September 23, 2014, 12:18:30 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 - AvTvM

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 64
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Looking Into a New Mount System
« on: September 22, 2014, 01:27:12 PM »
Counterpoint to counterpoint:



PowerShot / Re: The New Canon PowerShot G7 X
« on: September 22, 2014, 12:30:22 PM »
In reality the G7 X is more of a Powershot S-series with a less dwarfy-sensor ... basically a S-130 ... rather than a G-series.  :)

G1-X II should be the last G-series with a sensor smaller than APS-C. To be succeeded - if at all - by a version of a future EOS-M3 without lens mount but hi-performance 4x zoom bolted-on, EVF, hotshoe and fully articulated LCD. It could then be designated as Canon Powershot G-M1.  :-)

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Looking Into a New Mount System
« on: September 22, 2014, 12:20:50 PM »
Of course Canon will need to have 4 types of mounts/lenses for a transitional period to move from DSLRs to mirrorless interchangeable-lens cameras. Just like Sony. Nikon is currently at 3 mounts (FX, DX, CX) and will need 1 or 2 more) ... and anybody else out there.

EF-S will be succeeded by EF-M as Rebel DSLRs are phased out. Anything a Rebel can do today is easily possible in an mirrorless EOS-M body. Bodies will come in 2 flavors: without EVF for the most compact size like today's EOS-M and M2. And a line of higher end, slightly larger bodies with EVF.

There will be NO fat mirrorless cams ... "Rebels" without mirror, with EVF and native EF-S mount, since that concept ("SLT") combines the worst of both worlds and therefore has UTTERLY FAILED for Sony [A-mount cameras]. The transition is pretty painless, since all EF and EF-S lenses ever produced can be used on EF-M mount cameras using a simple extension tube adapter which retains all properties of the respective lens (AF, IS, 2-way communication with camera body), although lenses with STM AF-drive will work best with the MILCs AF-system.  The adaptetr already exists: EF/EF-M adapter sold for too much money by Canon and in cheaper versions by thirdparty copycats.

exactly the same transition will happen, but it will be a bit more drawn out. DSLRs will be replaced by at least as powerful FF MILCs with new "EF-X" mount to take advantage of the shorter flange distance. All EF-lenses ever manufactured can be used by means of a simple extension tube EF/EF-X adapter (without optical elements). First MILCs will be catering to high-res/studio type applications until AF-systems will surpass the best DSLRs phase-AF capabilities. AF all over the frame, incredibly hig AF-speed, incredibly good tracking capabilities plus built-in 100% precision. The last DSLRs to be phased out will be 1D-X and 7D II successors, which are more frequently used in fast-action, reach-limited scenarios. But thanks to the easy adapters, the transition is pretty much painless - other than the 1987 move from FD to EF.

Potential for Canon is massive. Just like the ski industry ... first everyone bought regular skies, once the market slumped due to saturation and bored-to-hell consumers, the industry finally innovated and introduced carving skies .. everybody bought new ones ... next came "rocker" skies ... everybody bought new ones again ... or is renting them :-) 

MILCs promise not only new sales but much more PROFITABLE sales
On top of this comes the fact, that future mechanics-free, solid state, purely electronical/digital mirrorless cameras are a heck of a lot CHEAPER to produce compared to electro-mechanical DSLRs with mirrors, submirrors, separately mounted phase-AF sensro, viewfinder prism ... and other parts, that need to be preciely finetuned and potioned relative to each other, down to 1/100 of millimeters. MILCS can easily and entirely be manufactured and quality-controlled by 100% robo-factories. Hardly any labor costs involved. AT the same time, makers can sell MILCs as "new" and "with unique advantages" (smaller, lighter, faster, more capable, better AF, better IQ thanks to vibration-free electronic shutter units and no moving parts, totally silent, .... etc. ) at prices AT LEAST AS HIGH as more-expensive to build, similarly capable DSLRs. :-)

The EOS-M flopped inititially, solely because it was TOO WEAK a product at TOO high a price. It delivered LESS photographic use (no viewfinder at all, less control/points, less AF-performance, less battery charge, etc.) than similarly priced [USD 800] DSLRs.

Everywhere on earth - including North America - the overwhelming majority of peolpe wants a tool with a given functionality to be as small as possible - as long as it is large enough to still handle reasonably well ... factoring in new user interfaces.  Otherwise we all - including US citizens - would still be using cell phones like these:

instead of iPhones or other contemporary smartphones.

In short:
  • yes, mirrorless is the future, DSLRs will be dead
  • yes, for a transition period Canon will have to maintain 4 different lens mounts ... 2 for APS-C and 2 for FF cameras 
  • yes, Canon will soon enough manufacture lenses in EF-M mount for APS-C and EF-X (or whatever they choose to call it] mount for FF-sensored cams and shut down production of EF- and EF-S lenses

We'll soon enough get full info on NX-1 IQ and capabilities ... including comparison pics for 12bit and 14bit RAWs as soon as the NX-1 will be out in the hands of reviewers and users.

Does anyone have a quick link to identically shot comparison pictures @ 12 vs. 14 bit RAWs for a given recent Nikon model?

01 8-bit JPEGs store 256 shades per channel. That’s fine, until you start wanting to  heavily manipulate your images.

02 12-bit NEFs capture 4096 shades per channel. This gives much smoother tones.

03 14-bit NEFs capture 16,384 shades per channel, but you often won’t be able to see any difference next to 12-bit NEFs.

Lenses / Re: Do you keep all your boxes?
« on: September 21, 2014, 09:07:47 AM »
Yes. Got a large box full of them. It helps a bit when selling off used gear. And some folks even manage to sell the empty box on ebay at the price of the item itself.  ;D

Um, let us know how that works out for you after you've slapped that poor old L-glass onto a 40+mpixel body, will you?
In fact, I'll bet a beer (or however many it takes to make this bet attractive to you) that current consumer grade optics of a shockingly wide variety will be more than sufficient to remain critically sharp from wide open down through f/11 on your new Wonder Toy.

full ack!

I am a photographer and not a videographer. After viewing the Chuck Westhall video I was not really inspired to want to upgrade my 7D. We seem to have waited a long time for the 7D2 and I was expecting more 'must have' features.

I'm honestly baffled by comments like this - what else could anyone possibly (reasonably) want from the 7D Mk II?

It's a uniquely capable camera, far and away the most feature-heavy APS-C body out there, bringing umpteen novel features to the APS-C market, and improvements to the 7D.

Quite simple. A better sensor with significantly less read-noise. Visibly less noise and banding in Hi-ISO. Visibly more DR at all ISOs, including 100. :-)

On the other hand, I do not care at all for 10 fps, don't need more than 5-6 fps. But I still want a fully sealed mg-alloy shell camera with a top-notch AF. Essentially I want a FF-sensored 5D IV as a mirrorless camera sized like Sony A7R, with Canon user interface and a sensor at least as good as the 36 MP Sony sensor ... at a price like the Sony A7R. :-)

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: POLL: What's more important, gps or wifi?
« on: September 21, 2014, 08:56:01 AM »
In 2014 I only consider Canon cameras with all 4 radio modules built-in. No excuse tolerated.

* WiFi (b/g/n and ac)
* RT-EX radio flash commander

Since Canon is not willing and/or able to .. I will not buy anything from them. It's that simple.

The Samsung does 420MP/Sec.

The Samsung is also saving 12-bit files during continuous shooting vs. the full 14-bits in single shot mode.

So what?

You keep telling us that DR (and by extension 12bits vs 14bits) isn't important except to a small number of people so therefore this difference that you've highlighted is also relatively unimportant. Or do you wish to become one of your own DRones and insist that the extra bit-depth and thus DR is all of a sudden important?

Hehehe ... Spot on! :-)

I am looking forward to reviews of the nx-1. will be interestingvto see what their BSI sensor + electronics/processors  behind it are capable of. Until then i'll hold my jugdement. But i am really hoping this korean mirrorless cam can teach  canons boring mirrorslappers a lesson or two.

The pair of samsung f/2.8 zooms looks quite interesting too, although i have mot seen mtf's or sample pics. I would have loved to get a really good EF-S 50-150/2.8 IS from Canon.

I don't have many Samsung products except some top notch SSDs but they sure know their stuff. So far their NX line was too consumer-oriented to be of interest to me... But who knows, maybe that nx1 is going to cut it. At least its no mirrorslapper . :-)

EOS-M / Re: More EF-M lenses in the future
« on: September 20, 2014, 06:17:40 AM »
I am fairly happy with the selection of EF-M lenses. It's only 4, but all of them are good and affordable.
No need whatsoever for another 2 EF-M 18-200/6.3  consumer zooms every month (like Sony or mFT).

I am only missing a 70 to 80mm EF-M portrait pancake ... similar to either Pentx 70/2.4 Limited or Pentax 77/1.8 Limited. Plus possibly a smaller/lighter EF-M version of the EF-S 60/2.8 Macro.

Really missing is a much better EOS M body. With top-notch EVF, way better AF system, fully aritculated LCD and LP-E6N battery in a slightly larger grip. 

And I don't care at all, whether it is called mirrorless or EVIL or anything else. As long as it comes without a flippin' mirror.  Acutally I'd like to get a mirrorless camera with a fully electronic, non-mechanical shutter and an electronic aperture. I'd call that one "solid state camera" ... or in short S.S.C.  ;D :P:-)

EOS-M / Re: EOS M Accessory question
« on: September 20, 2014, 06:06:24 AM »
1. Canon EF-EF-M adapter:
got it. Use it ever so often ... primarily for tele with EF-S 55-250 IS STM and with EF 40/2.8 STM. STM lenses are the only ones I find working reasonably well as far as AF is concerned. Also use EF-S 60 Macro for close-ups.

2. Wrist strap: don't have one. use it without strap most of the time. Only at crowded events and for mauntaineering I use the original neck strap.

3. Batteries: got 2x original LP-E12 + 2x Patona. I need all 4 for a day of shooting. Patona are OK-ish, but originals are clearly better, hold more charge. Don't do video at all.

4. Bag: LowePro Dashpoint 30 for M + 18-55 incl. lens shade. Plus a Hama bag Nashville 130 for entire kit.

yawn. Another bunch of expensive manual focus lenses. Come back Schneider, Zeiss and all of you germanic dinosaurs once you have learned autofocus.

PowerShot / Re: The New Canon PowerShot G7 X
« on: September 17, 2014, 01:44:05 PM »
Sony RX100 III vs. Canon G7 X:,573
Canon Powershot S-120 vs. Canon G7 X:,573
Canon EOS M2 vs. Canon G7 X:,573,ha,f
Canon EOS M2 w/ 22/2.0 vs. Canon G7 X:,573,ha,t
Canon G1X II vs. EOS M2 vs. G7 X vs. S120:,496,573,475,ha,f

Panasonix LX100 vs Canon G7 X: not available yet

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 14, 2014, 11:07:00 AM »
What's pathetic is the inflated sense of entitlement some of you lot have - "how dare Canon not make me my perfect camera..."
It's infantile - Canon isn't in the business of keeping you happy.

Well, if Canon is not in the business of keeping US happ ... representing pretty much a cross-section of their best, most loyal and longstanding clients who typically have shelled out anywhere from a couple 1000 bucks to a couple 10.000 on Canon products ... THEN Canon has no business. AS far as I am concerned.

And YES, we are fully ENTITLED to demand better products from Canon ... as we are entitled towards any other supplier of gear who fails to deliver products that are not as good as as they could be and that are not at least as good (!) in every which way as competitor's products and "technical state of the art" is.

We are even more entitled to demand this from the self-proclaimed global leader in imaging technology who has claimed on numerous occasions to bring us nothing less than "the future of photography".

Tell that to the many thousands of pros back in the '80's when they swapped from FD to EF mounts. Canon will do what it believes is in the best interests of its shareholders in the mid to long term, coincidentally they very often know better than us what we actually need.

The switch from FD to EF in 1987 was clearly for the better. Not only for Canon shareholders but for any photographer willing to buy their new products and enjoy the advantages of autofocus and alls sorts of beenfits associated with electron communication between lens and camera ... in the best implementation on the entire market. Yes, Canon could also have kept muddling on ... like Nikon did with their long obsolete F-mount and mechanical aprture coupling, but that was and is a very sub-optimal scenario for their clients and one of the reasons why many of us chose and choose Canon over Nikon and other screwdriver-AF companies.

Also, those clients who did not see the benefits of AF for their work had no problem to just hold on to their FD lenses and cameras. After all, those were analogue SLRs and not DSLRs were you need to upgrade to get improvements in image quality. Mechanical Film SLRs were little more than film holders with a shutter and viewfinder in them and progress between mechanical model generations was fairly limited ... real progress was only achieved once that lens mount was changed and electrified.

Even I - being a tough critic of Canon and certainly no fanboy - applaud them for the foresight that went into the EF mount. It has held up during the major changeover from analogue film cameras to digital DSLRs and is only now approaching the end of its lifecycle, as we soon will switch-over to native mirrorless lenses with shorter flange distance. The transitions will not be as painful, because this time round it is easy to privide simple extension tube adapters to keep the EF-glass working for as long as we are willing to accept the inconveniences of such an adpater solution. :-)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 64