November 29, 2014, 05:23:29 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 - ScottyP

Pages: 1 ... 24 25 [26] 27 28 ... 38
376
Canon General / Re: "Time for a Change at Canon?" -Barons
« on: August 10, 2012, 02:53:16 AM »
I have mixed emotions about reviving this thread, but can't resist a bit of "I told you so."

Nikon's first quarter results and projections for the year are out. (See Nikon Rumors). Net profit fell by a jaw-dropping 48%!

Now that those numbers are out, it's a little easier to compare performance of Canon and Nikon. The numbers confirm what I said previously – this particular article was written by a single columnist with an ax to grind against Canon's management.

Demand a change in top leadership at Canon when profits are down 2.4%, while a major competitor's profits are down 48%?

Fact is, Canon is well-managed and doing very well during tough economic times.
And they avoided selling the 5DIII cheap whereas the D800 must not be earning then much money
Desperate means from Nikon of course to sell it at that low price. Will be interesting to see the development of their profits once D800 sales will have larger impact. Also, this will have impact on their overall pricing strategies as they will be held back in trying to get better prices for other models they will launch from now on.

Losing less than one's competitor is an odd sort of "victory" isn't it?  But, yes,  hoooray.

377
Lenses / Re: Center Pinch Lens Caps
« on: August 07, 2012, 03:04:06 PM »
I got Nikon ones for my Canon lenses  ;D they are passable and usable.

That could trick theives looking for good camera equipment into leaving your lenses untouched.  8)

378
Lenses / Re: Another help me pick a lens yay...35L or 24-105L
« on: August 05, 2012, 12:17:34 AM »
If you are staying with APS-C for the foreseeable future keep in mind that the 24-105 becomes a 38-168mm zoom when you multiply by X1.6. The 24-105 is a great lens, but you'll appreciate its qualities more on a FF body.

If you have enjoyed your friend's 16-35, then really consider the equally brilliant EF-S 10-22 or the EF-S 17-55. These will re-sell easily if you move to FF eventually. Like other posters, I'd advise against the L35 simply because of it's limitations on an APS-C body.

PW

Yes to the 17-55 used.  If you buy it used, you are basically using it for free until you sell it later for the same price (assuming you don't damage it).  17mm is pretty wide, and the range is useful, and the IQ is great.  Wonderful lens.

Also, even if you go full-frame, you might keep a crop body too, just for the free 1.6x telephoto boost it gives you for sports or birds, or whatever. 

If/when you go full-frame, buying back the lost 1.6x telephoto length with (good) long glass is insanely expensive. 
If for example you have a 70-200 f/2.8, your crop body is giving you 320mm's AND it still at f/2.8.  No teleconverter will do that.  You lose 1 stop with the 1.4x TC (f/4) and you lose 2 stops (and significant IQ) with the 2x TC.
To get the latest 300mm lens at f/2.8 with a full-frame camera will cost you over $7,000.00, just to get back to (almost) the length you had before at f/2.8.  Ouch.

379
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Bryan Carnathan's 1D X Review Is Finished
« on: August 02, 2012, 04:18:49 PM »
and it appears that he tries to avoid being overly critical.

He's not always so nice, just depends on which reviews you look at:
Sigma 20mm f/1.8
"Unfortunately, I consider the Sigma 20mm f/1.8 EX DG Lens to be unusable at f/1.8 unless you are looking for a soft-focus effect. This lens is one of the softest I've seen wide open.
In conclusion, I recommend not buying the Sigma 20mm f/1.8 EX DG Lens. Sorry Sigma, this one is a dud."

It's not just sigma:
EF 80-200
"The Canon EF 80-200mm f/4.5-5.6 II Lens is a very small, very light and very cheap telephoto zoom lens.
There is no sticker shock when checking the price on this lens. But, as often is the case, you get what you pay for.
With the Canon EF 80-200mm f/4.5-5.6 II Lens, you also get very cheap build quality.
Optically, the Canon EF 80-200mm f/4.5-5.6 II Lens is disappointing.
Basically, the Canon EF 80-200mm f/4.5-5.6 II Lens is a very cheap telephoto zoom lens with performance relative to its cost."

Sure, with the L lenses and 1-series bodies he's not going to be too negative, but even in the 1DX review he says things like:
"...but first, I want to point out a potential downside for 1D Mark IV body owners looking to upgrade to the 1D X... This is of course disappointing to many extender users... The largest group of photographers affected by this change are, probably, bird photographers (such as Arthur Morris) - who have been dealt a double blow with the 1D X. Bird photography typically needs the most reach possible - through both lens focal length and sensor density. Increasing focal length via extenders has now been limited (for autofocus to function) and the 1D X has a less-dense sensor than either of the previous 1-Series models...
 This is, perhaps, the end of that era. I have to admit that I'm surprised by this design decision. "

He sounds almost British here, being polite as possible about a change for the worse when you can really tell he's annoyed by the no f/8 and knows a lot of others are too.

You just have to read between the lines a bit when reading his reviews, to tell which lenses/bodies he loves and which ones not so much...

I like his reviews, and his site, and his lens comparison tool is fantastic (and unique I think!) so don't get me wrong here.  I am a fan.  So don't take the following as criticism of his character or the value of his reviews, or the effort he puts in.

But saying he trashed a Sigma lens and sniffed at a few hapless non-L Canon lenses is missing the point.  My one niggle with Bryan's reviews is that sometimes it feels like he's never met a red-ring lens he didn't love (unless it has just been replaced with a new more expensive red-ringed mk2 lens), and he never gives the same kind of unqualified praise to any 3rd-party lenses. 

I don't call it a "bias" because that word has negative connotations, and he does it with great intentions.  I just think it is a point-of-view he brings to it.

380
Lenses / Re: Your 70-200 f/2.8L IS II...
« on: July 31, 2012, 07:52:23 PM »
Love mine.  It grabs focus so quickly it is a little startling at first, even though it is also nearly silent.  I never really notice the weight.  I agree with Neuro that on a crop frame it is long indoors UNLESS you are talking about a large public space or an indoor gym, in which case it is maybe the best lens in the world.

381
Canon General / Re: "Time for a Change at Canon?" -Barons
« on: July 28, 2012, 12:30:08 AM »

I have posted before, that if you are unhappy with Canon's offerings, you should not whinge about them, rather, do not buy them.

Vote with you wallet! It's by far the most effective management and strategy tool in the market.
well, this is not that easy if you invested in glass already.

Yes, you are right (no, it is not that easy). 
I get livid when I see people saying "if you disagree with anything Canon is doing, do not talk about it.  Instead you should dump all your (EXPENSIVE) camera gear at a loss and go buy it all over with Nikon.  Bull.
1.)  Do you really expect to go to a website about a product and read NO NEGATIVE VIEWS???  If you want that, go join a cult. 
2.)  Who the heck are you anyway to tell people they need to shut up?
3.)  The whole point of a website about a particular brand is to discuss both its good points and also the points which could use improvement.
4.)  Buying from the company (to the tune of THOUSANDS of dollars) gives one the right to comment freely.

382
Canon General / Re: "Time for a Change at Canon?" -Barons
« on: July 27, 2012, 12:39:28 AM »
In my utterly meaningless capacity of O.P., I hereby declare (without any relevance) that this thread has been hijacked.
My point was about the "bleak" and perhaps not "scathing" portrait painted by the article.
Canon is not CURRENTLY competing by price:  in prices they still exceed even Nikon. 
They are not leading in "meaningless" benchmarks like Megapixels.
Their mirrorless product is what it is.
Canon may have some advantage in high-ISO with lower noise.  (GOOD!)
Canon has a lot of other products besides DSLR's which are REALLY doing poorly, and to which by comparison cameras are an area of healthy business.  Those areas (copiers, etc., ) are doing even worse than their competitors.
UNLESS, of course, they can suddenly transform the playing field with a game-changing new product(camera or otherwise), or if they can regain the jump on NIKON on DSLR tech.

The point of the article seemed to be the lack of recent innovation, the loss of market share and the lack of hope for the future.

384
Lenses / Re: Keep 70-200 f4 IS or go for f2.8 IS II?
« on: July 20, 2012, 11:38:11 PM »
Double the weight matters a lot in 747's or locomotives.  In lenses, they are relevant but not nearly so much so. 
What matters is your use.  If you ever want to shoot someone's kids playing indoor basketball/volleyball/etc., the f/4 will be a hinderance. 
If you shoot in big halls/wedding reception places indoors, you may find f/4 a problem. 
If you hate artificial lighting, f/4 could be a hassle.
 

If none of these things apply, then it will be rare that you will need to shoot basic indoor shots at @200mm w/o added lighting.

385
EOS Bodies / Re: Should/can Canon keep making its own sensors?
« on: July 20, 2012, 11:26:03 PM »
I see Nikon using Sony sensors, and Sony itself is using its new sensors in its new well-received bodies, and I read people discussing how the Canon sensors seem to be falling behind. 

I wonder if Canon will reach a kind of "Apple Moment", like when Apple quit spending its R&D money trying to beat Intel on a component (CPU's) and started just using Intel chips like everyone else. 

As was pointed out earlier, Apple never built their own chips. Also, Intel aren't the only company who manufactures x86 chips.

Apple made a number of smart business decisions and released several very successful products (imac, ipod, OS X) after Jobs took the helm in 98 (and well before they adopted the intel architecture in 2005)

One of the problems with having Canon drop sensors is that most of the companies who build sensors are either their competition, or companies who would like to become their competition.

Quote
Canon makes better lenses than Nikon, and could focus on staying ahead on that.  They could/should take a page from the perfectionist Steve Jobs, and focus on addressing all the 1000 little niggling customer gripes and wishes about cameras, and making Canons just work better and smoother than Nikon (or Sony).  Outclass the competition by thinking of everything, and including it; and by not withholding simple little crap in hardware and firmware that they could instead make standard in all their cameras for very little cost. 

Providing nicer products is always a worthy goal, but the Apple way is not to push high end functionality down to low end models so that users of said low end models may aspire to have high end functionality made available at the low end price. Rather it would be to simplify and clean their product lineup by simply eliminating those "tweener" product lines so that these users are left to choose between (for example) the Rebel and the 5D.

Another lesson from Apple, by the way, is that they have never been leaders from a pure price to performance standpoint. Instead, they always lived or died by the idea that users would pay a premium (in some cases a fairly hefty premium) for a well crafted product.
Canon have an analogous though not identical approach -- their plan is essentially to build a compelling system. A good system is not just about sensor performance. It is a comprehensive product line, which includes professional grade support, bodies, lenses, and even printers. The only other manufacturer who can play in the same ballpark at present is Nikon.

Canon has the part about "not leading from a pure price to performance standpoint" and "charging a premium" down pat.  Do they have the all-important counterbalancing point about superior user-experience/funcionality sewed up, or are they resting on the security of having people heavily committed/invested in its lenses not being able to switch easily?  In the face of real competition to its market share, Canon should compete by being better for the same price, just as is standard practice in all consumer goods.  If you can steal a march against Nikon by putting better firmware into a lower model body, DO IT.  And how much could AMFA really cost to include?? 

386
EOS Bodies / Re: first pic of canon mirrorless?
« on: July 20, 2012, 11:11:45 PM »
But can it read?

There's an app for that.

387
Lenses / Re: Good, inexpensive zoom lens? Beginner here.
« on: July 20, 2012, 11:07:19 PM »
I didnt read the entire thread, so I don't know if this was already mentioned or not but Canon makes a 70-200 F4L lens for $700 brand new.  You might find one second hand for your $500 budget range.

It does not have IS, but optically it is one of the sharpest lenses canon currently produces.  I would not hesitate at all to get this lens.  IS is great, but if you are going to shoot at at least 1/200 or faster at max focal length on this lens and develop steady handling you certainly don't need it.

Just my 2 cents worth....
I would agree with that.

388
Software & Accessories / Re: Paint On batteries
« on: July 20, 2012, 10:21:17 PM »
It's already easy to see how old-fashoned I will appear to my kids when they are in college or young adults.  Stuff like this now seems to appear more regularly, escaping my notice entirely.

389
Lenses / Re: New 17-55 coming soon?
« on: July 20, 2012, 10:14:17 PM »
Mine has zero dust after several thousand clicks.  I bought it based on the nearly universal rave reviews, whichrally make it stand out for attention to anyone shopping the net for lenses.  It is not made of metal, but it is about as solid as one could make a plastic lens.  Not even remotely similar to EF-S kit lenses.  I have nothing but high praise for it. 

It is a little expensive, but it holds value very well.  The used ones sell for only about $100.00 to at most $150.00 less than I got it new, so I think it will be hard to lose on the deal.

390
Lenses / Re: Keep 70-200 f4 IS or go for f2.8 IS II?
« on: July 20, 2012, 10:01:39 PM »
Go to The Digital Picture, and look in "TOOLS" and do a lens comparison for sharpness.  It is a really interesting time-suck educational resource.  ;)  You can compare ISO 12233 shots side-by-side with LOTS of different lenses, including Canon, Nikon, Sigma, Tamron, Samyang, LensBaby, etc..  You can adjust the aperature and the focal length on both lenses you are comparing.  You can even compare lenses using the 1.4x and 2.0x teleconverters, though it is not readily apparent how to do it.  Just jack the focal distance beyond the lens's native length, and you automatically get to test out the teleconverters! 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Comparison-Tools.aspx

Hopefully this does not get me banned on CR or anything (ha).

Pages: 1 ... 24 25 [26] 27 28 ... 38