April 20, 2014, 05:44:53 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 - gmrza

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 33
EOS Bodies / Re: What Happened to the Photography Industry in 2013?
« on: March 06, 2014, 07:06:47 PM »
What happened? Market saturation.

Along with those that are already established not seeing anything in new products (from 2012 - 2013) as being worthwhile upgrades.

Coupled with maturing technology.  Not too long ago, nobody had digital cameras.  Somewhere between 2004 and 2009 (give or take a few years) the technology reached the right level of affordability and maturity that:
  • Just about everyone could afford a digital camera
  • early adopters were starting to replace cameras less frequently

What is now coupled with that is the fact that a lot of low-end users are abandoning P&S cameras in favour of phones.

Add to this the fact that the D800, D4, 1Dx and 5DIII all effectively hit the market in 2012 - making it a bumper year for high-end DSLR sales.

The years from 2009 to 2012 probably should be seen as abnormally good for sales.

Canon General / Re: Consumer DSLRs "dead in 5 years"
« on: November 27, 2013, 05:16:28 PM »
I'm a big fan of FF mirrorless...however, DSLR still play major role in my photography.

DSLR will die ONLY IF mirrorless can track moving subject as DSLR and lenses need to be smaller to go with compact body.

I do look forward to that day 8)

I think this is something that gets overlooked.  One of the important capabilities of a DSLR is to perform high framerate shooting with minimum blackout between frames plus the ability to continue to track AF between frames.  This is still difficult currently for a mirrorless system to do because the sensor is also acting as the view finder.  I have no doubt that over time this issue will be resolved.  How long that takes may be academic, because the form factor of higher end cameras is dictated more by ergonomics (coupled with optics).  Even if you could remove the mirror, and deliver everything a 1Dx can, most users of that kind of camera would still want the ergonomics that that form factor provides.  You only need to consider the number of 5D series users who add vertical grips to improve the ergonomics of their cameras (battery life is a secondary consideration for many users).
With the exception of Leica nobody has really had any success in bringing the sensor very close to the flange.  As the incident angle of the light reaching the sensor becomes more oblique, it becomes more and more difficult to capture the light on a digital sensor - hence why Canon tends to "fiddle" with the ISO when you use a f/1.2 lens.  That problem will probably dictate flange distance from the focal plane for longer than the presence of a mirror box will.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
« on: November 12, 2013, 05:37:55 PM »

The original 7D was originally billed by canon as a Pro level APS-C...  heck at the time had better AF than the 5d2...  Could be the same here...

At this point, unfortunately, I am not expecting big strides in IQ between the 7D and 7DII.  If recent releases are anything to go by, I think we should lower our expectations.

Given that the 7D's weather sealing and AF were already better than the 5DII, I expect the likely level of improvement to the 7DII will be smaller than the difference between the 5DII and 5DIII.  The difference between 19pt AF and 63pt AF is much smaller than the difference between 9pt AF and 63pt AF.

As a result I expect to see less reason to move from a 7D to a 7DII than from a 5DII to a 5DIII.

Those people who had a 7D and 5DII and moved to a 5DIII will also have less reason to buy a 7DII, so unless Canon does something radical (for instance to court laggard 1DIV users who can't see the need for a 1DX) I don't see the 7DII being as successful as the 7D.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Major IQ advantage of FF?
« on: November 07, 2013, 04:45:31 PM »

  • A lot of excellent lenses designed for FF.

This is especially apparent if you want to shoot at the shorter end of the focal length range.  You have better options available to you if shooting full frame than crop.  That said, I have still shot some decent landscapes with the 7D.

One good example is the 24-105 f/4 - being a full frame lens, it delivers best in terms of its overall flexibility on a full frame body.  On crop, you effectively lose out on the wide end, and you cannot shoot exposures as long hand-held as on full frame.  I have successfully shot 0.3s exposures with the 5DII and 24-105 f/4L IS USM hand-held.  I would not like my chances of achieving the same with the 7D.
If you were to move to the 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM on crop, you would lose the long end and the weather sealing.

Currently, if I want to shoot something quickly, I just pull the 7D out of the cupboard.  If I want to put more care into the shot, I reach for the 5DII or 5DIII.

Maybe on the weekend I can convince my son or daughter to pose and let me shoot with the 5DIII and 7D in the same light, using the same lens.  That would be a more valid comparison.  It would probably need to be in studio to guarantee the same lighting.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Appeal of Nikon Df
« on: November 07, 2013, 05:01:16 AM »
I think it has a similar appeal to a Land Rover Defender.

Owning a classic model can be a fun hobby, but there is not much point in buying a new one (while you still can, in the case of the Defender).

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Major IQ advantage of FF?
« on: November 07, 2013, 01:49:49 AM »

Good examples! While they are somewhat close the 5D3 image has way more pop. :)

Therein lies part of the problem of my comparison - a good part of that "pop" is due to the 24-70 f/2.8II.  Pay more attention to shadow detail and noise, which is less due to the lens.

The 24-70 f/2.8 II is much better in this respect than the 50mm f/1.4 in terms of contrast and colour rendition.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Major IQ advantage of FF?
« on: November 07, 2013, 01:19:51 AM »
I know that you get a more shallow DOF and better high ISO performance with a full frame over a crop, but with good lenses on either is there really much of an IQ difference all other things being equal.  I do get great results with my T1i, but I do see some ultra-great results out there that my camera just isn't capable of.  The sensible option is to remain with my crop-inspired lenses and maybe go to a 70D or the next Rebel, but the 6D seems pretty cool. 
I agonize over this stuff because I'm the opposite of a gear-hound.  I'm a minimalist who tries to do the most with the least so it's quality over quantity.  Thank you in advance for your wisdom.

This is not a scientific analysis, because the two frames below were shot under different conditions, but it gives some illustration.  The first frame was taken with a 5D3 using a 24-70 f/2.8II and the second with a 7D using the 50mm f/1.4.  Both are good lenses, but the 24-70 is stellar - it is visibly better, so take sharpness and contrast between the images with a bit of a grain of salt.

The lighting between the shots is different - the image with the 5D3 was shot with flash at ISO1250, while the shot taken with the 7D is using ambient light at ISO 100.  Still, look at the shadow detail, it is very different.

Most importantly - take this comparison for what it is - I just pulled 100% crops from 2 existing images, shot with different lighting, using different lenses, at different ISOs - this is not a well-controlled experiment.

EOS Bodies / Re: Why are DSLRs so Big?
« on: November 05, 2013, 07:56:39 PM »
Speaking personally and professionally, I'll say that ergonomics play a huge roll(no pun intended).  You get to a point when miniaturizing things that they get too small to effectively be able to interact with them.  I live in the TV world and if you look at a one piece Betacam from the 90's with it's tape transport in the body vs. a solid state camera today(with 20 years of technological advancements), the bodies are still pretty much the same size, same weight and same layout of key switches and buttons(even among different manufacturers).  If I go in my office and pick up my first Sony Betacam from 1997 and then pick up my Panasonic P2 Varicam from today, the power switch, black balance/white balance switch, filter wheel, record button, white balance memory switch, etc. are all in the same places.  The cameras sit on my shoulder and balance similarly.  My point is, especially in the professional world, the way something feels and the way you are able to interact with it are more important than "lets make it small just because we can".

The point that I think some people are missing is that you can operate a DSLR "without looking" - i.e. while the viewfinder is up against your eye, you can change most or all of the important settings - shutter speed, aperture, controlling the AF system (not only focusing, but also selecting things like the AF points to use), ISO etc. all without lowering the camera to look at it. - Smaller form factors sacrifice that ability.

EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: A Pellicle Mirror by Canon
« on: October 31, 2013, 06:12:11 PM »
One big advantage of a fixed mirror system is that you can get a much higher frame rate while being able to see the subject during exposure.

For these reason I loved my EOS RT - actually *seeing* what you shoot makes a huge difference and even on digital would save me lots of "did it blink?" looks at the lcd screen.

Another big advantage of the non-flipping "mirror" design is the ultra-low shutter lag - with the EOS RT you just have to touch the shutter, and it has taken a picture before you realize what's been going on.

With the advances in high iso capability imho this would be great for sports/wildlife shooters as the reduction in light that reaches the sensor doesn't matter that much as on film ... or of course mirrorless and an evf.

I think everyone is missing one part: The Canon patent seems to be about a mirror with variable reflectance/transmittance.  That is different, I believe, to the Sony system.

What is also being forgotten is that a patent is no guarantee of a product based on that patent.

Canon General / Re: Lose or Loose?
« on: October 29, 2013, 07:40:24 PM »
Here in South Africa I've noticed that the word "borrow" has largely been, shall we say, replaced by the other end of the relationship ... "lend" and "loan". As in:

"My I lend your lens."
"I lent his lens."
"I will loan a lens from him."

That is taken from Afrikaans, because the Afrikaans word "leen" means either lend or borrow.  The difference is contextual.

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Spec List Surfaces [CR1]
« on: October 27, 2013, 10:29:14 PM »
Digic V+? Pfft!

What I wonder is why Canon would use a dual DIGIC V+ when the DIGIC VI is already out?  - That said, I don't know how much on an advance on the DIGIC V the DIGIC VI is.

Lenses / Re: why would anyone scratch off the red ring of an L lens?
« on: October 21, 2013, 05:18:05 PM »
On some lenses, at least, the red ring is a separate plastic band around the lens. If that band gets cracked, the red ring falls off.  I would not be inclined to buy such a lens, not due to the lack of a red ring, but rather due to uncertainty about what other damage might have been caused by the impact that cracked the red ring.

This happened to our 24-105 - which is a heavily used lens, but hasn't suffered any impacts.  I have no idea why the red ring cracked.  Of course other people may have lost the red ring due to an impact....

Loyalty to Canon comes not only from their products but also from their customer/technical support. Sony's customer support is known to be bad and one doesn't want to wait 1-2 months for their DSLRs/mirrorless cameras to be fixed.

I'd personally wait for Canon's response to this announcement. Will see what their anticipated high MP camera is going to bring, and it seems it'll be released faster than we thought. Apparently the regular 3-4 year cycles for DSLR releases will be gone soon.

That is what I am hoping - that Canon will respond.  Competition is the best thing for a market.
Sony has an uphill battle on its hands as it is behind on service and overall system - photographers buy into a system (which includes flash systems, speciality lenses etc.) not just one body.

I see small mirrorless bodies only addressing a portion of the market - mainly where portability trumps ergonomics and features.  Beyond that, the ergonomics of a full-size DSLR body with a vertical grip provide the best package for serious enthusiast and professional use - providing a good control layout and a physically balanced package which works well with large lenses.
For those who have to make do with what they can fit into an airline baggage allowance, or even a backpack which they can shoulder for days on end, this smaller kind of camera is a godsend.  A smaller, less obtrusive system is also a boon to street photographers, who dislike the intimidating appearance of professional DSLRs.

From my experience in Britain the original box adds about 10% to the second hand value.

Nice to see a quantification.

Where I was heading was that I will probably keep the boxes for bodies, but not lenses, as the lenses are likely to be kept for at least 10 years or more.

I wanted to get some views on the forum about whether there is much benefit in keeping original packaging - mainly with a view to influencing resale value. 

For lenses, these are unlikely to get sold, as they have a much longer period from purchase to replacement, but that is generally less true for bodies.  As a result, my thinking is that there may be some benefit in keeping the original boxes from bodies, but not from lenses.

Any thoughts?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 33