Messages

421

EOS Bodies / Re: A grateful end to the DSLR video "revolution"

« on: May 22, 2011, 05:40:43 AM »

You sound like you're very bitter with the world right now. 

It's getting ever more difficult to justify charging professional prices in a world that is flooded with cheap equipment and jonny-come-latelys.  I really feel for all out there who are trying to make a living out of photography and videography, but venting you spleen on forums is not going to get you business.  Focus your energy on marketing your business to people who can afford the prices you need to charge; justify to them why it is worth paying for someone who knows what they're doing. 

I'm not a pro, so I won't presume to offer you any advice on this other than recommending you read some of Keith Cooper's thoughts:

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/stuff/

Good luck, it's a hard market out there right now.  I have a friend who is struggling to make ends meet with commercial clients, who are reluctant to pay out for professional photography in the current climate. 

422

EOS Bodies / Re: New Bodies/Lenses in August?

« on: May 17, 2011, 05:38:45 PM »

I find it interesting that B&H dropped the price of the 60D by $150, but then it turned out to be a "one day only" offer.  Did they intend to run this offer for longer, only to be informed by Canon that they may not be able to replace their stock? Did they have a stockpile that needed clearing and if so, why did they consider this a problem with a model that's less than a year old? Is the 60D proving less popular than forecast (actually, despite the post-release criticism, I've seen quite a few people with new 60Ds). 

Perhaps I'm reading too much into this and it was just a way to get more people visiting their website in a slack period. 

423

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS Branding in US/JPN

« on: May 09, 2011, 02:06:12 PM »

I can't see what's wrong with a pure numbers system, it doesn't seem to do any of the other manufacturers any harm (or perhaps it does, as Canon is still number 1 )

Nikon has recently moved to simplify its naming scheme, but it's still more complex than Canon's logical progression (Rebel/Kiss aside).

424

Canon General / Re: Delays Abound?

« on: May 05, 2011, 01:20:15 PM »

One more argument adding more weight to the delay - PMA 2011 trade show cancelled.

"There are some launches in fall, but the significant ones tend to be in the spring."
Source: http://www.dpreview.com/news/1105/11050410pma2011cancelled.asp

I think you're onto something Ivar; why has PMA (alias Cliq) been cancelled? The answer seems to me that the manufacturers don't have enough new stuff to announce to bother with the expense of attending.  To be honest, I'm sure that they've probably tried -they want to get their new models on the market for the Q4 (i.e. pre-Christmas) sales potential.  I think that they've been slipping behind schedule and have had to admit that they'll not be able to meet the PMA deadline. 

Hey, I hope that I'm proved wrong, but where else are they planning to announce their new models? To be fair, the top-of-the-line pro-cameras tend not to be announced at trade fairs, so maybe we'll see a 1Ds Mk4 (or 1D Mk5) in December followed by an early 2012 release for the 5D MkIII. 

On a different note, what on earth are they going to do with the next Rebel in spring 2012 if they haven't released a 7D MkII.  Surely they can't simply produce another minor iteration with the 18MP sensor, what worthwhile addition can they make that doesn't take it into 60D territory?  Maybe they're planning to introduce the new APS-C sensor on the 650D. 

425

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III & More

« on: May 02, 2011, 04:46:01 PM »

So no other specs other than 26-28MP and 19 AF points? Well, the former doesn't sound bad, the latter...

To be honest the AF system from the 7D would probably be enough for most users (myself included).  It would be nice to have AF points that cover a similar area of viewfinder as on the 7D; see this comparison:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1032&message=29662257&q=viewfinder+af+point+coverage+comparison&qf=m).

I can see that Canon is paranoid that raising the bar with the 5D MkIII too high may poach sales of the 1D series, but the questions they should be asking themselves are where are Nikon going with the D800 and what will Sony next move with full frame be?

426

EOS Bodies / Re: A Random Roadmap: Lenses & Bodies [CR1]

« on: April 28, 2011, 01:48:30 PM »

24-70 f/2.8L II

Apparently 5 versions of this lens exist. A few even have IS. It is slated for a 2011 announcement. The patent we’ve seen says no IS.

Is it normal for manufacturers to produce 5 different, fully functional prototypes of different designs for a new lens? Surely in this age of computer design and modelling, lens manufacturers can just settle on one design and tweak it? Is anyone else a touch suspicious about this?

427

Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/2.8L II Patent Published

« on: April 24, 2011, 03:05:27 PM »

The only aspects of the current 24-70L that most people had cause to complain about were the lack of IS and the wide open performance at 50mm and above (other than the price and weight).  Why on earth would Canon release a lens that addresses neither of these complaints (and will probably be worse on both of the other accounts too).  This really doesn't make any sense... Oh wait sorry, I forgot this is Canon we're talking about!

428

Canon General / The T3/1100D's sensor

« on: April 22, 2011, 06:54:03 AM »

I remember when the T3/1100D was first announced, several people were wondering if its 12MP sensor was the same as the one in the XSi/450D.  The Digital Picture now has his standard comparison chart up and I'm wondering what it shows.

(http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-Rebel-T3-1100D-Digital-SLR-Camera-Review.aspx)

What I see on the colour patch target is that the noise levels on the 450D & 1100D look pretty much identical up to ISO200, with a marginal improvement for the newer camera at ISO400.  At ISO 800 & 1600, the 1100D looks to pull ahead by about half a stop.  The question is whether this is improved sensor performance, or are Canon doing noise reduction on the RAW data?  I'm not sure it's easy to tell from the colour chart, but there may be a clue in the fabric comparisons.  The 450D shows very little moire, whereas the 1100D shows bucket loads of it; this suggests that the 1100D has a weaker AA filter, but why? Surely an entry level buyer of a 12MP camera would be more likely to see moire when using a kit lens than notice any increase in resolution (to be fair, noticing either would probably require viewing the image at 100%).  Perhaps Canon have saved costs by using their standard AA filter tuned to the 18MP sensors, but then why use the 12MP sensor at all? The other explantion might be that Canon have fitted a weaker AA filter to cover for lost detail caused by RAW data noise reduction. 

I'm no expert here, but I know that a lot of other people on this forum seem to have a good grasp of the technicalities: any ideas...? 

429

Canon General / Re: Canon Destroys Nikon in DSLR Marketshare for 2010

« on: April 22, 2011, 05:04:33 AM »

I like to think that innovation has two 'axes', technological and market.  Technological innovation is all about creating new features to differentiate your product (e.g. developing a new AF system) and market innovation is about carving out a niche for your product to fit into (e.g. the original Digital Rebel/300D).  Generally most new products/features have a measure of both of these aspects.  For example, developing a new AF system is about how much capability you can put into it without increasing cost beyond what the camera's intended market will bear.  Developing a cheaper DSLR like the 300D, was also about technological innovation in developing new lower cost components. 

It worries me that even in the traditional DSLR market, which Canon should be well versed in, they seem to be allowing Nikon to get the jump on them in both areas of innovation.  Canon definitely seem to have become followers rather than leaders, it's Nikon that are taking the lead introducing new features into cameras with Canon seeming to follow somewhat reluctantly.  There even seem to have been some reversals: Canon stated their aim was to introduce some form of USM motors to all their lenses, now they seem to have gone back to dc motors at the lower end. 

More worryingly, Canon seem to be myopically following Nikon's market segmentation, a strategy that is  ensuring that they are always one step behind.  Nikon pioneered the high-spec APS-C camera with the D300 (which nicely pulled away from the 40D to establish a new premium price point), two years later Canon followed suit with the 7D.  Last year, Canon brought out a great D90 killer in the form of the 60D, and Nikon responded a month later by again moving the goalposts with the D7000 (classic Nikon: "for $200 more, look what more you can have"). 

Canon's greatest triumph was when they had the balls to dump their well established FD mount system to step into the unknown with EOS.  But it wasn't just this move that put them in the market leading position where they are today, they built up the reputation of EOS by continuous development.  This applied to new technologies that made their cameras and lenses industry leading, as well as those that reduced production costs and brought these products to the mass market.  My point is that Canon needs to return to this mindset and stop just following the pack. 

430

Canon General / Re: Canon Destroys Nikon in DSLR Marketshare for 2010

« on: April 21, 2011, 06:07:40 PM »

We all like to see the system that we have invested a wad of our cash in is doing well, but we should taper some of our wildest rejoicing with the understanding that this all boils down to long term profitablity.  Just because Nikon has a lower share of the overall market doesn't necessarily mean that they are doing badly.  I agree with a lot of the previous posters that point out Nikon's strength in the mid to high end of the market; I would be willing to bet that here the split is not nearly so great. 

Nikon have traditionally concentrated on the mid to high end over the entry level range, but Canon's 'entry level' market share is increasingly being targeted by them; the much improved specs of the D3100 and D5100 over their predecessors (albeit following Canon's lead) and the (mis-)announcement of the AF-S 50mm f/1.8G demonstrate this growing commitment. "Rebel" buyers are the mass market for DSLRs and success here is great for Canon, but profit margins are lower on these cameras.  On top of this, I speculate that a higher proportion of these users don't go on to buy a great deal of other camera kit, either because they're happy with what a basic camera kit provides, or because they don't take up photography as a pastime (or profession).  So aggressively marketing to the low end doesn't necessarily generate high profitability.   

Profitable companies have the resources to spend the large amounts of money on R&D that it takes to stay at the leading edge of the pack and just look at some of the companies that are struggling to see what happens if you don't (Olympus, Pentax, Fuji).  The danger for Canon in my mind is the lack of any kind of market leading innovation (you know, like the all electronic camera, EF mount, in-lens motors, USM motors, IS etc.) -and don't anyone mention video because Nikon got there first with the D90!

This is where the danger from Sony comes in; they are a much bigger company that Canon and can divert resources from elsewhere if they decide to invest in gaining camera market share.  Sony have the money to throw mud at the wall to see what sticks, Canon probably don't, but at the moment they seem incapable of taking any risks.  OK, you can argue that it is easier to take risks when you're behind rather than the market leader, but capitalist theory teaches us that profit is the reward for taking risks and holding back can lose you first mover advantage.   

I believe that Canon (and Nikon) are in a dangerous position, they have products that are still attractive and a large installed user base, but this is a mature market and DSLR sales are now a cash cow.  Things may be looking quite rosey at the moment, but I'm worried that they are not well placed psychologically for any disruptive technological breakthrough. 

431

Lenses / Re: EF 24-105 f/4L IS II [CR1]

« on: April 19, 2011, 05:39:30 PM »

The only problem with a reverse zoom + hood design like the 24-70L, is that it makes the lens its maximum length at all times when the hood is mounted.  Not exactly a deal breaker, but for a lens like the 24-105L, one of whose advantages is compactness, it may be an issue. 

I would also think that if Canon did decide to redesign the optics (as opposed to fiddling with the electronics), they might also give it a bit more reach at the long end; perhaps a 24-120 (cf Nikon AF-S 24-120 f/4G) or a 24-135?

432

EOS Bodies / Re: 26.4mp 5D Mark III Mid-year? [CR1]

« on: April 18, 2011, 06:55:42 PM »

Yes, 5D3 needs significantly improved AF.
However 21MP is not enough for anyone who likes tele photo. When you crop a little you soon end up in less than 5MP. For anyone who sometimes use a 1.4x tele converter double number of pixels seems to be a very much perfered option since you will always have it on and don't have to change anything.
Increasing the number of pixels is one part of improved image quality. All PP, cropping, angeling, resampling, whatever you want to do, will benefit to start from higher resolution.

OK, but telephoto users are often the most demanding of a cameras AF system, so boosting the resolution without addressing AF and fps is surely pointless because the camera will not appeal to them. 

433

EOS Bodies / Re: 26.4mp 5D Mark III Mid-year? [CR1]

« on: April 18, 2011, 01:27:45 PM »

If these specifications are true, I can see the D800 selling well.  Sorry, but Canon haven't had the full frame market to themselves for a generation now, it's no good them crippling cameras to protect the 1D series.  I fully understand that people were capable of taking great photos before the AF era, but hey people were capable of driving cars before synchronised and automatic gearboxes -it doesn't mean that I would enjoy double declutching on a moden car: expectations change. 

For marketing purposes, if nothing else, a 5D MkIII needs at least the 7D's AF system and 5fps.  Simply re-iterating the same package with a higher resolution sensor won't cut the mustard; 21MP is already enough for most people's printing needs. 

434

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 35 f/1.4L II [CR2]

« on: April 17, 2011, 08:16:21 AM »

I hope this is the start of some new releases in the wide-standard category, both primes and zooms.  A lot of Canon's lenses are starting to look a little long in the tooth against new releases from the other camera manufacturers and third party options.  Nikon now has a decent equivalent to the 24-105L and their 24-70 is newer and sharper than Canon's; they also have two great ultra-wide zooms that are superior to Canon's offerings. 

There are also some worrying gaps in the consumer level prime line-up, such as the lack of any modern wide to standard primes for APS-C; do all these users really want the cost and weight of an 'L' lens, just in case they decide to go full-frame in the future?  Nikon has the AF-S 35mm f/1.8G DX and will soon offer the leaked AF-S 50mm f/1.8; with an affordable 24mm (http://nikonrumors.com/2010/11/25/update-on-the-latest-nikon-patents-filed-in-japan.aspx -OK, it's just a patent at the moment) and an updated AF-S 85mm, they will pretty much close out the budget to mid-market. 

Canon seems to think that the only lenses that are needed are slow zooms for APS-C users and 'L' glass.  They risk losing the enthusiast market, the very people who they need to keep on board at an early stage to maintain sales volume for their top-end glass.  It's no good getting people to trade up to full frame if they've all bought Nikon!

435

EOS Bodies / Re: 37 Megapixel 1Ds Mark IV? [CR1]

« on: April 17, 2011, 07:24:46 AM »

I have a question: Why does changing the resolution of the files the camera produces can't increase ISO performance (since pixels get "bigger")?

I assume you're referring to the 'big pixels vs pixel dense with binning' argument; here's an interesting article based upon dxo mark's findings (about half-way down the page are the sections that are of interest for this question):

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/dxomark_sensor_for_benchmarking_cameras.shtml

But then again, there are other problems with pixel-dense sensors:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/an_open_letter_to_the_major_camera_manufacturers.shtml