December 19, 2014, 09:28:45 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 6 ... 53
46
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Is there any reason to shoot sRGB????
« on: November 25, 2014, 04:11:26 PM »
If you photograph in RAW and obviously post-process, then the colour space setting in the camera is irrelevant.

However, if you photograph in JPEG (or RAW/JPEG) then sRGB is the more sound choice because your computer screen (and almost everyone else's screen) is set to sRGB. The web runs on sRGB. Also your printer (and definitely the printer at the local photo-lab) prefers sRGB.

When an sRGB device encounters another colour space, it will usually convert said other colour space to sRGB. Conversion is never 100% successful.

47
Canon General / Re: Does Canon really deserve this?
« on: November 25, 2014, 03:56:30 PM »
No offense intended, but I believe the entire argument based on "full frame lenses" is flawed.

None taken ... offense, that is.

Here's something else to chew on: The current crop of L-lenses can provide the resolution necessary for the new 7D2 "crop-frame" sensor. Yet all the current "full-frame" cameras cannot use that resolution because their sensors do not have the necessary pixel-density. So, more waste?

48
Canon General / Re: Does Canon really deserve this?
« on: November 25, 2014, 03:47:46 PM »
There will always need to be a range of products on offer, there is no one-size fits all.

... but the way the world economy is teetering I think it would be unwise of Canon to put all their eggs into the high end basket right now.

I do not mean (and never stated as much) that Canon should have just the one "full-frame" camera. Obviously they should have three to five models available, each with different capabilities. For example, a 6D'ish entry-level camera, a 5D3'ish mid-level camera, a 50MP'ish studio/landscape camera, a 1DX'ish photojournalist camera and a 50MP'ish sports/wildlife camera. For this spread of products there is obviously no single basket at risk and there is something for everyone. (Well, except for me, because I kind of like "crop-factor" MIRRORLESS cameras.)

49
Canon General / Re: Does Canon really deserve this?
« on: November 25, 2014, 03:24:06 PM »
Why would you conclude everyone choosing between the 70D and 6D would choose the latter?

Perhaps because you said so?

50
Canon General / Re: Does Canon really deserve this?
« on: November 25, 2014, 03:17:32 PM »
That's a nice moral if you want to tell a completely different story from the one with which you started.

What does "mirrorless" have to do with my recommendation that Canon dumps their "crop-frame" system and concentrate exclusively on "full-frame" - mirrored and, if they so desire, mirrorless?

It is a fact that dSLRs outsell mirrorless by a very large margin.

So what does that prove? (But also read below.)

You stated that pretty much everyone who was going to switch to mirrorless has already done so.

So?

So unless you'd like to retract that statement, the moral of your original story is that MILCs have a very dismal future.

I am sorry, but how you came to that conclusion is for me a mystery.

However, if I understand you correctly, based on my typewriter analogy, DLSR's outsell "mirrorless" and thus "mirrorless" is doomed.

But if we push this interpretation of yours a tad further, then we see that "crop-frame" DSLR's outsell "full-frame" DSLR's. So does this mean that "full-frame" DSLR's are also doomed?

51
Canon General / Re: Does Canon really deserve this?
« on: November 25, 2014, 02:24:02 PM »
But you really didn't answer the more serious points that I made.

Serious points, right. OK, here goes ...

I am not saying that the 70D and the 7DII are bad cameras. I am also not saying that these particular cameras are non-innovative on the whole. What I am saying is that in my opinion, for Canon, the "crop-frame" sensor DSLR is something that no longer has any place in their line-up. The reason for this is that the camera market has shrunk considerable and therefore it will not be possible to continue supporting two form-factors indefinitely. Many on this forum, you included, have pointed out the increase in cost per product should Canon decide to actually support "crop-frame" cameras with more (actual or equivalent) L-grade lenses. This is quite true and should be a primary reason for Canon picking a form-factor and dropping the other. The obvious choice would be "full-frame", due to all the best lenses being "full-frame" already.

For the future, once Canon eventually rolls out a "full-frame" camera with an equivalent 20MP "crop-frame" sensor, something like the now rumoured 50MP sensor, then "crop-frame" will be truly dead. Ignoring the cost, ask yourself why would anyone use a 20MP "crop-frame" camera and "full-frame" lenses, when they can rather use a 50MP "full-frame" camera with those same "full-frame" lenses? (Everything else being equal, e.g. AF speed, frame rate, etc., of course.)

As to the cost argument, well ... the really low-end, entry-level market as per ca.2008 has gone over to whatever imaging-enable device is the current fad. This means that the current (ca.2015) entry-level market is from the start a more advanced photographer, basically the mid-level "prosumers" of the previous decade. Yes, cameras will be more expensive for the entry-level models, but the purchasers thereof have for the most part already gone through everything their imaging-enabled phone can deliver and they want more right out of the (camera) box and are/should be willing to pay for it. IMO, for Canon, that is "full-frame" cameras ... with or without mirrors.

Coupled with the above reasoning regarding the cost factor, electronics (should) become cheaper and more capable every year. If not, then whosoever is in charge is definitely doing something wrong. I concede that any particular line of technology always somewhere "hits the wall" and can go no further, but if that happens, then the people in charge should start looking for alternatives or concentrate on something else within the confines of that technology. In the case of Canon and their sensors, for example, if they cannot increase the DR of their current designs, then start figuring out a cheaper manufacturing process (or even an algorithm for fixing dead photo-sites through extrapolation). Anything to keep with the spirit of electronics: more for less. (No, I am not saying I want a 6D for the price of a 700D.)

I think that adequately answers the points you made in your post.

52
Lenses / Re: EF 35mm f/1.4L II to Finally Come as Well? [CR2]
« on: November 25, 2014, 11:30:00 AM »
For others, it's less weight/bulk for the same performance, better sharpness esp. wide open, better bokeh and some people simply like being forced to zoom with your feet.

Thanks.

53
Canon General / Re: Does Canon really deserve this?
« on: November 25, 2014, 11:28:09 AM »
That's one reason, certainly.  Perhaps image quality doesn't matter to you.  It matters to me, as do better AF, frame rate, etc., which is why I own a 1D X. 

We are discussing why anyone would choose the 6D over the 70D, so throwing the best DSLR ever into the mix is out of bounds.

The reasons are obvious.  I gave one, there are others. 

[sarcasm]So the conclusion is that a "full-frame" camera with a mediocre, entry-level AF system trumps a "crop-frame" camera with a terrific, state-of-the-art AF system. Got it.[/sarcasm]

I was merely attempting to facilitate your following your assertion to a logical conclusion, but apparently you are unable to do so.

But I did.

Sure you did – typewriters were your logical conclusion.   ::)

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.

54
Canon General / Re: Does Canon really deserve this?
« on: November 25, 2014, 08:33:06 AM »
That's one reason, certainly.  Perhaps image quality doesn't matter to you.  It matters to me, as do better AF, frame rate, etc., which is why I own a 1D X. 

We are discussing why anyone would choose the 6D over the 70D, so throwing the best DSLR ever into the mix is out of bounds.

I was merely attempting to facilitate your following your assertion to a logical conclusion, but apparently you are unable to do so.

But I did.

55
Canon General / Re: Does Canon really deserve this?
« on: November 25, 2014, 02:50:44 AM »
There are nearly as many reasons people would choose the 6D over the 70D as there are people who make that choice.  I could produce a list of reasons, but they're not my reasons...

But if you must have a reason, try this for starters...

Just as I thought: the primary reason for picking the 6D over the 70D is the "full-frame" sensor; and not the better AF, better frame-rate, etc. which the 6D hasn't got. Simply and only the bigger size of the sensor.

They've already lost the mirrorless market ... almost everyone who wanted mirrorless has switched by now.

Really?  If so, then consider that dSLRs continue to outsell MILCs by a very large margin, and extrapolate from that the implication for the future of MILCs.

And typewriters outsold computers ... until the mid-1980's.

56
Canon General / Re: Does Canon really deserve this?
« on: November 24, 2014, 04:15:45 PM »
There are photographers who actually prefer the crop sensor.

Yes, and I am one of them.

57
Canon General / Re: Does Canon really deserve this?
« on: November 24, 2014, 04:11:06 PM »
If you can't figure that out, that's more than sad, it's pathetic.

Ditto on not being able to explain it to me.

58
Canon General / Re: Does Canon really deserve this?
« on: November 24, 2014, 04:02:30 PM »
What I'm saying is that I agree with you regarding the high-volume entry-level market being important. I just kind of disagree on the weight of "high-volume" and what exactly defines the entry-level market. Personally I see the 6D as an entry-level camera now and for the next five years.

If this is a case and I'd be a Canon shareholder, I'd call my stock broker right now ordering a panic sale. If Canon's upcoming consumer market starts with a €1500 price tag without even a lens included, they're in for big trouble.

Just lower the price on the 6D. (IMO it's over-priced anyway.) The big trouble that they (Canon and possibly Nikon) are in for is that the whole camera market has changed ... very rapidly. Just look at how fast decent EVF's have become the norm once the technology reached a viable stage, even though it probably took years and years of research. From history we need only look at the impact that the IBM PC (which was more expensive than a small car) had on the typewriter industry. In many ways price is not an exclusionary factor for mass adoption of new technology.

Canon (and Nikon) needs to consolidate and reinvent their photography business, as in right now.


I disagree because I doubt there are such a lot of "diverse needs". Actually I agree for once with the expert mainstream in the forum here - for most stuff, Canon is certainly good enough. And since they cannot get back behind this, upcoming products including crop will be more than good enough.

Indeed, but for how long. They've already lost the mirrorless market ... almost everyone who wanted mirrorless has switched by now. Who are next? The video crowd, or have they also already gone?


Last not least, all this is academic - with a company that places as much weight on investment of their customer's investment, they won't obsolete (how many?) sold ef-s lenses just like that. True enough, Nikon allows you to use their crop lenses on ff, but imho Canon demonstrated they're not willing to go this way.

The year is 1987. Just three years previously Canon spent gazillions promoting their FD system by being an official sponsor of the Olympics. Now (in 1987) the FD system is dropped and replaced with the incompatible EF system.

They did it before, so they can do it again.

59
Canon General / Re: Does Canon really deserve this?
« on: November 24, 2014, 03:37:42 PM »
It's just simply too expensive to produce FF sensor...

Really? I would have thought that in the ten-twelve years that Canon has been R&D'ing sensors that they would at least have developed a process to reduce the manufacturing cost of same sensors. I mean, the current "full-frame" sensors have the same photo-site density as ca.2006 "crop-frame" sensors, so there must have been some improvements and advances. After all, the validity of Moore's Law rest on this being fact.

60
Canon General / Re: Does Canon really deserve this?
« on: November 24, 2014, 03:26:58 PM »
That wouldn't be economic, even if ff sensors would get cheaper because of larger production volume. Unlike a computer cpus, afaik you cannot just software-fix faulty sensors on the silicon wafer, meaning smaller sensors = cheaper. And that's what you need if you retain any foothold in the high-volume entry-level market.

Quite true. However, in my opinion the term "entry-level market" no longer applies to the same demographic that it did in the previous decade. Digital photography is no longer the latest gadget - phones with pretty decent built-in cameras saw to that, as well as killing the P&S - and the people who now buy dedicated cameras buy them because it offers more than the imaging capabilities of their latest electronic gadget.

Also, as technology moves forward, consumers expect more capabilities at lower prices from electronic devices. In my opinion the current "Rebel" line just simply doesn't hack it anymore. However, the fact that they do still sell moderately well, just proves that people will buy anything they're sufficiently told to buy and that reality has quite hit them yet.

What I'm saying is that I agree with you regarding the high-volume entry-level market being important. I just kind of disagree on the weight of "high-volume" and what exactly defines the entry-level market. Personally I see the 6D as an entry-level camera now and for the next five years.

Another aspect with mirrored cameras is the size: Larger sensor = larger camera. What good is ff if you cannot tell the latest aps-c from ff up to iso 400? Last not least, ff is more difficult to handle due to the smaller depth of field. Enthusiasts may rave about creamy bokeh, but lots of people want infinite dof = smaller aperture = diffraction = less iq or at least no advantage to ff.

Yes, everyone wants something else. However, theoretically, if Canon dropped the "crop-frame" system and went with "full-frame" exclusively, then they would be in a better position to cater to more diverse needs.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 53