March 05, 2015, 11:20:04 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 - elflord

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 47
Lenses / Re: 135L vs 85L vs 70-200L II
« on: January 16, 2013, 07:05:58 PM »
Is there a good reason to own a combination of these lens, or are they too similar to justify high prices?

I have the Sigma 85mm and the 135L -- the pair can be had for less than $2000.

Since you're wondering specifically about AF performance -- the 135L is a speed demon. The focus limiter is a nice touch for this (btw it also focuses at about 1m)

I don't believe the three lenses are all that similar. The zoom is a zoom with IS (it's also slower, heavier, and more conspicuous). The 85L is short enough to be usable indoors but doesn't focus very quickly (for example it's not a sports lens).

The 135L autofocuses very sharp but is a very long lens for using indoors. I usually use it as an outdoor portrait lens -- I mount the 135L if I'm outdoors and the Sigma if I'm inside.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Cannot Keep Screwing It's Customers Over
« on: January 05, 2013, 08:35:12 AM »
I am amazed by such sophisms questioning the very existence and the meaning of the term "overpriced". In some people the will to argue trascends every boundary set by mere common sense.

So, how would you consider a Ford Focus priced like a Maserati?

It's ridiculously plain that there's a value perception related to the market situation. This new 24-70 f/4, as well as other recent Canon products, do not come from God himself to give man the gift of taking pictures for the first time. They enter a game that other players were playing already.

In comparison with its two closest relatives - namely the 24-105 and Tamron 24-70 - it is apparent that this lens doesn't offer such superior quality or such unique features to justify such a higher price - thus it is overpriced.

The supply of the 24-70 f/4 is relatively limited. The 24-105L is undercut by a large secondary market (it's a kit lens for a popular camera with a long life cycle so it's easy to buy used).

Car manufacturers do in fact do this all the time, and in some cases the limited quantity is completely contrived for example, they will  release "special edition" models (which have a special paint color and some other mindor upgrades) in limited quantity and charge a large sum for it. One of my friends priced a Toyota Prius when they were at the height of their popularity and the dealer quote included a "supply and demand fee" for about $6000-.

There is also plenty of this from other manufacturers.

So it's hardly unprecedented. However, as a buyer of these products it's good to be aware of this and wait for the "early adopter premium" to expire. If I'm asked for buying advice, I always point out that new products have a premium attached to them. Often on this board the advice is "buy Canon and buy the most expensive thing Canon makes", but this isn't always good advice.

Lenses / Re: Prime Lens for 6D
« on: January 02, 2013, 10:18:24 PM »
I am starting to look into getting my first prime lens and I am having a hard time making a decision.  My friend has a 35 mm f/1.4L lens, which I found quite amazing, though I didn't use it for long.  I also am looking into a 50 mm f/1.4.  I know these lenses have huge price differences, and I am also concerned about the looming update for the 35 mm lens.  My main question is, what do you guys find the best focal length for an everyday prime lens?  I feel kind of restricted at 50 mm, but I wonder if 35 mm is too wide for an everyday walk-around lens.

As a "walkaround" prime, I'd pick the 50mm focal length though it's really a matter of preference. Some people like the 50mm focal length, others like to shoot either wider or narrower -- so most of these people would lean towards either a wide angle or a wide angle/short tele combo like 35/85.

Wide angle lenses can be a challenge to compose with because (a) the tend to pull in a lot of background (including things you might want out of the frame) and (b) they tend to exhibit (more) perspective distortion which can be a challenge to work with if you're photographing people.

Anyway, if you prefer wide angle lenses, get a wide angle lens. Take a good look at the Sigma 35mm as well as the 35L.

Begin to innovate?  Show me someone else's 600mm f/4 lens that I can handhold.  Show me someone else with even one, let alone five, high-precision AF points with the greater accuracy of an f/2.8 baseline.  Show me 12 fps with a FF sensor/mirror.  Who else has an integrated radio-controlled flash system?  Maybe these innovations are irrelevant to you, but that doesn't mean they didn't happen.

Re the 600mm lens -- it doesn't really speak to my point for two reasons. One is that I do agree and state in my posts that Canon's lens system really is the industry leader, and they didn't lose ground this year (if anything they consolidated their position). However, I'd neither call the 600mm lens hand holdable nor would I consider it a novel technology. But again I agree that it is one (of a number of) release(s) that consolidates Canon's lead in developing glass.

To your other points -- by limiting the market to FF you are essentially defining the market place in Canon's terms (only Nikon and Canon make FF SLRs) Nikon, like Canon have had integrated off camera flash for years. If you're trying to argue that Radio control is new, Pocket Wizard and other third party providers have been doing that for years. Maybe the AF points would qualify.

However the kind of thing I'm thinking of are major technological steps -- things like Fuji's hybrid viewfinder, and their new sensor array design. Magic lantern like firmware features. Mirrorless cameras (something where Canon's entry is too little too late). Sony's SLT technology (which allows phase detect in video mode).  Leica's technology which lets them use full frame wide angle lenses with a short flange distance.  Usable AF in video mode.

I just don't see Canon's fingerprints on most of the new technology in the marketplace. Their entry into mirrorless far from being a class leader was not worth of a manufacturer of their stature.

Lenses / Re: Best effective use of my 50mm f/1.4
« on: January 01, 2013, 08:04:30 AM »
I was thinking today (doing some wildlife work since the snow has been out in force) while shooting my 7D that the 50 would become an 80mm. I have rented 85 f/1.2's in the past and not liked them for one reason or another. So the question is: Using a 50mm f1.4 on a 7D will make it an 80mm, BUT how much light do I lose due to the crop factor?

In terms of depth of field, it behaves like an 80mm f/2.4 on a full frame.

In terms of metering, it meters like any f/1.4 lens but the smaller sensor won't tolerate as high ISO settings.

Has anyone done this with much success? Or should I just buy an 85 f/1.2 and learn to love it? I also would not be opposed if the 7D +50 idea works to buying a 50 f/1.2. I also own a 100 f/2.8 IS Macro but the DOF is a bit too shallow for what I want without stopping down to f/5.6

If you want to shoot an 85mm lens and get similar depth of field to what you would get on APS-C with 50mm at f/1.4, you need to stop it down to about f/2.4 on full frame (assuming subject distance and therefore composition are the same in both cases -- the 50mm lens focuses closer than any 85mm lens so this assumption isn't always true). Generally you can get away with shooting primes wide open on APS-C whereas on full frame you need to stop down much more often.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikons and Canon's equivalent
« on: January 01, 2013, 07:52:02 AM »
Recently I managed to borrow a Nikon D700 from a friend's friend together with a few other lenses including the AF-S 24-70mm f2.8 and the AF-D 50mm f1.4. Full frame quality is really a huge step up from what I am used to with the 1000D and 85mm f1.8 USM. Going back to the 1000D may now be a problem. :P My experience with the D700 + 50mm f1.4 was really good. Fast and accurate focusing even with outer non-cross type AF points.

As such, I want to know what is the Canon "equivalent" of the Nikon D700. I know that there will definitely be problems in comparison. I know that the 5D2 doesn't really match up to the D700 in terms of specifications like AF points, FPS, etc.

Also, is the EF 50mm f1.4 as good as the AF-D 50mm f1.4 in terms of accurate focusing (I know this varies with different lenses), speed of focus, colour rendition etc? Individual lens reviews can only say so much so I hope to know if they are comparable.

There's not really a direct equivalent. The 5DII was positioned at a similar price at the time but it's a different type of camera. At the time if you wanted a big sensor sports camera from Canon or a high megapixel full frame from Nikon, you needed to buy a 1 series from Canon or a D3X.

Nowadays the newer cameras from Canon have more advanced AF systems (5DIII) and the new cameras in that price territory from Nikon have more megapixels (D600, D800).

Lenses / Re: 50mm upgrade or 85mm coverage?
« on: December 31, 2012, 09:29:19 PM »
Having FF with 35L, 50 1.5 and 135L, I'm thinking in:
1) selling the 50mm 1.4 and buy the 50L
2) buying the Sigma 85 1.4
3) buying 85L (more difficult due to the money involved)

Anyone had a similar debate?

I was in a similar boat and I went with (2). That's my lineup now -- 35L, 50mm f/1.4, Sigma 85mm and the 135L. Haven't looked back (though I daydream about the 200mm f/2L every now and then)

Classic ignorance.  This is why I get on this board sometimes; it makes for a tremendous laugh.  And you're right.  His point isn't silly.  It's REALLY silly.  Canon leads in sales and that somehow equates to Canon producing an inferior product to Nikon.

I'm sorry, maybe there  has been a miscommunication. I was referring to the poster ScottyP, who does not at any point state or argue that Canon produce an inferior product (or that their leadership in sales in any way implies that the product is inferior). From his posting history, I take it he is a 6D user, so not a Nikon camera "fan". I am a 5D Mark II user, though I do sometimes sin by using Sigma lenses and Panasonic mirrorless cameras.

Are you talking about another poster (in which case I misunderstood you), or are you just factually wrong about his post (in which case you misunderstood him) ?

Then, the "I don't know the proper term for that person" person then stated, as fact, that Canon has inferior product. 

Perhaps I missed the part where that was stated. Would you quote the post where this was asserted ? And highlight the assertion itself, the part where he says "Canon make an inferior product to Nikon" ?

It has to go both ways.  I'm not really asking for proof that it is NOT.  I am pointing out how silly the commenter (not you by the way) held that Canon did NOT hold a superior product.  He held that Canon did NOT hold a superior product, as fact.  With, mind you, no proof.  And then I made the point that that is silly, and just so as I can ask for proof that it is NOT a superior product.  He had none either way.

I think you missed his point which wasn't "silly" at all. His point was that if Canon have grown anywhere near as complacent and arrogant as the Canon camera "fans", they are in serious trouble. He didn't state or imply that higher sales meant that their product was inferior, he was only pointing out that it wasn't in itself reason for celebration.

What is far more important, are whether or not they continue (or begin perhaps ?) to innovate, and consolidate/maintain their lead in developing top quality lenses (this they did pretty well this year).

Quite frankly, maintaining a pre-existing lead in sales numbers isn't anything to celebrate. It might perhaps give the Canon camera "fans" some ammunitation to poke a stick in the eye of "fans" of other cameras but outside these petty camera "fan" wars, it's not terribly important.

In other words, it's more reason to pay attention to trends in sales figures and changes in the competitive landscape as opposed to the current market snapshot.

Makes sense.  Outside of Japan, we don't have figures for 2012.  From 2007 to 2011, the consistent trend was Canon gaining market share, and Nikon losing it (during the same period when 'Canon's sensor tech was stagnating,' although my 1D X sensor delivers much better performance than my 5DII sensor, so I don't buy 'stagnating' at all). 

So, by your logic (which, as I stated, does make sense), if Nikon gained market share and Canon lost it in 2012, that tells us nothing, it's just a current market snapshot set against a multi-year trend of Canon gains.  Or if Nikon shows a single year gain, do we throw logic out the window and cry doom for Canon?

Nikon don't have much cause for complacency either. They are dependent on Sony for sensors. Canon have a better selection of glass and kept delivering in 2012 (super teles, and the new IS primes). Like Canon, they completely botched their too-little-too-late entry into mirrorless. They are behind the curve on video. The other competitors in the market place are also not without their problems. Olympus, one of the top names on the list, had an accounting scandal that made Enron look like Eagle scouts. They are like Nikon dependent on Sony for sensors. Sony innovate like crazy but they lack the pedigree of Canon/Nikon and haven't developed decent glass for their mirrorless cameras. They also  seem unwilling or unable to stay on task with the A-mount system (do they still have an SLR full frame camera ?)

A multi year trend of gains in market share is obviously a positive for Canon. However, it would be a huge mistake for them to become complacent or unconcerned about their decline as a leader in sensor technology or their general inability or unwillingness to innovate.

I suspect that the figures are more representative of vendor-lock-in through lenses than anything else (note that 3rd party lenses doesn't change this.) If swapping vendor was a $5 or $10 per lens penalty, things would be different.

A lesser product doesn't necessarily result in it being returned and for those that buy over the Internet, the hurdle is rather high so the product needs to be obviously bad rather than just "not as good."

Your 'vendor lock-in' applies to Nikon users as well. If swapping vendor was a $5 or $10 lens penalty, things would be different - for sure Nikon users will be switching to Canon just as easily.

A lesser product, E.G. NIKON, doesn't necessarily result in it being returned and for those that buy over the Internet, the hurdle is rather high so the product needs to be obviously bad rather than just "not as good."

So what's your point?

Vendor lock-in means that owners might be slower to switch brands, which introduces some status quo bias. For example, it's possible that Canon could continue to lead in sales even if they didn't introduce any new products over the next year but it would be disasterous in the long term.

In other words, it's more reason to pay attention to trends in sales figures and changes in the competitive landscape as opposed to the current market snapshot.

Oh yeah, the sensor thing. When was the last time big name pro photogs complained about Canon's sensor tech? Wait, I think it's because Canon actually listens to what most people want in their cameras, not just the pixel-peeping minority who have nothing better to do than read DxO charts and zoom in 100% crops instead of actually shooting photos.

"big name pro photogs" aren't in the business of complaining about equipment, so I don't understand what your point is.

How many years do you think they can afford to fall behind before it becomes a problem ? For example, if they are 20 years behind, will it hurt them ?

Until some printer manufacturer creates a printer that can output 16 billion colors and a paper manufacturer creates media that can display 14 stops of DR on print, I'm perfectly happy with my inferior Canon sensor.

Well, what kind of inferior sensor ? If most of your photos are used for 4x6 prints, or for the web, do you need more than 2 megapixels ? How many camera bodies do you think someone would sell if they made 2 megapixel sensors ?

See the problem is your post sounds more like the battle cry of the faithful than it does a strategy for producing leading technology. While a rousing battle cry and a display of loyalty might be good enough for camera "fans", it's not good enough for a producer of modern photography equipment. They need to deliver cutting edge technology, not just pontificate about how legacy technology is adequate.

So, what objective measure would you propose to determine 'better' - bearing in mind that's a rather subjective term. Which is the 'better' candidate in an election?  Depends on who you ask, what their needs are, and how well those needs are likely to be met by that candidate.  But after the election, there's a winner and a loser. Which is the better camera?  Depends on who you ask, what their needs are, and how well those needs are likely to be met by that camera.  But like a tally of votes, a tally of sales separates the winner from the loser.  Fortunately for everyone, those who chose the losing camera brand aren't required to live with the features of the winning camera brand. Heck, even the Green Party Pentax supporters get their own way.  :-X

Not at all analogous. It's neither the case that the company with the most sales is a "winner" nor are the others "losers" (is the porsche boxster a "loser" because it doesn't sell as well as the toyota camry ?). Where do you get this analogy from ? I read quite a bit of corporate finance and I haven't seen it elsewhere.

In terms of their current place in the industry -- sales performance and profitability, they are doing quite well. However, it's also important to analyze trends. I didn't see any of this in the referenced articles or this thread. The one trend that's a bit of a red flag is Canon's inability to advance in sensor technology. Because this moves relatively slowly, they can get away with it for a few years but a 10 or 20 year period of stagnation is going to hurt.

But.....but.....Nikon is "better," isn't it?  DxOMark says so, it must be true.  What am I missing?!?  Oh, wait, I know....REALITY.


Actually, DxOMark says that Sony sensors are better. What you are missing is that sensor technology has progressed in the last 4 years whereas Canon's sensor technology has stagnated. There's only so many years they can fall behind the technology curve before it becomes a problem.

What would that be then to make you happy? You mean that the 650D, 5D3, 1Dx and the 6D are not up to standard products? Seriously?

They have barely advanced in sensor technology since about 2008. Sony have made 4 years worth of improvements while Canon stagnate.

They also seem to have been blindsided a bit by the innovations in mirrorless cameras. They finally got around to putting in their own contender but it is pretty weak (in particular the range of available glass for their system pales in comparison to micro 4/3 or even Sony NEX)

They do continue to develop top of the line lenses.

Hopefully they don't suffer from the kind of complacency and ignorance of the competitive landscape that seems to afflict the "camera fans".

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 47