December 20, 2014, 05:42:15 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 - Sella174

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 53
16
It has the potential to be the most revolutionary and disruptive technological development on the horizon.

No need for ...

No more ...

...

[joke]No more ... you?[/joke]

17
... the graphic shows a small increase in dSLR market share from now to 2017.

You actually measured it? With a ruler or calipers?

18
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7DMKII Focus keeper rate ideas?
« on: November 27, 2014, 01:33:21 PM »
Any professional-grade equipment must work 100% perfectly straight out of the box.

That's a nice pipe dream.  Cinematographers spend substantial time calibrating new lenses costing tens of thousands of dollars.

Are you a cinematographer that spends valuable time calibrating new lenses because the manufacturer didn't do it (properly)? Are you even a cinematographer? Unless you can answer yes to both questions, then what you wrote is hearsay and of absolutely no value whatsoever.

I think it is more of a lowering-production-cost-through-lowering-quality-control situation. I never had any problems when using old Canon lenses on my old Canon cameras (film and digital). Only when I started purchasing/borrowing new lenses did I encounter focusing issues - all of which could have been corrected using AFMA, which my old cameras did not possess.

It's more of a your-old-gear-lacked-sufficient-resolution-to-make-the-problems-evident situation.

A yes, the old standard put-down. Give it rest, it's getting really old ... and totally redundant, because I do own new photographic gear ... just not Canon.

19
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7DMKII Focus keeper rate ideas?
« on: November 27, 2014, 01:12:16 PM »
I just showed this thread to a psychologist who's used to working with obstinate and "damaged" children; she almost wet herself and asked to borrow the bathroom. I don't know if it was from laughter, or if she got a glimpse of future revenues...

The trouble with "rules" on forums are that they only prohibit the ridicule of an individual, and not that of several (unnamed) individuals as a group.

That said, if your psychologist had that reaction from this thread, then she's obviously not ready for the real world.

20
All I can say is...WOW. I'm hooked on the NX1!! :P I think it may be my new high speed birding camera some time next year, assuming the lenses pan out. I think I'd get this before I got an A7r even...as I am well and truly impressed.

...an APS-C with BETTER IQ than an FF?? Noo! Say it ain't so! :P

I think Sony has a real competitor. Samsung is another electronics powerhouse...I am very curious to see how they do in the marketplace. I love that they have produced a DSLR-style mirrorless body, instead of some micro-cramped body like the Sony A7 series. I think it is much more along the lines of what I have been looking for, and in comparison to the 7D II...it seems the NX1 tops it in just about every category except lens selection (and, if the adapters work well, that may not even be an issue...and certainly won't be an issue for terribly long, as Samsung is already working on some nice big white supertelephoto lenses.)

Are you the same jrista who so vehemently crossed swords with me a few months ago?

21
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7DMKII Focus keeper rate ideas?
« on: November 27, 2014, 11:19:01 AM »
Hi Sella.

Howdy.

I read posts like this and realise you either have bottomless pockets stuffed with money or lack a clear understanding of manufacturing tolerances.

The bolded statement I do not understand, giving what you explain later on in the same post (quoted below).

To have to calibrate a lens to a body is in my opinion not only acceptable but necessary. Each body and each lens are made to a plus or minus tolerance, measured in 0.01 or 0.001mm or even smaller! If both lens and body are middle limit, or out in complementary directions, ie the tolerances cancel all will be fine, if they are out in the other direction the tolerances are additive, I suspect each lens and each body is allowed + or - 10 AFMA POINTS and given this, a worst case scenario could see you needing all 20 AFMA points. (I don't know how many bits of a mm = 1 AFMA point)
To halve the tolerance range could add a significant percentage (I don't know how much so I won't quantify it) to the cost through extra manufacturing time and component scrapage! And then what you still have a tolerance, yes smaller, and still need to calibrate! So halve the tolerance again, can you see where this is going? Except the next reduction will cost more than the first reduction!
[..]14 yrs toolmaking working to tenths of a thousandth of an inch so I know a bit about increase of time with lower limits and scrapage rates.[..]

True. Now apply it in reverse: Double the tolerance and you reduce the production cost by a significant percentage (unknown, as you stated) due to a lower scrapping rate.

Personally I'd sooner be able to afford a camera and lenses and calibrate than dream about equipment that is perfect, + or - 0.0000000mm and doesn't need calibration.

I partly agree. Canon, as an example, could use a larger tolerance criterion for the "Rebel" to reduce cost, but must then offer AFMA in those models. In "professional"-grade gear (both cameras and lenses), although also offering AFMA, it should not be necessary because of the more accurate machining of the mechanical/physical parts.

But that's just my opinion. I like good stuff that work 100% out of the box and don't mind paying extra for that convenience.

22
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Samsung NX-1 Review
« on: November 27, 2014, 06:45:25 AM »
Is there any info from Fujifilm re. possible impact on shortest X-Sync speed?

I am not into flash photography, but the manual for the X-T1 states that "[t]he flash will synchronize with the shutter at shutter speeds of 1/180s or slower".

23
Canon General / Re: Does Canon really deserve this?
« on: November 27, 2014, 06:17:47 AM »
Canon G1 X II has optional 2.36 MPix EVF...

[cheesy]That EVF is probably just a rebranded Olympus VF-4 (which uses the EPSON EVF) ... they even look the same![/cheesy]

24
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7DMKII Focus keeper rate ideas?
« on: November 27, 2014, 05:47:09 AM »
In my experience (just Canon) it works almost always right out of the box. But I see your point. Is this just how cameras are or there is a QC issue? Is this not same with other brands of cameras?

I think it is more of a lowering-production-cost-through-lowering-quality-control situation. I never had any problems when using old Canon lenses on my old Canon cameras (film and digital). Only when I started purchasing/borrowing new lenses did I encounter focusing issues - all of which could have been corrected using AFMA, which my old cameras did not possess.

25
Canon General / Re: Does Canon really deserve this?
« on: November 27, 2014, 05:38:24 AM »
Yes absolutely. Seen it happen in the past.

So what was it for you? One year people can't get enough of photographs about elephants and the next year you have to give them away with each photograph of meerkats, which people can't enough of.  ;)

26
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7DMKII Focus keeper rate ideas?
« on: November 27, 2014, 05:20:57 AM »
Shocking. Just simply shocking. Plus unbelievable.
Care to elaborate?

I'm not 100% satisfied, and rather than send the body in for fruitless repairs I'm just wondering if I have anything to worry about...

With current technology, for the 7DII to exhibit any form of AF problems is in my opinion totally unacceptable. This is a professional-grade camera and to expect any professional (where time equals money) to first calibrate the lens and camera combination is just plain wrong. What will happen if such a professional photographer rents (or borrows) a lens at the last moment, but must now spend an hour first to calibrate the combination? That is if he actually has his calibration tools with him!

Any professional-grade equipment must work 100% perfectly straight out of the box.

27
Canon General / Re: Does Canon really deserve this?
« on: November 27, 2014, 04:55:53 AM »
[sarcasm]...[/sarcasm]

Well it rather depends what you're shooting. Sport, birds in flight - you need good AF, high shutter speed. For landscapes, most macro, a lot of portraiture and even street work, AF is much less important, and image quality (which the full frame will trump the crop in many circumstances) comes to the fore.

sarcasm = a taunt, a bitter or wounding remark, especially one ironically worded.

irony = expression of one's meaning by language of opposite or different tendency, especially mock adoption of another's view or tone.

The moral of the story (regarding typewriters) is that one year you are on top of the world, selling thousands upon thousands of units, and the next year you sell nothing, and the year after that you file for bankruptcy. Good sales today doesn't necessarily mean good sales tomorrow.

I think the analogy is flawed. Sure, wordprocessors (and then computers) replaces typewriters for most purposes. That doesn't mean your predictions about future camera technologies are proven. You're just saying what feels right to you, without providing evidence.

I made no predictions about future camera technology. I merely proved that "[g]ood sales today doesn't necessarily mean good sales tomorrow".

28
Canon General / Re: Does Canon really deserve this?
« on: November 27, 2014, 04:34:44 AM »
I don't think that Canon is lacking patentability to make a good mirrorless.

For the sake of argument, let's consider the following: nearly every top-end "mirrorless" camera uses the EPSON EVF. I am quite sure that EPSON patented the little thing, so anyone who wants to use it must either buy the already manufactured units from EPSON, or purchase a license if they want to manufacture it themselves.

I have looked at the EVF's in the latest Canon "bridge" cameras and compared to the EPSON EVF they just plainly suck. So obviously Canon doesn't have the technology to make an EVF similar to the EPSON one.

This means that Canon must either develop their own EVF technology from scratch and do it in such a way that it doesn't infringe on EPSON's patent.

Or they can buy a license from EPSON. Now, in this regard it is wholly up to EPSON to grant such a license or not. And since both Canon and EPSON compete head-to-head in the printer market and since Canon is so fond of playing the patent game, maybe EPSON just simply refused to grant a license out of pure spite.

This then effectively leaves Canon without an EVF that is on par with that in the cameras of their competitors.

(Of course, the above is all conjecture. But it is nonetheless a possibility.)

ADDITION: I see that the new Canon C100 Mark II will have a 1.23 megapixel EVF. Compare this with the 2.36 megapixel EVF in the FUJIFILM X-T1 (made by EPSON).

29
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Samsung NX-1 Review
« on: November 27, 2014, 04:16:56 AM »
What I don't understand is if a mirrorless camera has so few moving parts, why are they so expensive?

The EVF is still a maturing technology, so lots of R&D money is being poured into it. Most manufacturers of "mirrorless" cameras have settled on 16MP being quite enough, so instead of R&D'ing more megapixels they are instead spending the money on improving the DR and noise issues. But most importantly, nearly every "mirrorless" camera is so jam-packed with features (e.g. WiFi being basically standard), compared to the firmware crippled DSLR cameras.

30
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Samsung NX-1 Review
« on: November 27, 2014, 04:08:10 AM »
I want a silent camera. Mirrorless is or will deliver it. Very soon.

December the 18th ... FUJIFILM will release version 3 of the firmware for the X-T1, which enables a fully electronic shutter of up to 1/32000 of a second. (http://www.fujifilm.com/news/n141120_01.html) Obviously we'll have to see how well it works ...  ;)

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 53