July 22, 2014, 06:09:16 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 - jrista

Pages: 1 ... 100 101 [102] 103 104 ... 247
1516
EOS Bodies / Re: Two New Full Frame Cameras in 2014? [CR1]
« on: November 30, 2013, 04:56:58 PM »
That said, physically, I think it is impossible for any camera to have a true two stops better performance than the current 5D III...

The 36MP Nikon D800 already offers 2 points of DR above what the 5D3 does with comparable noise.
The D800's pixels are 4.9um, the 5D3's are 6.25um.
So not "better" but "the same" for smaller.

This is the opposite of what I'm talking about. At low ISO, dynamic range is limited by read noise. Canon has gobs of read noise at low ISO thanks to their ADC.

What I am talking about is noise performance at high ISO. Read noise is practically non-existent at high ISO for most cameras, meaning that noise at high ISO is completely dominated by photon shot noise. The only ways to reduce photon shot noise are either using bigger pixels (which is roughly the same as downsampling in post), or improving Q.E. You will notice in those charts that once you get past ISO 800, DR falls off in linear fashion, and there is little difference between the two cameras. To get a true two stop improvement in high ISO performance, you would have to shift the plotted lines upwards on the graph. The only way to do that, really, is to increase Q.E. At best, with Q.E. currently around 50% or so, it is impossible to get a full stop better noise performance at high ISO, let alone two stops.

1517
EOS Bodies / Re: Dual-pixel AF and ISO performance?
« on: November 30, 2013, 04:53:04 PM »
You said "The Dual pixel does not hinder AF performance" and then said "Let me repeat it, Dual Pixel does not hinder the ISO"....did my confusion arise because you meant to say ISO performance instead of AF performance in your first post?

And hasn't the Nikon D7100 been tested to be close to 2 stops better at high ISO than the 7d? I didn't do any side by side comparisons but definitely felt like my level of satisfaction with ISO 6400 on the D7100 was similar to that felt with ISO 1600 on the 7D...at least in terms of where I felt I wanted to cap my high ISO usage for the respective bodies....maybe to be fair 1600 on the 7D is more like 4000 on the D7100 than 6400.

There is perceptually better and actually better. There is most definitely a psychological component to thinking that the D7100 is "two stops" better at high ISO. From a technical standpoint, it probably isn't possible to actually get truly two stops better, since stops are a power of two, and ISO performance is dependent upon Q.E. and pixel area. The 7D has larger pixels (4.16µm vs. 3.91µm), which is it's benefit, where as the D7100 has more Q.E. (but certainly not enough to literally be two stops better.) The D7100 has 11% better Q.E. than the 7D (52% vs. 41%). In terms of pixel area, the 7D pixels are 13% larger. Technologically, the D7100 has a better sensor with a better architecture, which also probably gives it an edge when it comes to high ISO (primarily, it has a higher SNR, which means that at every ISO, it has a larger usable signal). Overall, from a literal, physical, technical standpoint, the difference between these two sensors is fairly small, and while the D7100, thanks to its excellent SNR, does better, it isn't anywhere close to two stops (i.e. the 7D at ISO 6400 has a saturation point of 536 vs. the D7100 at ISO 6400 which has a saturation point of 541...almost negligible.)

To truly have a full two stops better noise performance, where the amount of noise at ISO 6400 is the same as the amount of noise at ISO 1600, you either need to reduce megapixel count by a factor of two (pixels that are four times greater area...i.e. a pixel pitch of 7.82µm)...or you need to increase quantum efficiency by two orders of magnitude. The 7D has a Q.E. of 41%. Twice the efficiency is 82%. Twice that is 164%. Well, it's impossible to gather more photons than exist, so you can't have more than 100% Q.E. (and achieving that usually requires rather bulky cooling equipment that would render such a camera immobile.)

From a perceptual standpoint...softer detail appears to suffer more from noise. The 7D has an AA filter, where as the D7100 does not. The D7100 is going to have much sharper detail due to having more acutance. THIS is its true strong point when it comes to ISO performance, and probably the key reason why it "feels" as though it has less noise. Detail is sharper with the D7100, so noise doesn't appear to be as prevalent, even though it is roughly the same as the 7D. There is a tradeoff for this...more aliasing and moire. General aliasing can be delt with to a degree with downsampling, moire can be very difficult to deal with (there are some tools, however most simply reduce color moire and mitigate monochrome moire, but none can actually eliminate it.)

If you don't shoot subjects that have repeating patterns or clean edges that might result in aliasing, then the D7100 is certainly an amazing camera, and its sharper detail will certainly result in perceptually less noise.

The 70D is still using the same general sensor design and architecture as the 7D, so it is doubtful much of its weaknesses have been resolved. I get the feeling that the 70D is sharper, which will go a long way to mitigating how noisy it "feels". It has a larger signal, however again thanks to Canon's read-noisy archaic sensor+ADC architecture, it still isn't as good as the D7100 (26726e- vs. 29236e- FWC.) The 70D also still uses an AA filter, which is going to soften detail around nyquist...and while that eliminates (or greatly reduces) aliasing, the lower acutance will still make it "feel" as though it is noisier...dual pixel architecture or not.

Really informative post, very interesting about the affect of an AA filter on noise perception. I wonder if Canon will begin going the Nikon route and moving AA filters.

Honestly, I hope they don't remove them. Maybe slightly weaken them, but aliasing and moire are really no better than noise, and in some respects worse...they are harder to deal with in post. Noise is pretty easy to remove, and a moderate amount of removal can greatly reduce noise without hurting image detail. There are no real effective ways to fix aliased edges or remove moire. An AA filter is the only real way to ensure that around nyquist, what the sensor resolves is "realistic". I think Canon could find a happy medium, between weakening the AA filter a bit so it blurs less, but not eliminate it entirely.

1518
EOS Bodies / Re: Two New Full Frame Cameras in 2014? [CR1]
« on: November 30, 2013, 04:49:57 AM »
So you never heard of CFast 2.0 ...
http://www.sandisk.com/about-sandisk/press-room/press-releases/2013/sandisk-launches-world%E2%80%99s-first-cfast-20-memory-card/

Canon is also a supporter of the CFast 2.0 standard. Masaya Maeda, managing director and chief executive of image communication product operations at Canon said, "With extremely fast performance, CFast 2.0 memory cards will enable us to develop next-generation cameras with more powerful features, enabling future 4K Ultra HD video recording capability."


Yup, I'm not buying another CF camera unless it supports CFast.

The Nikon D800 is the first DSLR to use CFast cards.


Hmm. So, so far, it seems most of the speed improvement in CF cards has been to read speed. Even the fastest 1000x CF cards today still seem to have woefully slow write speeds (in the grand scheme of things). I haven't found anything on CFast yet that mentions write speed...does it improve it? Will we finally have write speeds topping 200mb/s? Or is it still going to be slower, even significantly slower, than read speed?

Just as much as a 100Gb video file can take forever to read off a card, as higher megapixel cameras reach the market, its taking longer and longer to write them to the memory card. The D800 has pitifully slow write speeds, and when it's buffer is full, it can take a painfully long time before you can start shooting again. For a stills photographer, while read speed is important, write speed is just as important...


Sandisk says:
The 120GB1 SanDisk Extreme Pro CFast 2.0 memory card is the world’s fastest memory card, with read speeds of up to 450MB/s2 (3000X) for maximum workflow efficiency and write speeds up to 350MB/s2 (2333X) for faster recording performance.


Awesome. Definitely looking forward to that, then. I wonder how long it will take to actually find it's way into cameras, though... UDMA 7 took a bit too long...

1519
EOS Bodies / Re: POLL: The 2nd ff camera in 2014 will be...
« on: November 30, 2013, 03:55:21 AM »
Since I bought my 5D3 last year, the yen has fallen 25% against the US dollar.  That means that Canon effectively has an additional 25% headroom available to make changes to a model before they have to increase the price...

No. With a multinational company like Canon, the impact of the exchange rate cannot be so simply explained. They have many expenses that are in U.S. dollars, as well of dozens of other currencies. To take just one small example: all of their U.S. expenses (salaries, shipping costs, discounts to dealers, advertising expenses, etc. etc.) must be paid in U.S. dollars, which means they become more expensive when the Yen falls in value.

The U.S. market is important, but not even the largest market for Canon products any more. An ever-growing percentage of their sales comes from China, while European sales also represent a substantial portion of their market as well. Just as in the U.S., they have substantial expenses in these markets that must be paid in the local currency.

It is a gross oversimplification to assume that changes in the exchange rate have so simple of an impact on expenses.

Canon, being a multinational company, also maintains revenues in local currencies as well. One wouldn't necessarily have to assume that Yen has to be converted to USD in order for costs to be paid in USD. It may be that some Yen does have to be converted, but it also seems logical that the increased costs due to a falling Yen wouldn't always be incurred, given that there are a number of revenues gathered, and banked, in USD by Canon's US business arms.

1520
EOS Bodies / Re: Two New Full Frame Cameras in 2014? [CR1]
« on: November 30, 2013, 03:34:31 AM »
So you never heard of CFast 2.0 ...
http://www.sandisk.com/about-sandisk/press-room/press-releases/2013/sandisk-launches-world%E2%80%99s-first-cfast-20-memory-card/

Canon is also a supporter of the CFast 2.0 standard. Masaya Maeda, managing director and chief executive of image communication product operations at Canon said, "With extremely fast performance, CFast 2.0 memory cards will enable us to develop next-generation cameras with more powerful features, enabling future 4K Ultra HD video recording capability."


Yup, I'm not buying another CF camera unless it supports CFast.

The Nikon D800 is the first DSLR to use CFast cards.


Hmm. So, so far, it seems most of the speed improvement in CF cards has been to read speed. Even the fastest 1000x CF cards today still seem to have woefully slow write speeds (in the grand scheme of things). I haven't found anything on CFast yet that mentions write speed...does it improve it? Will we finally have write speeds topping 200mb/s? Or is it still going to be slower, even significantly slower, than read speed?

Just as much as a 100Gb video file can take forever to read off a card, as higher megapixel cameras reach the market, its taking longer and longer to write them to the memory card. The D800 has pitifully slow write speeds, and when it's buffer is full, it can take a painfully long time before you can start shooting again. For a stills photographer, while read speed is important, write speed is just as important...

1521
EOS Bodies / Re: Two New Full Frame Cameras in 2014? [CR1]
« on: November 30, 2013, 03:31:36 AM »
We all have our individual wants and needs, but Canon (and all other big camera manufactures) are not into the tailor made trade. They listen to majorities. Remember which improvements the majority of 5DII users wanted? More megapixels and better low ISO performance weren’t high on that list. Better autofocus and higher fps were and that’s what we got. And even at + $500  compared to the high mp high dynamic range Nikon D800 they sell and probably outsell them.
Sales numbers, market share and profit, that’s what drives a company like Canon and there are no real indications that their current product range is hurting them in those areas so to them this is confirmation they made the right choices.

A new 5D next year? Don’t think so.
5D => 5DII 3 years;
5DII => 5DIII 3.5 years;
5DIII => 5DIV… 3 to 4 years probably.
So it will be well into 2015 and probably 2016 before we get a new 5D.

Agreed. I suspect we'll have a 5D IV announced late 2014, and delivered summer timeframe in 2015. Seems way too early to be getting the 5D III replacement.

I like Canon to take their time. As it has a positive effect on their next product tech wise. I won't be in the game for a 5DIV. The 5D3 still remains more camera than I ever can handle properly  8) So as improved high ISOs beyond 25k are my main interest, I will be glad to see the 5DIV's specs which will kinda forecast what the 5DV will be based on. 1/2 a stop to a full stop better high ISO by 2018 would be a tremendous leap for the 5DV. Till then I am well equipped. Still working on my first 10k frames with the 5D3.

Just out of curiosity, when you say half a stop to a stop better high ISO...what do you mean by that? I'm sure Canon could simply add a native ISO 51200 or even native ISO 102400, without really changing anything.

That said, physically, I think it is impossible for any camera to have a true two stops better performance than the current 5D III...not without significantly increasing pixel size, or increasing pixel size to some degree and maximizing Q.E. to nearly 100%. To achieve a literal reduction in noise by an actual full stop, one would need to either double the Q.E. (which would put it at 98%...so far, achieving Q.E. above 90% requires some significant and powerful cooling to keep the sensors at -80°C), or double the pixel area (which would require sensors with twice the pixel pitch, or four times the area...so pixels would jump from 6.25µm to 12.5µm...a megapixel count of about 5.5mp). Neither of these seem likely...the cooling isn't possible in a battery powered mobile package for Q.E. of over 90%, and the reduction in megapixel count to a mere 5.5mp would deter the majority of potential buyers (although I'm sure there are some low light fanatics who would absolutely LOVE to have a legitimate, low noise ISO 25600 and usable ISO 51200.)

Anyway...just curious what people mean, or think, when they ask for "two stops better high ISO performance". Are they just asking for two more stops of high ISO settings...or are they asking for two stops better noise performance at those higher ISO settings. The former is possible, the latter...probably not so much...not for a while for one stop better performance (we'll need either a radical breakthrough in circuit design and/or wafer materials...or incredibly efficient supercooling that fits into the area of a couple inches square), and two stops is probably impossible due to the physical nature of light and how it's handled by a sensor.

1522
Animal Kingdom / Re: Your best animal shots!
« on: November 30, 2013, 12:32:29 AM »
This fellow wandered through the firing range at work....

I call that "easy prey". ;P

1523
EOS Bodies / Re: Two New Full Frame Cameras in 2014? [CR1]
« on: November 29, 2013, 11:06:13 PM »
We all have our individual wants and needs, but Canon (and all other big camera manufactures) are not into the tailor made trade. They listen to majorities. Remember which improvements the majority of 5DII users wanted? More megapixels and better low ISO performance weren’t high on that list. Better autofocus and higher fps were and that’s what we got. And even at + $500  compared to the high mp high dynamic range Nikon D800 they sell and probably outsell them.
Sales numbers, market share and profit, that’s what drives a company like Canon and there are no real indications that their current product range is hurting them in those areas so to them this is confirmation they made the right choices.

A new 5D next year? Don’t think so.
5D => 5DII 3 years;
5DII => 5DIII 3.5 years;
5DIII => 5DIV… 3 to 4 years probably.
So it will be well into 2015 and probably 2016 before we get a new 5D.

Agreed. I suspect we'll have a 5D IV announced late 2014, and delivered summer timeframe in 2015. Seems way too early to be getting the 5D III replacement.

1524
EOS Bodies / Re: Two New Full Frame Cameras in 2014? [CR1]
« on: November 29, 2013, 11:03:40 PM »
Canon's new studio camera will be the one to maximize image quality Again, let's state the obvious. If it's a studio camera it better maximize image quality, else why make it?

Hopefully by this they mean that the 5D4 will have improved DR but perhaps be 32-44MP while the 1DsX will have the same image quality only just some crazy MP like 60-80MP or something and not that only the 1DsX will have better image quality at low ISO (ignoring MP counts).

If they mean you need an $8000 brick to get more DR and if they lock down the 5D4 video and cripple it so that 5D3+ML RAW is as good or better and with more usability then I foresee used prices on 5D3 holding up VERRRRRY well and the A7R really taking off for Canon users. I could see people shooting 5D3+A7R or 7D2+A7R (if they care more about action reach than video) rather than 1DsX $8000 brick. And some maybe going to Nikon, depending.

If Canon doesn't end up releasing a highMP part in the $3000-$3500 range, then I very well might pick up an A7r plus an EF adapter so I can mount my current lenses on it. I guess I don't really foresee Canon stuffing their only modern-day high MP part in the most expensive cost bracket with growing competition in the high MP market from multiple competitors...but then again...it's Canon. They've never really competed directly with anyone, they always do their own thing in their own way.

1525
EOS Bodies / Re: Dual-pixel AF and ISO performance?
« on: November 29, 2013, 08:35:02 PM »
You said "The Dual pixel does not hinder AF performance" and then said "Let me repeat it, Dual Pixel does not hinder the ISO"....did my confusion arise because you meant to say ISO performance instead of AF performance in your first post?

And hasn't the Nikon D7100 been tested to be close to 2 stops better at high ISO than the 7d? I didn't do any side by side comparisons but definitely felt like my level of satisfaction with ISO 6400 on the D7100 was similar to that felt with ISO 1600 on the 7D...at least in terms of where I felt I wanted to cap my high ISO usage for the respective bodies....maybe to be fair 1600 on the 7D is more like 4000 on the D7100 than 6400.

There is perceptually better and actually better. There is most definitely a psychological component to thinking that the D7100 is "two stops" better at high ISO. From a technical standpoint, it probably isn't possible to actually get truly two stops better, since stops are a power of two, and ISO performance is dependent upon Q.E. and pixel area. The 7D has larger pixels (4.16µm vs. 3.91µm), which is it's benefit, where as the D7100 has more Q.E. (but certainly not enough to literally be two stops better.) The D7100 has 11% better Q.E. than the 7D (52% vs. 41%). In terms of pixel area, the 7D pixels are 13% larger. Technologically, the D7100 has a better sensor with a better architecture, which also probably gives it an edge when it comes to high ISO (primarily, it has a higher SNR, which means that at every ISO, it has a larger usable signal). Overall, from a literal, physical, technical standpoint, the difference between these two sensors is fairly small, and while the D7100, thanks to its excellent SNR, does better, it isn't anywhere close to two stops (i.e. the 7D at ISO 6400 has a saturation point of 536 vs. the D7100 at ISO 6400 which has a saturation point of 541...almost negligible.)

To truly have a full two stops better noise performance, where the amount of noise at ISO 6400 is the same as the amount of noise at ISO 1600, you either need to reduce megapixel count by a factor of two (pixels that are four times greater area...i.e. a pixel pitch of 7.82µm)...or you need to increase quantum efficiency by two orders of magnitude. The 7D has a Q.E. of 41%. Twice the efficiency is 82%. Twice that is 164%. Well, it's impossible to gather more photons than exist, so you can't have more than 100% Q.E. (and achieving that usually requires rather bulky cooling equipment that would render such a camera immobile.)

From a perceptual standpoint...softer detail appears to suffer more from noise. The 7D has an AA filter, where as the D7100 does not. The D7100 is going to have much sharper detail due to having more acutance. THIS is its true strong point when it comes to ISO performance, and probably the key reason why it "feels" as though it has less noise. Detail is sharper with the D7100, so noise doesn't appear to be as prevalent, even though it is roughly the same as the 7D. There is a tradeoff for this...more aliasing and moire. General aliasing can be delt with to a degree with downsampling, moire can be very difficult to deal with (there are some tools, however most simply reduce color moire and mitigate monochrome moire, but none can actually eliminate it.)

If you don't shoot subjects that have repeating patterns or clean edges that might result in aliasing, then the D7100 is certainly an amazing camera, and its sharper detail will certainly result in perceptually less noise.

The 70D is still using the same general sensor design and architecture as the 7D, so it is doubtful much of its weaknesses have been resolved. I get the feeling that the 70D is sharper, which will go a long way to mitigating how noisy it "feels". It has a larger signal, however again thanks to Canon's read-noisy archaic sensor+ADC architecture, it still isn't as good as the D7100 (26726e- vs. 29236e- FWC.) The 70D also still uses an AA filter, which is going to soften detail around nyquist...and while that eliminates (or greatly reduces) aliasing, the lower acutance will still make it "feel" as though it is noisier...dual pixel architecture or not.

1526
EOS Bodies / Re: New EOS-1 in 2014 [CR1]
« on: November 28, 2013, 11:37:54 AM »
I am currently sitting in front of a 130x90cm2 print of a landscape, shot with the 5DIII and the 24-70 f2.8L II, and wonder; What more do I need?

A 260x180cm print of a landscape! ;P

1527
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
« on: November 28, 2013, 09:42:37 AM »
Now there are certainly other factors (like the wasted silicon near the edges of the wafer), but there are ways of dealing with that, too (like printing DIGIC chips and other custom parts in that space).

... or decreasing the sensor resolution from 22mp to 20mp like 5d3->6d, I guess next to marketing that's the reason they did this no matter how bad the video moire is because it lets you get more yield from the current production setup.

The other possibility that the 20mp sensor in the 6D is actually 22mp, but they cut it a bit to still use sensors with flaws at one or two sides... I'm just guessing of course as this would be trade secrets.

No, the pixel density on the 6D is lower than the 5Dmk3.  The flaws on a sensor would typically be equiprobable in the center versus on the edge, so there wouldn't be much of a yield advantage to doing those sorts of tricks.

I suspect, but am not certain, that yield problems on sensors are caused more by the electronic features—that is, the wiring on the back side or front side of the sensor—than by the pixels themselves.  This is one place where fully back-illuminated (stacked) sensor designs like the Exmor should have a real advantage.  If you don't have to worry about the amount of vignetting caused by the wiring being in front of your photo sites, you should be able to make those features larger, which means better yield.

With such a design, you could even do neat tricks like stacking a buffer behind the photo sites to eliminate rolling shutter without the loss of sensitivity that you get with interline transfer sensors or the huge surface area needed for frame transfer sensors.

BI designs aren't technically "stacked". Stacked designs are basiclly where a sensor and a DSP are fabricated independently, then wired together into a single package. I'd also point out that it is only Exmor RS, not Exmor, that is a BI design. Exmor, the one used in the D800 and A7r, are good old FI designs. Sony's edge is that they use a smaller transistor, 180nm vs. Canon's 500nm. Smaller circuitry features do mean less space consumed by wiring and the like, leaving more room for photodiode area.

Etching both sides of a silicon wafer, as in a BI design, has it's own challenges. Usually the back side of the wafer is untouched, giving rigidity to the whole sensor. Etching both sides results in increased fragility, which is why BI designs are currently only used in small form factors, and not ASP-C or FF sensors. There are some patents out there, including one by Canon, that aim to address these issues with BI designs and allow their use in larger form factors...who knows if/when they might actually be viable enough for mass production.

Yield issues come into play when defect count per sensor area increases beyond a reasonable threshold. As I understand it, one defect in a pixel's area can render the entire pixel unusable. This has to do with the photodiode, not necessarily the wiring. When there are only a few pixels affected by small defects, those pixels can simply be deactivated and mapped. They effectively become dead pixels, but every sensor has them, and you never know it because of the demosaicing process which basically filters over them. Sensors with larger run a higher risk of losing more pixels per sensor, and if you lose too many (not sure what the threshold is) you can't as easily gloss over the problem. There is also the issue of larger defects, which render the entire sensor unusable. Smaller sensors means that while a large defect may render a whole sensor unusable, because you can pack so many more onto each wafer, those few lost to defects don't cost you as much. The problem of lost sensors due to large defects becomes exponentially more costly, as you lose the whole area of the sensor, which could span two or more times as much area as a single smaller sensor (plus, you also have margin losses where you can't fit whole FF sensors into areas near the periphery of the wafer, so you have yield losses there as well.)

1528
EOS Bodies / Re: New EOS-1 in 2014 [CR1]
« on: November 27, 2013, 07:48:49 PM »
Not exactly.  CustomerS come first.  In aggregate.  Canon needs to keep a majority of the user base 'happy', or at least buying - that is one way to deliver value to shareholders.  They've clearly demonstrated the ability to do that.  If your particular wants/needs coincide with those of the majority, well and good. If not, as is clearly the case for you, then Canon doesn't really give a CRAP about YOU.

Yes, it's a Sad truth, must be horrible for some to wake up with the realisation that one of the largest Corporates on the Planet just doesn't know who you are. Canon like many other Companies that sell a Product, sell to the Mass Market, it's very much a case of "You can't keep all of the People Happy all of the time, but we can keep most of the People Happy most of the Time".

That's good business, though. Any business that tries to cater to each specific individual is doomed to fail. It isn't even something any company should ever strive to do (which is probably why so many governments are bloated and financially strapped these days, as that's exactly what they try to do, and are epically failing at it.) Good business is finding a sweet spot and exploiting it as long as you can. There isn't going to be some sudden, overnight, rapid shift to mirrorless, so Canon has plenty of time to figure out their plans for moving into the market and exploiting it the same way.

It's a harsh word, exploit, and we customers and consumers certainly don't like to be exploited. But if you think about it...look at what the likes of Canon and Nikon over the last 15 years have done for the photographic art. Look at how much image quality has skyrocketed, and how accessible that kind of image quality is now. I mean, while in the film days a camera might not have been as expensive initially, you had the perpetual cost of buying film, developing it, and getting photographic prints made. That ongoing cost kept high quality photography out of the hands of your average joe. Today is an entirely different world...thanks to companies like Canon and Nikon.

While I don't necessarily have EXACTLY the camera I PERSONALLY want with all the specific features I need at the price point I can afford...the equipment Canon does offer gives me more than enough capability to produce good photographic art. If I didn't know better, I might actually feel sad for the person who is on a never-ending quest to find that 100% perfect camera, and is willing to dump brand after brand, kit after kit, in order to find it. And, once they have finally found it, will just have to give it up again once the next big competitor on the market develops something else new, and trounces their wonderfully new found "perfect" camera. I find such an endeavor to be naive and wasteful, and a very explicit choice, so I don't feel sad for such people.

Except AvTvM

Good thing he ain't a majority, then, eh? ;)

1529
EOS Bodies / Re: New EOS-1 in 2014 [CR1]
« on: November 27, 2013, 07:17:01 PM »
We, the declining stills orientated market, are fortunate that the ideas they are moving towards are somewhat complimentary to our own "needs" for still based equipment, so far.

The customer only comes first if the company can sell the stuff they make and give their shareholders a reasonable return. If they can't they will try to find other customers, not different shareholders.


hehehe! Quite funny. Next suggestion will probably be to kneel down and beg to Canon "please, please give me a new stills-oriented camera."  ::)

no way!

In reality it is way easier for (almost all of) Canon's customers to turn around and find another supplier of excellent image capturing gear than it is for Canon to find "new customers" willing to pay inflated prices for fairly un-innovative products.


AvTvM has just become a megatroll, people. He lost the battle in the last couple of threads, officially bailed out on Canon as he moved to his wonderful new Sony and the A7r. It's his time, now, to leave these shores in search of new lands.

As with all trolls, don't touch it...don't feed it...don't SPEAK to it...and it will go away. Of course, megatrolls have an even greater appetite for touching and feeding and chitchat, so I understand it's that much harder to resist. BUT, if you want the troll to slither away to new feeding grounds, stand your ground!!   :P  ::)


1530
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
« on: November 27, 2013, 07:10:41 PM »
So, your saying everything becomes a FF camera with the ability to read the FF area, APS-H area, or APS-C area of the sensor? Sure, this could be an option...but you would always be paying for the FF sensor. There are some benefits to that, but I think there is still explicit value in smaller physical sensor formats like APS-H and APS-C. I don't ever foresee the 7D line becoming a FF with selectable readout areas. It will always be an APS-C part.

What I said was a possible trend for DSLR's to go, not a "this is what's going to happen". (geesh  ::) )

DSLR's have a limited lifespan anyway because of the mirrorless segment and if you don't think that mirrorless will someday outperform DSLR's, well then you are not really paying attention to the technology and what it's capable of. The technology is rapidly advancing and because people don't really like radical change, it will come, in small doses and before you know it. BAM! DSLR's are gone and mirrorless becomes the standard.

Just because Nikon and Canon have not given mirrorless a serious thought does not mean that it is useless. Companies like Sony and Panasonic, IF they continue down the road that they have started to build, will soon offer up some very serious camera bodies that Nikon and Canon will have to pay attention to, if they have not already.

Don't think DSLR's are going to be replaced? CRT monitors? Floppy disk? Tape players? How about DVD? oh wait they were ALL replaced by something better and by something that was a radical difference from what people ever thought was possible. Heck, CRT monitors disappeared almost overnight and you would be hard pressed to even fine one new now-a-days.

Don't think Canon and Nikon could ever fail as a company? Well Rome was a world power and fell...

And I never seriously suggested the 7D2 would be FF, I have always believed that the 7D2 was going to stay APS-C. Go back and look at my older posts and you will see.

Don't get all buggered on here because someone suggests a product or performance that YOU may not agree with. This IS Canon RUMORS right, not Canon FACTS???

Lighten up and have some fun...

D

I think your comparison of either Canon or Nikon DSLRs to "CRT Monitors" is a bit naive. CRT's were old and decrepit DECADES before they became obsolete. DSLRs, on the other hand, are currently the pinnacle of digital photography equipment. They have competition, yes, and eventually mirrorless will become dominant, sure. But that does not mean that Canon and Nikon will disappear right along with the DSLR. Both have already forayed into the mirrorless market. Both are fairly careful companies, so they are testing the waters rather than diving in head first with all the funding they've got (with the exception that Nikon seems rather desperate to develop and release as many diverse products as it possibly can just to keep itself viable.)

Where you say Canon will fail because they are currently primarily dependent upon the DSLR for their revenues, I say they will adapt and produce a phenomenal mirrorless part, much like they produced cine parts, in more than enough time to survive the changing market. Just because a company "is currently" dependent upon one particular product for it's revenues in a given market segment does not mean that company is incapable of changing which products they depend upon for revenue.

As facts would have it, 2013 is the FIRST year that DSLR sales actually missed their targets in many years. Up through last year, DSLR sales, particularly the entry-level models but also higher end models, were actually growing. Last year, DSLR growth actually topped mirrorless growth in a number of key markets. One year's market miss does not make a trend. We may see similar things over the next few years, and if we do, then a trend it definitely is...but it isn't a trend yet. In several articles I read last year and the first part of this year, the analysis of the DSLR growth gave an increase in photography amongst consumers in general, thanks to smartphone sales, as a driver for those same consumers becoming more interested and wanting better quality. To date, the DSLR has historically offered the best image quality to price ratio in the digital photography arena. That is certainly primed to change if cameras like the A7r become commonplace, and cheaper models become available.

But again...Canon and Nikon are certainly not incapable of adapting to market change. They have adapted to, and in some cases even lead, market change in the past decades...it isn't like this is the first radical shift the photography market has experienced. Last time, Canon came out on top, and Nikon lost some ground (and seems to have experienced a permanent supply chain/manufacturing capability problem as a result, which I think is more to blame for their struggles than producing intriguing products that people want to buy.) So, I don't disagree that mirrorless technology will eventually become dominant, never have...although I personally despise EVFs and do not think they will ever be able to physically achieve the kind of raw pixel resolution, dynamic range, or frame rate necessary to avoid their shortcomings relative to optical viewfinders, so I'm not a big fan of mirrorless technology.  I do not, however, believe either Canon or Nikon, the two biggest players in photography for decades, are going to fail just because the market is enduring another shift. I think both companies are innovative, competitive, and often quite shrewed in their business dealings, and they will survive...probably with some particularly compelling products as well.

Pages: 1 ... 100 101 [102] 103 104 ... 247