October 01, 2014, 04:24:03 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 - caruser

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9
EOS Bodies / Modular design
« on: July 22, 2012, 08:25:49 AM »
Computers have been pretty modular for a while, cars are becoming more modular over time, even houses etc...

Why is nobody coming forth with a more modular approach to DSLRs? It seems that Canikon etc. are all stuck in the 20th century regarding certain ideas:

- Make AA filter BTO (build to order) (only D800E does this)
- Make Bayer filter BTO (only Leica M9 does this)
- Make two or three APS-C and FF bodies with different builds, then offer two or three sensors for each.

Suppose Canon had an 18 and 28 MP FF sensor, I could choose a 5D3 with 18MP and 7fps or 28MP and 4fps or a 1DX with 18MP and 12fps or 28MP and 8fps, or something like that.

If they then stopped holding back on software-only features, intentionally crippled firmware and atrocious usability issues it would be really great!

So what I'm wondering, are there technical reasons against this, or is it just the capitalist reality biting us (i.e. we get the worst possible product instead of the best possible, where worst possible is defined as just good enough to make us want to upgrade, and just good enough to keep up with the competition, but no really innovative steps forward unless absolutely forced to by outside pressure).

Meh, is Mark III's sensor is anywhere near as good as D800's (DR, noise) I would have got one in a heart beat.

~At the same time someone is posting at Nikon Rumors..."Damn, if the D800 had the AF and high ISO or even was close to the 5D MKIII, I would have jumped at it."~

It's not really surprising; let's ignore the image quality for a moment. People buying the D700 over a 5D2 were those who wanted a more well-rounded product, those like me who chose a 5D2 were prepared to sacrifice AF and speed for IQ (or at least pixels...).

Suddenly the roles are reversed, the 5D3 is a very well balanced camera more fit to replace the D700, while the D800 is a more specialised one that I see more in line with the 5D2 (high IQ but slow, even though the AF is much better on the D800 than on the 5D2).

So while threads like these tend to be much longer than makes sense, I can fully understand a bit of confusion due to this role reversal (and then there's the "other" role reversal that some people like to tout, the one that Nikon generally has overtaken Canon in the sensor department; which adds even more confusion when every thread about one of these aspects is immediately hijacked into a big mush of all possible comparison points-of-view).


Site Information / Re: In Sympathy for CR Guy
« on: July 18, 2012, 01:49:27 PM »
Wish you all the strength and understanding to get through this, we're all with you!

Lenses / Re: Which lenses to pick up next?
« on: July 05, 2012, 11:18:45 AM »
Longer focal lengths compress the image more and result in a blurrier background.  Like take a 70-200 and take a picture at 70mm and then take the same picture at 200mm with the same settings will result in a much blurrier background. 

Why do people always write that longer focal lengths compress the image, when they actually expand the background?

EOS Bodies / Re: Why so many different camera bodies?
« on: June 29, 2012, 12:54:50 PM »
However, it's not so obvious to me why Canon needs such a wide range of camera bodies.

I really think the Canon DSLR body line-up is small and simple; have you ever looked at the list of notebooks that the likes of Asus or Acer offer at any given time? Now that's what I call overwhelming, not 10 cameras of which 5 are just previous models that are not discontinued yet.

The 7D being a flagship?

Why spend so much time on sticking a label on these products?

The 7D is just what it is, with exactly the features that it has! Discussing the "flagship" or "pro" labels doesn't help anybody because it's completely irrelevant, it's not as if the camera changes because it gets assigned an arbitrary label.

Let's at least speculate about the constellation of the product line-up, or about specifications of non-existing cameras, anything is more interesting than these labels!

To go on a journey you have to have directions. Directions are useless unless you know where you are.

So whether the 7D is indeed a flagship product is important and it will detirmine the marketing direction of its replacement

You can observe that, following the 7D, the xxD line was devaluated slightly, but that with the 650D the trend was reversed by giving an xxxD some features from the xxD line, and can therefore speculate on whether the new 70D will reach high enough to also succeed the 7D, or whether it means that the 7D2 will reach even higher. Now tell me how putting the "flagship" label on the 7D, or not, helps; this is a sincere question, I just fail to see it.

The 7D being a flagship?

Why spend so much time on sticking a label on these products?

The 7D is just what it is, with exactly the features that it has! Discussing the "flagship" or "pro" labels doesn't help anybody because it's completely irrelevant, it's not as if the camera changes because it gets assigned an arbitrary label.

Let's at least speculate about the constellation of the product line-up, or about specifications of non-existing cameras, anything is more interesting than these labels!

EOS Bodies / Re: CANON 1Dx - Action images - UEFA EURO 2012™
« on: June 15, 2012, 12:20:17 PM »
"The old EOS-1D Mark IIIs struggled with heat haze a little bit, but EOS-1D X had no problems at all."

How is that possible? New camera eliminates heat haze? Or is it just about the AF?

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: So Nikon D600 is real after all
« on: June 14, 2012, 04:15:14 AM »
They could be losing money on it and recouping it with fx lenses sold. Just one hypothesis I guess. I mean, it would be a good way to get people to buy into their system. I am interested for one.

Given the D600, the Nikon 1 also makes more sense: Keep mirrorless to small sensors and lower the bar to full-frame DSLRs and their expensive lenses.

EOS Bodies / Re: How about an app store for EOS cameras?
« on: June 11, 2012, 06:03:49 AM »
Yes! Now we even have touch screens!

Probably Canon won't be brave enough, so we'll have to wait until some newcomer into the market does it, has raving success, and then Canikon will follow...

And WiFi should be a baseline feature, too, then I could run Instagram on my DSLR and ML wouldn't have to hack its way into the firmware to get its job done.

I'm going to hold out for the 40mm pancake f/2.8 L.

I might hold out for a 40mm pancake f/2.0 or faster, because between the 24-70, 35L and 50 II there really isn't a place in my bag for a slow prime in that range. Wait, there's always be space for this lens ;-)

I honestly hope you're right about the overreaction part. For quite some time now however I've been piling up this feeling that i am not making the right choice and that I am being extorted. It was the usual insecure suspicion in the beginning but it kept on growing. I clearly feel taken advantage of now. Canon know well that they have a strong side with their lens lineup, clear EF compatibility, etc. However, their marketing department seems to carefully take care to extort their customers penny by penny for this. I don't like to be extorted. I am not sure anyone does.

Everyone does, it's called capitalism, and people seem to like it, for some reason or other, otherwise a majority would stand up and change it.

Edit: How about all DSLR users stood up and said they wouldn't buy another camera before all makers agreed on one compatible mount? ;-)

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D3 and Canon's Comeuppance
« on: April 23, 2012, 01:15:19 PM »
I remember the forums before the 5D3 was released and lots of people were like "add everything but more megapixels to the 5D3! We don't need more megapixels!" then the d800 is released and a riot broke out and now we all need more megapixels! It's obsurd.

It's partly absurd, and partly not about the megapixels, but about the dynamic range and/or the price, or rather the combination of the 5D3 being more expensive, having worse dynamic range (and not inheriting the flagship's exposure sensor; unlike the D800).

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon announces D3200 - 24 MP APS-C
« on: April 19, 2012, 03:43:02 AM »
the new nikon looks like a killers entry level camera with 24mp for under $700, yes the iso performance will probably be shocking but will people who buy even understand that.

It appears that even most reviewers don't understand it -- in the opposite sense: I've seen comparisons between the 5D3 and the D800 where the conclusion was that the D800 was significantly worse at higher ISOs; others noted that the difference went away when downsizing the D800 to 5D3 resolution.

Put together it sounds like the conclusions about the D800 being worse were drawn from 100% crops, i.e. comparing the same number of pixels, rather than, as would be necessary for a valid conclusion, the same sensor area. Sigh.

EOS Bodies / Re: The Big Megapixel Body in 2013?
« on: April 19, 2012, 03:39:34 AM »
Granted the 5D Mark III and Nikon D800 are directed towards completely different markets. I don't get why everyone is still trying to justify one camera over the other... For me, coming from a 5D Mark II; I am very pleased with the improvements in the Mark III and can understand why there was a price jump. [...] In other words I wouldn't trade the performance of the Mark III for the megapixels of a D800 just to save $500.

It appears that the Nikon (Sony) sensors are delivering significantly better dynamic range; for me the price of the 5D3 would be much more acceptable if the sensor wasn't like a generation back in this respect.

The other issue is that I got the 5D2 for landscapes and studio, the best choice for the price at the time; of course the 5D3 doesn't do anything worse than the 5D2, but compared to the D800 the situation is suddenly reversed:

The 5D3 is a very well rounded wedding/street/journalist/(sport) camera, and the D800 would be my first choice for landscape and studio. If it weren't for all the Ls in my cupboard...

What I'm seriously wondering: Is the inferior sensor technology just a temporary "one horse pulling ahead, then the other", or is this the first step of Canon being left behind due to inferior engineering and/or less economy of scale compared to Sony.

(To use the analogy of 3D video cards for computers, is Canon a Matrox or 3dfx, or are they an ATI or Nvidia?)

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9