October 25, 2014, 11:17:19 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 - josephandrews222

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
Reviews / Re: Camera Store Trashes New G7X
« on: October 20, 2014, 12:39:11 PM »
I assume it's better than my S95 at least?

...my thoughts exactly.

The trouble is--the price will have to drop significantly for me to consider it in a serious way.

PowerShot / Re: The New Canon PowerShot G7 X
« on: September 14, 2014, 04:04:39 PM »
Not sure, but I wouldn't care about stuffing a camera in my pocket.  Given the smaller sensor, lack of EVF, lack of Hotshoe, lack of 4K, etc. I wouldn't know or care as the Four Thirds camera offers superior IQ.

Once again, too late to the game as the field has already changed.  LX100 is the new authority...anything less than Four Thirds sensor, no thanks

If the G7 X has the S120 form factor, it will fit in a jeans pocket.  Is that true of the LX100?

Some in this thread talk about the essential nature of a viewfinder (for their style of shooting). I suspect that the vast majority of those folks who post on this board who own a full-featured DSLR (a 5D Mk whatever) as well as the EOS M and maybe even an S90-120 or whatever...view 'pocketability' as essential--FOR CERTAIN USES.

Mark me down in that category--when examining our Adorama 8x8" books, some of the best vacation shots I have ever taken were with a Canon S95. Its small size was purrrrrrfekt for our needs. No viewfinder.

I've thought about starting a separate thread for the following topic...my guess is it is already on here somewhere.

Specifically, most of my best pics involve family travels and/or sports. My philosophy is this: I want to take the LEAST sophisticated camera/lens combination possible. This generally translates to the smallest possible, too.

As I've posted here before, I find the 11-22mm lens for the EOS M invaluable. I also find the Canon XYX-270 flash indispensable, on the M as well as the 5DMkIII.

Since I purchased the M, I have found less use for the S95. Its larger sensor enables more cropping as well as all of the other advantages you all know about.

What is troublesome about both the M and the S-series of cameras...is their lack of responsiveness. If Canon builds this new one to be as responsive as a DSLR I think I will buy one.

And, assuming it is pocketable, I will use it. A lot. Not for the same shots as a full-field or APS-C...but for when it suits my needs at the time.

And sometimes, when traveling, pocketable is GOOD.

PowerShot / Re: The New Canon PowerShot G7 X
« on: September 14, 2014, 12:25:40 AM »
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.

1. Avtv--you make some good points sometimes but you sound so angry!

2. I own the S95 and the M. What is terribly important to me is how responsive the new rig really is.

3. It really is neat to read some of the posts here--quite entertaining and sometimes educational, although not in the way that the posters intend.

...this is all useful and well-presented information. Thanks.

PowerShot / Re: New Large Sensor PowerShot Rumor [CR3]
« on: September 04, 2014, 10:20:54 AM »
As important to me as specs are...what matters more is the responsiveness of this rumored large-sensor PowerShot.

My first DSLR was a Rebel XT (it still works and is itself quite small). Put the responsiveness of this...what...ten year old body...into a truly pocketable mirrorless?

I'm there.

Photography Technique / Re: Tethered Shooting with 5D III & Microsoft Pro 3
« on: September 03, 2014, 06:57:24 PM »
Just a heads up - the Surface Pro 2 in my opinion is a lot better for photography and video than the Surface Pro 3.  The Surface Pro 3 throttles like crazy and I think the SP2 would just be a lot better suited for field work - FYI.

You control this with the standard Windows power plans. The default plan on the SP3 is probably aggressively power-saving. Switch it to a less aggressive plan (Balanced should do it), or the high performance plan. Just keep in mind, if you limit the power saving, your battery life will suffer.

no snark intended: Are you certain that you can control throttling on the SP3 via changes in the power plan?

Photography Technique / Re: Tethered Shooting with 5D III & Microsoft Pro 3
« on: September 02, 2014, 12:08:19 PM »
I don't have the Surface Pro 3. But my main job daily is developing modified software for the SME based on the Microsoft Dynamics platform.

All the models of the Surface Pro, here available in Belgium, have 4Gb internal memory with the exception for  version the 512Gb i7 version which has 8Gb internal memory.

I would never advice you to run LR on only 4Gb memory. I use a HP elitebook 8770w, dual i7 QM with 24Gb internal memory and 2 internal SSD harddisks. Does this laptop run smoothly? Mostly yes, but not that I never have to wait.

So the only advice I can give you is to think first again if you really want the Surface Pro as your post processing unit? If you decide to go on with the Surface Pro then please do take the 512Gb i7 with 8Gb internal memory. I know, its 1949€ over here, but only 4 Gb for LR is not enough !!

For shooting, even the basic version might be OK. But post processing asks for more power.

...very good...and very useful advice.


Pricewatch Deals / Re: Deal: Canon EF 24-70 f/4L IS $999 at Adorama
« on: August 31, 2014, 09:57:00 AM »
To be fair, on a cosmic time scale the entirety of human existence has been 'for a very limited time'...   ;)

When I hear the phrase 'available for a limited time only', I sometimes think of the ad campaign for the McRib sandwich. It is for the good of The Entirety of Human Existence that the McDonalds McRib sandwich is usually available for a limited time only.

Wasn't the 24-70 f4/L overpriced at 1.5K?

EOS Bodies / Re: Do Sensors Make the Camera?
« on: August 27, 2014, 09:16:53 PM »
Just chiming in...have not read the entire thread.

There is no question that the sensor can make-or-break the camera. Put a 5DIII-quality sensor (quality, not size) in an EOS M3...AND tweak the focus abilities of the beast...and I am all in. Anyone who says the sensor doesn't make the camera...well I guess it is semantics. To me the sensor is an integral part of the camera. So yes, it makes the camera.

PowerShot / Re: New Large Sensor PowerShot Rumor [CR2]
« on: August 23, 2014, 06:43:35 PM »
I think (but I am not sure...going from memory here) that the S95 is CCD and the S100 on up are CMOS.

PowerShot / Re: New Large Sensor PowerShot Rumor [CR2]
« on: August 23, 2014, 02:12:10 PM »
The S120 is too big.  Size and shape wise, my Elph 500HS is just perfect.  The rounded and beveled corners really make a difference as far as comfort in your pocket goes.  Now, if I could get an S120, even with a 1/1.7" sensor in that size and shape, that would be something I'd buy.

I agree but I don't agree. For some occasions, I have found the S95 to be the most useful pocket camera I have ever owned. It was marvelous in Paris...simply marvelous. We also own an ELPH 300HS, which, as you describe with the 500HS, has rounded edges. The 300 is even more pocketable than the S95 (as I recall it is also smaller than the 500), but there is no question that the S95's images are generally (but sometimes only slightly) superior. It is amazing how well the 300 fits in a pants pocket; in my mind it is more pocketable than an iPhone 5s in a case.

I now own an 'M' as well, and with the 22mm pancake attached it is (if you're motivated) pocketable as well...and even with its flaws there is no question that the M produces images superior to the S95.

So I would love to get my hands on the '1-inch sensor' S; if Canon produces it in the general image of the S-series (and somehow it acts more like a DSLR than a point-and-shoot, in terms of its responsiveness), I will probably buy it.

PowerShot / Re: New Large Sensor PowerShot Rumor [CR2]
« on: August 23, 2014, 07:28:38 AM »
I will take a hard look at such a device...especially if its size is similar to the S90 95 100 110 120 (have I missed any?) series.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon mirrorless: Status?
« on: August 19, 2014, 02:43:15 PM »
Mirrorless has one huge advantage, the WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get) EVF. No need to chimp, because you've seen the results before you pushed the button :) Even with something as old as my Sony NEX 5n, it's trivial to get the shot in difficult lighting :) I often have the 5n set-up to shoot B&W jpegs. I use a #21 Orange filter, just like I'd do when shooting film. I set the exposure by eye using the screen, try that with an optical DSLR viewfinder :)  :)

I agree with this post--wholeheartedly.

My very best concert shots were shot with a Canon S95 (admittedly from the front row); my wife's favorite artist (would you believe Todd Rundgren?!)...never looked so good. Making things right via the screen...in real time...nice arrangement for sure.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon mirrorless: Status?
« on: August 19, 2014, 02:25:37 PM »
I honestly think mirrorless is a fad, or at least not a wise investment for Canon.

People really who want the smallest size won't want/care about interchangeable lenses, and people wanting the top quality won't want all the limitations of a mirrorless system.  Thus mirrorless stuck in some jack of all trades but master of none middle ground, perhaps useful for some niche of enthusiasts but not something that would sell to most individuals, be it for hobby or profession.  You could argue that the Sony A7 is the pinnacle of what everyone has been asking for in mirrorless, and it is very clear in the USA at least its sales are terrible compared to Canon and Nikon's offerings.

I used to feel that way -- that it was all about size -- but I really have come around that mirrorless will be our inevitable future and obsolete all but the highest end of DSLRs someday.  That might be 10+ years from now due to the time needed to develop things as robust and responsive as a modern DSLR, but I think it will happen.  Here's why:

  • They are smaller and lighter.  That's a good thing for most shooters, but not all of them.
  • No mirror = no mirror slap.
  • EVF have all sorts of powerful options to provide large, bright and magnified viewfinder options.
  • Mirrorless makes the divide bewtween still and video a blurry and cooperative one.  As every photographer will inevitably become a photographer/videographer before too long (I kid), mirrorless is better positioned to support that.  Mirrorless can do all sorts of nutty things like capture video all around the time of taking a still, pull the best still from a video in post, etc.  Right now, these features (yeah, like on your iPhone) are parlor tricks for photography neophytes, but in time, enthusiasts and pros will find spectacular ways to leverage this functionality to do things DSLRs cannot.
  • Once the AF, EVF and shutter tech evolves sufficiently, Mirrorless is presumably far cheaper for manufacturers to make.

And all of this is coming from a guy who loves DSLRs and clings to his optical viewfinder at night.  Rest assured that if mirrorless obsoletes anything, it will be to our benefit and not our disadvantage -- or we won't buy them.  A high bar of happiness, control and flexibility has been set with DSLRs.  Now mirrorless has to clear that bar.  Their work is cut out for them, but I am geeked to see what we can do with our cameras when they finally pull it off.

- A

I can add the following to your well-written post: both of my children own 'M's' (stepping up from Canon ELPHs)...and they love them. For years I tried to get them interested in my Rebel or my 40D--no luck. But they love the M+22mm combination; and one, at times, uses the 90 flash in useful ways.

As I've posted on these pages previously, my own 'M' generally has the 11-22mm lens on it. (EDIT: I do not use the supplied Canon strap; I cannibalized the connector and attached it to a Wii-type controller wrist strap...the whole thing fits in the pocket of most of my shorts. The strap also is long enough to fit around my neck.)

The M+11-22mm combination sits quite nicely on a light-and-flimsy (collapses to 12" long) four foot high tripod, a device that I would never trust any regular (I.e. heavier) DSLR to sit on. With the Canon remote, we get family vacation pix that work well in several ways...and all of the necessary gear (including the 270 flash) fits in a very modestly sized shoulder bag.

A post on this thread, I think, sort of got it right: the current M is a good daylight camera (if you accept the slow autofocus). I don't have nearly the expertise that some on this board do, but I have a bit of experience with the 5D MkIII + 35mm2.0 IS lens combo--talk about a light-gathering system!

Mirrorless isn't there yet, but I do wonder what it would take for Canon to put IS on the 22mm 2.0 M lens...and then the inevitable sensor improvement that will come with a future M (M4?!)...and if the auto-focus technology improves as well...

If Canon doesn't see this sort of thing in their future, then, in my view, their competitors will.

The future, for most photography (I think)...is sans mirror, folks. (And I LOVE my 5DMkIII!.)

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon mirrorless: Status?
« on: August 18, 2014, 08:04:45 PM »
...every post on this page is very very good and demonstrates why this site is worth reading.

The 'M', even without a viewfinder, is a decent device...(we own three of them)...and is fun to use--with a better low-light sensor and improved auto-focus abilities, Canon's next mirrorless will be a winner, I think.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4