November 27, 2014, 02:53:15 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 - scyrene

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 24
1
Canon General / Re: Does Canon really deserve this?
« on: November 26, 2014, 05:48:15 PM »
This is an interesting time to be a photograph enthusiasts.   The rapid developments in software and hardware of the mirror-less cameras is quite frankly amazing.   It is not so interesting if you are Canon.  They seem to be doing their own thing.  The lack of interest (apparent or imaginary) or inability of Canon to change with the times is concerning.  The half baked EOS M system which actual sells well in Japan is a poor excuse for a mirror-less system.  It could even be forgiven if it was released around the same time as the Sony NEX system.  But they learned nothing from Sony's early missteps.  If the Rebel sales go to mirrorless Canon is poorly positioned.  The camera market is shrinking. Canon could possibly profit by reducing the number of Rebel models to one.  Consolidating features into fewer APC cameras.  Lowering R&D cost. 

I expect that Canon will eventual get mirror-less right.  It could fill in the low end right along the Rebel cameras with one prosumer model (with EFV) so satisfy the critics.  I do not thing they can do it without eating into there own Rebel sales.  The question is when.  I say get on with it already.

Canon OWNS the pro full frame Market.  That will not change anytime soon. 
I fully expect that Canon will release a true full frame rebel. 


On a side note: (but I may be misremembering it was a long time ago.)
I vaguely remember reading an interview of one of the Canon executives.   I read around 9 years ago.  Most of it covered the recently released 5D. In it the Canon executive basically stated that he expected most DSLR to eventual be full frame.  That as soon as the manufacturing could was perfected that ASPH would be fazed out.  Eventual the full frame sensor could be cheep enough to put in a Rebel.  He just shrugged when asked what would happen to the EF-s mount. 

It basically covered Canons road map from then to the present.  It was also part of a 10 year plan.  So focusing on full frame is right in line with early Digital camera plans.

As has been pointed out by a few of us, until and unless mirrorless gets the form factor and battery life we're used to in DSLRs, we're not interested :P

2
Canon General / Re: Does Canon really deserve this?
« on: November 26, 2014, 04:05:04 PM »
That's one reason, certainly.  Perhaps image quality doesn't matter to you.  It matters to me, as do better AF, frame rate, etc., which is why I own a 1D X. 

We are discussing why anyone would choose the 6D over the 70D, so throwing the best DSLR ever into the mix is out of bounds.

The reasons are obvious.  I gave one, there are others. 

[sarcasm]So the conclusion is that a "full-frame" camera with a mediocre, entry-level AF system trumps a "crop-frame" camera with a terrific, state-of-the-art AF system. Got it.[/sarcasm]

Well it rather depends what you're shooting. Sport, birds in flight - you need good AF, high shutter speed. For landscapes, most macro, a lot of portraiture and even street work, AF is much less important, and image quality (which the full frame will trump the crop in many circumstances) comes to the fore.

I was merely attempting to facilitate your following your assertion to a logical conclusion, but apparently you are unable to do so.

But I did.

Sure you did – typewriters were your logical conclusion.   ::)

The moral of the story (regarding typewriters) is that one year you are on top of the world, selling thousands upon thousands of units, and the next year you sell nothing, and the year after that you file for bankruptcy. Good sales today doesn't necessarily mean good sales tomorrow.

I think the analogy is flawed. Sure, wordprocessors (and then computers) replaces typewriters for most purposes. That doesn't mean your predictions about future camera technologies are proven. You're just saying what feels right to you, without providing evidence.

3
Canon General / Re: Does Canon really deserve this?
« on: November 24, 2014, 07:24:01 PM »
I simply don't think it's feasible to use larger supertelephoto lenses with tiny bodies effectively...

Earlier in this thread I referred to using a MILC (EOS M, in my case) with a 600/4 as an ergonomic nightmare.  I will say that applies to handheld shooting – with the lens mounted on a gimbal head, a tiny body isn't a problem, provided your plate/clamp has enough positioning flexibility to balance properly with a very light body.

Oh sure, I've mounted the 500 f/4 on the EOS-M on a tripod, it works fine. I wouldn't want to do it handheld - especially without a viewfinder.

4
Canon General / Re: Does Canon really deserve this?
« on: November 24, 2014, 07:22:17 PM »
There certainly are plenty of mirrorless and software comments, and you are correct most threads start out ok and tend to get progressively worst.
It's hard for me to be objective about software as they mostly involve features I won't use, but I certainly understand why people want to untapped resources that are there. Fuji is very good at upgrading firmware on their cameras , but canon ensured f8 autofocus and that's a feature I wanted.
Now the mirrorless argument for me I don't get at the moment. The major sacrifices are af and ergonomics which are things I don't want to sacrifice. Now mirrorless will be the future but I haven't seen anything that makes me want to swap to a mirrorless as my primary camera. I have a fuji x100s which i like as my portable camera, but I wouldn't take it wildlife watching.
Now regarding criticism of Canon software and the mirrorless options to me they aren't even close to causing me to want to leave Canon, to others perhaps they are. Should those comments unnecessarily dominate many threads? I don't think so, and I find a lot of the out of place. But if they are constructive rather than complaints then good on them.

On the mirrorless option am I the only person who doesn't like smaller cameras in general?

You're not alone. I simply don't think it's feasible to use larger supertelephoto lenses with tiny bodies effectively - so even if the future is mirrorless, it needs to come in a roughly DSLR-shaped body.


It's not the biggest body, for sure...but it is the closest thing to a DSLR-sized and shaped (ergonomically) mirrorless that I've seen thus far. I have to try it out to say for sure, but I would much rather use this with a giant supertelephoto than any other mirrorless. I still think it might be a little cramped...but, so was my Rebel, and I used that with the 100-400 all the time. Samsung is also readying it's own superteles for use with this body, and  they seem to be just as large as Canon's.





This is to be welcomed.

5
Canon General / Re: Does Canon really deserve this?
« on: November 24, 2014, 07:13:58 PM »
However, for those of us who do not need *GASP* "full-frame", having to purchase "full-frame" lenses for our "crop-frame" cameras 'cause Canon neglected to cater to our needs, is bad economy: we pay for what we cannot even use.

Bad economy for you, you mean.  Canon cares about their economy, but about yours only insofar as you give them your money. 

Consider the reverse...if you as a crop user did buy a FF body, how would you like to have to buy a complete new set of lenses for it?  The economy of EF lenses mounting on crop bodies works both ways.

So let's look at the 100L....

Suppose Canon also made an APS-C only and a FF only version of the lens.....

The first think that would happen is that sales of the FF version would drop, we would loose economies of scale, and the price would probably go up.

The APS-C version of the lens would still be the same size and the end element would still be the same size. We could shave a bit off of the internal elements and the resulting lens would be a few percent lighter than the FF version, but once again, we would have lost some of the economies of scale and the resulting lens would cost more.

Realistically, you have to go shorter than 50mm to get any significant size savings on an APS-C lens. There are a few lenses (17-55F2.8 comes to mind) which are "L" quality, but with anything longer, it just isn't worth it.

Thanks! That was what I had in mind with my previous response. I hadn't read all the way through the thread yet :)

6
Canon General / Re: Does Canon really deserve this?
« on: November 24, 2014, 07:11:52 PM »
Waste to use FF lenses on a crop frame Canon camera???  LOL Now I really have heard everything!!!  One of he great strengths of the Canon crop-frame line is that it can use the entire family of EF-S and EF lenses!

Yes, it is a marketing angle. However, please tell me the point of a small camera like the 100D, when you have to put huge "full-frame" lenses on it to get decent optics, like the 70-200mm lenses or the 400mm lens?

Um... if you want to shoot wide/standard focal lengths, you can get small lenses. Afaik there's little to no size advantage in making long focal length lenses for EF-S versus EF mount (tech guys, right?). You're looking at it the wrong way round - you could say, how awesome that a tiny camera like the 100D can also be used with the full range of lenses - you lose the size advantage at longer lengths, but you only need the one body to cover all eventualities.

Moreover, issues like corner softness and vignetting either 'go away' or become far less acute.

L-lenses are not supposed to have these "issues" and that is why they are so expensive. Thus, by using the "full-frame" L-lenses on a "crop-frame" camera, you just paid for something of which you cannot enjoy the benefit. Bad economy ... or simply wasting your money.

No lens is perfect. L lenses tend to be very good, but nobody claims they are perfect - optical perfection doesn't exist in the real world. Vignetting, especially, is just a fact of life for wider aperture lenses. That's hardly a fault, it's just reality.

AND my 100-400mm becomes a 160-640mm equivalent! 

No, your 100-400mm lens stays a 100-400mm lens. You just lose the great edge performance you paid for, 'cause of a reduced field of view due to in-camera, "hardware" cropping. (Honestly, do you really still believe that line of marketing hokey about the focal length increase?)

Ah, the silly, silly things people complain about!  :o

You got that right, at least.  :P

Well, the 7DII has nearly as many pixels as the 5DIII, so you'd be able to resolve more detail on a subject. You can crop the full frame image, but you can't gain any extra resolution that way.

7
Canon General / Re: Does Canon really deserve this?
« on: November 24, 2014, 06:55:26 PM »
There certainly are plenty of mirrorless and software comments, and you are correct most threads start out ok and tend to get progressively worst.
It's hard for me to be objective about software as they mostly involve features I won't use, but I certainly understand why people want to untapped resources that are there. Fuji is very good at upgrading firmware on their cameras , but canon ensured f8 autofocus and that's a feature I wanted.
Now the mirrorless argument for me I don't get at the moment. The major sacrifices are af and ergonomics which are things I don't want to sacrifice. Now mirrorless will be the future but I haven't seen anything that makes me want to swap to a mirrorless as my primary camera. I have a fuji x100s which i like as my portable camera, but I wouldn't take it wildlife watching.
Now regarding criticism of Canon software and the mirrorless options to me they aren't even close to causing me to want to leave Canon, to others perhaps they are. Should those comments unnecessarily dominate many threads? I don't think so, and I find a lot of the out of place. But if they are constructive rather than complaints then good on them.

On the mirrorless option am I the only person who doesn't like smaller cameras in general?

You're not alone. I simply don't think it's feasible to use larger supertelephoto lenses with tiny bodies effectively - so even if the future is mirrorless, it needs to come in a roughly DSLR-shaped body.

8
Canon General / Re: Does Canon really deserve this?
« on: November 24, 2014, 06:53:28 PM »
I think there are 2 serious issues plaquing the Canon system:
a) sensor performance at low ISO
b) slow / inaccurate contrast based AF in their compact cameras e.g., G7X, EOS-M etc
Hopefully Canon can address these 2 problems.

These are just some of the symptoms. The underlying problem is, that Canon has not been willing to drive innovation full speed and/or has not been able to do so. They have switched to iterative small, purely marketing-driven steps. This has resulted in losing their towering technological dominance in digital cameras they had until about 2006, when many pros, semi-pros and enthusiasts bought their initial sets of canon digital slrs plus lenses plus flash. Today canon is an "ok" supplier and they still sell the most dslrs and they may be market leaders, but they are no longer the clear industry leader when it comes to digital imaging per se.

Canon is still an 800 pound gorilla, but it has gotten old, fat, tired, and complacent, unwilling to learn new tricks or to take any risks. They are now the supplier of choice to a) inexperienced brand believers shopping for a rebel plus kit lens (provided they still want to lug around any dslr) and b) professionals/semi pros with a large investment in the system who believe they need or really need cps service. But canon is loosing the most important segment fast: photo enthusiasts with some money to spend. They want the best cameras. Lenses and systems, they can afford. And they are doing their homework and know what those systems are. Unless one is bird/wildlife/outdoor sports oriented and into long tele lenses, it ai t canon these days. And it aint small iterations of clunky mirrorslappers.

Do you get a reward every time you use the word 'mirrorslapper'?

9
Canon General / Re: Does Canon really deserve this?
« on: November 24, 2014, 06:37:08 PM »
Most of the critical comments directed against Canon revolve around:
a) Dynamic range
b) Pixel count
c) Video capabilities
d) In camera tools

Regarding (a), that is minor for most users, both with stills and video. Some people doing specialist work might have an issue, but it does not affect most.

I don't see what the big deal is about pixel count. Unless you are producing a huge image in a lossless format, the current resolutions are more than adequate.

Video capabilities are a valid criticism. The video capabilities in pretty much all consumer cameras lag far behind the competition.

In camera tools (lack thereof, or poor implementation) are a valid criticism. Having an extensive tool set and wide control of shooting parameters is something that a modern camera should have. Programmable and flexible tools such as peaking and exposure indicators are a must have feature in any modern camera.

The fact that some people don't have a problem does not mean that other people's issues have no merit. They are customers as well.

One should also not forget that the vast majority of purchasers buy the badge on the front of the camera, so suggesting that because a particular manufacturer sells a lot of product implies that the product has exceptional quality is a load of rubbish. The quality of a product is determined by it's capabilities alone, not how well it sells.

I certainly don't moan about resolution, but it's worth pointing out that some of us crop a lot, and more resolution would help with that (those pesky birdies are often too far away, even with long lenses).

11
EOS Bodies / Re: Another 50mp FF DSLR Mention [CR2]
« on: November 24, 2014, 06:11:50 PM »
Clearly Canon is no longer top of the pile when it comes to IQ coming out of the sensors in digital cameras, in certain select situations, and ignoring considerations like lenses, flash systems, autofocus performance, etc.

There, I fixed that for you.

In the time I took to consider whether I could be bothered to take him up on that, you beat me to it!

12
Canon General / Re: Does Canon really deserve this?
« on: November 22, 2014, 01:29:19 PM »
I browse this website quite often since 2012. I have never seen so many negative comments about Canon these days in comparison with before.
Has Canon really not satisfying its customers lately or is it that there are new members in the forum who like to put down Canon in comparison with other companies?

you might want to check other websites too.
dpreview, petapixel, f-stopper etc. etc. etc.

they all are very critical about canon these days.
and i don´t speak about the comments, i mean the articles.

dpreview suprised me with it harsh words the most "boring cameras becoming the hallmark of canon".... that was basically what they said in one of their 6D articles.

canon has overall a worse reputation in the media then 3 years ago.

I think the internet chatter has become more negative. But reviews are still solid in most areas. Dpreview rightly point out that DR at low ISO isn't as good in Canon cameras as Sony sensor ones, for instance, but they still rate Canon *cameras* (and lenses, etc) as good - which they are, overall. Canon is *good*, overall. Not perfect. Nobody thinks they are, nobody is.

13
Canon General / Re: Does Canon really deserve this?
« on: November 22, 2014, 01:27:48 PM »
Satisfied Canon user here.  My take is that there are far too many folks on the forum who think technology makes the photo.  They are more concerned with test results, sensor comparisons and all the technical information that is on the web.  Test results show that other sensors are better, therefore Canon sucks - is the basic thought process.  They are obsessed with noise and DR.  Many of us who spent many years with film admittedly don't get it.  Photos can be grainy - and quite frankly - often look better grainy than having the plastic-smooth overly processed look.  More DR means less contrast - yet contrast could be considered more important in the eyes of many.  Folks want more MP, and yet on at least a few websites, reviewers note that without a tripod, there is no difference between 24 MP and 36 MP.  And, yet, people want even more MPs!  Unless you print larger than 8" x 10" there is virtually no difference between photos taken with an SL1 with kit lens and a 6D with "L" lens, but people want to believe that they need the best cameras and the best lenses.  (In fact, at 8' x 10" printed size, there is no discernible difference between pics taken with my old Canon 300D and my new 6D).  So if a Sony sensor tests as being 10% better than the Canon sensor, then obviously the Sony pics will be so much better...although you probably won't be able to tell the difference purely by eye!

A good photo is the result of subject matter, composition, atmosphere, contrast, color.  And yet, it seems like those topics aren't even considered by many.  For them a good photo is judged by the amount of noise and the Dynamic Range.   

All that being said, there are some folks you take pics in extreme conditions - very low light, astrophotography, etc.  For them, the difference is meaningful and I can understand their frustration.  If Canon doesn't meet their needs they should switch.  There is no reason to think that Canon has the knowledge (or the ability to come up with new patents that don't infringe on Sony's patents) to substantially improve their sensors in the near future.  But if all you need is a solid, dependable camera that will last you 5 to 10 years and take great pictures, then there is no reason to be disappointed.  If you want the latest and greatest and want to upgrade every two years, then by all means, switch.

I think technology is relevant to what shots you can take - in some areas at least. There's a rough hierarchy, so landscapes and street work require less specialist equipment than wildlife, sports, or macro photography, for instance. Shaving a kilo of a super telephoto lens, or adding IS, for instance, can allow new work to be made. But I also agree that some people fixate on the device, and don't seem to have much understanding of the creative possibilities already available, which is a shame for them.

14
Canon General / Re: Does Canon really deserve this?
« on: November 22, 2014, 01:24:18 PM »
Yes, and no!  Large industry leading companies never move fast enough for the early adopters regardless of the industry involved, but large industry leading companies are large industry leading companies because the product offerings are solid, reliable and quality products.  So, what you see is what you get and you get it on the company's timetable.  Your options are the same - be patient or change vendors - or re-examine your desires with a reality check.  Most of us would like a high megapixel, low light marvel, fast outofocusing whiz bang camera at
a "rebel" price, but reality says it ain't gonna happen - yet.

(My bold) This is worth remembering. It's easier for small businesses to be quirky, or take risks. Sony isn't a small company, but their camera division by all accounts makes a loss, and they fire out products hoping to gain customers by supporting it from other profitable areas. They clearly make good products (the sensor in the 645Z has me salivating), but they don't have a position to defend in this field yet.

I have a little different viewpoint.

Many website and forums (such as this one) came about during the first decade of the 2000s, when digital cameras were an emerging technology and the pace of change was very rapid. Companies were releasing new products that tended to leapfrog one another and there was a lot to write and talk about.

As with any technology, digital cameras have matured and the pace of change has slowed. The truth is: 99% of digital cameras made today are perfectly fine for 99% of the photographs being taken of 99% of the subjects under 99% of conditions.

That leaves only those 1% issues to deal with. No company can afford to go after 100% of the customer base. It's just too expensive and offers too little return.

But, with less to talk about on forums, people fixate on tiny differences that are irrelevant to the majority of users. As with any topic, the more obscure it becomes the more intense the feelings are and we see more than our share of that.

Again, yes. As many have said (yet some refuse to believe), any modern camera *can* take good photographs. People argue about minutiae - which is good, but should obscure the amazing advances made already.

15
Canon General / Re: Does Canon really deserve this?
« on: November 22, 2014, 01:21:03 PM »
In general, people with a grievance will make more fuss than those who are satisfied - in all areas of life.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 24