November 27, 2014, 11:56:24 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 - ScottyP

Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20] 21 22 ... 38
286
Is anyone out there able to test a 6D under the same circumstances and see how it does?

287
Good-natured helpful criticism is great.  But what compells someone to just plain savage someone else's efforts?  What button got pushed?  There is room for more than just one or two experts on this forum, right?  Why waste such considerable talents for precise measurement conducting vain (and metaphorical) comparisons of the size of one guy's "monopod" vs. the other guy's "monopod"?

If someone knows the only proper and relevant way to look at this question, and yet he sits back casting only stones instead of light, is he not denying humanity by not investing the time/effort to do a proper comparison themselves? 

Or, put another way, "is this how we welcome new members to this forum"?

 

288
I don't really get testing beyond the rated limit, maybe I missunderstand further explaination of the -7EV thing would be much appreciated. I also seem to recall a video from DigitalRev (in the boxing ring) where the 5D3 excelled against the D600 no where near -3EV?

How can you not understand the interest in testing beyond the rated limit?  The light around you won't stay to the rated limit of your camera, right?   :)

289
Thanks Michael.  Very interesting indeed. A lot of folks wanted to see exactly that.  I wonder if you would be able to confirm/quantify the issue of 5d3 + 600ex speed lite AF assist = even worse lag?  (and comparing 6d on same speedlite AF too)  No one else is going to, and yet a lot of people are very interested in that! 

290
Lenses / Re: What's your dream lens
« on: December 04, 2012, 11:28:50 AM »
A 50mm lens at f/1.4 or f/1.2 which is sharp at wider than f/2.  Can be metal or plastic.  Weather sealed or not.  Image stabilized would be nice, but not necessary.  EF mount.

And here comes the dreaming part: 
No more than $500.00 (the price of the Sigma 50, which is not especially cheap).

291
;) If anyone else wants to go give KUDOS to the postings and replies on that thread, it will keep it "front page news" on the Canon forum. ;)

If you did that, you should have come across this message: "Kudos Flood: You have exceeded the limit of 10 kudoed messages per minute." ... so just select the 10 messages that make the most sense to you. I think Canon should react to this issue, and even though I don't have a 5d3 yet I think it is ok to bump the thread for all you posh 5d3 owners :->

I think I missed getting over-Kudoed by dumb luck.  I kudoed several slowly as I read it over the weekend, then I went back later Sunday and handed out the rest, and again this afternoon.

292
Yes, it is good news.  Sort of.  So many months after the release date, I would like to see Canon stop asking what people think is wrong and just admit there is a serious problem, they are working on it and then announce a fix.  The specifics they are asking for are irrelevant and a little insulting.  (Lenses, etc sure didn't matter on my camera's problem.)  Gathering this data is a lot of work on our part.  And it's already documented on several forums in detail.  Why can't they take a couple hours and read for themselves?  My low light AF was broken.  Period.  Just like many others have described.  I don't care if they just say they found a QA problem, a bunch of drunken assembly workers or a batch bad of components.  Just explain the problem (or not), fix the problem and let's move on.  Anything else sounds like stonewalling while they take in profit.  You really can't tell me that they are that clueless about every aspect of this camera before and after it was RTM'd in early 2012.

The camera I had showed defective low light AF.  It was unmistakable.  Thank goodness I returned it in time and received another one in exchange that so far seems to be good and a compliment to the Canon line.  The fact that the low light AF works so well in this 2nd camera is a testament to the fact that the first one I had was faulty.  I'm sorry about anyone who is dealing with the AF problem I had with my 1st camera on their camera that can't be exchanged!

Thanks again for everyone's comments, support and honest feedback about their camera.

Interesting note about Canon's forum:  There is a list of the most highly rated ("kudos") posts.  I went in and gave KUDOS to all the postings in that thread, and it was enough to fill 4 of the top 5 posts with the thread about 5D3 + 600 exrt = slower focus. 
 ;) If anyone else wants to go give KUDOS to the postings and replies on that thread, it will keep it "front page news" on the Canon forum.  ;)

293
EOS Bodies / Re: Downgrade to crop
« on: December 03, 2012, 07:54:50 AM »
So I ask you FF shooters: what is it that you can do nowadays with you FF that you would no longer be able to do if you downgraded to crop?

Well, no small number of FF shooters would miss the ability to post smug things about how superior FF is on intangible things like dreamy bokeh, color saturation, etc..., whether they could actually pick a FF print out of a police lineup or not.   ;)

I think the biggest thing about going FF to crop would be losing 2 or 3 stops of low-noise performance at higher ISO settings, at least when comparing it to the newest FF bodies.  That is very valuable stuff.

I think you can get all the blurry background/shallow depth of field most people would really ever want using a crop body by following the basic rules.  Bright prime lens shot wide open, shot close to subject, background far away, etc... Frankly, I find the 50 f/1.8 DOF shot on a crop to be too thin sometimes.  My wife actively dislikes the look, actually, when we shoot my girls and you see an eye or two in focus, but an ear that is blurry.

294
Well, at least if you listen to chatter here and elsewhere, it would be hailed if it can find focus in dim light without an embarassing pause, and a seizure-inducing spell of of pre-flashing and buzzing.

Actually, I would be happy if it could work well on the center point, including in dim light, and then work as well (or even a little better?) on ISO noise than the 5D3.  Don't know what use I would have for GPS, but then I don't use video either, and yet it is in all the cameras. 

Really, the ISO thing is my only real criterion other than the inherent properties of "full-framedness".

295
Lenses / Re: Canon 70-200 F/2.8 IS II vs. Tamron 70-200 F/2.8 VC
« on: November 30, 2012, 02:11:00 PM »
All I can predict is that a lot of people will answer who have never shot a Tamron, or possibly even this Canon, but who will confidently assert the Canon's clear, unmistakable superiority.  And that FF sensors cost Canon $1000 to make.

But then again, in the spirit of full disclosure, I have only tried the previous Tamron version of 70-200 once, and it was in a camera store.  All I could glean from that was the Tamron's AF was not quite as whisper-smooth as the Canon's, though not at all bad really.  Photos of the inside of the store, viewed in the camera viewfinder, do not qualify me to tell you anything about IQ.

Presumably this new version is better somehow.

296
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Information [CR1]
« on: November 30, 2012, 11:42:25 AM »
--The camera will also get some technologies from the EOS-1D X, like the AF system and noise performance. [/quote][/i][/b]

Is that even remotely possible?  Are they saying the same ISO performance, or does this just suggest there will be some improvement in ISO performance?  That would not just be a new sports body, that would be a revolution in Canon's (or anyone else's) crop sensors that would ripple out through the whole line.

I hope it does mean at least 1 full stop improvement.  Two would be utterly amazing.

297
EOS Bodies / Re: When will we have a full frame body below $1,000?
« on: November 29, 2012, 08:28:57 AM »
Never

Chip costs for the sensor won't allow for pricing to be that low and everyone making a markup.  Compromises made to the 6D at the $2k price point seem to piss everyone off, so to think of a $1k price, it wouldn't even be a p&s type.  Refurb on sale gets a 5d2 down to 1,400-1,500 range, but that's about as low at it will go.

I don't believe that the FF sensors cost dramatically more to make than 1.6 crop sensors.  They use the difference to allow them to sell cameras at a lower price point to 95% of the people buying cameras without undercutting the prices on their own FF models. 

It may cost a lot to develop new sensor models, but I really don't think FF sensors cost a whole lot more money to crank out than a crop sensor, and I don't think either one really cost as much per unit to fab as people imagine.  Chip fab facilities in Taiwan, etc., just crank these things out like saltine crackers.  There should be no reason camera sensor production economics should be dramatically different from all the other chips and things we are surrounded with.  The difference is in the huge markup they are allowed due to very little competition.  High-end camera sensors have not become commoditized like most other microelectronics.     

The manufacturing  cost of a 24x36mm sensor is many times higher than the APS
Replacing 5dmk2 sensor= cost of purchasing 8000 SEK = around 1200 USD three years ago

And the point is missed again. 
1.  The fact Canon charged you 1200 dollars to replace a sensor does not mean it costs common that much to make it. Actually it proves the opposite. Canon made a profit on that part plus labor cost too.
2.  Maybe a FF sensor does cost Canon several times more to manufacture than a crop sensor costs canon to make. But so if the crop sensor only costs canon 25 bucks to make, then you are talking only a couple hundred or few hundred bucks.

@ScottyP Using your very flawed logic it only costs 10-15 bucks to manufacture an APS-C sensor. Mikael highlights the fact that it costs several times more to make a FF sensor (remember that the surface area of a FF sensor is nearly 2.5x bigger than an APS-C sensor).

In truth, you DO NOT KNOW how much it costs to make, only Canon Inc. does. Speculating about something you know absolutely nothing about is the folly of futility ::)

What is the most expensive component in a modern DSLR camera? I think most people would say; probably the sensor.

Again, using your fundamentally flawed logic, if a FF sensor costs just $25 more than an APS-C one, and Canon can manage to sell me a 7D for 1000 euros, but want 3600 euros for a new 5D, then Canon are making an EXTRA TWO-AND-A-HALF GRAND PROFIT on the 5D3 ???


Sometimes it is a good idea to go back and read what you've written. Then contextualize it. Look at the real world and put it into practice.

Maybe I didn't express that, or maybe you only skimmed what I wrote. 
First, I said a crop sensor probably costs $25 bucks, not $15 bucks, for Canon to churn out.  This could be $35 bucks, but no way more than $50 bucks BASED ON WHAT THEY SELL CROP CAMERAS FOR.  The sensor does have an entire camera attached to it.   ;)  Also, Canon makes a profit, and the retailer makes a profit.  How much room do you see for all those other expenses plus all those other profits if they are selling the crop body for $500.00 or $600.00??
Secondly, I allowed for sake of argument that it really does cost 'several times more to make a FF sensor".  Several means "four" in colloquial English.  So, $25 x 4 = $100.  $35 x 4 = $140.  $50 x 4 = $200.
Thirdly, look at the 6D.  Sells pre-order for $2100.  You know it will be going for $1700 or $1800 in 6 months.  You lose any and all credibility if you claim the FF sensor in that thing costs Canon more than few hundred to make, given the cost of all the other parts in the camera, plus labor, plus profit to Canon plus profit to the retailer, etc...

Yes, the sensor probably is the most expensive single part, but there are many many other parts in there too, and they all cost money also.  The processor, the shutter, the motherboard, the LCD screen(s), the body, and hundreds more.  Plus the cost to assemble all these parts into a camera.  There is just so much you can reasonably claim the sensor alone costs Canon to manufacture.

298
EOS Bodies / Re: When will we have a full frame body below $1,000?
« on: November 29, 2012, 08:17:20 AM »
Canon could do sub-$1000 FF SLRs any time it wants to, and do it profitably.  Because it can, does not mean it will, nor mean it should.

That's why I think that any lower priced FF camera will be a surprise entry from a low market share camera company.  The big three (Canon, Sony and Nikon) already have FF entries.  They're don't want to disturb their margins by introducing a low cost FF camera.  They also won't want to cannibalise their higher end models.  With the peer pressure on photographers to go full frame, they know that people will happily pay a high price if they feel it will lead to photograhy perfection. 

But for Mamiya, Olympus, Panasonic, Samsung, Pentax, Ricoh, Casio etc who are all looking at increasing market shares (and in some cases just want to stay in business), getting into the FF market must look very tempting.  And it will be hard for them to compete with the big three.  The answer I keep coming back to is to introduce the camera at a low price and make your money on the lenses and on future higher specc'd camera model releases.

Without wanting to be too repetitive, the company I keep coming back to is Pentax.  Their K-01 is retailing for $350.  What the??  Surely they can just put a FF sensor in their and sell it in the low $1k range?  It will have a K mount and would interest a lot of people.  My alternative is Samsung, who are very ambitious right now and want to be seen as the world's leading tech company.  Surely their camera division are under pressure to gain more profits and market share.

That makes a lot of sense.  Good point.

299
EOS Bodies / Re: When will we have a full frame body below $1,000?
« on: November 29, 2012, 06:32:10 AM »
Never

Chip costs for the sensor won't allow for pricing to be that low and everyone making a markup.  Compromises made to the 6D at the $2k price point seem to piss everyone off, so to think of a $1k price, it wouldn't even be a p&s type.  Refurb on sale gets a 5d2 down to 1,400-1,500 range, but that's about as low at it will go.

I don't believe that the FF sensors cost dramatically more to make than 1.6 crop sensors.  They use the difference to allow them to sell cameras at a lower price point to 95% of the people buying cameras without undercutting the prices on their own FF models. 

It may cost a lot to develop new sensor models, but I really don't think FF sensors cost a whole lot more money to crank out than a crop sensor, and I don't think either one really cost as much per unit to fab as people imagine.  Chip fab facilities in Taiwan, etc., just crank these things out like saltine crackers.  There should be no reason camera sensor production economics should be dramatically different from all the other chips and things we are surrounded with.  The difference is in the huge markup they are allowed due to very little competition.  High-end camera sensors have not become commoditized like most other microelectronics.     

The manufacturing  cost of a 24x36mm sensor is many times higher than the APS
Replacing 5dmk2 sensor= cost of purchasing 8000 SEK = around 1200 USD three years ago

And the point is missed again. 
1.  The fact Canon charged you 1200 dollars to replace a sensor does not mean it costs common that much to make it. Actually it proves the opposite. Canon made a profit on that part plus labor cost too.
2.  Maybe a FF sensor does cost Canon several times more to manufacture than a crop sensor costs canon to make. But so if the crop sensor only costs canon 25 bucks to make, then you are talking only a couple hundred or few hundred bucks.

300
EOS Bodies / Re: When will we have a full frame body below $1,000?
« on: November 28, 2012, 09:13:32 AM »
Ok, $sub-$1,000 might be a bit of an exaggeration, but those who knowledgeably proclaim that the FF sensors cost $1,500 or $1,000 are nuts. 
Watch and see when the 6D hits a flash sale for $1,700 or $1,800 and then try to tell me that the sensor in that thing costs $1,000 to make.  No way that with that $800 dollar difference that they can build a whole camera body to put the sensor into, with all the other expensive processors and parts and LCD screens, and still have room left over for Canon and also the retailer make money.

But then if someone would start a thread arguing that there is no good reason for Canon to charge so much for (insert some other random single camera part here) the 150,000 - 200,000 actuation-rated shutter, lets say, on the more expensive bodies.  We would have had a lot of excited FF owners typing furiously defending how a good shutter like that CERTAINLY costs $1500 dollars alone.  Or the magnesium body must cost $1000 alone to make.  Or the processors must probably cost $1,500 dollars each for Canon to make.  And those heavy-duty neck straps.....     ::)

Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20] 21 22 ... 38