April 16, 2014, 05:09:06 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 - Richard8971

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 23
31
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: SDHC vs Compactflash
« on: December 08, 2013, 05:56:07 PM »
Form a practical standpoint, size might matter.  Even if a 64GB CF and a 64GB SD had identical data transfer rates, I personally find the smaller card more difficult to change in the field.  I have dropped the smaller cards a lot more frequently than you'd imagine.  For me, especially in weather extremes, the CF is just easier to handle.  YMMV.

I agree with this one. I like the CF cards more because they ARE larger and easier to handle. I see where everyone is coming from though in regards to both cards.

D

32
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: SDHC vs Compactflash
« on: December 08, 2013, 12:34:33 AM »
SanDisk rates the SDHC "Extreme Pro" cards at 95MB/s read, 90MB/s write. Contrast that with the SanDisk CF "Extreme Pro" cards at 160MB/s read, 150MB/s write. By my math, that makes the CFs 67% faster than the SDHC.

So, yes, you are paying as much as double, but you are getting a considerable speed boost. On the other hand, if you bought a CF card that was closer to the same speed your SD card was, the cost difference would be much less.

The extreme pro cards were JUST released with those higher speeds. About 2 months ago they were 'identical' to the SDHC cards. My camera can't write to the "new" extreme pro cards at 150MB a sec, so it doesn't matter in that regard. Even when the extreme pro SDHC cards were rated at the same speed as the CF cards, they were still twice as much.

And I am talking about card vs card. Again, I don't know very many, in fact, none who own cards larger than 64GB and even many of those in the cheaper cards, not high end. (extreme cards vs extreme pro cards) At 128GB and 256GB the prices get ridiculous, almost insane, so I am not talking about those cards.

D

33
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Upgrade questions...
« on: December 08, 2013, 12:19:45 AM »
For wildlife it is a worthy upgrade.
The AF system is leaps and bounds above the 7D.
The micro-contrast and the files directly out of the 1D IV are much better than the 7D's.
It will be an upgrade you will not regret. It is an upgrade I made several years ago.

For the past 6 years I have rarely gone outside wildlife and for the few times I have done landscape and people, my cameras have been sufficient.

That's what I was hoping to hear.

D

34
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Upgrade questions...
« on: December 08, 2013, 12:16:05 AM »
If your 7D is still functioning, might be wise to see what the 7D2 brings next year for a whole lot less cash.

I understand that but I am not going to wait for a camera that hasn't even been released yet. If any such 7D2 is released while I am still in the decision making process, then that will be a different story. For now, the 1D4 is real and is a tangible option. The 1D4 is still a professional body and far from being obsolete. I can't imagine no matter how impressive any 7D2 is, it won't be a professional body for the price it will likely be released at. The 1D4 would probably have several advantages over it, at least that's my best guess at the moment.

D

35
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Upgrade questions...
« on: December 08, 2013, 12:14:23 AM »
Your EFs  lenses won't fit on it so compatibility becomes an issue, there are no ultrawide zooms suited to the APS-H sensor size either. As with all digital 1 series, yes it has the built in grip, but that means you can never make it smaller, sometimes no grip is a much nicer way to go.

I don't own (even though I love some of the EF-s lineup) any EF-s lenses so that is not going to be an issue. True, there are times I like taking the grip off... Hmmm...

D

36
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Upgrade questions...
« on: December 07, 2013, 11:47:52 PM »
I'll try not to bore you with my history details but I think I am wanting another camera. Let me try and explain...

I began shooting about 6 years ago with the XTi, a decent camera that I picked up used for a great price. As with most people who get into photography seriously I quickly "outgrew" the XTi, not because it is a bad camera, far from it. I had really starting enjoying photographing wildlife and I found myself wanting more than just 3fps, not to mention a larger camera body as I have large hands. I am not a "more megapixels are better" kind of person so I started looking for an affordable upgrade. The 60D had not been released yet and the reviews between the 40D and 50D pretty much stated that the image quality between the two are almost identical. Not to mention that the 40D, at the time was about $400-$600 cheaper than the 50D. So I settled for a very lightly used 40D (3800 clicks) for $500 bucks. The price increase for the 50D wasn't worth the few more features it had over the 40D. In fact I loved it so much I purchased a second 40D recently ($250) as a back up for my 7D.

I loved the image quality it had over the XTi (14 bit color vs 12 bit color) and the much faster frame rate. I had used it for a few months before I lost it to a theft. My insurance company offered me $1100.00 to replace it so I put up a few hundred more and bought the 7D for $1550.00

Now I LOVE my 7D, it does exactly everything I ask of it and more. I don't want to go full frame, even though I do love the way they process color, but I have been looking at the 1D mark 4. Right now, used copies run about $3000 ~ $3400.  I don't mind dropping from 18MP to 16MP because, like I said at the beginning, I am not worried only about MP. I would love to gain a higher frame rate and I hear the AF system on that particular camera is lightening fast. The APS-H sensor would be a trade between FF and APS-C. I would imagine the slightly lower MP and larger sensor than the 7D would result in lower noise at higher ISO. I am not overly worried about the 7D noise because I don't "pixel peep" my images and any noise from high ISO images (ISO 2000+) don't show up in my 11 x 14 prints.

I shoot on a regular basis with the battery grip on my 7D so handling the larger body I would already be used to.

My question is, is the 1D4 worth $3000 over already owning the 7D? I figure it would be a great affordable alternative to the 1DX, I think the camera every one of us wants! LOL.

I appreciate your thoughts. Again, I don't want the 5D3. I am not really interested in going FF (unless it's the 1DX, got 7b grand handy?), so please keep your comments about the 1D4, I'm not really interested in hearing about how the 5D3 is superior to the 1D4. Nothing personal, I just want to keep this thread about the subject I am asking. :)

D

37
EOS Bodies - For Stills / SDHC vs Compactflash
« on: December 07, 2013, 11:14:03 PM »
I'm sure this subject has been discussed but I am curious. For the most part, the "memory card wars" have "ended" with two major players. SDHC and CompactFlash.

Now, if memory serves, compactflash, was for a while, faster and had larger capacities available than SDHC. But I've noticed lately that SDHC cards are just as fast, have almost a high as memory capacity, for the most part. I mean CompactFlash Extreme Pro has 256GB cards and SDHC has 128GB and 64GB cards available. I would imagine that 64GB cards are about as high as most people carry around, unless you are a professional and you need a larger card.

My wife's Nikon D7000 and D7100 have dual SDHC slots. Pretty sweet I think, but my poor 7D has 1 compactflash card available. This is ONE feature I would like to see in Canon bodies. The 5D3 dual slots don't count as they are mixed AND the SDHC slot doesn't transfer as fast as the CF slot.

Canon and Nikon have both not standardized memory card usage. In saying that, both Canon and Nikon use CompactFlash cards on the higher end bodies and SDHC on the "lesser" bodies.

Now that SDHC cards are faster and have higher capacities is there an advantage anymore? I know that a lot of people don't like putting all of their photos on large cards just in case there is a failure. I think 32GB/64GB is about maximum I would go.

Not that I really care, BUT compactflash cards ARE almost twice as much as equivalent SDHC cards. I bought a 32GB extreme pro card for my 7D and it was $140.00 while I spent that much buying TWO SDHC 32GB extreme pro cards for my wife's D7100. Not to mention that now she has 64GB if shooting room vs my 32GB on her D7100 and 2 64GB extreme SDHC cards in her D7000!

D

38
I know this is not exactly the same thing, but I have had several dealings with Adorama and I have been very pleased with their service.

I bought a battery grip for my 40D (used) and it said it would be shipped with the 'AA' battery magazine. Well when it showed up, the magazine was not included. Now, I would never use the magazine, BUT I did buy it, so I emailed them and explained what happened.

After a couple of days I got an email from Adorama saying that they would investigate the matter. After a bit, they sent me an email saying that I would get the magazine in the mail along with an apology.

I would give them the benefit of the doubt. I believe that they are people of honor and will do their best to make it right...

D

39
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: The Unthinkable: Swapped out 5D3 for 6D
« on: December 05, 2013, 10:47:44 PM »
to have such consistent problems focusing indicates either operator error or a defective copy.

Well considering that honestly out of 1000+ shots I only got 3 or 4 (the rest were out of focus) I was happy with I would say that it is possible I got a bad copy. Canon had done a workshop and brought equipment to borrow so I got the 5D3 for the day. I stuck my 7D is my camera vest and slapped on my EF 70-300L.

I was shooting with 2 friends who had already owned the 5D3 for quite a while and I was shooting with al kinds of different settings. I was asking tons of questions about the camera and I was gladly listening to their advice. Center point, AF expansion, aperture priority, whatever. I wanted to give the camera an honest try.

And for the record I am not on a crusade to prove anything. $3400 is a ton of mone

True, $3400 is a lot of money. No question there...although lately I've seen it less than $3000 on average (I've gotten quite a few email updates from CanonPriceWatch showing the camera as low as $2850 a couple times over the last few months.) Still, ~$3000 is a lot of money. That said, it has maintained a rough parity with the D800 price for quite a while, and the "advertised" prices are usually $3400 due to Canon's new MAP rules...you usually have to actually put it in your cart to see the true selling price.

I would give it another try. LensRentals has an excellent track record with shipping out quality gear, because they test everything upon return, so you should get a better copy. Make sure, if you are doing BIF, you configure the necessary AF custom functions to support continuous AF at all times, slow subject switching, AF drive vs. shutter activate priority, etc. to make sure you get consistent AF behavior. Try using one of the expansion modes as well, because the 5D III AF points are smaller than the 7D points, which makes it a lot harder to use just the single center point (which would be almost like trying to use the 7D's center spot AF, which is almost impossible for BIF.)

I had written more to my post. CR for some reason slows down and locks up when I try and type a reply. I can only get a few sentences before I have to post and go back and modify so I can finish what I was typing.

And I don't just use "spot AF" for BIF. I usually use just the center point or mainly the very center ones. (like center AF expansion)  I don't use "full auto AF" so that the camera just randomly picks what it thinks I want. I put the bird in the center and that way I know I have the best chance of it locking on to it and nothing else.

I know I can get the 5D3 cheaper than $3400 but I would only shell out that kind of money through B&H or Adorama, but I have only seen it a couple of hundred cheaper.

D

40
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: The Unthinkable: Swapped out 5D3 for 6D
« on: December 05, 2013, 10:25:02 PM »
to have such consistent problems focusing indicates either operator error or a defective copy.

Well considering that honestly out of 1000+ shots I only got 3 or 4 (the rest were out of focus) I was happy with I would say that it is possible I got a bad copy, but who knows, maybe I'm just a shaky idiot. Canon had done a workshop and brought equipment to borrow so I got the 5D3 for the day. I stuck my 7D is my camera vest and slapped on my EF 70-300L.

I was shooting with 2 friends who had already owned the 5D3 for quite a while and I was shooting with all kinds of different settings throughout the day. I was asking tons of questions about the camera and I was gladly listening to their advice. Center point, AF expansion, aperture priority, whatever. I wanted to give the camera an honest try because I was getting ready to shell out the $3400 to buy one. Wildlife and raptors in flight are nothing new for me so I figured it would be the best way to give the camera a good workout.

And for the record I am not on a crusade to prove anything. $3400 is a ton of money and you know what they say about 1st impressions. I gave the camera an honest try and walked away disappointed.

May or may not try another 5D3. My 7D works just fine, I'll just stick with it.

D

41
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: The Unthinkable: Swapped out 5D3 for 6D
« on: December 03, 2013, 09:42:24 PM »
So over the Thanksgiving weekend, I finally gathered the nerve to just let go of my 5D3 as I was offered a fair price for it. That, in conjunction with the deal for the 6D at $1400 pushed me into pulling the trigger on the swap out. Done and done.

Some things I'm struggling with, some not so much. Either way, I think the decision was the right one for me (for now).

Wondering if anyone else has given the same move some thought.

I haven't done exactly what you have done BUT I had the chance to shoot with a 5D3 for the day and now that I have, I won't buy one. I will keep my 7D.

The 5D3 is a great camera but not worth (at least to me) the $3400 price tag. After reading people's thoughts and reviews I was expecting a powerhouse of a camera, and it really wasn't. I just couldn't justify spending the money on it to upgrade. The 7D is a VERY fast camera and very hard to beat in that department. I shot BIF (birds, raptors exactly, in flight) with the 5D3 and got 10 times more blurry bird shots than I did with my 7D! (Yes I KNOW how to set up my camera for birds in flight, I am NOT new to this! Please don't waste your time telling me how I didn't know what I was doing... I always select the center point on AF and use AI Servo...) I was also using my own EF 70-300L on the 5D3. That lens is lighting fast on AF, so I know the fault wasn't with the lens.

I know a few people will say that I didn't give the 5D3 a chance to give it an honest opinion. Well, let me say this, I had (on loan) the 5D3 for a day and took well over 1000 photos AND was shooting with friends who OWNED the 5D3 and I was asking questions and they were gladly giving me pointers. By the time the day was over, I was so frustrated after shooting with it for a day and getting missed shot after missed shot. In contrast, when I upgraded from my 40D to my 7D, the transition was almost seamless. I had the 7D mostly figured out in just a few shots and was very happy with my decision. It was so much faster (in AF and fps) than my 40D that I was sorry I hadn't upgraded sooner! I learn more and more about it the more I shoot. Honestly? I had really been wanting a 5D3 so I know I was excited to give it a try. It just did not deliver enough goods to make me want to give up my 7D.

A few of my photography friends who upgraded to the 5D3 say that most of the time 5D2 did just as good of a job and in some cases the 5D2 was better.

I spoke with a good photography friend of mine after I used the 5D3 and told him that I still preferred my 7D over it. Before I tell you what he said, let me say that my friend Kenny is a published and very respected photographer and has owned and/or shot with just about every camera body Canon has ever made, including the 1DX and the 5D3, for starters. He has many friends at Canon and I have learned to respect his words of wisdom. He said to me, "Well, what did you expect? The 7D was designed for speed and the 5D3 was designed mainly for studio work and weddings like the 5D2 was. The 5D3 is a little faster and has better video than the 5D2 but it wasn't designed around speed. You shoot wildlife so the 7D is going to be perfect for that at a fraction of the cost!"

I couldn't argue with him...

The 5D3 may be a very fast full frame, but not as fast as the 7D. But again, that is my opinion. I used to own the 5D2 and let the ex-wife have it in the divorce, I wasn't super impressed with it either, outside of it's image quality. I shoot wildlife and the 7D is perfect for that. :)

So, I respect your decision to sell the 5D3 and get the 6D. I probably would have done the same.

D

42
EOS Bodies / Re: 5DIV, 7DII and future of upgrades
« on: December 02, 2013, 10:47:53 PM »
i'm really curious to see how canon (if canon) tries to compete with the sony a7 and a7r.. and the olympus OMD..

there will always be a need for a fast focusing powerhouse camera.. i wont sell my 5d mk3 anytime soon.. but i think the real advances will be in other directions..

there is a lot of good things to come..

Here is a post I put together the other day on my vision for a serious mirrorless camera body.

"I think Canon in part will be influenced by the camera offerings by companies that are taking (in my opinion) mirrorless technology a bit more serious right now. Maybe Canon has something up their "mirrorless sleeve", maybe they don't, who knows?

I think cameras like the Sony A7/A7R are going to change, for the better, how mirrorless cameras CAN be designed and SHOULD be designed.  I think a lot of people were surprised by a serious mirrorless FF camera body being announced AND from a company other than Nikon or Canon.

Here is what I see possible from a serious FF MIRRORLESS camera. I don't think you can do this with current DSLR technology.

They can design a FF camera that can take APS-H and APS-C images from the same body. I am NOT talking about any kind of JPEG cropping OR any kind of weird, "cheating" in camera processing. Look, the idea is very simple. My 7D in which the full resolution of the sensor is 5,184 x 3,456 pixels, can ALSO take HD video at a resolution of 1920 x 1080. It simply uses the pixels it NEEDS, nothing more, nothing less. Now HOW it does it, is not the important part, the fact that it CAN do it, is.

So you design a 5D2 sized (or so) FF mirrorless body, one that has a mount that can accept EF AND EF-s lenses. Wait... EF-s lenses on a FF camera? You can't do this on one that has a mirror, but with a MIRRORLESS camera you can! There will be NO mirror to slap up and strike the rear of the EF-s lens!

So you take (for the sake of argument) a sensor that is, say 36MP (7360 x 4912), so cropped down to APS-H (the sensor would only use the pixels that would make up an APS-H sized sensor) would make it about 22MP (5867 x 3888). In APS-C mode, the sensor would only use the innermost pixels making up an APS-C sized sensor giving you a 13MP (4538 x 3029) sized image. The crop factor would take place too. In FF mode, no crop. In the other modes, 1.3x and 1.6x respectfully. (The Nikon D7100 already has a 1.3 crop mode that is VERY similar to what I am speaking of, it's not that difficult to do)

Now, here would be the awesome part. In FF mode, the camera would take 4-6 fps. In APS-H mode, 6-8 fps and say 12-14 fps in APS-C mode. The larger images would take longer to process and would take up more buffer room. The smaller images would take up less room and could be processed faster, all in RAW format. Also, being a FF sized sensor, the pixel density would not change so the high ISO performance of the sensor would carry through (in theory) to all of the other image sizes. The advantage of such a camera would be unimaginable. All of this could be carried out by the processor to choose whatever pixels it wanted to or not. If current DSLR cpu's are fast enough to process HD video, certainly they are fast enough to make an image size smaller while retaining full image quality. Unlike the D7100 where the viewfinder does not change for the new 1.3 crop factor, this camera would have an electronic viewfinder, not an optical one. It will be able to change with each mode giving you 100% coverage for each shooting mode.

All of this can be controlled as simply as we change "one shot" to "AI servo". On the top LCD just have three "icons" that read "FF", "APS-H" and "APS-C". Done! There would be NO hardware to change or control. The distance from the lens to the sensor is the same in a FF body to a APS-C body. It can all be done with programming, like changing your ISO or "f" number. The shutter as well, can be programmed for preset speeds, kind of like how my 7D can do 8fps or 3fps by a "click of a switch", so to speak.

This idea is already being done by several cameras but not to this extent. The Panasonic Lumix FZ200 is a good example. It is a 12MP camera and in one particular shooting mode it shoots approx. 60 frames / sec @ 2.5MP and another good example is the Nikon D7100 with the 1.3 crop mode. This CAN be done and IS being done. The market is already showing signs that people are ready for these kind of features and are willing to pay for them.

There are times you need a FF camera for weddings and beautiful landscapes and there are times you want a fast crop sensor body to maximize your lens reach and have the fast fps you need for sports or wildlife photography. The only disadvantage that would be is that EF-s lenses could only be used in the APS-C mode because of the smaller image circle they produce, but NOT because they won't work! Even though currently I own all EF lenses, there are a few EF-s lenses that I have owned in the past that were fantastic, the EF-s 60mm macro is one of them. Say a person who had a rebel and owned a few EF-s lenses... they wouldn't be discouraged from upgrading to this camera because they could still use their lenses on it!

WILL Canon make such a camera? Don't know, but I sure hope so. But I bet that SOMEONE will and WHEN they do, it might be enough competition to get Canon and/or Nikon to take notice because you better believe that I would buy such a camera if it was reasonably priced. The Sony A7 is a good start and shows what can be done with mirrorless technology. This is one reason why I am excited to see where they they will go with it.

Will mirrorless cameras replace DSLR's? Not sure, DSLR's work pretty good right now the way they are.

Like has been said, maybe they would consider such a camera, maybe they won't. But maybe the MARKET will force the hand. Competition is a wonderful thing!"

Now, all of this being said, are current DSLR's dead? Not at all! I love my 7D and am not going to replace it anytime soon, even if a 7D2 comes out in the next year. I just have a vision that other companies like Sony and Panasonic will create such a competition (because they replace bodies much faster than Canon or Nikon) that Canon and Nikon will have to take notice.

This is all about what the market wants and what people would buy. Canon and Nikon may find themselves not to be on the top for long if these "smaller" (no pun intended) companies make more and more serious cameras and we have not seen the end of bodies like the Sony A7.

Now, I realize that Canon may NEVER put this into production because they may WANT to keep camera bodies separate so that people would HAVE to buy a different body to get a different feature. BUT, the market may be changed in ways we can't predict with the whole mirrorless segment.

This is just my 2 cents and my opinion, :)

D

43
EOS Bodies / Re: 5DIV, 7DII and future of upgrades
« on: December 02, 2013, 10:40:20 PM »
The mentality of the user 1Dx is a long-term investor, while the mentality user SX50 is much more immediate, and relates only to short term.

+1

I think this sums up exactly how I feel about my current camera set up. It does EXACTLY what I want and how I want it done. I don't have a need to upgrade at each and every camera body that comes out. It would be different if I was looking to buy a new camera because I didn't own one, or if in some really important way, my current body wasn't getting the job done.

I think we all have speculations of what could happen in the future or what we would LIKE to see, but I agree with the majority of people on here. Improvements will likely be small and progressive unless some radical new technology becomes available and changes the whole nature of digital photography. It could happen, look at what perpendicular recording did for hard drive storage space and low cost active matrix LCD's did for TV's.

I do believe that other companies like Sony and Panasonic will change the market in which mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras operate and what they CAN do. The options with mirrorless are as endless as the dreams we can come up with.

D

D

44
EOS Bodies / Re: POLL: The 2nd ff camera in 2014 will be...
« on: December 01, 2013, 11:19:11 PM »
We won't see a FF Rebel unless Canon marketing research has suggested it would be a big sales feature.

Ah, the big question.

I think Canon in part will be influenced by the camera offerings by companies that are taking (in my opinion) mirrorless technology a bit more serious right now. Maybe Canon has something up their "mirrorless sleeve", maybe they don't, who knows?

I think cameras like the Sony A7/A7R are going to change, for the better, how mirrorless cameras CAN be designed and SHOULD be designed.  I think a lot of people were surprised by a serious mirrorless FF camera body being announced AND from a company other than Nikon or Canon.

Here is what I see possible from a serious FF MIRRORLESS camera. I don't think you can do this with current DSLR technology.

They can design a FF camera that can take APS-H and APS-C images from the same body. I am NOT talking about any kind of JPEG cropping OR IN CAMERA processing. Look, the idea is very simple. My 7D in which the full resolution of the sensor is 5,184 x 3,456 pixels, can ALSO take HD video at a resolution of 1920 x 1080. It simply uses the pixels it NEEDS, nothing more, nothing less. Now HOW it does it, is not the important part, the fact that it CAN do it, is.

So you design a 5D2 sized FF mirrorless body, one that can accept EF AND EF-s lenses. Ah, EF-s lenses on a FF camera? Not one with a mirror, but with a MIRRORLESS camera you can! There will be NO mirror to slap up and strike the rear of the EF-s lens!

So you take (for the sake of argument) a sensor that is, say 36MP (7360 x 4912), so cropped down to APS-H (the sensor would only use the pixels that would make up an APS-H sized sensor) would make it about 22MP (5867 x 3888). In APS-C mode, the sensor would only use the innermost pixels making up an APS-C sized sensor giving you a 13MP (4538 x 3029) sized image. The full crop factor would take place too. In FF mode, no crop. In the other modes, 1.3x and 1.6x respectfully.

Now, here would be the awesome part. In FF mode, the camera would take 4-6 fps. In APS-H mode, 6-8 fps and say 12-14 fps in APS-C mode. The larger images would take longer to process and would take up more buffer room. The smaller images would take up less room and could be processed faster, all in RAW format. Also, being a FF sized sensor, the pixel density would not change so the high ISO performance of the sensor would carry through (in theory) to all of the other image sizes. The advantage of such a camera would be unimaginable. All of this could be carried out by the processor to choose whatever pixels it wanted to or not. If current DSLR cpu's are fast enough to process HD video, certainly they are fast enough to make an image size smaller while retaining full image quality.

This idea is already being done by several cameras but not to this extent. The Panasonic Lumix FZ200 is a good example. It is a 12MP camera and in one particular shooting mode it shoots approx. 60 frames / sec @ 2.5MP. This CAN be done.

WILL Canon make such a camera? Don't know, but I sure hope so. But I bet that SOMEONE will and WHEN they do, it might be enough competition to get Canon and/or Nikon to take notice because you better believe that I would buy such a camera if it was in the $1800-$2400 price range. The Sony A7 is a good start and shows what can be done with mirrorless technology. This is one reason why I am excited to see where they they will go with it.

Will mirrorless cameras replace DSLR's? Not sure, DSLR's work pretty good right now the way they are.

Like has been said, maybe they would consider such a camera, maybe they won't. But maybe the MARKET will force the hand. Competition is a wonderful thing!

D

45
Canon General / Re: TEN YEARS FROM NOW.
« on: December 01, 2013, 09:07:10 PM »

I can't imagine the uproar if the same thing was done today... but I suppose it's possible.

I wonder what technical aspects made the 2 systems incompatible.

I believe it was because the AF motor was inside the camera body and not in the lens like the EF lenses are now.

Current DSLR Nikon's are backward compatible with all Nikkor lenses but certain bodies (Like the D7000/D7100) can AF older lenses while others cannot. (Like the D5300)

At this point in the game, I think Canon would have a munity on their if they changed the camera lens mount again.  I know I wouldn't stick around.

D

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 23