December 18, 2014, 08:35:39 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 ... 79
361
Having sophisticated video capabilities in no way diminishes the still capabilities. There is zero reason not to have both with current technology.

as you pointed out in your previous post, video crap does have detrimenal effects on stills cameras. The whole sensor and imaging pipeline and all the R&D going into it are geared towards delivering moving images rather than delivering the most perfect stills images. It makes a hell of a lot of a difference, whether a sensor is designed to record single still images [even in short bursts at high speed] compared to recording freakin' viedeo for minutes to hours on end. Entirely different development objectives. To get both in one sensor, stills capabilities are being compromised. Same goes for the CPU and the rest of the imaging pipeline and resulting stills IQ. And for the entrie user interface. from unnessary marked-in-red "start video now" hardware buttons [not user assignable to something useful] cluttering my stills cameras to cluttered menus with a lot of video crap in them. All the way to those pesty HDMI-sockets, Mic-In sockets, Mic-holes and speaker holes ... that make wheather-sealing of my stills cameras more difficult and expensive. And maximize those flappy rubber-doors all over the nice and pure magnesium body of my stulls cameras.

No problem with convergence products. Go, buy a GoPro Hero ... 4k video, lots of fps, small, light, weather-sealed and dirt cheap. You need more video and don't just want to create freakin' youtube videos of how uncle jack giot drunk last night? Then go, buy "a real video camera". Black magic Design 4k camera costs less than a 5D III. So it cannot be about the money.

But don't stick all that video crap into DSLRs or Mirrorles stills cameras. I don't want it. I don't need it. I hate it. 

362
Canon makes excellent lenses for APS-C DSLRs.

17-55, 10-22, 15-85, 60/2.8 Macro ... all good and optically fully "L-worthy". Price is right too, if purchased using cash-back/special offers.  The 17-55 IS is on of the main reasons I never switched to Nikon in the past. 

10-18, 55-250 STM, 18-55 STM ... very good and very decently priced (if not "dirt cheap"). Rella good IQ, excellent price/value.

Primes? yes ... 40/2.8 pancake. Dirt cheap, and optically fully "L-worthy".  Oh, it can even do FF? The better!

Something mising? Not really. Tele lenses are same size irrespective of APS-C or FF image circle ... only dependent on focal length and f-stop, so no point to make or purchase APS-C tele lenses.

Other than that .. I would buy an optically great & very compact 16mm/4.0 pancake for landscape.

The last thing I would ever buy would be EF-S "L" primes ... say something like a Fujinon 56/1.2 @ 1000 USD/Euro ... never ever. I don't spend a grand on FF prime lenses. Once the Sigma 50 ARt comes down to 500 Euro I might consider it. :-)

363
In part it may be the sensor, but more likely the 7D2 will introduce the next generation of processors for Canon. That sort of thing has great potential to delay the launch of a product, since it is complex and has to be working right before release. That is particularly true if they are positioning the 7D2 to compete in the GH4 market space, since current Canon still processors are completely inadequate for that in the new paradigm of 4K video. They would need a new processor designed from the ground up that was capable of allowing the product to be competitive for the next 3-4 years.

IMO that is the main reason the 7D2 has taken so long to arrive. It is not the camera, or the sensor so much as the processor that is delaying it.

just one of the compromises introduced by implanting video crap into DSLR stills cams.

364
Video in DSLRs was a really stupid idea all along and it still is a really stupid idea to put video into a mirrorslapper.
Video in mirrorless cameras is structurally not as bad an idea.
Video should nevertheless still cost significant extra money.
If for no other reason than this one: moving images should always be more expensive than stills images.
an extra feature.
Canon should clearly split its stills camera line (EOS] from Video + Cinema cameras [C-###] - at all levels, not only at the top end.
Seriously. :-)

365
Sony will have a 15 lens lineup for A7, A7R and A7S within a year. They published a roadmap and are sticking to it.
I have yet to see a roadmap from Canon. Would love to know in advance, what they want to bring next.

I also LOVE the way Sony brings a "vdieo-optimized" A7S and charges MORE money for it. Rather than Canon compromising their  stills cameras (DSLRs) with video vcrap and not charging anything for it. And then still being whined at all day long by the freakin magic lantern/video folks to give them even more video crap for free ... more zebra stripes, more peaking, more audio levels, more 4k, more mic inputs and other crap I do not want to have on my cameras and I do not want to pay for. I want video folks to buy freakin video cams .. Sony A7s or Canon C100, 200, 300, 400, 500 ... as they please. And PAY for it. Rather than trying to freeriding on bloody stills cameras all the time.

And I would want to buy a Sony A7/R because it is a COMPACT, CAPABLE and MIRRORLESS camera. Unfortunately it is NOT GOOD enough for me. Because Sony chose to put a 200 shot battery into that thing. Because Sony choose to put an inadequate AF-system into it. And most of all, beacause SOny did not get rid of all mechanical crap in i-t and chose to put a sub-par, vibration-inducing cheapo shutter MECHANISM into it, rather than a fully electronic, silent and vibration-free electronoc/global shutter. If they bring an improved A8R, I am going to buy it. Although I really prefer the Canon user interface and own a number of great Canon lenses.

366
EOS-M / Re: B&H Selling M Again (Not Canon USA)
« on: June 08, 2014, 05:07:13 PM »
People are talking about " Slow AF" of EOS M even with the new firmware. Can some owner Quantify it?? 0.25 sec.? 0.50 sec.? 0,75 sec.? 1.0 sec.? Thanks.

depends on the lens. 22/2.0 is slow as molasses .. I'd say 0.75 seconds on that sucker.
18-55 is better .. i'd say 0.25s ...
both times in one-shot AF

Problem is, Continuos-AF is pretty much useless. When shooting targets in motion I switch to One-Shot AF ... that way I have a decent chance to get ONE sharp image for every "action cycle" happening.


367
Actually, if you read most of my posts on this forum regarding mirrorless cameras, you'll notice that I in fact do say exactly that: that manufacturers must stop equating mirrorless with tiny.

I see it the other way round: Canon AND prosumers need to stop equating "small size" with "inadequate functionality" :-)

camera industry needs to make the same shift company cars made about 10 years ago. Up to then "small car" meant "cheap car" meant "weak, shitty uninspiring car with poor performance, poor safety, poor acceleration, poors brakes, poor heating, poor lights, poor experience, poor and shitty everything. No advanced functions or luxury whatsoever". Think of a Hyundai Pony 1990s. Or a Vauxhall/Opel Astra. Or a Volkswagen Polo back then.

And now think of a 2014 BMW Mini Cooper. Yes it is more expenseive than a large car was in 1995. BUT .. it delivers ... without any bulk.

I want a Canon FF-sensored SMALL mirrorless camera ... with FULL FUNCTIONALITY. AT a price that puts it relative to a fat 5D 3 or 1D-X exactly where a BMW Mini Cooper sits compared to a BMW 5-series sedan or 7-series or an X5.

It can be done. Some Japanese makers have learned the lesson - Sony, Fuji (albeit they try to sell a regular Mini /APS-C at Cooper/FF prices). Canon and Nikon will have to follow soon .. or they will be taught a lesson. :-)

368
Above and beyond all that though - Look at how many are loving the convenience of the adapter, now think of it - if an M5d (mirrorless 5D) were sitting on the shelves, would that not be a compelling product?

YES, YES YES! That's what I am waiting for.

Everything the 5D IV should be ;-) in a mirrorless camera the size of the Sony A7.
kick-ass FF sensor
kick-ass dual-pixel AF-system
kick-ass EVF
fully electronic global shutter, no noise, no vibrations, no oil splattering,
RT-commander built-in,
WIFI built-in, properly implemented for full-featured wireless remote control apps
EF-adaptor included in box; no hit in AF-performance using it
Priced like 5D 3 now

Plus launch of new native lens-lineup with matching compact AF-only lenses. 

369
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS M Vanishes from Canon USA Web Site
« on: June 01, 2014, 03:39:30 PM »
Expect cars 400 horsepower achieve the same fuel consumption that cars 200 horses, seem as realistic as expect APS-C achieves full frame performance in all aspects. :P Including size and weight and price lenses. ;)

Thats where Your car analogy fails. For cars, that is. For cameras and lenses physics work the way i wrote: ff-sensored Sony A7 and 35/2.8 as well as 55/1.8 are not larger and not more expensive than corresponding tiby-sensored fuji x-stuff or omd1-stuff.

370
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS M Vanishes from Canon USA Web Site
« on: June 01, 2014, 12:47:13 PM »
I see no facts indicating the death of APS-C. The mirror may disappear when the AF sensor systems become faster and electronic viewfinders are good enough. A few years ago I hear people saying that "in the future, all cameras will be full frame". But this is as absurd as saying "in the future, all cars will be 400 horsepower." ???

200 hp cars would quickly disappear if those with 400 hp and exactly the same fuel efficiency (mpg) could be had at the same price ... so will APS-C systems as soon as phones/tablet deliver similar IQ in a much smaller package and "at no extra cost"  and when FF cameras can be had for the same price as APS-C and mFT-sensored gear. Ups... we already got the latter ... OMD1 or XT1 or A7 .. not much difference pricewise and sizewise.
And Fuji-X APS-C lenses as expensive as Canon/Nikon/Sony FF lenses.

So guess what ... 400 hp are the way to go. :-)

371
I wonder what many would say if Canon did launch a 32+ MP camera. I am sure the 32+ MP camera would be ok then because Canon would do it. In my mind it is a matter of time….

they better ... and rather soon ... :-)

and if they want me to buy it - and gazillions of others too ;D - then in a very decent mirrorless body at a very decent price with very decent lenses at very decent prices. :-)

372
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS M Vanishes from Canon USA Web Site
« on: June 01, 2014, 12:05:46 PM »
Quote
As camera phones improve these high end APS-C systems will eventually disappear.

???

I guess it should read "high-priced APS-C systems will eventually disappear" ... and that's exactly my opinion too.

Once we get beyond 135mm focal length, lenses for any sensor-size from mFT via APS-C to FF are exactly the same size: "FF size". And below that focal length, lens size and weight does not scale anywhere proporationately to image circle. There's just no point in buying 1000+ € 56mm/1.2 lenses ... unless they cover 36x24mm image circle.  :-)

373
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS M Vanishes from Canon USA Web Site
« on: June 01, 2014, 04:15:26 AM »
There's over 2 stops advantage from FF vs crop for pics. It's closer to 3 stops for video. The 5DIII video is pretty damn good even at ISO 10,000.  The 60D starts to degrade over 1250. The EOS-M video is not very good at 1600, so you have to stay at 800. Magic Lantern can help things there, but larger sensors win almost every comparison, but you have to pay to play

I agree, except on price. Rather good Ff cameras can be had at decent prices (6D, D610, A7) .. And they can be really compact too (A7/R/S). Prices will fall further, functionality will further increase.

There will be a space for smaller sensored cams for some more years (until phones and tablets have earen them completely) but those 'tweener cams (mft, aps-c) need to be even more compact and definitely way cheaper than ff gear. I am talking cameras in the 299-599 range with lenses in the sub 100 to 399 range ... Once the eos-m was in that price bracket it sold pretty well ... Even in the US and Europe. :-)

Fuji X systems and mFT cameras will not be sucessful in price bands of 1000+ for every camera and every other lens .. As soon as the hype is over and as soon as compact ff mirrorless cameras plus matching lenses can be had at decent prices, people wil buy those rather than half- and quarter-sized sensors.

374
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 DO
« on: May 30, 2014, 12:49:07 PM »
The MkII is closer but I wonder what weight saving developments with these II's would make any DO lenses lighter too.

I don't care for the DO stuff at all, I'd much rather Canon would come up with an excellent "regular optics" EF 400/4.0 L IS ... half the weight and a quarter of the price of the 400/2.8 L IS II.  :-)

375
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS M Vanishes from Canon USA Web Site
« on: May 30, 2014, 12:43:36 PM »
A crop sensor mirrorless is not going to threaten the success of the Full Frame Sony a7.

I totally agree!

That's why I will never pay ludicrous amounts for APS-C sensored mirrorless cameras and lenses that can only handle APS-C imaging circle [like Fuji X-stuff] but will rather wait for the next generation mirrorless FF camera ... as compact as the A7 ... and even more "competent" as a relly universal photographic tool.
 
Specifically: better AF [fully tracking-capable], fully electronic shutter [absolutely silent, 100% vibration-free], better battery charge [500+ shots] and user interface/ergonomics like a Canon EOS ... with thumb-wheel, back-button AF and mode dial with AvTvM :-) plus 3 custom positions and WiFI and a Canon RT-flash controller built in ... now that I have finally splurged on 600EX-RTs :-)

Pages: 1 ... 23 24 [25] 26 27 ... 79