October 21, 2014, 03:31:27 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 - ahsanford

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 62
1
Oh yeah, I forgot.  Ever-so-green Apple uses 100% arsenic free glass on their displays, ipads, phones, etc.  I always forgot about that because my MBP is plugged into a Dell 24" widescreen matte monitor.

A glass display is a categorical fail for me, resolution be damned.  I have two large windows in my office -- the reflections would be horrible. 

- A

2
I have never cared for the all-in-one imac design.  I prefer my peripherals to remain separate and easily switchable in case something breaks or there is an upgrade.

Unfortunately, Apple doesn't sell a classic desktop computer.  You have a choice between:

  • Really roughing it:  iPad and keyboard
  • A laptop on a stand plugged into a monitor (my choice for many years)
  • A mini:  a little shuttle that has relatively limited horsepower and limited upgradeability
  • An all in one like the iMac (which is upgradeable if you don't mind following some step by step guides:  https://www.ifixit.com/Device/iMac_Intel_27%22_EMC_2639)
  • A budget busting Mac Pro.
  • Or you spec a killer PC and set it up as a hackintosh, but that's fraught with some degree of risk -- risk of buying components that don't play nicely with MacOS, risk of cooking components, risk of being locked out with subsequent OS updates, etc.

The value proposition has been best with the Mini, but I have considered replacing my 5 year old Macbook Pro with an iMac as I never use the laptop out of the docked position these days (due to iPad use, phones capable of moving files more easily, etc.).

So the iMac announcement seems like a feature-level winner, but there are some drawbacks:

  • The last iMac was a much better value proposition.  I believe there's a huge price bump for the new retina 5k version.
  • How many video cards natively support that massive resolution?  Upgrading to a nicer card in 2-3 years time (a common move by PC builders to stretch the life of their PCs) may be difficult, expensive, or outright impossible if Apple has a difficult mount geometry (which is highly possible with these kind of all-in-one rigs).
  • If you also use your nice Photoshop box to play games, you are likely hosed.  99% of the world presently makes all of its desktop/TV games for 1920x1080 resolution, and we all play them on monitors with exactly that resolution, as leaving that native resolution on an LCD monitor aliases everything all to hell.  So with that fancy new monitor, you either have to (a) enjoy gaming on a fuzzy TV like view or (b) wait until game companies offer games that run in a native 5k format (don't hold your breath) and you crush your video card trying to render all those pixels real time.  So if I bought this, it would be a dedicated Photography box only and I'd need additional space and different monitor for a gaming PC.

- A

3
EOS Bodies / Re: Next Rebel Going EVF? [CR1]
« on: October 02, 2014, 06:45:27 PM »
I'm more interested in control layout and intuitive menus here Canon beats Olympus but the rotary control on the E-M10 to adjust exposure comp is easier than Canon.

Wow.  My 5D3 (and I think both your 6D and 7D) use the back wheel for EC.  There are no buttons to press... you just turn the wheel.  I'd argue that's the easiest adjustment Canon has other than the index finger wheel (for shutter or aperture, depending on what mode you're in).

I've never shot the Olympus, but how does it beat a dedicated wheel for a task?  Is it in a better location, perhaps?  Just curious.

- A

4
EOS Bodies / Re: Next Rebel Going EVF? [CR1]
« on: October 02, 2014, 06:39:49 PM »
Rebels always had bad viewfinders. Entry-level shooters prefer WISYWIG though god knows anyone who has a clue what they're doing prefers optical finders.

Always glad to see insulting, ignorant comments on the web!

Having 35 years of photography experience, I was less than enthusiastic when I purchased an Olympus EM-1 with EVF.  All I had ever used was an OVF, so was skeptical.  Now after 1 year of owning both the Olympus and a Canon 6D, I wish the Canon had an EVF.  Great advantage of WYSIWYG for difficult lighting situations such as sunsets.  Many other "in viewfinder" adjustments and info available.  The lag is so minimal it has never been an issue on any shot I have taken.  In fact, the EVF is so good, I forget that it is an EVF while shooting.

And yes, I do have a clue what I am doing.  Apology expected.

Yeah, I wish the world could take a more measured approach to condemning things they don't like.

Personally, I prefer the responsiveness of an OVF and have shot DSLRs for about ten years now. 

That said, I've never owned an EVF camera (unless cell phones count :P). I have tinkered with EVFs in hands-on moments in stores -- particularly Sony mirrorless models as I have a Sony store near me.  I have found the EVFs to be bright and loaded full of information, but a shade laggy compared to what I am used to.

I think the appeal of an EVF varies on what you shoot.   If I could completely decouple the fact that those shooting with EVFs do so because it's the only VF you get with mirrorless (unless you go... Fuji or Leica, right?) -- and that's a big if -- you could parse out some nice upsides to an EVF:

  • You get the upside of LiveView without the somewhat detached composition feel of looking at the LCD.  I personally love LiveView on a tripod for landscape work, but it's not the responsive framing experience that using handholding through the viewfinder gives you.  Someone just made a comment about super bright shooting like a sunset, and you just can't experience that before you shoot on an OVF.

  • You can shape / modify your viewfinder experience.  A real time histo instead of a basic EV indicator, focus peaking, highlight clipping warnings in context in the shot, etc. would seem to be powerful opportunities if they didn't clutter things too much.

  • It has got to be easier to see in dark conditions, right?

But there are realities about battery life and responsiveness that would represent a downgrade to OVF shooters.  So, for me (and not condemning those that disagree), I'm still OVF until I get a compelling reason to leave that behind.

- A

5
EOS Bodies / Re: Next Rebel Going EVF? [CR1]
« on: October 02, 2014, 05:56:55 PM »
And when is the last time you had trouble with a mechanical aperture?

Never. But I want "better and smaller". 100% mechanics-free. Electronic apertures are a necessary part for future Solid State Cameras with functionality that far surpasses the hybrid-half-mechanical machines of yesterday and today. At least until we really move on to lightfield imaging devices.   :-)

I think you forgot the intermediate evolutionary phase where we all become videographers and poach our best stills from video.   :P

- A

6
Lenses / More chatter on an EF 11-24 F/4L coming soon
« on: October 02, 2014, 05:55:03 PM »
I don't put too much stock into CanonWatch, but they are claiming to have a source saying that an EF 11-24 F/4L lens is happening:

http://www.canonwatch.com/ef-11-24mm-f4l-coming-probably/

Some of you in a recent poll implied that this forum community's desire for a Nikon 14-24 F/2.8 clone was less based on that lens's spectacular sharpness and more based on the opportunity the 14mm wide end on that zoom might offer.  So I'd imagine -- were this rumor true -- some folks would be super duper happy about this.

But even if this picture was not a fake, no front filterability (without a comically large aftermarket outrigger) would be DOA for me.  I'll happily enjoy my 16-35 F/4L IS and call my UWA needs sated. 

- A

7
EOS Bodies / Re: Next Rebel Going EVF? [CR1]
« on: October 02, 2014, 02:56:30 PM »
Quite a debate.  I think if this rumor is true it will take this form: EVF replaces mirror assembly; body size (particularly thickness front to back) is reduced but retains general shape of Rebel series including body height; EF-M mount; kits include EF-M to EF adapter; only larger size, hand grip, battery, body material (black/white polymer), dial configuration and EVF differentiate from next EOS-M; Canon retains either some Rebel models with mirrors (and native EF-S mount) or creates a new line for those products; and Canon does not introduce many more EF-M lenses.

I never put it together that way, but that's clever --> it'd be an EOS-M with a decent grip like a Rebel.  That might be the 'EOS-M3' everyone has been waiting for.

- A

8
EOS Bodies / Re: Next Rebel Going EVF? [CR1]
« on: October 02, 2014, 02:26:07 PM »
Those are different user groups.  70D / 7D / 7D2 guys value responsiveness as much as functions/features.  They won't give up their OVFs anytime soon.

I fall in the 70D "grouping" and I gave up the OVF. (The decision on upgrading my 30D's was either the 70D or the X-T1. And I chose ...  8))

The 7D2 is for me a conundrum: great camera, iffy native lenses. But that aside, obviously Canon cannot improve the EOS-M to this level, both technologically and fiscally.

That's the weird bit.  I almost now see the 70D as the top end crop camera for all-purpose use, and I see the 7D2 (by any measure, a better rig) becoming more of the specialist reach/sports tool for better funded shooters -- i.e. most of the reach-limited folks who will be bolting superteles on to their new 7D2 probably aren't sad about the lack of high-quality ultrawide and 'wider standard zoom' options for it.   ::)  To those folks, the 7D2 becomes a crop teleconverter for big glass to do more for them. 

So I just don't see the 7D2 as something you buy for standard FL use.  It's the reach camera.  No need for standard FLs on it.  If you really need great 16-something  / 24-something FF equivalent, the 7D2 might not be the camera for you.  It might be time to look into a 6D or used 5D3 to tap into that great EF glass.

I know that's a minority position, but hey.

- A

9
EOS Bodies / Re: Next Rebel Going EVF? [CR1]
« on: October 02, 2014, 01:54:06 PM »
... consider a higher end EF-M body ...
How higher? On par with the 70D? That'll kill their "prosumer" mid-level camera range for sure.  :'(

Those are different user groups.  70D / 7D / 7D2 guys value responsiveness as much as functions/features.  They won't give up their OVFs anytime soon.

I just think one sweeping EOS-M upgrade that addresses the major needs of mirrorless devotees -- an EVF, more responsive focusing, better grip, etc. -- will still allow a smaller form factor camera to take pictures in more arenas.

Will it bite into crop SLR sales?  Maybe.  But if it's the inevitable future, why run from it?

- A

10
EOS Bodies / Re: Next Rebel Going EVF? [CR1]
« on: October 02, 2014, 01:44:50 PM »
A few random points to maybe fill in the parts you might be missing.  ;)


Great comments, thank you.  Very helpful for answering my questions.

Always having a road to allow EF glass to work presumes that Canon will ride their epic EF lens lineup to the bitter end, which is not a terrible assumption.  But part of me wonders if the world would really end if smaller mounts got higher quality native lenses -- L, USM, pro build, etc. 

But hell -- throw us a bone, Canon.  Give me just one decent native USM lens for EF-M and I might buy an EOS-M.

- A

11
EOS Bodies / Re: Next Rebel Going EVF? [CR1]
« on: October 02, 2014, 01:24:18 PM »
Basically Canon has three possible ways to design "a Digital Rebel with OVF".

1. Rebel-style and size body, e.g. like SL-1, fixed (pellicle) mirror, EVF [or hybrid VF] and EF-S mount
This concept has failed already 2 times ... first Canon Pellix, later Sony SLTs ... similar to e.g. Alpha 57 back in 2012 http://www.dpreview.com/articles/9545765927/sony-slt-a57-hvl-le1

2. Rebel-style and size body, e.g. like SL-1, mirrorless, EVF and EF-S mount
This concept has failed also ... see Pentax K01 back in 2012 http://www.dpreview.com/products/pentax/slrs/pentax_k01

3. Mirrorless, EVF, EF-M mount = EOS M3
Concept has half-failed first time round. Not for technical reasons, but for shortsighted Canon product crippling combined with Canon greed (way too high price). 


In reality Canon does not have a choice but to take route #3. Which is perfectly fine with me. :-)

And if they are smart, it will be sold body only and in 4 kits:
A) Body with EF-M 18-55 STM and
B) Body plus dual zoom kit .. EF-M 18-55 and EF-M 55-200
C) Body with EF/EF-S adapter
D) Body with EF-M 18-55 and EF/EFS adapter

Love the vision here -- a world where EF-M replaces EF-S is not an impossible one.  I could see 5-10 years from now SLRs being relegated to the pro end only and the rest of Canon's still cameras being mirrorless.   But I see Canon supporting three still camera mounts (EF-M, EF-S, EF) for the foreseeable future. 

It makes far more sense to build up EOS-M -- beef up the EF-M lens portfolio, offer an EOS-M EVF, consider a higher end EF-M body, etc. -- before they ever try to replace what Rebels do today.

- A

12
EOS Bodies / Re: Next Rebel Going EVF? [CR1]
« on: October 02, 2014, 12:56:11 PM »
If someone buys the L lens for the M, the cost of adapter is a small change. Why not?? On the other hand, the M mount lenses has already cover from 11mm to 200mm. That is more than enough for most people. One of the idea od M is to keep it small. Put a big L lens on it goes the opposite way. I have a 17-40 L, I have never consider mounting it on the M.

That's the problem.  The purpose of mirrorless is to take stellar pictures in a much thinner body, hopefully with smaller lenses as well (but the sensor size does have something to say about that). 

But Canon knew that the first people in line to buy an EOS-M would be mirrorless devotees -- it would be existing Canon guys with lots of glass who want a very small 2nd or 3rd body.  That (plus the lack of native EF-M lenses) is why the adapter was available on day one.

So -- at least with Canon -- you have two camps of EOS-M owners.  They don't see eye to eye too often re: what should be mounted on it.

- A


13
EOS Bodies / Re: Next Rebel Going EVF? [CR1]
« on: October 02, 2014, 12:50:28 PM »
    2) Now this battery of questions is interpreting this rumor to mean the new Rebels will get an EVF which replaces the traditional mirror setup.  In this case, it would be EVF only / mirrorless.  Questions if this is the direction:

    • Why?  They'd either keep their EF-S mount to sensor distance (to protect their stable of EF-S glass) and have a far thicker body than any mirrorless competitor or they'd adopt something smaller (like EF-M) that would require a lot of new lenses to be developed.

    There is no absolute law that states mirrorless cameras must be small and have a short flange to focal plane distance. It is just something that somebody started to do and now everyone else does it. So maybe Canon has cottoned that these super-small SLR-like cameras - e.g. E-M5 & E-M10 - are just plain too small and that consumers will possibly want something a tad larger ... i.e. maybe their ergonomics experts have determined that their current line-up of DSLR cameras are just the right size?

    • Why convert Rebel's identity -- i.e. the most used SLR -- to mirrorless?  Fantastic brand recognition, sure, but why redefine it so?

    Why not? The "Rebel" line started as a film SLR camera, then became a DSLR camera. So why not progress it to a mirrorless camera? Especially since the target audience for the "Rebel" line are more prone to adopt "new" technology than the more "settled" bunch for the top lines.[/list]

    On your first bit, sure, but let's say they keep the EF-S mount setup and switch to an EVF.  That EVF will gobble up battery and have a very small lag, which are downgrades from an OVF.  I'd need to know why they'd shoe-horn in an (almost) must for mirrorless in a body that has room for a mirror.  What is the upside to doing that?  Cost?  More compositional feedback a la LiveView (for the entry level?!).  I must be missing something here.

    On your second bit, you make a fair point -- Rebel can evolve.  I just don't think Rebel will evolve overnight.  If this rumor is true -- and that's a big if -- one might imagine there would not be a hard exodus from mirrors.  So you'd have Rebel SLRs alongside Rebel mirrorless -- they'd have to call them something very clearly different (like Rebel Mirrorless), and that seems a bit of a fragmentation of the brand rather than an evolution.  I'm not opposed to it so much as curious why they would do this here instead of grow the EOS-M brand with an EVF, smaller native lenses, etc.

    - A

    14
    EOS Bodies / Re: Next Rebel Going EVF? [CR1]
    « on: October 02, 2014, 12:38:38 PM »
    If Canon retired the EF-S mount, wouldn't that harm the upgrade path to EF lenses (particularly L series)? Would someone using an entry level body with EF-M mount really be as likely to buy an L lens if they have to buy an adapter, too?

    I just don't see Canon dumping EF-S any time soon...

    1)  Agree with EF-S sticking around for a long time.  There are currently (according to TDP) 14 first-party EF-S lenses available today to only (off the top of my head) 4 first-party EF-M lenses.  So obsoleting the EF-S mount would put a large burden on EF-M glass development.  I don't think they would do that in a leadership position in crop cameras unless crop sales were being devoured by mirrorless sales -- many folks have said that this is happening, but it has been in stops and starts.  Crop camera sales aren't eroding from mirrorless like compacts are from cell phone camera use, so abandoning a mount that Canon can build lenses for cheaply in their sleep seems very premature.

    2) Mirrorless enthusiasts absolutely buy adapters to try all kinds of nutty lenses on their rigs -- full frame glass, ancient old lenses with manual focus, other companies' lenses, etc.  But soccer moms and family archivist dads who buy a camera that happens to be mirrorless will want native glass for that mount.  So today, they can go sort-of-small with a crop camera that retains the ability to use EF glass natively, or you can crazy small with mirrorless at the cost of native lens connectivity without an adapter.

    In many cases, going small and using native mirrorless lenses means waiting for the nicer FF lens you really want to be made for your mount.  This is the mirrorless quandary, and it should be no surprise that companies that lack as comprehensive lens offerings as Canon/Nikon (i.e. everyone) would rather throw the house at native mirrorless lens development rather than try to build an on-ramp for people to use larger existing lenses.  As much as Canon owners with a dozen lenses love the value of an adapter for EOS-M (making it an easy 2nd/3rd body addition to our gear), we are very much in the minority.  A mirrorless devotee who only uses one body wants great native glass for it, plain and simple.

    - A


    15
    EOS Bodies / Re: Next Rebel Going EVF? [CR1]
    « on: October 02, 2014, 11:56:44 AM »
    • Why isn't Canon's second-ever EVF (remember the GI X Mark II has one) ...

    So do the S1IS, S2IS, S3IS, S5IS, SX1, SX10, SX20, SX40, SX50, SX60, Pro 90 and Pro 1.

    Well, that's embarrassing.    :D

    - A

    Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 62