July 28, 2014, 06:57:18 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 - Danack

Pages: [1] 2
1
Lenses / Re: EF 400mm f/5.6L IS on the Way?
« on: December 27, 2013, 08:08:23 AM »
I'm definitely hoping that it gets replaced with a 400mm f4 IS lens at an affordable price.

I realise that both the 400mm f2.8 and 500mm f4 are really expensive, but the 300mm f4 is under £1000, so shurely a 400mm f4 could be made that isn't that expensive.


2
Software & Accessories / Re: Normal RAW vs Dual ISO Raw Example Video
« on: July 17, 2013, 11:05:21 AM »
Well the colour looks nice in dual-iso, but that's some crazy bad moire on the cushion.

3
Lenses / Re: EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x Announcement Tonight
« on: May 13, 2013, 06:09:23 PM »
Dat graph.

4
Went out shooting today with my 5DmkIII, 100-400 + 1.4 TC.

Works so much better with the new firmware compared with taping up the pins. It's actually even about the same speed as a 1DmkIII - but the focus spot seems so small, which is probably more due to the lack of crop factor rather than it actually being a smaller focus zone.


5
Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Lightroom 5 Public Beta Available
« on: April 16, 2013, 03:03:52 PM »
But is it just me or did LR4 have a short life, I feel like their upgrade cycles usually are a bit longer?

You're not wrong.

I haven't even gotten around to upgrading to LR4 yet - I just started the trial of it a couple of weeks ago.

Yeah it's nice, but there's no chance I'll upgrade now before 5 comes out.

6
EOS Bodies / Re: More Big Megapixel Talk
« on: August 19, 2012, 09:45:04 AM »
My 2c.

The right hand side of the triangle represents mirrorless. The EOS-M is totally within this section as it is totally mirrorless. The 650D is half on the mirrorless section as it has composite auto-focus for video and liveview mode.

"What goes here?" - a new camera.
"What does this little arrow mean?" - the new camera will be either fully mirrorless or at least have composite phase/contrast auto-focus like the 650D does.

7
EOS Bodies / Re: A Bit of Mirrorless Informaton [CR3]
« on: July 19, 2012, 10:19:40 PM »
Does any company make Back-side illuminated sensors in Aps-C or FF Size? Wouldn't this tech allow a massive jump in ISO performance?

No. It doesn't make sense from a cost-benefit viewpoint.

The reason that rear illuminated sensors are good for tiny sensors is that each pixel that needs to be read requires a certain amount of space for the 'wire' to read the signal from that pixel. The space taken up by the wires used to read the pixel cannot be used to capture light.

(Almost) The same amount of space is required per pixel regardless of what the sensor size is.

So on a tiny little 1/2.3" sensor changing to rear illuminated means that there could be 50% space for capturing photons. On a 1.6 crop or full frame sensors, the space taken up by the 'wires' is really small compared to the area used to capture light, so you could maybe get 5% more space for capturing photons by switching to a rear-illuminated sensor.

Because they're harder to make (which translates to more expensive to manufacture and higher defect rate) there's no point getting a 5% increase in light capturing on a large sensor, whereas getting 50% more light in tiny sensors does make sense.


8
EOS Bodies / Re: Announcement Day July 24, 2012? [CR2]
« on: June 25, 2012, 08:29:46 AM »
So did canon maje any anouncements on 24th?

Er the announcement day is alleged to be the 24th of July, so nope - they didn't announce anything on the 24th of June.

9
Third Party Manufacturers / Sigma 12-24 discontinued / replaced ?
« on: June 14, 2012, 02:21:58 AM »
Hi,

Does anyone know anything about the Sigma 12/24 being either replaced or discontinued?

I just tried to get one from two different places in Australia and they both have it listed as out of stock with no ETA of when it will be back in stock.

I have found somewhere else that has it in stock (but at more than I was offered at JB Hifi) but if it's just about to be replaced, I could wait for the new one.

cheers
Dan

10
It makes me wonder what Canon's strategy is around announcing their pro gear so far in advance of availability.

That's not difficult.

Pros need a camera to do their job, so even if they just lose a camera they will replace it immediately with the best tool for the job available. Announcing future releases far in advance doesn't cost many sales, but does prevent companies being pissed off when they've just bought 20 1DSIII for their ten photographers, and they become outdated a couple of weeks later.

Amateurs can hold off buying cameras, so announcing products in advance massively hits sales as amateurs will hold off buying a new camera, if there is a new one coming in a few months time. Or just buy a Nikon if they don't already have any Canon lenses, because no consumer wants to buy a camera that they know is about to be obsolete.

11
Lenses / Re: Canon EF-S 18-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS STM Information
« on: June 07, 2012, 09:59:55 PM »
STM is "the thing that isn't USM", right?  Like on the c and other super-cheap lenses?


http://photo.net/equipment/canon/lens-motors

Ring Ultrasonic Motor = Fast, silent but quite 'fidgety' focusing with full-time manual focus.

Micro Ultrasonic Motor = Slow, loud focusing, no manual focus in autofocus mode.

STM = Not either of the above.
"So that the STM can also be quiet full-time manual focus, plus ultra-compact, it is a technology looking forward to future developments."

So probably faster focusing that micro USM, and slower and smoother focusing that ring USM.

For me this is a great 'going to the pub' lens. Even the little nifty fifty makes a 5D look too much like a professional camera and starts people getting antsy when you try to take pictures. A slightly wider and really slimline lens is awesome.

12
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon to Announce 2 Cameras in June [CR2]
« on: May 16, 2012, 09:24:16 AM »
My prediction as per the previous thread - the other camera will be basically a 5dmkIII with the mirror removed.

Same sensor and video capabilities, but with mirror, penta-prism, phase-detect autofocus and one of CF or SD card  removed (and maybe plastic rather than magnesium body) would produce a high quality camera at a low price which would not cannibalize 5D mkIII sales.

I'd prefer it if Canon released a high megapixel SLR camera - but the 5D is positioned at such a high price they seem to have deliberately left a hole in the market for a non-SLR high quality camera at much lower price.

13
EOS Bodies / Re: Lower Price Full Frame Camera [CR1]
« on: May 16, 2012, 06:03:06 AM »
Actually I thought of how they can knock a significant amount off the price of a full frame camera. Drop the:

Mirror
Penta-prism
Phase detection focusing

aka make a full-frame mirrorless camera. Those three items are all pretty expensive material wise and also make the manufacture process much more complicated, so removing them would result in a full-frame camera much cheaper than a 5d MKiii.

14
EOS Bodies / Re: Lower Price Full Frame Camera [CR1]
« on: May 15, 2012, 12:03:35 PM »
I think a major cut in cost for an entry level FF could come from the body. As stated in a number of reviews, the 5D3 body is greatly improved over the 5D2 and is more comparable to the 1D series in terms of build quality. Quality is expensive. Using a 60D/7D type body could probably shave off another $500 at the least.. (?)

I don't think it would be that much...the cost of magnesium is only a couple of dollars, and yes machining it into a body is not cheap, but it couldn't be much more than $50.


It won't be the SD card that gets the chop but rather the CF card. It's a larger enclosure. Smaller card, smaller enclosure, smaller door.

Possibly. That would make sense to entice people upgrading from non-full frame cameras. Sucks for people like me with two 5d classics and a whole bunch of compact flash cards.


Quote
The only way that would make it cheaper is if there is dedicated hardware that would be left out.

It wouldn't make the manufacturing cost cheaper, but it would make the product be worth much less (in consumers eyes), and so allow Canon to have a significant price differential between the 5d mkIII and a 'cut-down' full frame camera.

And yeah I don't think that leaving video out makes much sense - as Canon are not just competing with their own product line, but with lots of other competitors as well.

Quote
Which one are you going to choose?

Actually - I'm waiting for the 1DX to come out and am saving up for that...

15
EOS Bodies / Re: Lower Price Full Frame Camera [CR1]
« on: May 15, 2012, 07:09:37 AM »
Doesn't make much sense to go into production with a new camera when the 5D2 is still awesome and the factories are geared to producing it.

Quote from: daniel_charms
#1 Possibly except they are spending money on R&D (supposedly) and we can assume that the 5d2 with the already stripped specs is not that expensive to make––surely less so than a new camera with newer technology.  Save the money on R&D and lower the price.

The economics of running a high tech production line are not very intuitive. Manufacturing costs are relatively fixed no matter what level of technology is actually being assembled.

This is similar to the manufacture of hard drives. For example about 5 years ago you could buy a 100 gigabyte hard drive for $100 dollars. If hard drives were like other goods, where the price of manufacturing them comes down as time goes by you would expect that you could now buy a 100 gigabyte hard drive for say $50.

This is not the case. Instead you can buy a 2 terabyte hard drive for $100 - i.e. the unit cost has really not come down at all, as cost for each part of the hard drive has remained the same, but because of the R+D done you get much more space for your $100 of hard drive.

Similarly - continuing the production of the 5d mkII may not be cheaper for Canon than producing a new cut down version of the 5d mkIII. In fact if they stopped manufacturing mkIIs and released another camera that used the same sensor as the mkIII but with other features removed - they would probably see large savings compared to having to continue to have two separate production lines for sensors. (Production lines for producing sensors has to be more expensive than production lines for assembling bodies which is relatively low tech.)

btw Yes, I'm implying that Canon are making a huge profit per mkIII sold, but they have spent a lot on R+D, and people are prepared to pay that price, so fair play to them. As the price comes down over the next year or so, it won't be due to improvements in manufacturing process resulting in cheaper unit costs - it will just be slimmer profit margins for Canon.

Also I'm not sure how they could remove enough stuff from a 5d MKIII to produce a cut down version that is so significantly cheaper that it would get reasonable sales though. Pulling numbers from my posterior:

Remove SD card - $50
Change 61 AF points to 31 or fewer - $200
Frame rate from 6fps to 3fps - $200
Direct print button - $1

Even in a couple of years time when the mkIII is selling for $2500, there's not many people who would go for a cutdown camera for $2000 when the full 5d mkIII is only a little more. About the only thing I can think of is if they removed video then they could justify a much lower price (even if the manufacturing costs would actually be the same) and be able to capture more of the market.

Pages: [1] 2