September 03, 2014, 04:29:17 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 - aj1575

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 12
1
I just the CIPA site myself. I just did a short look at the production numbers, and they show a rather constant ratio between DSLR und mirrorless. This ratio stand at about 1:4, for every sold mirrorless there are 4 DSLRs sold. It dipped a little bit below 1:4 in this year, but considering that this year is Photokina and Canon did not release a consumer camera this year this is no surprise. Also interesting is, that the average MILC (Mirrorless Interchangable Lens Camera) costs about as much as an average DSLR.

I just like to add two things.

1. MILCs are not so interesting for Canon and Nikon. Canon has about 45% of the DSLR market, this means Canon alone sells almost twice as many DSLRs as all manufacturer of MILCs produce together, or in other words, for every MILC you see on the street there are 2 Canon DSLR (and another 1 1/2 Nikon).

2. Seen from a technical viewpoint, the MILCs are nice and can do quite a lot. But their big advantege (size) starts to erode once you like to have a nice range of equipment. Just mount a 70-200 f4 onto a Sony alpha and you see what I mean.
Sensorsize determines imagequality (with a given lens quality), but Sensorsize also determines lenssize. So the possibilites to shrink a camera are limited (there are also some restriction dictated by physical laws which do not change with technological advances).
And also a problem once you start shooting often, the ergonomics of a camera is also important. I really like the second display on the top plate for quick changes, as I do like the buttons on the back and top with wich I can adjust the camera while having it on the eye.

Conclusion: even though some mirroless enthusiasts would like to see "their camera" become dominant, I don't see this happening, and it also pointless to be for or against something. We can all be happy that there is such a big variety of cameras available, and everybody chooses the one (or the combination) that suits him/her best.

2
Do you like to buy Sony curved sensor; you can do it now, the KW1 will be sold shortly.

Take a look at this awesome piece of professional equipment...

http://www.gizmag.com/sony-kw1-perfume-selfie/33484/

3
Lenses / Re: Canon 70-200 f4 IS vs Tamron 70-200 f2.8 VC
« on: August 25, 2014, 02:10:11 AM »
As said by other before; the question is, do you need f2.8. The question you are askingyourself is, should I buy a better speced lens, because I got the money for it. This is actually the "wrong" question.

4
Theoretically yes, but in practical use there are some problems. First, for every focal length, a different curved sensor would be needed to take full advantage of its benefits. Second, you probably would need to throw out every piece of glass you bought so far.

On the other hand, sensors are already in a state where there is little need for groundbraking improvements. The tech of a D800 or a alpha7 are are so good, that it is enough for the big majority of photographers. And part of the problems that such a sensor would solve, can also be solved with software (as Sony shows with their crapy kit lenses for the a6000.

Conclusion, nice tech, but my guess is, it won't be a future standard.

5
My camera has about 16 million focus points and covers 80% of the sensor area.

6
My retina is curved. My eyeballs do not contain multiple elements. IF flat sensors were "simpler" to design for, I am quite disappointed that we have not evolved that superior level yet!
+1

I guess it is time to begin R&D on printing silicon wafers :)

There is reason to be dissapointed, not because your retina isn't flat, because it cant zoom.
There is the BIG problem with a curved sensor, the curvature only fits one focal lenght. If you like to go the middle way then and choose one curvature that fits everything, then you end up with a flat sensor, because it still ist the easiest shape, and producable with smaller tolerances (fitting two curved shapes, the sensor and the focal plane would be rather troublesome).

7
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Help: Amateur upgrade from a t2i to....
« on: February 24, 2014, 03:56:43 AM »
I would consider the 70D to start with. Keep the Ti2 as a backup camera, and spend some money on good lenses.
The photographer is more important than the camera, and the lenses are also more important than the camera. So buy some quality lenses, try to stick to FF for an upgrade sometime later. The 70D can then move down and be the backup camera.

8
EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: February 20, 2014, 07:06:00 AM »
Here are also some samples of macros shoot with a 500D. Pretty amazing work I think.

I personally think that better equipment won't make you a better photographer, better equipment just makes taking pictures more convenient, easier and more fun.

http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=canon%20500d%20macro

9
EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: February 19, 2014, 07:46:06 AM »
So as I move into my 3rd year of photography, I find my 500D isn't able to help my take my photography to the next level and its beginning to feel like my L series lenses are begging to shoot on a full frame body.

Buying better gear won't make you a better photographer!!!
The technical IQ of your fotos will improve if you go FF, but it will not help you to improve your composition and lightning, it won't help you to find a creative angle, or to press the shutte just at the right moment. Technology has a habit to go into the way of creativity.

I just moved up the cameratree (no not to FF, just to a better APS-C). I bought a 70D and sold my 350D after more than 7 years. Did the 350 hold me back? No not really; there where situations where the 350 could not keep up with the circumstances (low light, fast moving objects); I missed some shots, but I knew why I missed them, and it was not about me, it was about the camera.
Fact is, you have to learn to live with limitations, even if you go for a 1DX there will be limitiation of what the system can do. I suggest that instead of spending a lot of money for a new FF body, you should spend the money on some books about photography, or you try to shot more with the system you already have and learn more about that.

By the way, is there a way to see some of your work?

10
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 10D, 100D or 700D?
« on: December 13, 2013, 04:54:51 AM »
The 100D is a really nice camera. Even I was playing with the idea of buying one, simply because it is so small, but still a DSLR (I went with the 70D instead, a lot more to carry arround, but also more features). I would not pair it with the 24-105, this lens would simply be an overkill for the 100D body. But luckily there are many options for a starter lens. The kit lens is quite okay, but usually the first lens that gets kicked out of the lineup. So I would go for another option. I'm very happy happy with my Sigma 17-70 f2,8-4 C; more reach than the kit lens, macro function, faster aperture, and (probably more important for your wife than for you) it looks great.

11
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Dynamic range Nikon/Sony vs Canon
« on: November 08, 2013, 04:58:14 AM »
Hi.

As most of you are aware of Nikon and Sony (I know that Sony manufacture sensors for Nikon) sensors are better when it comes to DR and so on compared to Canon. I have read DXO-tests and many others that verify that. But there seems to be a point at a ISO-value where the difference is not that big. Of course there is an advantage in mp also for the 36mp bodies but the resolution is not what I am thinking of now.

This should bring you to the comparison site of the two lenses and cameras.
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/(lens1)/394/(lens2)/1175/(brand1)/Canon/(camera1)/795/(brand2)/Nikkor/(camera2)/792
The Nikon does not seem to produce better images than the Canon despite the higher pixel count. The advantage in DR is also gone at ISO 1600 (at 800 there remains a little advantage). But because of the lower pixel count the EOS 5D has the advantage in FPS (6:4; this means in the same time you get 3 pictures from the EOS 5D, you will only get 2 from the D800).

But I think you would be able to make great pictures with both cameras.

12
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Major IQ advantage of FF?
« on: November 08, 2013, 04:38:19 AM »
  The sensible option is to remain with my crop-inspired lenses and maybe go to a 70D or the next Rebel, but the 6D seems pretty cool. 
There are mainly two questions you need to answer. First, and most important; how much money do you like to spend on a tool you do not need to make a living out of. I think you know this, since the 70D and the 6D are not so far appart on the price scale.
The second qustion is, what you like to do with the camera and the file; are you an allround shooter, or do specialize in something; do you need/like to make large prints, or do you almost only make smaller prints.

FF (the 6D) will give an advantage in IQ; you will see this especially at high ISO and in large prints. With smaller prints and at lower ISO the difference is rather small. On the screen APS-C pictures can look quite nasty when zommed to 100% (my 70D files at high ISO do so), but at 20MP the resolution is so high, that it does not really matter in normal prints.
On the other hand, the 70D has a very nice AF-system, a cool touch screen (this is no toy, it really improves the handling), the higher frame rate, and other nice features.

If you are a landscape or architecture photograph, then I would go for the 6D. The IQ is great, but it is not a "fast" camera. The 70D is more of an allround package, with a little disadvantage in IQ; which is okay when you do not need large prints.

13
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Rumor: Nikon Digital FM2 - Retro look
« on: November 05, 2013, 05:16:01 AM »
It's yet another example of a camera that was close to be fantastic, yet is not, and you wonder what made Nikon overlook such fundamental aspects. The camera ends up feeling like a fashion accessory for loaded vintage-loving hipsters and nostalgics. That is, more a marketing novelty than a photographic one.

+1

exactly what I think.

And hey, for 3000$ you also get a specialy designed 50mm f1.8 lens (this is like getting a plastic toy with a happy meal...). This is not a great camera from the technologigal point of view, it is just a great camera marketing wise; small FF with retro style, this is hip at the moment, and there are enough people with $ out there who like to be a photojournalist and buy this camera for 3000$.

14
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Rumor: Nikon Digital FM2 - Retro look
« on: November 05, 2013, 02:24:15 AM »
NO! Again, Nikon now also has a small FF camera, with retro look, like Sony has. Olympus has also cameras that look like they did 20 years ago. Canon is again lacking behind, I will switch to something else than Canon, just because, and anyway, Canon will go down if they continue like this....


Well, actually I don't mind if canon doesn't have such lifestyle products. These are mainly overpriced toys for photogeeks. At first I liked this retrowave (like when the new beetle came out, and all these other retro cars), but now it is time for something new. I like to see new more revolutionary approaches to camera design in the DSLR range. So far everything "new" is just an implementation of new tech in old designs.

These cameras offer nothing more (actually less) than a normal DSLR, but cost still a lot (actually too much for the specs), mainly because of their looks (toys for photogeeks with too much money to spend)

15
Canon General / Re: Consumer DSLRs "dead in 5 years"
« on: October 28, 2013, 07:57:23 AM »
Well, maybe the smartphones will die to an be replaced by smartwatches or googleglases...

I do not think that the DSLR will die every time soon. There a different factors come into play here. There are physical limitations in reducing the size of a camera and keep the IQ (diffraction is one example), and a bigger sensor will make better pictures than a smaller.
Based in this comes another fact. Sensor size defines lens size. So if you have a certain sensor size to achieve the desired IQ, you also have a certain size of lens. This cuts away a big part of the advantage of mirrorless cameras, as soon as there is some serious glas mounted, the size advantage is moslty gone, and in the worst case you are holding an awful balanced package in your hand.
And the last reason for a DSLR is the size. Taking pictures and setting the camera right for it is no easy task, and involves human actions. No smartphone or camera will ever know what you really like to do, and therefore can not work in automatic modus to make all settings for you. This is something a photographer has to do himself. The many buttons on a camera help us to make these settings faster, sometimes without taking the camera from the eye. This is something I miss with mirrorless, either the shooting position is unnatural (holding the camera in fron of you), or then it is impossible to adjust the camera while it is up at the eye.

Sure, other cameras have also their pros. But if you don't mind the size, the DSLR is the do everything workhorse, and because of that a DSLR is the only camera I use (ok, sometimes I take pictures with the smartphone, but not because they look good, just because I need a picture).

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 12