a soon obsolete mirrored camera system just for use until "my" FF MILC system finally arrives (1 year? 2 yaers?). I would not mind spending 10k on a "really right", totally compelling FF mirrorless system + some good native lenses. But ... not quite here yet.  :P

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 63