November 28, 2014, 04:49:19 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 ... 52
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.

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.

Canon General / Re: Does Canon really deserve this?
« on: November 24, 2014, 02:51:31 PM »
Canon cares about majority of the market, you're obviously not in that majority. Bad luck for you I'm afraid, but there is really no win-win scenario, which would cater all needs of all the photographers out there...

flaming post removed by moderator

Canon General / Re: Does Canon really deserve this?
« on: November 24, 2014, 02:44:22 PM »
You have a choice between the XT-1 + 56/1.2 or a 6D + 85/1.8.

There is absolutely no way you can compare the X-T1 with the 6D. Rather do your comparison using an X-T1 vs 5DIII or an X-M1 vs 6D. Plus a better lens than the ancient EF 85mm f1.8, please. Try not to equal the X-T1 with the 56mm, but to beat it.

Canon General / Re: Does Canon really deserve this?
« on: November 24, 2014, 02:31:53 PM »
So let's look at the 100L....

Suppose Canon also made an APS-C only and a FF only version of the lens.....

The first think that would happen is that sales of the FF version would drop, we would loose economies of scale, and the price would probably go up.


All the more reason for Canon to pick a form factor (preferably "full-frame") and do that exclusively.

Canon General / Re: Does Canon really deserve this?
« on: November 24, 2014, 02:27:28 PM »
No, bad business would be to spend money developing and marketing products to meet the needs of every single individual or minuscule minority. You want Canon to 'cater to your needs' and they neither will not need to you.  Seems that it's hard for you to deal with those facts, but Canon doesn't care about that either.

Yes, at a glance Canon's financial health is not dependent on the single individual purchasing heaps of their products. However, it is dependent on hundreds of thousands of individuals purchasing heaps of their products. The common denominator is the individual purchasing their products. Thus, whether or not I (an individual) purchases Canon's products do indeed have an impact on their financial health. Therefore Canon should care.

There are far more numerous and better reasons than that.  Obviously you don't get the idea.  Your inability to comprehend that you and your views are in the minority as far as dSLR gear is concerned is rather sad.

Tell me why would anyone purchase a 6D instead of a 70D?

Canon General / Re: Does Canon really deserve this?
« on: November 24, 2014, 02:13:06 PM »
So, are you really suggesting that Canon should duplicate development efforts and costs just to produce a set of crop L-series equivalent across the range to justify crop cameras?  That would add so much to the development, production and inventory costs that they would end up costing much closer to the full-frame variants than you seem to expect.

Obviously you cannot read properly, so let me quote myself:

They (meaning Canon) should just drop it (meaning "crop-frame") and concentrate on "full-frame" exclusively.

Canon General / Re: Does Canon really deserve this?
« on: November 24, 2014, 01:19:45 PM »
Bad economy for you, you mean.  Canon cares about their economy, but about yours only insofar as you give them your money.

Now THAT is bad business, 'cause what happens when I decide not to give them any more of my money?

You can argue that the loss of my - singular - business won't put Canon in the poorhouse, but the flipside of that argument is that my - again singular - business probably isn't even a teensy-weensy blip on their revenue graph. However, many I's - singular - makes up crowds, mobs and the masses - plural - which do indeed affect Canon's revenue. Remember the trees in the wood? Same thing.

Consider the reverse...if you as a crop user did buy a FF body, how would you like to have to buy a complete new set of lenses for it?  The economy of EF lenses mounting on crop bodies works both ways.

If the lenses are there - meaning I don't have to buy "full-frame" lenses, because the equivalent "crop-frame" lens exists - then why should I eventually "upgrade" to "full-frame"? The only reason anyone today actually does buy a Canon "full-frame" camera is because all their (Canon) best lenses are only available in "full-frame" size. Get the idea? (COUNTER-ARGUMENT TRAP: low-light sensors.)

Canon General / Re: Does Canon really deserve this?
« on: November 24, 2014, 01:02:21 PM »
;D  No. I have always liked Fuji, right from my days as a teenager using an old Fujica ST701, and I think the XT-1 system is quite appealing. But; I don't feel that the slimmer body is worth trading the OVF for, or losing the full frame. And, as has been pointed out here on CR many times, to achieve the equivalent in lens speed on these crop systems is actually very expensive, more so than FF. Add these factors to the reduced versatility and no, the system isn't for me.

OK, this actually raises one of the issues I have with Canon ... what you term "lens speed on these crop systems". FUJIFILM made the 56mm f/1.2 lens, yet Canon offers nothing similar for their "crop-frame" cameras. It seems that their (Canon) philosophy is that if you want "fast lenses" then you must buy into their "full-frame" products.

Now this being the case, and given the collapse of the consumer market, why does Canon still persist with "crop-frame" cameras. None of their (Canon) current "crop-frame" stuff can compete with FUJIFILM, Panasonic, etc. in terms of "fast" lenses, without resorting to "full-frame" lenses. (And I'll concede that for now none of the current "other" manufacturers' "crop-frame" products can really compete with Canon's "full-frame" gear in terms of "fast" lenses. But we're comparing oranges to oranges and not oranges to apples here.)

Canon General / Re: Does Canon really deserve this?
« on: November 24, 2014, 12:49:10 PM »
Waste to use FF lenses on a crop frame Canon camera???  LOL Now I really have heard everything!!!  One of he great strengths of the Canon crop-frame line is that it can use the entire family of EF-S and EF lenses!

Yes, it is a marketing angle. However, please tell me the point of a small camera like the 100D, when you have to put huge "full-frame" lenses on it to get decent optics, like the 70-200mm lenses or the 400mm lens?

Moreover, issues like corner softness and vignetting either 'go away' or become far less acute.

L-lenses are not supposed to have these "issues" and that is why they are so expensive. Thus, by using the "full-frame" L-lenses on a "crop-frame" camera, you just paid for something of which you cannot enjoy the benefit. Bad economy ... or simply wasting your money.

AND my 100-400mm becomes a 160-640mm equivalent! 

No, your 100-400mm lens stays a 100-400mm lens. You just lose the great edge performance you paid for, 'cause of a reduced field of view due to in-camera, "hardware" cropping. (Honestly, do you really still believe that line of marketing hokey about the focal length increase?)

Ah, the silly, silly things people complain about!  :o

You got that right, at least.  :P

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7DMKII Focus keeper rate ideas?
« on: November 24, 2014, 12:34:50 PM »
Shocking. Just simply shocking. Plus unbelievable.

Canon General / Re: Does Canon really deserve this?
« on: November 24, 2014, 12:23:28 PM »
but the lens works so well on the 5D2.....

It is a case of the same lens being great on both Crop and FF and not having to buy a separate lens for both. I like how Canon can use FF lenses on it's crop cameras......

It's great if you use both "full-frame" and "crop-frame" cameras. However, for those of us who do not need *GASP* "full-frame", having to purchase "full-frame" lenses for our "crop-frame" cameras 'cause Canon neglected to cater to our needs, is bad economy: we pay for what we cannot even use.

Lenses / Re: EF 35mm f/1.4L II to Finally Come as Well? [CR2]
« on: November 24, 2014, 12:17:34 PM »
It's called 2470 f4 L IS or 17-40 or 16-35.

Size, or more specific, too much of it.

The point of a prime lens is speed.


+1.  35 f/2 IS:  great optics, affordable price.  Buy a few bags for "weather sealing."

Not the same. Bags of what? Oh, a few bags full of those 35mm lenses ... disposable, then? Also, an f/3.5 can be even smaller, 'cause note I said "travel lens".

Canon General / Re: Does Canon really deserve this?
« on: November 24, 2014, 11:58:06 AM »
Hey Sella ! I thought you had sold up your Canon gear and moved to Fuji ? A Fujifilm XT-1 if I remember. A really neat little camera that has so much going for it - except it's not a FF 6D, with a crisp OVF.

Nope. If you read through the archives, you'll notice that not only do I still have one 30D and the 70-200mm f/4L, but I even bought a 60mm macro. Granted, the Canon gear isn't used for day-to-day out-in-the-field stuff anymore, but it is used for actual money-making functions, like copying rare books.

However, as others have stated, CR is more about entertainment than actual ... erm ... well ... fact things. And it is nice to see how some of my opponents have started to say what I said and for which I got flamed back then. But that's Scopenhauer for you.

A Fujifilm XT-1 if I remember. A really neat little camera that has so much going for it - except it's not a FF 6D, with a crisp OVF.

Do I detect a hint of jealousy there?

Canon General / Re: Does Canon really deserve this?
« on: November 24, 2014, 11:50:00 AM »

 As for the latter (the 7dII), it is a weather-sealed camera, but has no decent weather-sealed companion lens!?

I wish someone had told me this before I spent 4 hours on a hike in the rain with a 7D2 and the 100L lens attached...I just assumed that it was weather sealed.... the rubber ring on the lens mount tricked me! (SARCASM TAG) yet somehow it survived......

(Ignoring the sarcasm tag for a bit ...) The 100L is a "full-frame" lens, whereas the 7DII is a "crop-frame" camera. Yes, it works ... but so would a 1DX have worked. My point is that it is silly to buy a "crop-frame" camera and then use brilliant "full-frame" lenses on it ... 'cause you're wasting that part of the lens you paid through the nose for: the edges. Bad economy, but the shareholders love it!

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 52