September 20, 2014, 08:05:18 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 ... 22 23 [24] 25 26 ... 63
EOS-M / Re: The rumored tele lens for the M
« on: November 21, 2013, 10:27:11 AM »
I think anything other than the pancake 22mm destroys the form advantage of the M.

However, I personally don't want to buy any new lenses that I can't use on my other bodies.  EF-m lenses are exclusive to the M.  Yeah they might be 30% smaller but it ain't small enough.

And more exclusive lenses are going to backfire, the Ms great selling point to canon eos users is the ability to use your own lenses.  A 55-250 is never going to be compact, so lets not kid on otherwise.

Let's face it: Canon has fully botched the EOS-M in every possible way. Even if there were more EF-M lenses  NOBODY wants to buy yet another set of APS-C lenses for use on only one camera body, after having  purchased EF-S lenses and (possibly) EF lenses already.

Canon should have:
  • designed the EF-M as FF-sensored camera-system with a new mount with well thought out diameter and flange distance.
  • offer a starting line-up of 2 models: EOS-M-"Pure"= Basic model, as small as possible, LCD only, as cheap as possible
  • and EOS-M-"Advanced", slightly larger, possibly somewhat more controls, full weathersealing, Mg-alloy body and hi-end "retina" EFV
  • plus starting lineup of 3 native, FF pancake primes, sized like the EF 40/2.8 ... e.g. a 18mm/4.0 landscape,  40/2.8 normal view pancake and ultracompact 85/2.8 portrait lens. All with autuofocus capability only. No manula focus ring. To make 'em really small, fully weathersealed, optically as good as the EF 40/2.8 and as cheap as possible.
  • plus one kit-zoom ... similar to Sony ... 28-75/3.5-5.6 ... but foldable design to make it really compact, when not in use .. "parking position".
  • EF-M adapter included in package
  • plus roadmap for new EF-M lenses to come ... see Sony! WA lenses first, because those will be smaller and lighter with reduced flange distance compared to EF lenses. No need to rush native tele lenses, since they will not be smaller. Size of front element is determined by focal length and largest f-stop.

Now THAT would have been a brilliant for a full-fledged Canon EOS-M system, which would gradually but quickly  replace most DSLRs, except possibly a 1D type "fast action +long lenses" DSLR and maybe one Retro-DSLR for all those Retro-buyers who want a "chunky, beefy DSLR with proper mirror slap, OVF and lots of dials and buttons all over" [a.k.a. "Nikon Df"].

But no, ultra-conservative Canon geriatric management ward would never do such an innovative thing.  So they goofed and are being punished by us, the customers, who will only buy their sorry EOS-M if it comes almost for free. Right on them! :-)

EOS Bodies / Re: New EOS-1 in 2014 [CR1]
« on: November 21, 2013, 10:05:47 AM »
I consider it mainly CaNikon's fault, since they make it as difficult as possible for third party makers to produce fully functional lenses by changing their proprietary lens mounts all the time.

Let's see…the Canon EF mount replaced the FD mount in 1987 - it hasn't changed in more than 25 years.  The FL/FD/NewFD (interchangeable) mounts were in use for nearly 25 years before that.  Now…the R mount was only used for ~5 years, in the early 1960s.  So, in over 50 years, Canon has had 3 main types of lens mounts, and in the last 49 years, only two.  During those same >50 years, Nikon has used one mount type, the F-mount. 

So…what in the H-E-double-hockey-sticks are you talking about?

Sorry, my wording was not clear enough ... it should read "lens mount PROTOCOL"

I was referring to the news item 2 days ago ... may have escaped your attention, since it is Nikon this time playing games on Sigma ... and possibly other third party lens manufacturers too - although no reports have surfaced yet from Tamron or Tokina.   

Even while the physics of the Canon EF- and Nikon F-mount have remained (largely or totally) unchanged for a long time, every so often Canon and now also Nikon have changed something in their proprietary lens-camera-communications protocol. These changes may have had functional reasons too - e.g. in order to enable some more advanced AF, IS or ETTL or whatever functions. But sometimes - like in this latest incidence now - these changes left third-party lenses - most notably Sigma lenses - not (fully) functional any longer, while all "camera manufacturer's lenses [Nikon this time, Canon before] retained their full functionality.

Of course CaNikon may change the lens mount protocol if and as needed. But from a "competitive market" and especially from our CUSTOMERS point of view, it would be preferrable, if the protocols were open standard and any changes would come announced and fully documented beforehand, so third party lens makers would have a better chance to adjust their products. 

EOS Bodies / Re: New EOS-1 in 2014 [CR1]
« on: November 21, 2013, 08:58:34 AM »
All I'm saying, is Canon should be more innovative and charge less for products that are not neither innovative nor even fully competitive in all aspects ... if they want me to buy it. :-)

To each his own. I will never touch Sigma f/1.8 zoom lens for APS-C for the following reasons: (a) too heavy and big (b) inprecise AF (personal experience with multiple Sigma lenses incl. their recent releases... supported by DPReview's review of said lens). I'm sure there are many folks like me, and that's why Canikon never bother to release such a lens even if they can.

Incidentally, the Olympus f/2 zoom lenses were major flops too... optically fantastic, but very very few buyers. On the other hand, f/2 zoom lenses designed for FF cameras and sold at monster prices will probably attract enough buyers to offset the R&D expenditure. Sigma should have thought through their plan more carefully before releasing the APS-C f/1.8 zoom lens. If they are really good, they would have released a f/2 zoom lens for FF...

I agree with you in not buying third-party lenses too. However, I consider it mainly CaNikon's fault, since they make it as difficult as possible for third party makers to produce fully functional lenses by changing their proprietary lens mounts all the time. This should really be open standards, then we would really see who makes the best lesnes at the bst price and would have full lens choice from any maker. that would bring an incredible amount of innovation, since it would attraact a lot of R&D efforts if the resukting products could be used on the entire installed base of CaNikon cameras without issues. :-)

I also consider it "too late" by Sigma to come up with a 1k f/1.8 APS-C zoom. Majority of potentially interested users have or are moving towards FF since they have been neglected by CaNikon. But who knows, maybe Sigma comes out with an FF version of a f/2.0 or F/1.8 WA zoom any time soon? :-)

Oly 2.0 Zooms flopped for other reasons. Way too big, heavy and expensive considering the small sensor size. Anybody willing to lug those around and able to afford them was not shooting FT but FF-sensored cameras.  No target group really for those zooms.

BUT ... for FF ... a 16-35/2.0 L or a 24-70/2.0 L IS ... enough people would pay the 4.5k Canon (or Nikon) would undoubtedly charge for such a lens. But CaNikon are not able to make one. Or have agreed to not make one for the time being.  :o

EOS Bodies / Re: New EOS-1 in 2014 [CR1]
« on: November 21, 2013, 08:30:04 AM »
If you don't like Canon's offerings, take your money elsewhere, get the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8, get a Sony A7 or whatever else you find best. What is the point in continuously moaning?

Don't worry, I'll do just that, as soon as "my next camera system" becomes available. 
Until then I am not moaning, but just stating my opinion. Like you and everybody else.   

EOS Bodies / Re: New EOS-1 in 2014 [CR1]
« on: November 21, 2013, 08:18:11 AM »
Why is it that Sigma brings the first 1.8 zoom-lens to market? Why not Canon or Nikon with their vastly superior R&D resources and much better access to market due to huge installed base of camera bodies? Exactly, because Canon wants to continue to sell their cr*ppy 16-35 "L" II  ... at nearly twice the price of a Sigma 18-35/1.8.

This is incorrect for many reasons: (a) Olympus produced the world's first f/2 zoom lenses for interchangeable lens cameras with their 14-35 f/2 and 35-100 f/2 (b) Canon 16-35 f/2.8 is for FF sensor while Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 is for crop sensor

It is not incorrect. The Sigma is the first f/1.8 zoom lens. I did not say it was an FF lens. All I'm saying, is Canon should be more innovative and charge less for products that are not neither innovative nor even fully competitive in all aspects ... if they want me to buy it. :-)

EOS Bodies / Re: New EOS-1 in 2014 [CR1]
« on: November 21, 2013, 05:47:27 AM »
Those folks aren't seeing the forest for the trees...Canon continues to meet the needs of a majority of customers.

Don't worry, Neuro. I see the forest: it's called "classical duopoly". And to make things worse, a classical duopoly of two japanese comanis. CaNikon combined hold around 75% of the global interchangeable lens camera market [feel free to post exact numbers :-)].

This is "the forest" ... the sole reason for the blatant lack of innovation.

Unless one really believes it is "a mere coincidence", that Canikon both have not brought the 7D and D300/s successors to market after 4+ years. Both have brought D4 / 1Dx at the same time and will bring 1D Xs / D4s only later ... but again around the same time ... both have 3 levels of consumer-crop bodies in the market ... and 3 levels of FF-cameras ... both only have zoom lenses with at best f/2.8 ... and no, this is NOT because we, the custtomers want it that way. :-)

The most obvious and likely explanation is ... "collusion". Anti-competitive market manipulation.

Occasional "accidents" may cause "unplanned for innovation" like 5D2 video capabilitis [see recent interview with Mr. Onda of Canon!] but other than that, innovation is only allowed to trickle .. .and is only dished out in very small and carefully controlled doses.

Real innovation cames independent sources, whose life is made as bloody difficult as possible by th 2 duopolists. Magic Lantern.  Independent thirs-party lens makers. 

Why is it that Sigma brings the first 1.8 zoom-lens to market? Why not Canon or Nikon with their vastly superior R&D resources and much better access to market due to huge installed base of camera bodies? Exactly, because Canon wants to continue to sell their cr*ppy 16-35 "L" II  ... at nearly twice the price of a Sigma 18-35/1.8. And once Canon decides to come up with a 16-35/2.0 L it will cost a nifty USD/Euro 4500 or so ... and Nikon's future 14-35/2.8 will then as well ...  give me a break!

And next you know, Nikon - as Canon has done before many times - clandestinely changes their lens mount protocol [starting with D5300], so Sigma lenses stop functioning properly on that camera, but not Nikon lenses.
You may call it a mere coincidence. I call it ... just another tree in the huge forest of anti-competitive behaviour, collusion and market manipulation.

EOS Bodies / Re: New EOS-1 in 2014 [CR1]
« on: November 20, 2013, 01:14:04 PM »
If the marketplace is choosing the 5DIII over the D800 it's because it's a better camera. If the marketplace is consistently choosing Canon over other brands it's because they produce better cameras.

the old motto "eat S___, billions of flies cannot be wrong!"  ;D

Or more tech-oriented ... "buy IBM computers", "buy Compaq notebooks", "buy Nokia cellphones", "buy Kodak film". Billions of units sold. To many millions or even billions of customers. Overwhelming market lead for some time  ... UNTIL ... somebody else had better products and managed to spead the news. ;-)

Canon = has been sliding from 2009 onwards. Ever since Nikon managed to the D3/D300 double whammy. Then they lost it too. The slide has been accelerating over the last 2 years. Soon ... by bye .. down the toilet. Yesterdays market share will not save 'em. :-)

EOS Bodies / Re: New EOS-1 in 2014 [CR1]
« on: November 20, 2013, 10:42:47 AM »
When someone attacks a Canon body, you always resort to raw sales. That'S not very interesting.
The point of citing sales figures is that profit is the primary driver for publicly-traded companies like Canon and Nikon, and what they care about is developing products that will sell well and provide a return on investment, not products that will please a minority segment of the market that happens to be very vocal on internet forums. 

You did not answer the question: do you have specific sales numbers for Nikon D800/E and 5D III?
My personal guess is, that Nikon sold more D800/E. 

And generally, no need to be oh so concerned about Canon's sales numbers and profits. They got boatloads of managers and employees taking care of that.  ;-)

If Canon made fully competitive products in terms of performance and value to us, their customers, we would be happy and their sales and profits would also in great shape, rather than nosediving. 

Lenses / Re: Which lens to start with?
« on: November 19, 2013, 06:06:37 AM »
... I know I am a perfectionist. That doesn't make it easier.
Read about pixel peepers, well, I think I am one of them.

So, I don't think the 24-70 is the one for me at the moment. It's a lot of money and I would rather spend it on the 70-200. So, 35L, 17-40, 40mm, or TSE or the 24L? Why do they make so much lenses ;)

A) Zoom
Assuming, you may want "the best" available WW-to-normal Zoom in addition to the 100L Macro and 70-200 tele, then the choice is easy -> 24-70 L II. Neither the 17-40 nor the 24-105 will cut it for pixel peepers. 


B) Prime
Otherwise a light(er) "landscape lens". Focal length depends on your personal preferences. I'd most likely take the EF 24/2.8 IS, since I would shoot stopped down to f/8 most of the time anyway, with very little, if any visible difference to the 24 L II. But still the real advantage of having IS for longer slower shutter speeds. And a much  better pricetag.   

I don't know, what lenses Canon will bring next, but I would expect a 35/1.4 L II to come in 2014. But not a 24-70/2.8 L IS. 

All sensors in current canon DSLRs are deficient. Both, APS-C and "full frame 36X24".
They are significantly sub-par compared to sensors found in competitors cameras. They lack 25% to 50% in resolution and at the same time they lack up to 2 EV of dynamic range, dependung on ISO setting.

Canon's sensors are as deficient today as a car engine would be that delivers only half of the acceleration at half the fuel efficiency of competitors engines.

Canon has only gotten away with this up to now, because
* real life differences are mitigated by best jpg engine and
* all other parameters of their DSLRs, especially user interface - are fully competitive and
* most importantly, because many customers are "locked in" by their high investments in not-deficient canon lenses and system components (speedlites).

Canon is in a dangerous spot today: better sensors can be had now in smaller packages and can be combined with canon lenses. If sony gets its act together, and manages to quickly improve their defivient Mirrorless ff cameras (af, battery charge, EVF) and canon continues to ignore mirrorless or only delivers half-assed products, they could quickly become obsolete. Nokia and blackberry should serve as warning examples.

Lenses / Re: Lots of New Lenses Coming in 2014 [CR2]
« on: November 18, 2013, 12:57:22 PM »
I don't think you read the posts carefully enough. The question here was not if a PRO needs the best camera. AvTvM's question was that why would you buy into a different system? My view is, why not? Learning a new system is by far a better option than buying gear you hate and rant about in internet forums.

Again, I doubt the wisdom of that. 2 different systems does not only mean 2 different user interfaces to learn. But 2 different sets of batteries and chargers [remember, messus was talking about shooting wildlife stills and videos @ all sorts of locations, including rather remote areas] and a whole lot more effort and difficulties in post production - especially for video.

It may well be the better approach to stick with gear from one manufacturer, even when some of it is less than optimal for certain aspects of the task. And everbody is entitled to (some) ranting if expensive gear is not as good as it should be. Including Canon gear. :-)

oO ... Handling seems to have some nasty flaws. Especially the EV-correction wheel being too loose sounds really troublesome, since there is no user fix or workaround for this.

 And A7 hybrid AF being less capable than A7R contrast-AF comes rather unexpected too. Lets see what other testers and new owners will find and report.

Lenses / Re: Lots of New Lenses Coming in 2014 [CR2]
« on: November 15, 2013, 11:18:12 AM »
Yeah. What lunatic continues to buy gear they hate?

you have not read, what he wrote. He is using multiple Canon bodies for stills and video. Out in the wild.
The last thing I'd want out there is a body from another manufaturer, with different user interface, different sensor characteristics, different batteries, etc. ... how about you?

Lenses? The good: SonyZeiss 24-70 has in-lens IS ("OSS"), CaNikon has not.

Which lens are you talking about?  The 24-70mm Carl Zeiss OSS is an f/4 lens…  Why are you comparing it to the Canon and Nikon f/2.8 lenses, and how did you forget about the Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS?

yes, you are right. got that one mixed up, sorry. f/4 it is, the sony zeiss.
And yes, Canon has a 24-70/4 L IS too. But no FF MILC body to go with it for me. ;-)

So what about the Sony A7/R compared to my needs?

Image quality - check. Excellent. Confirmed by the first reviews already. Best sensor in the industry [no, it is not behind the D800 :-)]. Highest resolution and best DR ... at least up to ISO 3200. Yes, I do use and need Hi-ISO a fair bit, but only up to 3200, very rarely to 6400. So don't care for 51200 or more. Cudos to Sony for putting that sensor into such a small package!

Lenses? The good: SonyZeiss 24-70 has in-lens IS ("OSS"), CaNikon has not. If the SonyZeiss turns out to be as good as expected, it would be my pick and cover 50% or more of my shooting situations - both in focal length and in max. aperture. And it will still be way smaller, lighter and less obtrusive on an A7/R than the CaNikon behemoths on a 5D III or D800. :-)

To really "go light" I'd want 3 ultra-compact moderate aperture "pancake" primes. Most of the time I would only carry one lens on me, depending on intended photographic target/shooting situation.   
a) W/A landscape and confined space pancake ... ideally a 18mm/f 4.0 
b) normal view pancake - ideally a Sony FE equivalent to the tiny, "good enough" and dirt cheap Canon EF 40/2.8 [which I have and like]
c) a portrait lens - ideally a compact 85/2.0 WITH stabilizer. Sizewise like a Leica M

One more thing: I'd love to get these native primes without manual focus ring & gear - so as "purely AF-versions". :-)  Makes 'em smaller, lighter, cheaper and easier to wheatherseal. I am never focusing manually anyways.  Sony is not there yet. 1000 USD/Euros for a 55/1.8 are a bad joke. No matter whether it says Zeiss on it or not. But I am confident, Sony will get there fairly soon.

My biggest area of discomfort: I think the Sony E-mount really is a bit too narrow for FF. In combination with the very short flange distance of 18mm it restricts opportunities to design very good, fast lenses at affordable prices. A mistake they'll not be able to correct.

Stabilizer: Sony really, really should have continued their strategy of putting a sensor stabilizer into their cameras. Even if it had added a few mm to body size and another 100 bucks or so to price. One of the serious drawbacks in my view on the A7/R. But maybe they'll put an Olympus-style 5-axes stabilizer into the A8/R. :-) 

Autofocus: big question mark. One-Shot probably OK for my needs, even on A7R. Tracking AF likely not yet, even on A7 ... and even for what I expect: people moving at medium speed [not indoor ball sports, not cheetah pursuing impala, no birds in flight or similar]. Unfortunately Sony did not get PD-AF on the A7R sensor. Again, maybe A8R.  What I consider "good enough" is exactly what Nikon 1 AF or Oly OMD 1 deliver. Will test it when I can get my hands on an A7/R where I live.

In terms of fps I am happy with anything between 4 and 6 fps. I ain't no "machine gun Joe". 7D is overkill for my needs in that department. 

Shutter noise: A7/R ... need to test myself ... but almost certainly "fail". This really bothers me a lot. I do a fair bit of shooting at (classical music) concerts, theatres, in churches etc ... and also a bit of street photography. Silent operation when needed is one of the major attractions of a MILC-system to me. Oh well, maybe A8R. Make it a mech-free shutter please. Electronic global shutter. 100% digital camera.

Battery charge: absolutely disappointing. 200+ shots is not nearly enough. Sony should have added a bit bigger grip to take the regular Alpha battery NP-FM500H with 12 Wh charge. Or a new, better battery. Again, maybe in the the A8/R. 

Flash ... probably fail. While Canon is not quite there either [e.g. no 2nd curtain sync and no zoom-head control in wireless operation, not even with RT-gear; no 430EX-RT, no RT-receivers to enable radio wireless on existing 580/430EX IIs] they are clearly ahead of Nikon and way ahead of where (I believe) Sony is. Probably there are and will be third party triggers available, but they are always a far cry from a good, "native" flash system. I have no intention to buy pockewizards or China-stuff when all this flash functionality could and should by all means be built right into the gear from the start. Sony really needs to step up their flash-game. AH yes, I would also like to have a pop-up flash for fill in the camera. It helps me to go light, without a speedlite, when only a little fill is needed. :-)

So - in total more question marks at the moment than thumbs up. But I'll check the A7/R out sometime soon.  And I am sure my 7D will easily last me another year if need be.

Pages: 1 ... 22 23 [24] 25 26 ... 63