September 02, 2014, 04:49:32 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 - Ellen Schmidtee

Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19 ... 30
241
Lenses / Re: A New EF 800 f/5.6L IS II? [CR2]
« on: October 22, 2012, 02:00:34 PM »
Why would Canon invest in updating a supertele such a short time after it's release?

It sells enough copies (times enough profit) to justify an investment? The new Nikon 800mm f/5.6 is set to steal that many sales?

242
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Rumors Surface [CR1]
« on: October 14, 2012, 01:46:24 AM »
You don't get extra range by cropping a full frame sensor: all you do is to narrow the field of view without increasing the resolution or effective focal length. The reason why the 7D has an apparent better effective focal length is because its APSC sensor has a higher density of pixels that are smaller and closer together than the same number of megapixels on a full frame. The rumoured high pixel FF would be roughly equivalent to the 7D.

How about lighter weight and way better image corners? APS-C is not just the lame man's version of FF. They are tow different tools. If Canon wanted, they caould really make the 7D mk II killer. THis may come with a killer price tag, though...

You'd get better image corner by cropping an FF photo. Look at the reviews of the 24mm f/1.4 USM L at photozone - it has less vignetting on APS-C (1.1 stops vs 3.3 when wide open) because the corners (where the worst of the vignetting occurs) are cropped.

Then again, EF-S lenses with focal length X might have less vignetting at 26.8mm (= half the 7D sensor's diagonal) from the sensor's center than EF lenses with focal length X/1.6, but I've never heard of such testing being done.

243
Canon General / Re: DxOMark vs. Reality
« on: October 10, 2012, 11:17:40 AM »
Part of this is because lenses play a very important role in photography, and Nikon has lagged behind with FF lenses.  They have very few really good lenses, their 14-24 being the best example followed by their new 85mm f/1.4.  Their 24-70mm has horible CA, their 70-200mm is very good.  There are a ton of "D" lenses that are good, but no one seems to want them, and they do not have coatings that are well suited to digital.

I'll bet that ignorance of DxO's (or any other specific site that does that kind of testing) existence plays an even larger part.

My two cousins bought Rebels, and I'll bet dollars to monopoly money that attempting this kind of discussion with them will make them give you the 'I'd rather not know what that is, and will you weirdow please go away?' look.

244
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Rumors Surface [CR1]
« on: October 09, 2012, 03:52:16 AM »
From the sound of it, I'm afraid they put all their eggs in the MP/FPS numbers. I mean, after all the high ISO performance was never a selling point in the original 7D, it was always the 18 MP/8 FPS that sold the 7D for years. I don't think they are about to change that formula now. That means anyone interested in low noise should either consider a 5D Mark III or even the 6D but don't count on the 7D mark II to fill that void.

7D customers are willing to trade ISO for MP & FPS, but customers who buy Rebels get the same ISO performance, lower FPS, and aren't as impressed by MP anymore.

Canon may, of course, make another sensor for the rebels. I guess it makes economic sense to manufacture less types of sensors, and put older sensors in bottom line cameras until it's replaced, but I also think Canon should start investing in sensors that have better DR, color reproduction, etc, rather than more MP.

I'm sure customers who bought 1100D print >A4 a lot, crop like crazy to squeeze the most of their super telephotos, and are holding their breath for that 18MP sensor to trickle down into the xxxxD series. NOT.

245
EOS Bodies / Re: Shutter count request to Canon.
« on: October 04, 2012, 05:53:25 AM »
What if batterylife in pictures were as inaccurate as the shuttercount guarantee? They say my shutter lasts 400k which you, Neuro, and MANY others have used as an argument over the shutter durability of the 5d3. I'd be pretty angry if my shutter gave in at 60k and my 5d3 would do over half a million, no?

I would be a little pissed off too, but it's meaningless - a statistical fluke.

I bought a computer with an Intel processor that wouldn't install any version of Windows I've tried (at least 98, 2000, and XP). Intel QC missed one, the seller replaced it with a bit of argument, and the replacement worked for 5 years without as much as a hiccup.

Similar story with a SanDisk disk-on-key. Didn't stop me from buying SanDisk memory cards, which worked flawlessly.

246
Lenses / Re: New Lenses in January [CR1]
« on: October 02, 2012, 02:29:58 PM »
I should have stated in advance I'm limiting my self to non-L lenses. I'm sure the L primes have a market, just like the superteles, but it does not include the average hobbist who isn't making any money off his lenses.


I don't make money from photography, but have two L lenses.  I belong to a photography club and I see lots of other members with L grade lenses.  Amateurs like me usually have one or two in their prefered shooting ranges, the people who shoot professionally have the whole range covered.

Exactly - Canon should have reasonably good non-L lenses (primes & zooms) for amateurs who aren't going to cover the whole range covered in L lenses.

It's not that Canon can't make a 35mm f/2 USM to compete with the Samyang 35mm f/1.4 IQ & price (which I bought, but still keep an eye for the Sigma 35mm f/1.4) or an 85mm f/1.4 to compete with the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 (which a friend bought), it just prefers to cater to a different audience. That is Canon's right, but I find it strange as my guess (for the lack of hard data) is that audience is less profitable.

247
Lenses / Re: Canon EF-S 18-300 f/3.5-5.6 IS STM on the Way? [CR1]
« on: October 02, 2012, 01:17:20 PM »
Is it in Canon's interest of producing a cheap long zoom for EF-S, something like 55-250, but longer.
Like Sigma's 50-500, or 150-500 (which i want, but is a bit too expensive)
Do you see it ever happening?

I've seen people shooting street photography with a 40D & EF 18-200mm, and the (rather well advertised) Tamron 18-270 is popular enough for some retailers to make kits of Tamron 18-270 & a Canon body.

There are plenty of laymen who stumble into local photography forums and compare a DSLR's zoom range to that of some P&S (which they consider or want to upgrade from), and to them a lens that ends somewhere between 500mm and 1000mm looks oh so attractive.

So, yes - I see Canon making a low end lens that would make them money first time when people buy / upgrade to a DSLR with superzoom, and - hopefully - a second time when they buy more lenses that have lower zoom ratio and better IQ.

248
Lenses / Re: New Lenses in January [CR1]
« on: October 02, 2012, 10:18:26 AM »
Canon has updated the 24 and 28mm 2.8 primes- even if the price is a bit steep at present. The 24L has been revamped and is a mk.2 already and there have been hints on this site that a mk2 35L and possibly non L may be coming....

I should have stated in advance I'm limiting my self to non-L lenses. I'm sure the L primes have a market, just like the superteles, but it does not include the average hobbist who isn't making any money off his lenses.

As for the 24mm & 28mm, I hope two swallows do make summer. The photozone review of the 28mm f/2.8 is encouraging, even though I would rather have f/2 over IS.

249
Lenses / Re: New Lenses in January [CR1]
« on: October 02, 2012, 04:24:53 AM »
...I wonder why is it that Canon is investing so much in upgrading the superteles, rather than ~20 years old primes (e.g. 35mm f/2), in face of competitors like Sigma coming out with competing lenses (e.g. Sigma 30mm f/1.4 for APS-C & 35mm f/1.4 HSM for FF).

One big reason is the 1D X.  By eliminating the 1.3x crop sensor from the flagship line, they (intentionally) created demand for longer supertele lenses, and it's no coincidence that they updated those lenses at the same time.

I would agree, except-

1. Canon could still introduce mkII versions of wide prime lenses, e.g. 35mm, 28mm, 24mm, and 20mm.

To go at it from a different angle, I was waiting for the EF 8-15mm f/4. Due to max aperture (I like f/2.8 on the EF 15mm for band shows) and price, I decided to buy a Sigma 8mm rather than upgrade.

Now, Canon did have an FD circular fisheye, it just decided not to make an EF version. It was f/5.6, but I would have considered it anyway.

2. The updated superteles are of the same focal length & max aperture the older versions, they are significantly more expensive, and the 1DX can't focus at f/8. If I had an APS-H camera, I would first look at a 7D, then at a Nikon D800. The last thing I would do would be considering a mk2 telephoto or a 1DX.

Which is why I think the olympics at the London is a much better explanation for upgrading the superteles.




Looking around at what I and photographers I know buy, it adds up to people choosing 3rd party lenses over Canon - Sigma 85mm f/1.4, Sigma 8mm f/3.5, Sigma 12-24mm (bought the mkI, than upgraded to the mkII), Samyang 35mm f/1.4, and so on.

People see what pros use on TV, but they also see what people around them use. This has the effect of 'Canon is good at making expensive lenses the rich media organizations buy, but hobbists are better off with Sigma / Tamron / whatever'

[As side note - I see lots of Tamron 18-270 in ads in newspapers and busses, and it sells well enough for local shops to sell in kit with Canon bodies. Olympus advertises on busses as well, and had the menus translated to the local language. Canon doesn't advertise at all, and I can't remember when I've last seen a rebate for Canon in any of the local shops. There's no denying local Canon sales are good, but I think Canon lens sales are heading in the wrong direction.]

250
Lenses / Re: New Lenses in January [CR1]
« on: September 30, 2012, 03:03:46 PM »
Does Canon sell enough superteles to make those lenses a cash cow?

Personally, I don't know anyone who owns a supertele, but know two guys who own the new 70-200mm f/2.8 IS mkII. My bet Canon makes more money on the later than on any of the superteles, my point being that Canon might make more money on cheaper 500mm f/5.6 and 600mm f/5.6.

Only a 500/5.6 has even a chance at coming in under $5K, and a 600/5.6 would cost more than the 300/2.8.  Are those 'cheaper' enough to matter?

Personally (= hobbyist, with my current income), I would consider <$5K cheap enough to matter.

Honestly, Canon's real 'cash cow' lens is the 18-55mm Rebel/xxxD kit lens, followed closely by the 55-250mm. <snip>

As has been discussed (ad infinitum!), pricing takes expected sales volume into account with an inverse relationship.

My impression is Canon doesn't sell enough superteles for those to be cash cows, which is another way to say pretty much the same thing.

... which is why I wonder why is it that Canon is investing so much in upgrading the superteles, rather than ~20 years old primes (e.g. 35mm f/2), in face of competitors like Sigma coming out with competing lenses (e.g. Sigma 30mm f/1.4 for APS-C & 35mm f/1.4 HSM for FF).

251
Lenses / Re: New Lenses in January [CR1]
« on: September 30, 2012, 09:01:24 AM »
If they would do something like that, they would damage their cash cows. So, we all have to save a alot of money to get such long lenses.

Does Canon sell enough superteles to make those lenses a cash cow?

Personally, I don't know anyone who owns a supertele, but know two guys who own the new 70-200mm f/2.8 IS mkII. My bet Canon makes more money on the later than on any of the superteles, my point being that Canon might make more money on cheaper 500mm f/5.6 and 600mm f/5.6.

252
Canon General / Re: How do you sell your gear?
« on: September 27, 2012, 08:43:07 AM »
I go to one of 2-3 local shops that do trade-ins, and trade the equipment for either new or used equipment.

The shops pay less than I would get selling the lenses directly to other photographers, but it saves me some headaches.

253
Lenses / Re: New Lenses in January [CR1]
« on: September 26, 2012, 01:44:26 PM »
A 400mm F/5.6L IS is also missing.

In contrast to a 14-24mm USM and a 35mm f/2 USM with IQ to compete w/ the Samyang 35mm f/1.4?

254
But must at least higher than the manufacturing cost, right?? Unless they just want to get the market share :P

On low end equipment, sure. On high end equipment, for which the customer is expected to buy some accessories (batteries, grip, flash, big white lens, etc), Canon can lose money on the camera and cover it from the profits on the accessories.

255
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Samyang 24mm f/3.5 Tilt-Shift Announced
« on: September 10, 2012, 03:11:36 PM »
Same focal length, max aperture, shift & tilt ranges, and ability to rotate as the TS-E 24mm mk2. Hmmm...

Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19 ... 30