July 23, 2014, 10:37:25 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 ... 23 24 [25] 26 27 ... 60
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Rumor: Nikon Digital FM2 - Retro look
« on: November 02, 2013, 12:37:42 PM »
I use my DSLRs for video - ML does what the Philip Bloom wannabes want, it's not a stock canon feature.
Zebras etc can be added on external monitors also.

I've not asked for either.  Ok. a headphone socket would be really really really nice, but my beachtek (at extra cost to me, not developed by canon or detracting from canons work) largely solves the problem.

Video is 99% live view.

It's really not worth going on so much about.

No, Video is NOT 99% live view. Video on a DLSR means a sensor which is compromised because it is "optimized" to being ON for 30 minutes at a time and longer. Not needed for liveview or stills. Video is about all sorts of awkward hardware and firmware manipulations on a DSLR that are not needed for stills capture or even in the way. Video means, R&D funds are misappropriated for something only a tiny minority ever uses in a DSLR, rather than being directed at the issues, Canon should be solving and which would be beneficial to the overwhelming majority of stills photographers: fully competitive sensors! Vastly improved DR at low ISO! Far less banding/noise, better S/N at high ISO!

Personally, I really don't understand why you and other avid videographers are not buying a true videocam. If I was into video, I would definitely NEVER EVER put up with ANY DSLR to capture video. Not even a 1Dc. I'd rather buy a C500 or something along those lines then. And I would beat on Canon to sell those video gagdets at more reasonable prices. Since obviously lower price is the sole reason why people would ever consider buying large sensored DSLRs and (ab)use them to capture video.

If Nikon brings their new DF DSLR without video, that will be the only feature about it, that I will commend them for. Otherwise I don't care for that camera not at all. I hate retro looks on modern gear, whether it be cameras or cars.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: I hate to say you told me so, but...
« on: November 02, 2013, 12:30:05 PM »
I know canon have tried to design a system that doesn't alienate existing EF users, ...

I think canon may have been better ripping it up and starting from scratch, it does seem a bit mental that the 70D got the tech the M should have had.

I don't know what bit I got wrong though, might you elucidate?

I totally agreee with you, that the 70D should have been served up as a mirrorless cam.

Wrong? Your statement "I know Canon have tried to design a system that does not alienate EF users" ... is plain wrong. Canon does not care whom they alienate or not. Truth is: Canon was and still IS simply NOT ABLE  to deliver a better MILC than the sub-par EOS-M.

* Canon has no clue.
* Canon  is NOT ABLE  to bring an APS-C sensor matching the Nikon D7100 - 2 years later!
* Canon is NOT ABLE to bring a FF sensor matching the D800. 2 years later.
* Canon is NOT ABLE to produce a mirrorless FF system camera like the Sony A7/R.
* Canon is NOT ABLE to produce PD_AF that performs as good as an Oly OMD1 or a Panasonix GX7.

All Canon is able to do ... is to charge outrageous prices for their last century DSLR technology and "video-optimize" it. Canon has become a real bunch of losers.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: I hate to say you told me so, but...
« on: November 02, 2013, 11:57:12 AM »
I know canon have tried to design a system that doesn't alienate existing EF users, ...

No, wrong. Canon was neither able nor willing to build a good, fast-responding mirrorless cam. They just try to stuff their dumb old DLSRs down our throats at ever higher prices.

NOT A SINGLE "EF user" would be offenden with an EOS-M that has the sensor and all other innards of an EOS 70D and the hybrid-AF speed of an Olympus OMD1. Or even a FF-EOS mirrorless, the size of a Sony A7/R with a gret 36 MP sensor at 2.500 USD. Actually, if Canon made and sold those and included an EF-adapter for free with each of these MILCs ... they would have a future in this business.

They way they go about it up to now ... likely not.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Rumor: Nikon Digital FM2 - Retro look
« on: November 02, 2013, 11:51:49 AM »

Would you like a camera without live view?
If so I'll get you canons product development address and you can write to them.

The 1DC is the only Canon DSLR that I can imagine as being described as 'video-optimised' and thats a niche product for a niche market where I imagine 100% of users will want the video (or they'd just buy a 1DX)

You have it all wrong mate.  The technologies being developed for video users will have a dividend for stills users, and if you don't fancy them, hey, don't use them.  I just don't buy this arguement that video detracts from the stills capability of DSLR's.

I suggest you don't buy a 1DC.  Otherwise, just get out and enjoy your photography, your obsession is verging on the autistic spectrum now.

I love to use liveview for static subjects and when my EOS 7D is on a tripod.
Liveview is exactly the amount of video useful in a stills camera and for stills shooters.

And I will not buy a 1DC, don't worry. However, I would like all video guys to buy video cameras and/or the 1Dc, because its for them. And not pestify regular DSLRideo crap and demands for ever mor zebras, headphone jacks, steroeo micropühones, better video codecs, marked-in-red "start video" buttons  and whatever else. And whatever the videots say, I know, that the overwhelming majority of DSLR users see it exactly the same way and never use video capture. They are just not as vocal about it. :-)

EOS Bodies / Re: An Announcement Coming in November? [CR1]
« on: November 02, 2013, 06:20:48 AM »
Its not greed, its business.  Mirrorless sells horribly across all manufactures compared to DSLR, so why would Canon stack their resources in a category that fails to sel?

Mirrorless has sold horribly up to now, because products offered ranged between "inadequate and horrible". EOS-M (dog-slow, no EVF), Nikon 1 (dwarf-sensored, too expensive), mFT (generally too expensive and not small/light enough compared to APS-C), APS-C sensored NEX did rather well ... compared to Sony SLT/DSLR sales ;-)

EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: A Pellicle Mirror by Canon
« on: November 02, 2013, 05:45:36 AM »
MILC sales numbers are low due to one reason only: rather unattractive MILCS so far. EOS-M ... Nikon 1 ... or mFT.
As soon as really good MILCs are availbale, DSLR sales will fall, MILC sales will rise. As simple as that.
Sony A7/R are the turning point, even if their sales should turn out to be disappointing. Why? Because it has been proven, that cameras with large and good sensors don't need to be large, clunky and heavy.
As afra as lenses are concerned: probably 90% of all images are captured at focal lengths that can be build into small and light lenses. Only a small minority of photographers really NEED to use longer focal length lenses that will be large and heavy as long as glass-based optics are not replaced by something better.

As far as the "variable transmission tech" is concerned: I would prefer Canon to look into this NOT for pellicle mirrors but for fully electronic shutters and possibly also for fully electronic lens apertures, perfgeclty round at any opening - instead of mechanical iris / blades.

I'd love to finally get a 100% digital, electronic camera, devoid of any pre-historic mechanical ballast from the phtographic stone-age. No mirror slap. No shutter-cracking, no shutter-cocking/re-winding. No vibrations. No noise. That is my idea of "pure photography" [ (c) Nikon ;-)] ... in "pure silence".

Imaging with light. Arranging incoming photons. Rather than wielding mechanical and chemical contraptions. Luckily we got rid of the chemical stuff. Now it's time to unload the mechanical stuff too.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Rumor: Nikon Digital FM2 - Retro look
« on: November 02, 2013, 05:21:39 AM »
Anyway, it's camera that I'm not going to buy so it can have or not have whatever,  just a shame that because some folk don't use video that some feel nobody should use video.  I don't use PIC or averaged spot metering, maybe I could save a few bucks if canon would make a camera just for me without these features.

We are talking about - possibly, maybe - the first current DSLR (1) to not have video. Out of what, 2 dozen current DSLRs which all are "video-enabled" or even "video-optimized" (especially Canon).  In a market, where (an estimated) 80% of DSLR-purchasers do NOT capture video AT ALL. Other than possibly a short "test clip" after purchase. We are not talking about  "a camera only for me or for you". We are talking about strills-optimized cameras for the majority of stills-only photographers. Video-folks have PLENTY of choice. No need that EVERY camera has to be "video-enabled" or "video-optimized". Especially when a camera's basic construction  principle (mirror flapping in lightpath) is absolutely "not optimized" for video capture.

As far as the upcoming Nikon is concerned, I am not interested. To me it appears to be a butt-ugly downscaled D610 with a last generation low-resolution sensor. Fixed shutter-time dial on top instead of a much more useful and ergonomically placed multi-purpose thumb wheel (as on any other decent DSLR). Plus a retro-version of a lens that boasts an absolutely functionless chrome ring.  But let's wait and see, if Nikon is going to offer more than much ado about nothing.

EOS Bodies / Re: An Announcement Coming in November? [CR1]
« on: October 31, 2013, 03:20:30 PM »
EOS M2. Same size as EOS-M. DP-AF sensor and absolutely all capabilities and features found in the 70D (except the flapping mirror and prism). "Retina" EVF included.  EF-S and EF-adapter included in package. Priced @ 999,- including 18-55 STM.

Instant win. Wait lists well into 2014.  :-)

Unfortunately greed has made Canon too stupid to even think about this.


EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: A Pellicle Mirror by Canon
« on: October 31, 2013, 03:16:41 PM »
Fixed mirrors were a dead end then (EOS RT).
Fixed mirrors are a dead end now (Sony SLT).
Canon: stop f*cking around and bring those mirrorless cameras!

* APS-C: EOS-M2 with exactly the innards and capabilities of the 70D. In a much smaller box. Adapter for EF-S and EF included in package. Minus obsolete mirror-box and prism. Plus  fabulous "Retina" EVF. Plus Eye-Control Focus v.2.0.  999,- USD/€ body only. 

* FF -> 5DIII innards and capabilities in a Sony A7/R sized body.  Adaptor for EF lenses included. USD/€ 1999,-

Canon customers would buy like mad. :-)

Mirrors? yes, for cars and girls. Not for cameras.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: This momma is looking to buy a camera ?
« on: October 29, 2013, 12:23:22 PM »
Unfortunately Canon has nothing even remotely comparable to the Sony RX100 II at the moment.
The G1X is not 'remotely comparable'?  While it is not in the same size/form factor it has several advantages over the RX100 II

Yes, you are right. "Remotely comparable". However, I'd take an RX100II any time over a G1X. Not only because of the smaller size, but also because I believe [not checked] that RX-100 II beats the G1X in image quality - despite the sensor size difference. At least at the most frequently used lower ISO settings.

As far as the S-120 or G16 are concerned: they are not even remotely comparable to the RX100-II.  :-)

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: This momma is looking to buy a camera ?
« on: October 29, 2013, 08:22:27 AM »
@OP - I would recommend a Sony RX100II based on your criteria as I understand them:

* Budget ca. 700
* not much desire to carry/change lenses
* very good image quality; no problem to pribnt photos, including posters; just not wall-sized advertising posters
* decent AF to capture junior/sports, but no coverage of Olympic Games as a Photo-journalist
* video quality more than good enough for family videos; not for hollywood productions
* full manual control over image capture (in addition to decent auto modes)
* WiFi built in for easy sharing on the net, FB, social media [no Canon DSLR other than the EOS 6D has this yet]

It all comes together in one really good, small and light package in the Sony RX100 II.
 Any DSLR you will buy - including the SL-1 - will most likely not be along all the time you would want it or even collect dust at home soon. I am seeing it with a lot of friends.

Yes, tele "reach" will be somewhat limited on the RX-100, but to get format-filling pics of your kid/s running with the ball at the other end of a sports field, you would have to carry a VERY large and heavy lens with any DSLR as well. Un less you are really prepared to do so, I'd advise to stay clear.

Unfortunately Canon has nothing even remotely comparable to the Sony RX100 II at the moment.   

Lenses / Re: DIY carbon hood for 40mm stm lens
« on: October 28, 2013, 02:16:53 PM »
congrats! Looks very nicely done.

But please don't ever show this to Canon! Otherwise L-lenses will be shipped without hood, just like non-L's. And then charge 200 € for the fitting "carbon L-hood".  ;D

Canon General / Re: Consumer DSLRs "dead in 5 years"
« on: October 28, 2013, 09:33:24 AM »
one more sidenote, I shall not forget. Before meticolous Mr. Neuro points it out ;-)
the early SLR "Duflex" back in 1947 did not capture images on 36 x 24mm, but only 32 x 24mm. So it was a "crop" camera. One of the areas it was not perfect yet. ;-) 

Canon General / Re: Consumer DSLRs "dead in 5 years"
« on: October 28, 2013, 09:06:08 AM »
btw. innovation in capturing "light images"will not stop here or with ever better MILCS. :-)

My predictions for the next pivotal innovations?
* glassless optics
* lightfield imaging
* holographic imaging

When?  Don't know. I'm no prophet. But I'll call out, when it's going to happen. Even if it were not Canon bringing it on.  :D

Canon General / Re: Consumer DSLRs "dead in 5 years"
« on: October 28, 2013, 09:01:53 AM »
These are the new line of cameras that don’t use the 20th century technology of a mechanical mirror inside that flips up and down between photos. In a few years, we’ll all look back and smile, having fond memories of using these Da Vinci-esque mechanical devices. Charts of how cameras used to work with their flipping innards will look like some of Leonardo’s unrealized steampunk inventions.


That's exactly how I see it. Granted, mirrorless cameras are not as pivotal and groundbreaking an innovation as invention of the wheel was. :-) But for photography, mirrorless digital cameras are a truly pivotal innovation.

Let's look at the previous three innovations of similar impact in the world of photography:
* 1913: Oscar Barnack's Ur-Leica with "Kleinbild" film 36x24mm format pioneered small, fast, "mobile" cameras with "good enough" IQ. Those enabled photographers like Henri Cartier-Bresson and a few others ;-) to get the images they wanted and could not have gotten with previous gear. More than "just a better mousetrap" - do you agree? 

* 1943 another pivotal innovation was patented by Hungarian Jenö Dulovits (due to WW II  it took until 1947 until his "Duflex" camera was built: http://www.novacon.com.br/odditycameras/gammahung.htm). Far from perfect, so it took a couple more minor improvements and eventually 25 years (!) until single-lens reflex cameras  became the absolutely dominant photographer's image-capturing tool, relegating everything else to specialty niches. Why? Just read the first 2 lines of the wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-lens_reflex_camera
A single-lens reflex (SLR) camera is a camera that typically uses a mirror and prism system (hence "reflex", from the mirror's reflection) that permits the photographer to view through the lens and see exactly what will be captured, contrary to viewfinder cameras where the image could be significantly different from what will be captured.
Pivotal. Agreed?

* Digital cameras. You guessed that one, right? Main benefit? Photographers got "real time" control over the image about to be captured. Well, at least "almost". Plus a whole slew of advantages and entirely new possibilities compared to chemical photography. This time it took only 10 years to kill the older technology. Kodak was a pushover.  ;D
Pivotal point in the history of photography. Agreed?   

* next? yep, mirrorless digital interchangeable-lens cameras. Beacuse it finally brings together the respective advantages of the 2 previous technolgies - rangefinder and SLR - and at the same time allows full utilization of all the digital advantages, without being inhibited by obsolete technology.
Uninterrupted, real time control over image-taking. Seeing the image exactly as the camera is about to capture it at the settings currently chosen by photographer while keeping the eye on the scene. ABsolutely silent image capture. No vibrations emanating from camera itself.  Not possible with a mirror flapping up and down for every picture taken. In essence: a better, more universal photographic device. More mobility (smaller, lighter), much faster (no mechanics involved. Photons travel at the speed of light. Electrons not quite, but still remarkably fast]. Helps photographers to get more shots and to get the shots they way they want them. And best of all, they are significantly less costly to build than those old-tech mirror-flappers. "Better camera @ lower price." Does that sound "pivotal" to you? It sure does to me. ;-)

Yes, not all mirrorless goodness is here today. The latest examples (Olympus OMD1, Sony A7/R) still have drawbacks. They are better along than that Duflex was way back in 1947.  It will not take 25 years, this time round. 5 years until DSLRs are for the most part gone sounds about right to me.

That's how I see it. Looking forward to the future.  8)

Pages: 1 ... 23 24 [25] 26 27 ... 60