November 23, 2014, 12:17:11 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 ... 48
EOS Bodies / Re: Next Rebel Going EVF? [CR1]
« on: October 02, 2014, 12:25:15 PM »
2) Now this battery of questions is interpreting this rumor to mean the new Rebels will get an EVF which replaces the traditional mirror setup.  In this case, it would be EVF only / mirrorless.  Questions if this is the direction:

  • Why?  They'd either keep their EF-S mount to sensor distance (to protect their stable of EF-S glass) and have a far thicker body than any mirrorless competitor or they'd adopt something smaller (like EF-M) that would require a lot of new lenses to be developed.

There is no absolute law that states mirrorless cameras must be small and have a short flange to focal plane distance. It is just something that somebody started to do and now everyone else does it. So maybe Canon has cottoned that these super-small SLR-like cameras - e.g. E-M5 & E-M10 - are just plain too small and that consumers will possibly want something a tad larger ... i.e. maybe their ergonomics experts have determined that their current line-up of DSLR cameras are just the right size?

  • Why convert Rebel's identity -- i.e. the most used SLR -- to mirrorless?  Fantastic brand recognition, sure, but why redefine it so?

Why not? The "Rebel" line started as a film SLR camera, then became a DSLR camera. So why not progress it to a mirrorless camera? Especially since the target audience for the "Rebel" line are more prone to adopt "new" technology than the more "settled" bunch for the top lines.[/list]

Canon General / Re: Financial Times - "Digital cameras: out of focus"
« on: October 02, 2014, 11:21:51 AM »
A more telling number are number of cameras / DSLRs in use.

Whilst this is certainly a valid train of thought, the problem with it lies in that companies - like Canon, Nikon, FUJIFILM, etc. - only receive revenue when we BUY A NEW CAMERA. They make absolutely zilch income when we continue to use our trusty 30D for six or more years; or buy secondhand. This means that as manufacturers build better cameras that people use for longer periods, revenue drops; and when revenue drops, so do profits; and this makes the shareholders very cross.

Now, if they can reconfigure the cameras so that we rent them AND pay a per shutter actuation fee ...  ;D

EOS Bodies / Re: Next Rebel Going EVF? [CR1]
« on: October 02, 2014, 11:11:36 AM »
... Once EVF improves to a point that's good enough for mass-market consumers (that time might be now) then it makes sense to introduce it on the lower end cameras first. 90% of people who buy the Rebel line don't know the difference between EVF and OVF they just see features. "Hey it's brighter!" An EVF will likely be good enough for soccer moms and birthday party shooters because they aren't sophisticated enough to know the difference. That's not a insult to those shooters, it's just what you will find when you segment the market appropriately.

I'm thinking something like the Fuji XT1 that still "looks pro" so it'll appeal to this market ...

To quote Basil Fawlty: "You upper-class snob!"

Canon General / Re: Site trolling
« on: October 02, 2014, 05:20:36 AM »
You cannot ask a question on this site anymore without someone saying go buy a sony because Canon sucks...

Actually ... go buy a FUJIFILM.  ;D

Many of those bringing up the Canon sensor at low ISO are actually long time, even decades long time, Canon users.

Actually ... almost any issue with Canon is usually the result of a decades long "friendship" being broken up by Canon's decisions to go into another direction than that particular user.

It would cost Canon a lot of money ... So all the complaining and pointing out, at the end of the, day might be good, for Canon users.

You can tell from their interviews that they just don't feel like spending the money, so nothing less than people going on and on and then starting to buy other stuff and suggest other stuff will prod them into action. And yeah you can get other stuff, but Canon does some stuff very well, so it would be ideal to all they do well plus the sensors and not have to wait another decade.

It's us against the shareholders ... and the shareholders will always win. This means that the only way to actually get Canon off its duff is to spend our dinero elsewhere AND then tell Canon why we did so (and on what). As more and more consumer do the same, Canon's revenue will fall, the shareholders will become itchy and Canon will start making the products WE want to get their greedy paws on our dinero again so as to increase profits and thus please the shareholders. Apparently we have not yet hit that point on their fiscal graph.

I do believe that the term "Troll" is being mis/over used on these sites.  Sometimes it seems that if someone has a different opinon, they are too quickly labeled a troll. It is a good ad hominem attack.

I wholeheartedly agree!  :o

Canon General / Re: Financial Times - "Digital cameras: out of focus"
« on: October 02, 2014, 05:06:06 AM »
Pleasantly surprised to see FUJIFILM in third place with 11.4% - especially since they are exclusively in the mirrorless segment.

Anyway, this situation (of falling camera sales) is quite obvious and inevitable, as camera-type cameras are pushed out by camera-enabled devices. The reason is quite simple and two-fold: for most people a camera-enabled devices produces sufficient image quality that is mostly on par with nearly all P&S and entry-level DSLR's with kit lens; and the camera-enabled device nearly always offers functionality and ease of use that is not provided by basically all DSLR cameras still on the market.

(Although, I think it could become even more lucrative if hey would offer more variety...a black case, maybe a couple other colors. I could easily see people matching their Rebels to their phones and tablets.)

Or a white 1DX to match the white 600mm L lens; or black L lenses to match the current black of cameras; or the 1DX & 7DII in "team colours" for sports photographers (official & supporters).  ;D

Am I alone in thinking it looks ok?

It's not so much whether or not the bag looks OK. For me the main issue is that Canon is resorting to "fashion" so that they can sell a camera that is in itself "fashion". What I mean is, the regular 100D obviously did not sell very well - because the 700D outspec'ed it for not much more dinero and the small size of the camera was negated by the big'ish zoom and lack of EF-S prime. So, Canon made a white 100D - although I suspect a light pink one would have sold better - in order to catch the "dare to be different" crowd. Now that that has obviously failed, they're going for the whole hog and putting a "serious" name on an accessory.

What is very interesting - to me at least - is that Canon appears to be incapable of learning from its competitors. Olympus tried the same to boost sales of the (overpriced) E-P5 and it was a terrible flop ... yet here we have Canon doing the same thing.  ::)

Lenses / Re: Would you buy a hypothetical 85mm f/1.4L portrait lens if...
« on: September 29, 2014, 07:06:15 AM »
this is just wrong.


In short, the above post is just perpetuating misinformation! I hope inexperienced photogs aren't mislead by it.

You keep telling yourself that and all will be fine.  :P

Geez, I didn't think things were so bad at Canon ... but this is clearly a desperate act.

Lenses / Re: Would you buy a hypothetical 85mm f/1.4L portrait lens if...
« on: September 27, 2014, 08:13:34 AM »
Wide maximum apertures are not only for shallow depth of field.

True, and I said so.

Anyway, the wider the max aperture the better the T-Stop usually is. The better the T-Stop (maximum transmission through a lens), the more light is available for the AF system to work. This can lead to improved low light focusing (all other factors being equal).

Also true, but advances in AF systems are also negating this point.

For flash photography: "Guide Number" / "f-Stop" = range
If you have sufficient DoF, a wider aperture allows you to place your flashes further from the subject (e.g. further out of frame) or to use a lower power setting so you can get more shots from your batteries, while not sacrificing IQ, which would happen if you were to simply jack up ISO.

"If you have sufficient DoF ..." This naturally depends on the lens focal length, subject distance and set aperture. With a 24mm lens (for example) you nearly always have heaps of DoF ... or heaps of barrel distortion.

Wide-field astrophotography??? I know this is a much more niche type of photography but the wider the max aperture the better.  Shallow DoF has nothing to do with it, Ultra high ISO is pointless and IS is irrelevant. With ISO 12,800 you will get tons of noise and when you are trying to photograph little points of light, that kind of noise is seriously detrimental. No current lens will give you the required 9-or-so stops of stabilization for an exposure in excess of 20s.

Yes. So shame on Canon for not making such lenses for the 60Da ...  ;)

If AMD did not exist, Intel would have no incentive to invest in improving their processors just to beat the competence. Their only incentive to release more powerful processors would be just to encourage customers to upgrade.

Since when, again? Oh, they add more "cores" to the CPU nowadays, but that's not the same as making a better processor ...

And, of course, without AMD, they could charge whatever they wanted for their processors.

Erm, ever went shopping for a XEON-based system? (Check this out:

But to be a good analogy, Intel should build their own computers, as Canon and Sony do. In that case, other computer manufacturers would always be afraid of Intel reserving their better processors for their computers.

Actually, they do.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Which Canon L Lens for 7D Mark II?
« on: September 26, 2014, 11:14:40 AM »
I am about about to upgrade from my Canon T2i to the 7D Mark II.  I consider myself an enthusiast trying to make the move to pro.  I decided that with my 7D Mark II purchase I would buy my first Canon L lens.  The plan is to be an all purpose photographer doing weddings and other events. 

Which of the following lenses would you get?

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM Standard Zoom Lens

Thanks for your input.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Telephoto Zoom Lens

Neither and none.

(This is why I keep harping about Canon not making EF-S L lenses. How can you seriously market a camera like the 7DII ... and the 70D and the 100D ... without lenses to match?)

Is this really important? Or just a matter of pride?

EOS-M / Re: EOS-M and EF-S 60mm Macro ...
« on: September 26, 2014, 11:03:18 AM »
The adapter has a (removeable) tripod foot which would likely be a better mounting option than the tripod socket on the M.

Even better.

Lenses / Re: Inexpensive standard walk around lens question
« on: September 26, 2014, 10:57:58 AM »
EF 35mm f/2 IS if you need to take a DSLR; otherwise the 22mm f/2 on the EOS-M, plus perhaps the EF-M zoom.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 48