August 01, 2014, 04:41:47 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 - Marsu42

Pages: 1 ... 172 173 [174] 175 176 ... 291
2596
Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS
« on: November 06, 2012, 02:04:32 PM »
I know their sales numbers on aggregate haven't been stellar, but in general, the company wouldn't be here very long if it couldn't course correct as needed.

A large enterprise like Canon doesn't just disappear because they can soften the fall and distribute profits and losses between divisions. They can survive quite a long time without good sales if their shares don't plummet and there's a hostile takeover. And Canon just has the advantage of a user base that is tied to their system, so they are quite safe unless they completely screw up.

That's why it takes them so long to correct a flawed strategy in one segment like dlsr - in a smaller company the execs would get fired much faster enabling changes. But if they are really persistent to ignore reality they'll indeed go the way of Kodak and all other long-gone electronics companies.


2597
For many years, it has been argued that people who buy Macs, and more recently, iPhones, are paying more to get less.  So maybe it's the same silent majority that has made Apple the largest company in the world...

"Two mouse buttons confuse me" Mac-users aside, iPhones offer not less, but more for more money: fast hardware, more apps, a fine-tuned integrated and *working* ecosystem, better usability, better os upgrades (unlike Android). And unlike Canon Apple makes their customers go ecstatic with each and every product, while Canon just manages to make most people I know shake their heads in disbelief.

But the main difference is: Apple is way more innovative while Canon is the most conservative company I can imagine, the current Canon execs would get fired @Apple in no time. The only strategy I can see from Canon atm is to make people believe "it's expensive, it has to be stellar".

2598
Canon is listening to customers, they're just not listening to the vocal minority ???
The thing is, the people on the forum are not, generally speaking, Canon's major target audience.

I agree that this forum is not a representation of Canon's whole customer base - well, maybe the enthusiast "L only" side.

But what silent majority is supposed to be Canon's target audience that wants to pay more to get less? Even newbies to dlsr won't say "what? built-in gps? I'll take two!" when the Nikon body next to it has more mp and a lower price tag.

2599
Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS
« on: November 06, 2012, 10:26:56 AM »
so will they offer a choice of two lenses when the 24-70 f4 is released? How will that work then since the 24-105 kit will be much cheaper?

The 24-105 kits will be just there as long as they've sold all old lenses and the new 24-70 are in volume production.

And the 6d+24-70/4 kit might not be more expensive, the price for the lens alone is likely to be overpriced because Canon wants to make the kit appear more discounted and attractive - otherwise the 6d is sure to loose big time against the d600.

I can see them falling into third place behind Nikon and Sony in a couple of years.

As soon as their strategy appears even non-working to Canon shareholders, they'll come around and fire their executives and revise their pricing. The only ones sure to loose are the customers paying the current high prices until Canon realizes this won't work forever.

2600
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/4L IS Coming [CR3]
« on: November 06, 2012, 10:21:07 AM »
Congratulations! At the MSRP of 1500$ for the 24-70 f/4L IS. This lens is now

DOA.

I agree if purchased separately, but the theory was all along that this price will be just a marketing joke to be able to sell heavily "discounted" kits with the 6d making the new camera body more attractive.

2601
Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS
« on: November 06, 2012, 06:29:16 AM »
. And The hybrid IS will shine on the standard zoom since it's wasted on real macro lenses like the 100L - the IS is nearly useless at very close distances..
Why is it wasted?  Because you do not use it?
I was very skeptical of the hybrid IS on the 100L, but when I found I could handhold very close images with the lens, it is certainly a worthwhile feature.
1/40th second exposure @ f/8
Perfect answer. Your great picture is worth thousand words. 

I still don't think so - and esp. posting a (downsized? cropped?) "good" shot doesn't mean anything. I could do the the same with old shots from my non-L macro - so what?

I'm using the IS all the time of course, but IS is all about *statistics* and a better keeper rate. If someone posts a picture and writes "just point and shoot with IS and this is what you get" this simply isn't true - you might have been very, very lucky, but in (my) real life IS raises the keeper rate esp. at medium range (like a full butterfly), but 1:1 handheld sharp shots @100% crop and lower exposure time still need a lot of exposures to get a good one. Coming from the 100 non-L, I don't see a significant improvement in these cases.

The one thing IS does help (except dual-use as a portrait lens) with is exactly what Canon states: IS on macro is for stable composing & setting the focus pane, not for getting much longer exposure times. So IS is not really "wasted" as I wrote above, but it doesn't magically axe your exposure time at macro distances, but it'll be great on the non-1:1 24-70/4:

In macro photography, shift camera shake and angle camera shake affect both the image formed on the sensor and the image shown in the viewfinder. This is especially relevant to handheld shooting at 1x, since the inability to properly compose and focus due to a shaky image in the viewfinder makes it extremely difficult to record sharp images.

2602
Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS
« on: November 06, 2012, 04:55:45 AM »
Something to worried about: MFD 200mm, lens lenght at 70 is 124mm so MFD to the front of the lens = 30-40mm so shoot only static or dead subjects :D

It's indeed a fact that the best macro shots are taken of frozen, bound, stunned, paralyzed or simply dead animals :-\ ... and much easier to get a "natural" background w/o distracting objects if your subject doesn't decide to flee.

I don't see the 24-70/4 as a 100% replacement for a macro lens, for shooting live animals you will need a longer focal length like 100mm on crop, 180mm on ff or a tc. But the new zoom should be sufficient for the occasional close-up while traveling which is a big plus.

2603
Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS
« on: November 05, 2012, 02:38:06 PM »
Pricing will also be higher than the previously unconfirmed suggestions.

Now here's a surprise - not :-(

... though I have to admit the near-macro capability is very interesting since you now only need two travel lenses, the new 24-70/4 and a 70- tele like the 70-300L. And The hybrid IS will shine on the standard zoom since it's wasted on real macro lenses like the 100L - the IS is nearly useless at very close distances.

Pity they didn't announce a new 35L since they'll hardly release *two* new 35mm lenses in short succession.

2604
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/4L IS Coming [CR3]
« on: November 01, 2012, 01:01:08 PM »
Non of this compares to the feel and sturdiness of my old FD lenses.

I found the LensRentals review of the 24-70ii most interesting concerning the "sturdiness" because Roger pointed out that the mk1 might be metal, but at the same time it's more fragile than the mk2 because the older lens is much more prone to decentering when taking a hit.

So when not always thinking of the worst-case scenario (lens or body falls from a skyscraper and is overrun by a truck) a newer plastic construction might outmatch an older/cheaper metal one in real world usage. But I'd still like my 100L to be metal :-p

2605
Lenses / Re: "Affordable" telephoto lens for wildlife
« on: November 01, 2012, 07:14:08 AM »
I'm not sure what times of day that you intend to do your shooting, but I found that sometimes a faster lens is absolutely critical.

.. but since the op was asking about *tele* lenses: if you add a tc to the 70-200/2.8 for more reach it's only f4 or f5.6, too and the af speed degrades.

And at least for what and when I'm shooting with the 70-300L, I discovered either that it works just fine (in good light) or that the light at very cloudy days, dawn or sunset is so bad that 1 stop more wouldn't help anyway. These are cases for another category of fast tele primes, and well beyond my (and the op's) budget.

Btw: It is debatable if the 70-200/2.8L IS can be still counted as "affordable", I'd only say that for the non-IS version but IS is very handy for stabilizing the frame esp. in tele shots.

2606
Lenses / Re: "Affordable" telephoto lens for wildlife
« on: November 01, 2012, 05:13:04 AM »
As the OP didn't state that more range was needed, but better sharpness (esp in poor light) - I can attest the 70-300mm L is great, sharp, contrasty - also in low light - AF works well, 4 stop IS a real bonus.

I really like my 70-300L and would recommend it without hesitation, but I have to say one drawback is that (at least with my 60d) the af precision @300mm is lacking in low light simply because the lens then is @f5.6. This doesn't really matter because in these cases you cannot get good images with the current aps-c sensor anyway, but it should be mentioned that this is a good-light outdoor lens.

And the IS may be marketed as 4 stop, but I'd rather say it's max 2 stop in real life and to get guaranteed sharp shots @100% crop you still have to use high shutter speeds.

2607
Canon needs to monitor these kind of activities. Otherwise, Canon will loose many more loyal customers.

As far as I see it Canon does everything and more to protect mid- to high-range investments like the 5d3, that's why they spec'ed the 6d as it is. If an investment is safe as far as electronics goes, it's with Canon ff and L.

That being said the 5d3 is a special case because most people though that $3500 was mildly to ridiculously overpriced given the competition and the improvements over the 5d2, and I'm sure the price will continue to drop until it's at least on d800 level.

2608
EOS Bodies / Re: 6D or 5D Mk II
« on: October 31, 2012, 08:13:04 AM »
I do not wish to be rude but reading these remarks is like listening to someone say "imho 2+2 = 4", so please stop second-guessing what is already an acknowledged fact by the manufacturer of this product.

You should run an antivirus program, you've been infected by Canon marketing ... the one and only comparison basis is the price you get a product for (or at least the price you'd expect it to drop to in the next time), anything else is just a nice marketing wrapper.

i travel a lot so the 6d being lighter and the gps has appeal...

The question still is how power-efficient the gps will be because the solution inside a camera might need more juice like a $40 external tagger that runs 24h+ on one battery load. And I'd be surprised if the 6d will be as precise as dedicated taggers, esp. inside or in semi-shielded areas (houses, trees, ...).

2609
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/4L IS Coming [CR3]
« on: October 31, 2012, 07:07:29 AM »
So 450g and around 500$ street price?

I'm sure the price for the lens alone will be rather high - few people would buy it anyway to replace their existing standard zoom, and this way Canon will be able to market apparently incredible deals as a kit with the 6d :-p

2610
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/4L IS Coming [CR3]
« on: October 30, 2012, 05:47:04 PM »
Yeah but the 24-105L is already sharp for around 800$ used.

But Canon sells new :-> and since the 24-105 margin will be pretty low by now they need a lens that can go along with the 6d price drop that everyone predicts.

Pages: 1 ... 172 173 [174] 175 176 ... 291