July 29, 2014, 01:22:36 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 - preppyak

Pages: 1 ... 32 33 [34] 35 36 ... 50
496
I'd opt for the T4i and the 40mm STM pancake lens and / or  18-135mm STM lens.  This is the first Canon DSLR that will autofocus while doing video, and it is designed to work with the STM lenses which have relatively silent AF motors.
The T3i is not optomized with these lenses.  It won't autofocus while doing video, so spending money on a AF lens for video is a waste, no matter which.
If you're an actor and making movies, you won't be using that AF anyway, as its not any better than pressing the shutter button and letting the camera hunt for focus. Everything is manual focus; they reason to get lenses that AF is if you plan on using the camera for stills as well.

I'll agree with others; get the T3i, get the Samyang lenses, learn to MF and expect a steep learning curve. If you're going to be doing just video work with the camera, start researching legacy lenses (Contax-Zeiss, Nikon AI, etc) as they are much cheaper than the modern Canon equivalents, and they work just fine with adapters for narrative video work.

When you are looking at lenses, you're not looking for what stills people look for. The 50mm f/1.8 has great IQ for its price, but its the worst lens Canon makes for manual focusing, which makes it hard to work with for video. The 40mm has the same limitation (tiny focus ring). That's where the Samyang lenses are so great

497
EOS Bodies / Re: A New 100-400 & Coming Announcements [CR2]
« on: July 25, 2012, 09:02:05 AM »
I hope for a new 300 f/4 or 400f/5.6 but i doubt if the 100-400 f/4-5.6 is as good and sharp as the 70-300 f/4-5.6 !
Yeah, I think the new 100-400 is going to be the replacement for both the old 100-400 and the 400 f/5.6, as CR mentioned as much a while back.

Either way, updates to the non-f/2.8 300mm and 400mm lenses would probably put them more in the $2000-2500 retail space, which kind of kills their market anyway. Seems like the just over $1000 L lens marketplace is gonna be disappearing over the next few years

498
Lenses / Re: 40mm f/2.8 or 50mm f/1.4
« on: July 24, 2012, 05:27:19 PM »
My L lenses are 17-40 f/4 and 70-200 f/4 and i need a fast prime for shallow DOF other than 100mm f/2.8.

85mm on a APS-C sensor is a little bit long (not a big difference from my 100mm)
You sound like the perfect candidate for something like the 35mm f/2, or the 28mm f/1.8. They each would give you 2 stops over your zoom in that range, but also a different perspective than the 100mm. I think you might find a 50mm and 100mm to leave you without a wide low-light option. When "people" is more than 1 person, both the 50mm and 100mm will be too close, in a way the 28 or 35 wouldn't.

The 28mm would hold up if you ever moved to full frame, though the 35mm would probably be a little lacking (40mm would be sharper and the light gathering negligible).

So, I'd say either the 28mm f/1.8 for group stuff....the Sigma 30mm if you know you'll stay APS-C...or the 50mm f/1.4 if you rarely shoot more than one person

499
EOS Bodies / Re: could the new EF-M mount support FF sensors too?
« on: July 24, 2012, 10:14:14 AM »
The enigmatic individuals who'd prefer to spend their money on a FF mirrorless rather than a 5Diii would only want small, high quality primes specifically designed for the body.  They're not concerned with DSLR usability. Their driving desire would be unparalleled image quality.
This is a fair point, but, it begs the question of how many people like this their truly are. Because to get that IQ, you'd be talking a new body design, a new sensor, all new lens designs, and those costs have to be spread out among all potential buyers. Would Canon see it as worth it, making a system that's gonna cost as much as their 1-series cameras and cost nearly as much as Leica? Or is that more the role of niche companies to fill, especially if compatibility with EF/Canon equipment isn't crucial. Then again, it's probably not even as small a market as the $20k cine camera market that Canon just entered with the C300 and that series, so who knows.


Being able to use EF lenses on a mirrorless is I'd say a bigger issue since its questionable how large the market for dedicated quality mirrorless lenses is, you look somewhere like amazon and sales of everything but 1-2 pancakes and budget telezooms are very very low indeed compaired to SLR lenses.
To this, I'd agree that that audience isn't as large as say, the wedding photographer audience, etc. But, there are a lot of adventure photographers (think extreme sports, Nat Geo, etc) who would eat up the size of a mirrorless camera if it could match the performance of even the current 5dIII. Much easier to carry an NEX-7 and a pancake in the pocket of your ski jacket, or back of your kayak, then it is to carry a DSLR.

Of course, the demands of those activities are exactly where mirrorless is falling short at the moment (AF performance, handling of difficult light, etc). But when they figure it out, thats a target audience that won't turn back to DSLR's, because size and weight are critical on multi-day, and the only reason they are using DSLR's now is because its what works.

Again, this is a niche market though, so I'm not sure I'll see Canon as the first company to fill that need. Especially when Sony seems to be about 5 years ahead of them in that market

500
Lenses / Re: EF-M 22mm pancake, 18-55 IS STM
« on: July 24, 2012, 09:55:01 AM »
I wonder - will Canon give us similar lenses with EF or EF-S mount? Or, is there any physical possibility someone will hack together an adapter mount to retrofit EF-M on EF-S APS-C cameras?
Well, that adapter would either have to

a. Physically put the lens inside the camera body, and in the case of the 22mm lens, probably put a decent portion actually inside the traditional EF mount. It has to make up for 10+mm of flange distance...not an easy task

b. Use glass to distort the image from the lens to match the EF style. So, now you're talking an adapter that is either really expensive (think $3-400+), which negates the point of using those lenses (you can get a legacy 28mm f/1.8 cheaper). Or, you're talking a $30 adapter that ruins your image quality because they use crappy glass

So, I wouldn't expect an EF-M to EF adapter. More likely, you'll see people realize that EF-M means they can potentially use the same legacy glass that Sony E-mount cameras can, which means there is a lot of older, cheap but great lenses they can have instead

501
EOS Bodies / Re: No Full Frame EOS-M EVER?
« on: July 24, 2012, 01:02:26 AM »
Sony is coming out with several more APS-C sized E-mount lenses, but for a FF NEX they'd have to create yet another whole series of lenses.  Unlikely.
Yep, like I said in one of the other threads, to pull off a full-frame mirrorless, companies either would have to use their DSLR mounts (meaning the camera's aren't much smaller, negating size advantages), or they'd have to release an entire system of lenses that can match the current DSLR offerings. And since it's taken decades for Canon and Nikon to do that DSLR wise, I can't see anyone nailing that side of things in the immediate future.

I do think Sony would be the first to make a full-frame mirrorless, because they have a reason to innovate that Canon/Nikon don't, but they'd have some really tough choices to make to get there

502
EOS Bodies / Re: could the new EF-M mount support FF sensors too?
« on: July 24, 2012, 12:58:58 AM »
Existing EF lenses might have their images come out in a different way (they might be "fatter" at the point of the mount - leading to loss of image / vignetting at the edges.  They might not be 100% compatible with a FF EF-M mount.  But they would still work in crop mode.
Except you've now destroyed the point of a full-frame mirrorless camera. Who is spending $1500-2000 (or more) on a camera that can't even work with their existing EF lenses with an adapter? Where they can still only get APS-C quality out of their L lenses.

It would require Canon to create at least a dozen L quality EF-M lenses, comparable to the EF versions, releasing before or at the same time as the full frame mirrorless...and customers that wantt to spend the extra money for all new lenses as well. By that point, it might not even be genuinely cheaper than a Leica system, because it'd be such a niche product they'd have to charge a premium.

It's why I'm not sure I see a full-frame mirrorless anytime soon. The current systems don't quite match DSLR usability, and the only way Canon could really pull it off would be to make it EF mount, which means the size advantage would be fairly limited as well.

503
Lenses / Re: Which to keep? EF 70-300 IS USM or 70-200 4L IS USM
« on: July 23, 2012, 10:38:07 AM »
Consider selling the 70-300; keeping the 70-200 f4L then adding a 300 f4L (which you can get that used for under $1000).
That would kind of defeat the purpose of downsizing, especially since it'll cost more.

I'll agree with the 70-300L suggestion if the downsizing is just literally to have less gear, and not to recoup some money as well. If there are monetary considerations, then its a different story.

504
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS M Specs
« on: July 22, 2012, 05:05:53 PM »
1. With any lens, it is not pocketable.
2. Requires company to make an entirely new set of lenses on a new mount.

What kind of customer is best suited for this niche?
The same one who is suited for a G1x or the entry DSLR really..its smart for companies because its still a small form factor that makes it convenient to travel, but you can milk customers for money on lenses in a way you can't with the G1x.

Maybe in 5 years Canon will actually have the mirrorless thing figured out and I'll be interested, but, with all the likely problems of a first time system on top of the usual problems for early adopters, I think it'll be best to wait and see how it turns out.

505
Lenses / Re: POLL: When will the 24-70 mk2 really be delivered?
« on: July 08, 2012, 06:28:31 PM »
With a new version with "amateurish" IS and maybe replacing the 24-105 as the kit lens, the price might be oriented more towards the general dslr crowd and thus not much higher or even lower if the iq is great, but not as stellar as the non-IS.
A couple of problems with this. One, they already did the R&D on the new IS, so, they'd put it in any new lens. They aren't going to invent a crappier version..and I can't see them willingly putting on an older version to a pro kit lens.

Two, the 24-105L isn't that old a lens, and people seem to like it well enough. They kitted it with the 5dIII, and I can only really see them changing kit lenses when they release their next pro-level camera. The closest thing that would be is a new 7D, which seems to be a ways off.

And, most likely they wouldn't make the new kit f/2.8, as it would kill an upgrade path for users. People who need more light upgrade from the f/4 to f/2.8 or primes. If you're already at f/2.8, you'd only be upgrading for IQ.
They have 2x 70-200/2.8 in the lineup
Mostly though, I can't see them releasing a 24-70 f/2.8IS that is say, $1500 (or less). For most users, they're gonna take the IS version because it has IS and is cheaper. Those that read deeply into reviews might go to the mII for sharpness, but, that's not the majority of users. Now they've just made their 24-70 obsolete soon after releasing it...a $2300/lens mistake.

Plus, it doesn't match the Canon philosophy, which is that IS versions cost more...in fact, I can't think of a single Canon lens where the non-IS version costs more than the IS version. The 70-200's nearly double in price with IS; the new non-L primes doubled in price with IS, etc.

This just sort of seems like a solution looking for a problem. The 24-105 kit lens is good for what it is...no need to update it to something that confuses users.

506
Lenses / Re: A New EF 50 f/1.8 IS? [CR1]
« on: July 08, 2012, 12:37:19 AM »
As long as they keep the price low, even $200 or so like the forty shorty, this could be good to have in the lineup. Don't get rid of the current 50 1.8! It's such a great price for people just getting started to get a fairly fast prime at a good focal length.
If this is considered a replacement for the 50mm f/1.4 (as the post states), you won't see the retail price cheaper than $399. More likely it'll be $500+. If this is a replacement for the 50mm f/1.8, then you might get lucky and see $249 or $299. But, then why would anyone buy the 40mm pancake, when you could gain f/1.8 and IS for $50?

So yeah, I'd say $399 is the low price, more likely to see $599.

507
EOS Bodies / Re: Any actual photographers out there?
« on: July 08, 2012, 12:19:06 AM »
I hope that the admin can resist the temptation of the "love of money" because that will be the demise of this website and the end of its popularity.
Hah, keep living that myth. Ken Rockwell is probably raking in the ad money while putting little to no effort into his reviews...every link gains him affiliation money, etc. Still popular as ever, and usually one of the first links that pop up when you google search a lens.

If CanonRumors gets the rumors and details right before others, it'll thrive. If not, and someone does it better, people will go there. To date, I haven't seen anyone doing it better

508
Lenses / Re: POLL: When will the 24-70 mk2 really be delivered?
« on: July 07, 2012, 12:32:12 PM »
Yeah, and as was mentioned in other threads, they've already missed the key window for a lot of their target audience for this lens. Wedding photogs wanted this a month ago, not in late Fall. So Canon might actually see a lot of people holding off on buying it, just because they can wait and see reviews and decide if its worth it.

509
Lenses / Re: A New EF 50 f/1.8 IS? [CR1]
« on: July 07, 2012, 12:30:01 PM »
The reason this intrigues me is because it could show a major divergence for future lenses for Canon, which would be different than the Nikon path. Nikon has basically no primes with IS (only their 85 macro and >200mm lenses), and I think only one zoom with VR in the f/2.8 range. Their most recent lenses are f/1.8.

Canon on the other hand just released two lenses that are a whole stop slower than their predecessors but add IS. This too would be nearly a stop slower and add IS. The pancake 40mm doesn't have IS, but that seems to be a size thing. If Canon is gonna keep targeting the video market, that might show the path for their future lens updates, making them slower but adding IS. F/1.8 is plenty shallow for most video work, and the IS can be indispensable. But for photo-first people, it'd probably be frustrating to see IS in everything...especially if Nikon is taking the other path

510
I never thought I'd consider switching brands, as I've been a Canon user for nearly 40 years.

But, if I ever switch it will not be because of bodies, but because of lens prices. I chose Canon many years ago because their prices were lower for comparable lenses. I am afraid they are losing that edge. Bodies will come and go, but lenses are the long-term and larger investment. If Canon cannot remain competitive in its lens pricing I may have to rethink my investment.
I think part of what kept Canon competitive in lens pricing was the fact that many of their primes were older. Sure, they made them right and they are good, but, until the 24mm and 28mm, there wasn't a non-L prime that was made in the 2000's. It's easy to keep prices low when you aren't updating lenses for 20 years.

I think you have good reason to be worried for the future. The pancake 40mm is the only lens Canon has put out <$1000 that seems to match its price. Also, if Canon's non-L strategy is to go f/2.8 and IS, instead of f/1.8. Because Nikon and Canon's recent 28mm offerings are similarly priced, but Nikon does f/1.8, and Canon does f/2.8IS

Pages: 1 ... 32 33 [34] 35 36 ... 50