July 28, 2014, 02:16:30 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 5 ... 45
You are one of the minority who bought lenses beyond the kit jobbie, including L-primes. This means it is A-OK for Canon to cater to YOUR desires, but not to mine. Again ... huh?

Quick business lesson for you:

Total profit = (profit per unit) * (number of units sold)

At the extreme ends of profitability, we have:

Mass market: (profit per unit) is small, and (number of units sold) is large

Niche:             (profit per unit) is large, and (number of units sold) is small

So what is your point?

How many Canon DSLR owners actually purchase a prime lens - excluding the macro lenses, 'cause that's all the rage nowadays? Yet Canon makes them. Thus, are they mass or niche?

So when, when playing the numbers game of a 4 billion world-population, does a niche product become a mass product?

Key point: The manufacturer gets to decide where in that range is "A-OK" for their business goals and capabilities.

Quick business lesson for you: Customers decide whether or not the manufacturer's A-OK'ed range of products caters to their personal requirements: whether and they buy, not and they buy another brand.

Out of curiosity, what do you expect to get from an EF-S L prime that you can't get from an EF prime? Lighter? Probably. Maybe it will be cheaper to manufacture, but if they brand it as Luxury it's anyone's guess how much if any of that savings will be passed to the consumer.

I have found that L-lenses generally have better colour and more pleasing image rendition than non-L-lenses (made by Canon). But I suspect you don't view lenses in this light.

... Sella, why don't you give us your "top 5" list of crop lenses that Canon should make because you want them.

I have already ... just search for them on the forum.

Sella ! Since selling most of your Canon gear and saying 'bye' you're spending more time posting on CR !

I said "bye" to Canon as my primary camera gear. And also, CR is fun.

A 6D is only a few clicks away. Return that Fuji XT500 and get into a thoroughly modern FF camera. You won't be disappointed.

I had a look at the 6D before purchasing the X-T1 ... the mediocre AF-system of the 6D killed it for me; which means if Canon had put a decent AF-system in that camera (perhaps that of the 7D) and offered it at the same price, I would have bought it. (Now before anyone jumps on THAT, let me just say that Canon could simply have kept the frame-rate of the 6D rather low - something like 4 fps - and it would not have competed with either the 5DIII or the 1DX ... and I still would have bought it.)

You might want to look up the definition of the word "aspiration."  Many people aspire to own a better car, a bigger house, or even a newer tractor.  The fact that they do not buy them does not indicate a lack of aspiration, but rather insufficient means.

So the majority buy "crop-frame" xxx(x)D/Rebel cameras with the aspiration of later buying a "full-frame", yet they also never purchase a second lens. Mmmmmm ... huh?

Is it your contention that the 'majority of Canon users' who do not buy an expensive full frame camera would constitute the target market for an expensive L-series APS-C prime lens?  (Actually, it's a moot point since we've already established that you don't have a clue about the desires of the majority of Canon users.)

You are one of the minority who bought lenses beyond the kit jobbie, including L-primes. This means it is A-OK for Canon to cater to YOUR desires, but not to mine. Again ... huh?

What point is that?  Fact is that beyond a certain point "crop-frame" offers no real advantage over a cell phone camera.  You should skip all this talk about dSLRs this and mirrorless that, and just use your phone.

My phone doesn't have a camera. The point, however, is that "full-frame" is not the all and everything; with decent lenses "crop-frame" is on par with it.

Lenses / Re: This thing's gotta go!
« on: June 11, 2014, 05:26:11 AM »
Canon stuff: an EF 24mm f/2.8 and an EF 70-200mm f/4L USM ... my only Canon camera is now exclusively used for copying/digitizing (with macro lenses).

Other stuff: heaps of old lenses, mostly Asahi Takumar ... like a Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1:3.5/24 and the rare SMC TAKUMAR-ZOOM 1:4/45~125 lens.

Canon makes excellent lenses for APS-C DSLRs.

17-55, 10-22, 15-85, 60/2.8 Macro ... all good and optically fully "L-worthy". Price is right too, if purchased using cash-back/special offers.  The 17-55 IS is on of the main reasons I never switched to Nikon in the past. 

10-18, 55-250 STM, 18-55 STM ... very good and very decently priced (if not "dirt cheap"). Rella good IQ, excellent price/value.

Yes, those are all excellent lenses ... but apart from the macro, all of them are also zoom lenses with rotten apertures.

Primes? yes ... 40/2.8 pancake. Dirt cheap, and optically fully "L-worthy".  Oh, it can even do FF? The better!

Semi-true ... the 40mm flapjack lens isn't really very suited on a "crop-frame" camera for the same job it would have shined at on a "full-frame" camera if the latter cameras weren't so darned big, i.e. discretion.

Something mising? Not really.

An EF-S 35mm f/1.8 lens that actually takes advantage of the ability to be deeply recessed into the camera.

Tele lenses are same size irrespective of APS-C or FF image circle ... only dependent on focal length and f-stop, so no point to make or purchase APS-C tele lenses.


Other than that .. I would buy an optically great & very compact 16mm/4.0 pancake for landscape.

You can't, because Canon doesn't make it.

The last thing I would ever buy would be EF-S "L" primes ... say something like a Fujinon 56/1.2 @ 1000 USD/Euro ... never ever. I don't spend a grand on FF prime lenses.

That FUJIFILM 56mm is the next lens on my purchase list. To me, spending a "grand" on something that I'll use for the next eight to twelve years is good economy.

Again, with all things in photography unless you have an unlimited budget you make compromises.  The real waste would be to spend 1K or more for an EF-S prime then realize you want to upgrade to a FF camera cause then your stuck.  Better to make the investment in glass. 

Again, not everyone aspires to "full-frame". Fact is that beyond a certain point, "full-frame" offers no real advantage over "crop-frame".

Compromise goes on all the time because all of these things are EXPENSIVE.     

Which is exactly why, for people who have no desire towards "full-frame", "full-frame" lenses are bad economy. You have to pay for quality in areas where you can't even use it ... money that could rather have been spent on perhaps another lens?

I thought his point was that he wanted L-quality EF-S glass ...

Not anymore.

... rather than put FF L-glass on a crop.

No choice ... had to do it.

But Canon doesn't make that.

Basic economic principle at work ... when the exec's at Canon ask why a certain highly-lucrative niche market isn't using/buying their (Canon's) products, that's the answer.

... L lenses are desired not only due to their IQ but also because of their more rugged build quality - one of the reasons why you buy L you own and use it for quite a few years.

Exactly why I wanted Canon to make EF-S L-primes.

That's I think the key you are missing - you buy a body to get you through, but you buy lenses to last.  IMO, buying an L prime for a rebel is like making a downpayment on an upgraded body at some point in the future...

Not everybody aspires to "full-frame" ... in fact, I'd say that the majority of Canon users don't really care for "full-frame", as indicated by sales.

It was the quotes around the word wasted that got me curious.

I placed the "wasted" in quotes because an L-lens has other properties than excellent corners that makes it better than non-L's. Thus the lens is not totally wasted, just one of its greatest attributes.

Dude, you worry too much about stuff that's just not worth worrying about.

You pay for those excellent corners, but don't use them on a "crop-frame" camera. Bad economy and a waste of good money ... like driving grandma to church in your Ferrari. It does the job, but at what expense?

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Any old K-mount lenses worth getting?
« on: June 10, 2014, 02:04:26 PM »
im not looking to outperform current lenses, just looking to get some use out of the adapter and maybe find some interesting lenses to use. are there any old tilt shift lenses or is that a newer invention for 35mm? i would be very interested in playing with an older one if such a thing exists. (i know m/l format has had tilt shift forever)

Most of the old lenses were designed for certain characteristics, instead of absolute sharpness. It is my opinion that nearly all these old lenses have great artistic value. My favourites are the Super-Takumar and the Tamron BBAR lenses; and I personally dislike the Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR and the Olympus OM-SYSTEM lenses.

I know that both Pentax and Nikon made a few T&S lenses ... they're rare and very expensive.

Obviously they are not wasted.

Yes, L-primes are wasted on a "crop-frame" camera, because one of the characteristics of L-primes - and also that which makes them more costly - is the better corner performance. Only on a "crop-frame" sensor these, shall we say, quality corners are discarded/disregarded/wasted.

But I'm struggling with why you put the word in quotation marks. Are you purposefully arguing a point which you don't believe?

Because terms like "full-frame" and "crop-frame" mean absolutely zip ... unless your point of reference is the old 35mm films and the lenses made for that size, like L-primes.

There was another post (not sure by whom, can't find it, maybe it was in a different thread) about a lack of frame-equivalent primes for small sensors. I have to ask the question: why would someone with no interest in a different sensor platform (e.g. a fully satisfied APS-C customer) care one iota about how his lenses frame on a different sensor platform? Gone, I think, are the days when long-time 135 format shooters made the transition to digital and would have experienced culture shock via crop factor." In the coming years, many or most new DLSR consumers will have no inkling of what a certain focal length would look like on a 35mm sensor, or larger formats for that matter. Crop factor is a useful tool for people like me who occasionally shoot with two platforms simultaneously. For folks who tend to stick with one, it's trivial information to relate one arbitrarially to another. Just buy the focal length you want for your subject and don't worry about what your subject would have looked like had you strapped your 200mm lens on an iphone.

Yes. I am of that singular crowd who would really like manufacturers to rather state the magnification factor of the lens, instead of the silly field of view equivalent.

This thread has really jumped the shark. It's devolved (amusingly so) into a series of skirmishes about "why doesn't Canon" or "why does Canon," all of which can be answered at once: because Canon doesn't / does think it worthwhile to the bottom line.

Or as we say: gone totally pear-shaped.

You mean like one of the Newton's laws of motion, or Kepler's laws of planetary motion?

Ain't Google great? Punch, punch, click ... and you have a plethora of cool names to amaze and impress all with.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 45