January 28, 2015, 07:38:22 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 ... 38 39 [40] 41 42 ... 56
586
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

587
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.

588
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.

589
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.

590
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.

591
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.

592
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

593
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.

594
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

595
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

596
This is ridiculous. Nikon, Sony, Panasonic etc must think it is Christmas.
Well, I wouldn't go that far. Nikon has already release one firmware update for the D800, and another is coming shortly. They haven't even officially decided on a fix for their AF issue. Not to mention they still don't even have any stock of the D4 or D800E, so they are just as bad at Canon at releasing a product and then not supplying it.

And let's not forget the A77 that Sony "released" and then never delivered for like 6 months (it's why I own a 60D instead). Haven't followed Panasonic closely enough to know if they've had similar issues.

597
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: FF advise (mainly stills)
« on: July 05, 2012, 02:57:27 PM »
Looks like someone just discovered memes

598
Lenses / Re: Owning the Canon 200-400 f/4L Vs 400 f/2.8L II
« on: July 05, 2012, 02:51:01 PM »
Obviously it'll be impossible to say until it gets released (or at least spec'd in full), but the advantages the 200-400 have probably don't counter the 400 2.8. The big advantage of the 200-400 is obviously convenience, you can go from 200 to 560 without changing lenses, and likely with little optical compromise. But, the 400 prime allows you to create an 800 f/5.6 with the extenders you already have.

Both are probably gonna be around the same weight, relatively speaking (8ish lbs). Both are gonna cost about the same. If you're not gonna use the <300 end, then it seems like the 400 prime is the way to go. Especially since you could have it today, rather than wait who knows how long

599
Lenses / Re: Good, inexpensive zoom lens? Beginner here.
« on: July 03, 2012, 03:40:07 PM »
That's a sharp lens and a third the cost of the 1.4.
Normally I'd agree with that advice, except, we are talking video here. The 50mm f/1.8 is practically useless when it comes to video focusing, unless you are setting focus for interviews and not changing it. The focus ring is awful.

The 40mm will probably be equally annoying, so I agree with the above poster when he mentions getting a lens that has a convenient ring for AF. Whether its primes or a zoom, you'll regret not getting a lens that makes that aspect convenient

600
get a flash but dont go flashing away over the primary tog you will kill some of his shots, let him shoot then shoot some when hes done
If you read the OP again, sounds like he's shooting solo for the morning, and then the pro is taking over for the ceremony and reception

Pages: 1 ... 38 39 [40] 41 42 ... 56