October 22, 2014, 11:26:53 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 - AvTvM

Pages: 1 ... 20 21 [22] 23 24 ... 68
316
EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon Answer the D4s? [CR2]
« on: February 02, 2014, 08:19:10 AM »
Quote from: 100 link=topic=18995.msg363786#msg363786 date
... With all the connectivity added to anything with software I think it’s just a matter of time before camera manufactures will allow apps to control their devices to some extent because apps will add value for free.

Exactly. canon will likely continue to hold back as much as they can in order to preserve their strictly proprietary ecosystem. Meanwhile other makers are offering cameras today already that allow their owners to configure and expand their functionality by using apps ... E.g. sony a7/R.

While many shooters will not need this, having the opportunity would still come in handy for many.

It's not so much technical challenges, but rather canon GREED that dictates, what their customers can possibly get. That's what i am calling them out for.

317
EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon Answer the D4s? [CR2]
« on: February 01, 2014, 03:17:46 PM »
However, the 5DIII was designed before wifi made its entrance.  It makes sense that Canon introducwd it in the 6D which is in the FF low and and also a new model to see how the market would react.

Sorry to disappoint you. Wifi in cameras was already invented in 2012. canon just believed they would get away forcing customers to buy their oem-wifi-grip-bricks for their mirrorslappers. As in the past. At 1000% gross margin.
They were right. A few of their customers don't mind.

Lack of onboard wifi does not make the 5d iii a bad camera. It just demonstrates that it is ... dated. A bit like a car without AC or a tube tv. :-)

318
EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon Answer the D4s? [CR2]
« on: February 01, 2014, 02:20:55 PM »
Meet the facts.
Wifi in a camera is easy and dirt cheap. Evidenced by the fact that even canon manages integrate wifi into dirt cheap cameras like the powershot a 3500 that retails at euro 90 [usd 120]  including 20% sales tax.



319
EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon Answer the D4s? [CR2]
« on: February 01, 2014, 07:40:33 AM »
Wifi is such a cheap feature to implement and it does not compromise wheathersealing or structural stability of a camera at all. those, who dont need it, can switch it off.
And it is not for the facebook / instagram crowd, since they will not bother lugging around a big old mirrorslapper. It is for those photograühers who have to shell out 300 bucks for cam ranger - simply because canon refuses to put a 5 dollar wifi chip + antenna into a 2012 camera for 3 grand.

Luckily its getting cheaper to make up for canons marketing differentiation ploys ...
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=19342.msg363433;topicseen#new

320
EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon Answer the D4s? [CR2]
« on: January 31, 2014, 05:10:36 PM »
The 5D 3 really is nothing more than a 5D 2 with - at long last - a decent af-system in it. Hardly any improvement in IQ and resolution. Blatant lack of connectivity (not even wifi which canon manages to put into any 200 dollar powershot). It should really have been called 5D 2N.

The 5D 3 is really dated in every respect.

By now i've lost interest in the 5d line and bulky dslrs. Just waiting until a really good ff milc comes to market. Af issues in mirrorless are getting ironed out. The fuji xt1 seems to be tracking moving subjects @ 8 fps. Soon enough decent af performance will also be available in ff-sensored mirrorless cams. Looking forward to it. Sony A8R could already be the real winner.


321
Canon General / Re: Review: Canon Speedlite Transmitter ST-E3-RT
« on: January 31, 2014, 04:46:15 PM »
Quote from: neuroanatomist link=topic=19320.msg363083#msg363083
What Canon does very well is extract money from customers.  I'm sure the 4x0EX-RT will be along in due course, after enough 600EX-RT units have been sold.  While I'd like an -RT receiver to integrate a monolight, it's not really in Canon's best interest (from their perspective) to come out with a unit that allows integration of cheap 3rd party flashes into their system, especially if such a unit is 'cheap'.  I can seem them coming out with one priced fairly close to the 4x0EX-RT (say, $50-80 less), making the combination of receiver plus 3rd party flash cost more than the 4x0EX-RT.

Extracting money from customers will become more difficult for canon as soon as there will be yongnuo, phottix and other 3rd party RT-transceivers available. At a fair and cheap price. Definitely less than the yn-st-e3, since there is not much to such a transceiver. I'd reckon usd 49 a piece, maybe 79,-

I will wait until then, its bound to happen soon. Then i will skip 600ex and just use my existing 580 II and 430 IIs ... They have not yet seen enough use for the money canon got for them. :-)

322
- I like full frame video.
- Best selection of fast and wide lenses for the money. (There are no 24mm f1.4 equivalent in APS-C for less than many, many thousands of dollars)
...
- Size/weight/flexibility in rigging.
- Now raw video in full frame. Impossible on any other camera. (for now)
The Canon Cx00 series can all use EF lenses/ For raw video, Canon has C-Log.
Rigging is much the same once you get truely serious.

+1

323
Canon General / Re: Review: Canon Speedlite Transmitter ST-E3-RT
« on: January 31, 2014, 08:17:17 AM »
I know, this is mainly about the ST-E3-RT, which is "OK" [it should have included AF assist light] but overall I find the Canon RT system to be rather limited. Only one big, expensive speedlite and one expensive controller. The system has been around for quite some time now and still there is no

* small and cheap RT transceiver to integrate optical-only Canon speedlites [580/430) into a RT setup, and ideally also 3rd party flashes [at least in M mode] as well as studio strobes 
* 430EX-RT
* overhaul of the ancient Canon wireless ETTL protocol to finally enable remote 2nd curtain sync and remote control over zoom-reflector setting

324
don't care for video, don't need or want "global shutter" in a DSLR.

BUT ...
I absolutely do want a fully electonic (global) shutter without any moving mechanical parts (curtains) ... in a totally silent and absolutely vibration-free mirrorless cameras. "Solid State Camera" ... all the way!

325
EOS Bodies / Re: 7D Mark II on Cameraegg
« on: January 24, 2014, 12:09:54 PM »
well, here we are talking about a possible EOS 7D successor, whatever it may be called.

A semi/pro DSLR capable of handling quite demanding use cases of "photographing fast moving subjects" ... from sports to wildlife of all sorts to birds of all sizes and in flight to planes in the air at airshows or in war zones and the like. Used by people who typically are not "entry level n00bs" but enthusiasts who know, whether they want or don't wanT/need video capabilities in that 7D successor.

If Canon would take the test and offer a well-specced stills-only 7D II @ e.g. 1999 and a video-enabled version 7D IIc priced anywhere between 2,299 to 2,599 depending on level of video capture offered ... I would expect 90% would be sold without video.

While it is not video as the differentiator, I see it very similar to the Nikon D800 vs. D800E offerings. A hell of a lot more regular D800 are sold than D800E, since only people really wanting and valueing the additional capability [more resolution at possible risk of moire in some situations] will pay up for the more expensive model.
The example sucks a bit since the D800E is so much more expensive than the D800 for only very little extra ... but I bet it would be pretty much the same, even if the pricing difference was only 100 bucks.

There should be no video-freeriding in stills-cameras / DSLRs. It is just not fair.

326
Well, there you go then, sounds like you are volunteering, you're it. You make it, whatever it is you want.

Rules of the consumer market are other way round. :-)

I, the (potential) customer know, what I want. Very preciely, since I am an experienced customer. Any company able to build something meeting all or most of my expectations may show me what they got and nicely ask me whether I am willing to buy. :-)

So to get 'em camera makers going, here's what I want: 
  • a mirrorless interchangable lens camera
  • not bulkier or heavier than the Sony A7R
  • clean, non "retro" styling and UI. 1 wheel front, 1 wheel back, 1 multifunction ring around lens mount, 1 locked mode dial, no top display, 1 shutter release, 1 on/off switch, 1 Back-AF button, 4 buttons top right for ISO, Drive Mode, Metering mode, AF-mode]
    • nice and strong mag-alloy body shell, IP 67 ingress-protected against dust and liquids
    • with a 36x24mm sensor and assorted electronic circuitry yielding
    • 30+ MP and image quality at ISO up to 1600 as good as or better than Nikon D800
    • IQ at ISO 3200-12800 as good as or better than EOS 6D
    • AF-performance, star-up, shot-to-shot-times and frame rate (6fps)  at least as good as 5D III
    • an EVF that is one notch better in resoultion and lag than the one in Sony A7/R
    • fully working Eye Control Focus 2.0 - allowing control of hybrid PD/CD-AF system in EVF
    • 100% mechanics-free, absolutely silent and totally vibration-free shutter
    • WiFi allowing full remote control and capture over iGadgets, Android-devices and other WiFI enabled gear
    • wireless RT radio flash commander built in including 2nd curtain sync and control over speedlite zoom reflector
    • pop-up fill flash built in
    • truly useful AF-assist light projecting near-infrared laser grid as found in Sony DSC F-808
    • GPS logger built in
    • fully articulated 300+ dpi 3+" touchscreen display at back, fully visible even in direct, strong sunlight
    • all liveview-controls and playback controls as context-aware soft keys on touch screen
    • menu system like 5D III
    • 500+ shots with one battery charge
    • in-body-stabilizer working at least as good as Oly's OMD1's
    • at a launch price of max. 2499 Euros [2999 USD]
    • plus chargeable options: full-HD video @ 500 USD
    • 4k 120fps video ... @5000 USD extra charge
    • direct upload to facebook, flickr, twitter, instagram, Canon image gateway, NSA-cloud server ... @ 99 USD/monthly subscription charge .. per service
    • soundfile with mirrorslpa/shutter noise ... as low as 1,99 [meek and feeble EOS 1000D sound] up to 9,99 [1D-X or thunder-like Nikon F3 slap] - per download

    plus a starting lineup of well-performing. small, light and affordable native short flange-distance lenses:
    • 3 fix focals as small as possible, as good and as cheap as the existing EF 40/2.8:
    • 20mm/4.0
    • 40mm/2.8
    • 85mm/2.8
    • Plus one good, but also compact and reaonably priced walkaround standard zoom 24-70/4.0.
    • and an EF lens adaptor letting me use my existing EF lenses without any compromise in functionality or IQ whatsoever
    • All of the new lenses AF-only, no manual focus gear, no manual focus ring, but with independently certified IP67-grade sealing.

    Everything possible using today's technology. As soon as CaNikon are going to offer products like these, the ratio of mirrorless vs. DSLRs will turn around in a few years. And camera makers will be saved from extinction one more time, as 99.9% of serious photographers will upgrade from their fat old mirrorslappers of yesteryear to 21st century cameras. ;D 8)

327
EOS Bodies / Re: 7D Mark II on Cameraegg
« on: January 24, 2014, 03:52:28 AM »
...
I upgraded from my xs to the 60D primarily because of it's video function.  I didn't want to buy a video camera that cost $300  ...
...
For me... I can't have a single body in my house (only body in my house) that doesn't have video... because I do need it... not a ton... but I do need it to capture my 5 month old and my 125 month old.  So if Canon were to drop video entirely... I would probably have to jump ship in 5 years when I out grow my mkiii... I know it isn't likely that they will drop it... but it is what it is.

This is exactly why I would like all DSLRs to come in a "basic" stills-only version without video capturing capability [hardware disabled, easy to do]. And for those who really want or "need" steills and video in one single device, should be offered a video-enabled version of those cameras ... of course at a surcharge. Maybe 10% more, maybe 20% more or any other reasonable number, that would still make "one dual-use camera" a better deal than "two single-use cameras" (or rather camera systems). 

For every other product on earth the principle is clear: more features and/or more convenience = higher price.   
We can order cars in a basic, "no frills version" or "fully loaded". "2 wheel drive" or "all-wheel drive". Stronger engine, more "extras" ... no problem. But ... not for free. 
You want it  ... you select it ... you pay for it ... you get it.

Only video-users clamor for their extra video-capability and single-device convenience in EVERY camera ... and they DEMAND it "FOR FREE".

Now, as that demands shifts to ever more advanced video capturing (4k, 8k, 60fps, 120fps, 1000fps?) ... it gets very evident, that video capability in DSLRs does NOT come for free, but does cause rather significant extra cost: extra R&D effort, more CPU-power, stronger hardware, larger and faster storage media, additional firmware and software ... all of this has to be designed, developed, tested, manufactured, implemented and serviced. It requires extra capital and extra labor from (highly skilled) humans, who certainly do not work "for free". But the extra feature only wanted by a minority of buyers should be "free of charge", "all inclusive". Paid for by the majority of stills idiots, who neither need nor want video capability in their stills cameras, but are not given a choice. Unlike cars, we only  get our cameras "fully video loaded", and have to swallow the price for it. 

This is the single reason, why the topic of "video-capable DSLRs" is "emotional". Because the way (all) camera makers are currently dealing with the market demand for "dual-use cameras" is very UNFAIR towards those wanting cameras that are fully optimized towards one single use scenario, that DSLRs were really designed for: capturing still images.

The argument will be less pronounced when the shift to mirrorless cameras has happended, since these cameras are video-enabled by their very design [for viewfinder&backscreen image] without mechanical mirrors blocking the lightpath. Nevertheless, implementing video CAPTURE and video OUTPUT causes extra cost and is an extra feature and extra convenience. It should therfore come as a choice for those who want or need it AND ARE WILLING TO PAY at least a modest surcharge for it.  :)

328
EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon Answer the D4s? [CR2]
« on: January 15, 2014, 03:06:03 AM »
... Assuming the trend towards higher megapixel counts continues, that will only continue to diminish performance at ISO 6400, meaning any technological improvements to improve light sensitivity will only restore ISO 6400 noise performance to the level of sensors with fewer megapixels.

while I really like to read all your insights I would still like to question your last sentence here a bit:

Has not the D800 sensor (+ electronics) proven, that it is possible to improve on both targets - resolution AND image quality [at low and high ISO] ... at the same time? The D800 has dramatically more resolution than the preceding D700 and still better (less visible noise and more DR, color fidelity) at ISO 6400. 

While there obviously is some tradeoff between resolution, low-ISO IQ (DR, noise/banding) and hi-ISO IQ it seem that with innovative approaches all 3 corners of the triangle can be pushed forward. SOny (+ Nikon) have been able to do this and get products to market that deliver the goods to customers, while Canon has been lagging for some time by now. Canon has managed to only push 1 corner of this triangle: hi-ISO image-quality - but not resolution and low-ISO IQ.  And even in the Hi-ISO IQ, Canon's sensors are definitely not really superior to Nikon/Sony sensors: 1DX sensor is really only marginally ahead of the D800 from ISO 3200 upwards and probably not at ahead of the D4. 

As far as I am concered, that is the main source of "relative discontent" with Canon compared to Nikon (/Sony) when discussing sensor performance.

My feeling is, that Canon up to now really is UNABLE to match Nikon/Sony sensor performance, rather than UNWILLING to do so - or intentionally "holding back", saving improvements for future products.

329
Canon ST-E3 and Yongnuo side by side: http://www.svenbluege.de/blog/reviews/182-yongnuo-yn-e3-rt-vs-canon-st-e3-rt
not sure, whether I have already posted the link here - if so, sorry.

330
 YN-E3-RT firmware v1.08 is available now:

Version 1.08:
Fixed: correct ettl2/gr exposure for 1D-X.
Fixed: improved light metering for cameras after 2012.

Download links for Driver and Updater Software at the bottom of the page here -
http://www.hkyongnuo.com/e-detail.php?ID=337

See more at: http://flashhavoc.com/yongnuo-yn-e3-rt-available-this-week/#sthash.qkAxqYAi.dpuf

Pages: 1 ... 20 21 [22] 23 24 ... 68