April 16, 2014, 09:06:51 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 - neuroanatomist

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 840
61
Lenses / Re: New 50mm Sigma ? There are other options !
« on: April 14, 2014, 11:25:56 AM »
Excepting that we are not talking about composition specifically we are talking mainly about quality, and in that respect the prime lens offers the client the best quality possible 

Actually, you were talking about both quality and thinking about composition as advantages of having 'outgrown zoom lenses', but if you want to change your story now, that's ok.   ;)

The Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L II and 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II deliver image quality equal to or better than many prime lenses at equivalent apertures in their respective ranges, particularly when considering real world output and not laboratory test shots.  Many primes offer faster apertures, if you're willing to sacrifice some of the maximum IQ of the lens, and if shallow DoF is appropraite for the shot.  Many prime lenses are also cheaper than those zooms which deliver excellent IQ.

The generic 'primes have better IQ than zooms' mentality is a bit dated when considering modern lenses.

62
Canon General / Re: Insurance for Camera gear
« on: April 14, 2014, 11:16:03 AM »
An agent might give a nice camera gear discount because he's also insuring a mansion and two Mercedes for the client  ::)  ;)

Actually, I don't have an agent (nor a mansion or even one Mercedes).  We have State Farm only because we 'brought it with us' when we moved from California.  Because of the insurance regulations in MA, State Farm does not write policies for new customers in the state.  So, there are no agents here, only a Policy Service Office (one for the whole state). 

Perhaps I'm getting the official rate, and some agents elsewhere are sticking it to their customers?    :o

63
EOS-M / Re: Canon EOS M3 in Q3 of 2014?
« on: April 14, 2014, 11:08:47 AM »
I don't disagree with the essence of what you are saying. Although I do think the jury is still out on whether or not EVFs will ever outperform and replace OVFs.

It seems to me the Optical View Finder is a pretty elegant solution that's been around for a long time (over 100 years in some form or another and well over 50 as the dominant format for 35mm). It relies on physics, not electronics, and has lots of advantages.

I do think EVFs will improve to the point where they replace OVFs.  Not because they're the latest thing, but because the do offer significant advantages.  Those advantages are just not enough to outweight the disadvantages, yet (IMO).  An EVF doesn't need zero lag, it just needs a lag short enough to be imperceptible.  DR is an issue that can also be overcome.  Consider the 'intelligent VF' in the recent Canon bodies - the transmissive LCD overlay is there to provide additional information in the OVF, like a level, grid lines, etc. That's very useful, but an EVF can offer a lot more, such as live histogram (which can obviate the DR issue), focus peaking, instant focus check with a 10x zoom at half-press, etc. 

64
EOS-M / Re: Canon EOS M3 in Q3 of 2014?
« on: April 14, 2014, 11:00:02 AM »
"Full-frame" is everything, right? But what about the Sony A7/A7S then, huh?

What metrics?

What about them?  The Sony A7 line is a small fraction of the mirrorless market.  Again, you are thinking from the perspective of an individual buying one camera, and Canon is considering the perspective of millions of people buying all sorts of cameras.

Many of the mirrorless offerings are m4/3, which is smaller than APS-C. 

Sensor size isn't all that matters.  AF performance, battery life, native lens selection, etc., are all factors that many people consider when choosing a camera.

Let's wait for the 2014 stats, shall we? Just so's the Olympus E-M1 and E-M10, the Sony A7 and A7S, and the FUJIFILM X-T1 can be factored in.

You can wait if you want.  For Jan/Feb 2014, MILCs are still hovering at around 10% of the total market.  I doubt the cameras you mention will have a significant impact on that, since only one of them is under $1K, and even that one (the E-M10) costs more than entry-level dSLRs.  It's really the lower end, entry-level systems that drive the bulk of the market. 

65
Canon General / Re: Insurance for Camera gear
« on: April 14, 2014, 10:42:06 AM »
State Farm seem a bit random with pricing, 15k cover for $187 vs 17k for $176

Clearly, because I'm paying $7.60 per $1K coverage, a much lower rate than either of the above.

67
EOS-M / Re: Canon EOS M3 in Q3 of 2014?
« on: April 14, 2014, 10:26:37 AM »
My general point stands: it's in Canon's interest to stay in the M-market, even at break-even or loss, to make sure they're ready for the evolution of both tech and market demands.

I think the development of dual pixel AF technology, a technology with such obvious applications in the mirrorless camera space, is solid evidence that Canon is ready for the market to move in that direction.

68
EOS-M / Re: Canon EOS M3 in Q3 of 2014?
« on: April 14, 2014, 10:23:03 AM »
Problem with that kind of corporate financial theoretical thinking is that it only works if you (i.e. Canon) are the only game in town. Canon isn't and everyone who wants decent mirrorless right now are switching systems to other manufacturers, i.e. Canon is losing customers.


Problem with that kind of individual consumer theoretical thinking is that it only works if you (i.e. the comsumer) are the only game in town.  You're not, and while Canon may be losing customers 'who want decent mirrorless right now', they're also gaining customers who are upgrading from a P&S and finding dSLRs to be more popular, customers who want better IQ than smaller-sensor mirrorless bodies can deliver, better performance on certain metrics, etc. 

For interchangeable lens cameras, those with reflex mirrors are outselling those without mirrors by over 4:1.  Considering all digital cameras (P&S, dSLR, and mirrorless), mirrorless cameras account for 10% of the 2013 revenue, dSLRs account for 48% of the 2013 revenue, with fixed lens cameras making up the balance of 42%  (CIPA stats). 

So, the customers Canon is 'losing' come from a segment of the market that accounts for less than 10% of camera revenues.   


Canon seems to have made a limited investment in mirrorless, to date.  Still, in Japan – one of the largest mirrorless markets – the EOS M outsold every MILC model from Fuji, Olympus, and Panasonic for 2013.


So what's your point? Have you ever thought that Europeans/USA/Canadians might prefer the "SLR"-style of camera (with integrated OVF/EVF) over the GF, E-P and EOS-M type of cameras, which explains why these [latter] cameras have not sold well in Europe, the USA and Canada? That it might be cultural thing, huh?


You refer to the EOS M as, "...the best that Canon, with all its superior resources and technology, could come up with," and state that Canon is 'outclassed' by Fuji, Olympus, and Panasonic.  My point is that in a geography where mirrorless cameras are popular, Canon beat Fuji, Olympus, and Panasonic in sales, and did so with their very first entry into the mirrorless market. 

69
EOS-M / Re: Canon EOS M3 in Q3 of 2014?
« on: April 14, 2014, 09:56:39 AM »
The EOS-M was the best that Canon, with all its superior resources and technology, could come up with. So how the heck are they gonna handle TWO models, one if which is supposed to be "prosumer" (whatever that is) level. Plus, if Canon is not going to release L EF-M lenses, then how do they intend competing with FUJIFILM, Olympus and Panasonic for the "prosumer" market, huh?

Canon seems to have made a limited investment in mirrorless, to date.  Still, in Japan – one of the largest mirrorless markets – the EOS M outsold every MILC model from Fuji, Olympus, and Panasonic for 2013. 

70
EOS-M / Re: Canon EOS M3 in Q3 of 2014?
« on: April 14, 2014, 09:48:50 AM »
...mirrorless is the future of Canon's camera business; more to the point, it's the future profit of Canon's camera business.


Is it?  Mirrorless meant the 'death of the dSLR in five years'.  That was seven years ago.


Depends on how you define "mirrorless."  I define it the simple way: no mirror.  The mirror will go away.  When?  I'm willing to speculate, but not predict, and it will be an evolution, not a sudden event.  We've seen some great AF advances lately, and the battery life issue is just a matter of continued incremental progress.

Are you willing to assert that there will still be a large market in reflex cameras in twenty years?

You may have been trying to suggest that, even if mirroless is the future, profit is based on nearish future, not far future, and Canon could afford to delay M- development until it's closer.  That would be a reasonable argument, but you didn't make it.  Instead you argued that "people were wrong before about mirrorless, therefore..."


Depends on how you define "future."   ;)   Canon has told us the future is video camera with a small, ultrahigh resolution sensor, a big zoom lens, phenomenal image stabilization, and frame grabs for still images.  Of course, as a video camera it fits your definition of mirrorless…

Yes, the reflex mirror will go away at some point, some time after the point where performance of EVFs meets or exceeds that of OVFs (that's a ways off), and image sensor AF performance meets or exceeds that of a dedicated phase AF sensor for both static and moving subjects (we're getting closer to that).  But today's common use of term "mirrorless" does not match your definition as simply 'having no mirror'.  "Mirrorless" is generally taken as a shorthand descriptor for the class of cameras known as MILCs, compact system cameras, etc.  If you're going to use a term in a way that differs from convention, it's helpful to provide your definition at the outset. 

Sensor size will remain important, as will ergonomics.  If you want to have a lens with a large aperture to cover a full frame sensor's image circle, you're going to need a physically large lens.  Put a small camera behind that lens, the ergonomics are poor (ask anyone who's mounted an f/2.8 zoom on the EOS M).  Cameras that are similar in size to today's dSLRs, but don't have a reflex mirror, will come along eventually.  We won't be able to call them dSLRs (technically), but they won't fit today's definition of "mirrorless" either.

71
Lenses / Re: New 50mm Sigma ? There are other options !
« on: April 14, 2014, 09:13:45 AM »
Each to their own, personally i have outgrown my zoom lenses and prefer the quality the prime provides and have the ability to think about the composition and use my feet.
This is one of the best points I have seen on CR. I am glad to see someone else who has outgrown zoom lenses.

Canon knows that the best, most highly compensated photographers have all "outgrown" zoom lenses.  That's why they released one costing close to $12,000.   ::)

I use both zooms and primes, but I'm happy say that I don't need to use a prime lens to force me to think about composition and to put myself at the proper distance from the subject to achieve the perspective I want for the shot.  I can do that all by myself, even with a zoom lens.  In fact, because zoom lenses allow one to vary composition/framing while maintaining perspective, they offer an additional creative tool that prime lenses don't provide, since 'zooming with your feet' changes both framing and perspective at the same time. 

But if those who have "outgrown" zoom lenses need the crutch of a fixed focal length to goad them into thinking about composition, that's fine for them…    ;)

72
Lenses / Re: Bokeh onion rings
« on: April 14, 2014, 09:05:55 AM »
Another difference is that the AC light sources are more concentrated (point source) than the DC/candle. That may well be the reason.

That was my point above about the size of the light source.  A smaller point source would be more likely to result in diffraction effects.

73
EOS-M / Re: Canon EOS M3 in Q3 of 2014?
« on: April 14, 2014, 08:40:38 AM »
...mirrorless is the future of Canon's camera business; more to the point, it's the future profit of Canon's camera business.

Is it?  Mirrorless meant the 'death of the dSLR in five years'.  That was seven years ago.

74
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: I'd call this more of a tie, for now
« on: April 14, 2014, 08:31:45 AM »
How large is the ILC market in South Korea, relative to the rest of the world?

75
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: B&H or Adorama
« on: April 14, 2014, 08:30:46 AM »
This doesn't happen often, but for the 2nd time in a month, I placed an order for an item and was notified several days later the item was out of stock.  As of today, the item is still reported in stock on Adorama's site:

http://www.adorama.com/KIRPZ150.html

With the passover holiday closure, B&H won't be processing orders until the 23rd.  :(


Since you're going to have to wait anyway…might I suggest that you consider the RRS L-bracket for the 1D X? 

It is more expensive, yes, but the design is excellent.  It is modular, so you can remove the upright portion of the L bracket for a smaller profile when you don't need to mount in portrait orientation (that also means you can buy the body plate, and add the upright portion for the L bracket later).  The hex key to convert stores right in the plate itself.  It's a common size (5/32", IIRC), and for me that little easily-accessible wrench has come in handy in a variety of situations.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 840