January 31, 2015, 07:02:13 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 - traveller

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 45
EOS Bodies / Re: New Sensor Technology Coming From Canon? [CR1]
« on: April 29, 2014, 11:11:07 AM »
Thus either this rumor is a hoax (why would Canon not want to reduce the cost of sensors made for the top end?)...

Can I flip this around: why would the top end be the priority for reducing production costs? Surely the margins are tighter at the bottom?

I believe that you're thinking it wrong: ANY reduced manufacturing costs goes straight to the bottom line.

Sure, the lower end has a higher volume, but sometimes it is easier to reduce costs at the high end simply because people didn't bother too much about cost, with the argument that "it's high end, so our focus is quality, not cost", which ends up in a circular argument resulting in high cost.

Believe me, I speak from experience (sigh).

1. What yield improvement were you thinking of that is of no benefit to APS-C sized sensors?

2. If it is of benefit to APS-C sized sensors, why apply it only to full frame sensors? Surely you apply the technology that improves yield to the production line that has the highest production levels (i.e. APS-C), not the one with the lowest?

EOS Bodies / Re: New Sensor Technology Coming From Canon? [CR1]
« on: April 29, 2014, 10:13:10 AM »
Thus either this rumor is a hoax (why would Canon not want to reduce the cost of sensors made for the top end?)...

Can I flip this around: why would the top end be the priority for reducing production costs? Surely the margins are tighter at the bottom? Besides, I can't think of why a new production technology that improves yield wouldn't equally benefit APS-C sized sensor production costs.

I think that this whole rumour is based upon the "all cameras will be  full frame in the future" fallacy that we're now meant to buy into. If Canon are experiencing pressure from mirrorless in the APS-C market, then it's lenses that are more to blame than camera bodies.

So I think your first proposition is probably more correct:

Thus either this rumor is a hoax...


EOS Bodies / Re: New Sensor Technology Coming From Canon? [CR1]
« on: April 29, 2014, 09:58:53 AM »
Not sure this can even be answered yet but if Canon came out with a full frame EOS-M version, would they need to change to a new lens mount as well? Could the EF-M still be used?

EF- M mount can't be used for FF unfortunately. Too small. Likely they'd create a mirrorless camera with the regular EF mount instead.

This is widely stated, but I can't see that the EF-M mount is much different in dimensions to the Sony E mount; I know that E mount is tight for full frame, but it is still possible. I'm struggling to find the technical specifications, but here's a comparison (assuming the scaling is correct) -measure for yourself:


EF-M is pretty similar to E-mount in its internal diameter and a bit larger than either X-mount or micro 4/3rds. We also know that the flange back distance is the same as E-mount (18mm, vs 44mm for regular EF).

I'm not saying that this proves EF-M is compatible with full frame sensors, nor that Canon would have any near term plans to produce a full frame mirrorless camera if it were, but it would be a bit strange if they happened to make it so similar in size to E-mount and it not be FF capable. They must have had some idea that Sony were interested in making a FF E-mount camera. I believe that FF probably is possible with EF-M mount, if nothing else then to cover that base for the future. Of course, Canon would never admit that now whilst it is still trying to push their FF DSLRs!

As for a mirrorless camera with an EF mount: it's possible but not with a reduced flange back distance, or they'd create all sorts of lens compatibility confusion!

Lenses / Re: Review: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens
« on: April 22, 2014, 02:39:22 PM »
This is a real bummer, as I rate AF consistency as one of the most important aspects of this type of lens. I've found that for the most part, missing focus is far more destructive to resolution than a few hundred line widths per pixel height difference in MTF50. Of course, this new Sigma 50mm and the Zeiss Otus are exceptional in that they are clearly far superior at large apertures to the conventional double-gauss designs.

The situation might not be so bad except that my camera's focusing screen (5D3) is pretty useless at showing depth of field at large apertures, so it's easy not notice the fact that the focus is off; this also makes accurate manual focus almost impossible below f/2.8.

Lenses / The-Digital-Picture Sigma 50mm f/1.4 "Art" lens review posted
« on: April 22, 2014, 09:39:42 AM »
Bryan has posted his review of the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 "Art"


The verdict:

"With excellent image quality and great design, this lens becomes the easy 50mm AF lens choice. AF consistency remains this lens' biggest weakness."

Lenses / Re: New TS-E Lenses for Photokina [CR2]
« on: April 21, 2014, 09:50:22 AM »
I can't think what "unique feature" would be useful on a tilt-shift... macro capability? IS wouldn't help much on lens that will be used with a tripod 90% of the time; maybe they've worked out how to get AF to work with tilt-shifts (but I doubt it)! Knowing Canon, perhaps they've incorporated defocus control  ;D

Street & City / Re: Street Voyeurism Continued
« on: April 11, 2014, 03:35:29 AM »
I see too much "street photography" that is either boring or that attempts to create interest through confrontation with the subject. Your shots, on the other hand really capture the moment without provoking it -great work! I particularly like the humour with the shop attendant and the mannequin, also the guy taking a picture of him and his family with a camera on a pole and the reaction of the bystanders.

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS-1D X & EOS-1D C Cold Weather Autofocus Issues
« on: April 04, 2014, 05:02:16 AM »
This is one of the "joys" of the internet age; whereas in previous years, not many outside of the select few would have know of this issue (or noticed it), now it will be splashed all over the web with accompanying howls of derision. Or perhaps it is leading to companies being more open with service notices: Canon seem to be getting better after being badly burnt by the whole 1D MkIII AF episode; Nikon are learning the lesson the hard way! Was Six Sigma always a myth?

PowerShot / Re: Canon PowerShot G17 Coming in May? [CR1]
« on: March 30, 2014, 07:29:38 PM »
At least part of this rumour must be BS, unless the camera is huge! The Sony RX10 is bridge/superzoom size and has a 1" sensor and a 24-200 (equivalent) f/2.8 lens; how big would a G17 be with a lens of the same focal length but  f/1.4-f/2? Sorry, but I'm calling shenanigans -everyone grab a broom!

I don't think you can call Sony a "big manufacturer of medium format sensors" when they've only just release their first!  ???

 There could be a market for a medium format mirrorless system, but there are still the issues of shutter vibration and heat generation on the sensor when generating a live view feed.

Lloyd Chambers (http://diglloyd.com/blog/2014/20140325_1-Sony-MF-CMOS.html) has suggested a fixed lens compact MF camera; possibly the best plan for Sony if they did want to push into MF, given their reticence with lenses for their existing mounts!

Lenses / Re: Review: Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3 Di VC USD
« on: March 06, 2014, 08:16:42 AM »
This Tamron is looking like a great lens, if used within its limitations. I think that Canon is going to have a battle on its hands to persuade me to buy a $2300 (£1900) replacement for the 100-400L (price based upon Nikon AF-S 80-400mm f4.5-5.6G ED VR).

To be honest, for that sort of money I would want an EF 100-500mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM, with superior AF performance and the sort of resolution that this Tamron has at 300-400mm across most of its focal length range. Too tall an order Canon?  :D

EOS Bodies / Re: What Happened to the Photography Industry in 2013?
« on: March 06, 2014, 05:56:09 AM »
What happened? Market saturation.

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


The camera industry until recently still had a growth mindset. I think that this last year or so has brought it home to them that the good times are over. The global recession has killed growth, but I don't think that we'll see a return to the growth levels of the "noughties" even after full economic recovery.

I think that we're at the end of the era after the film to digital transition. The new realities are:

  • The market is now saturated, many buyers already own a DSLR
  • CMOS sensor performance seems to have plateaued in that the rate of improvement in sensor performance is slowing down.
  • This has forced manufacturers to make improvements to other specifications in order to sell upgrades
  • DSLR manufacturers are now maxing out on improvements to other "key" specifications
  • They are now looking for new ways to sell cameras (think small and retro)

This is actually starting to look like a return to normality in the camera market, having been in a consumer electronics phase. Maybe the pace of releases will speed up again when the next truly disruptive technology comes along; I'm not sure that mirrorless is that disruption.

EOS Bodies / Re: What Happened to the Photography Industry in 2013?
« on: March 06, 2014, 04:55:58 AM »
I think a good question is what happened to the upper/pro-sumer/pro Canon dSLR & lens market - in which probably the greater population of the site visitors here encompass? There doesn't appear to be any stagnant slowing of product releases from rivals like Nikon/Sony and third party lens like Sigma and Tamron.

One dual pixal innovation on a 70d with a whole collective of marginal "innovations" of rebels, kit lens upgrades (basically slapping the STM label on), and garbage powershots aren't cutting it for this past year+.

If Canon is keeping tight its R&D spending on marginal rebel/kit upgrades why is it blowing $$$ on releasing lenses like the 24-70 f/4 is L, 24 2.8 IS, and 28 2.8 is? I blame part of the drop in those graphs/numbers on failed business decisions from Canon.

Since 2012-today, the only worthwhile "pro-sumer/pro" lenses have been the 24-70 2.8 II and 200-400 f4 1.4x.

One can only hope with Canon these past few years, that they enter the medium format market or do something more dramatic.

I don't think that it's just Canon, I would accuse Nikon of doing similar. The only manufacturers that have been churning out the camera and lens releases over the past few have been Sony (E & FE-mount only), Fuji and m4/3rds. Of course, these manufacturers have needed to build there systems from scratch, whereas Canon and Nikon have a comprehensive system built up over years. Of course, one could make the "look where it's got them" argument: Sony are in the red, Olympus are all but bankrupt with shareholders demanding divestment of the camera division, and Panasonic stills cameras are effectively in the "last chance saloon" with their new Chief Executive threatening to sell any under-performing business unit.

I would tend to agree with Thom Hogan that where the "big two" are weak is in their support for their APS-C lines. Unless they are planning to release full frame bodies at "Rebel" prices (which isn't going to happen any time soon, if ever), their EF-S/DX lens line-up is seriously weak at the wide angle end. I can only think that they hope this drives "serious" users to go full frame, but the danger is that they go mirrorless instead; this is especially so because the sort of user that wants fast wide glass (where X-mount and m4/3rds excel), is also the sort of user that can live without phase detect af.

The other danger is the third party lens makers are starting to encroach upon their turf with higher end enthusiast and professional lenses; these have traditionally been a good profit generator for Canon and Nikon.

Canon General / Re: Interview With Canon Executives
« on: March 05, 2014, 02:13:55 PM »
How about this for a missed question:  It's been two Olympics and still no 100-400 mark 2?
LOL ;D.  I'm getting really annoyed with my ancient 24-70 2.8 II, 70-200 2.8 II, and 300 2.8 II IS.  The "upgrade" money is really burning a hole in my pocket and if they don't upgrade all of these this year, I'm switching to Nikon  ;) ;) ;)

Is anyone who wants a new 100-400mm still waiting, or have they just gone out and bought the Tamron 150-600? Just another area where Canon are under pressure... anyone desperate for a 35mm f/1.4L update, or hace they just bought the Sigma 35mm f/ 1.4 Art?

Canon General / Re: Interview With Canon Executives
« on: March 04, 2014, 11:18:42 AM »
Most interesting to me was the clear statement that the EOS-M was an "experiment..."

This got me thinking about the complexities of modern manufacturing. Today's market research tools allow companies to hone in on specific audiences for products. No longer do they need a one-size-fits-all approach. Modern manufacturing systems also allow for greater customization and cost-efficient production of products for sub-markets and even sub-sub-markets.

On the other hand, the worldwide communications of the internet and social media make it impossible to market a product in one region or country without the rest of the world knowing about it. And, it is a given that some percentage of the customer case outside of the targeted region is going to want a product that isn't available and feel "cheated" by not getting it, even if there isn't much of a market for it in their region.

In the old days, international companies could produce country-specific products and about the only way anyone knew about them was if they actually visited that country. Not the case anymore. Not trying to make any particular point about the EOS-M, just an observation about manufacturing and marketing in general.

The counter argument is that the people who are informed enough to care that the product line is not available in their market can always use the internet to import it for themselves. Not that I would advocate this strategy!

It strikes me that Canon has yet to decide whether it's a multinational or a global company. Currently, it seems that head office are happy for each territory to market whichever part of the product line sells locally. This (possibly) helps to make the company responsive to local conditions, but hardly sits well with creating a global brand.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 45