September 30, 2014, 12:38:38 PM

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 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 47
... 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.

Most lenses (as judged by my testing of many and FoCal's aggregated data) seem to require just a few units of adjustment.  That means half the depth of focus or less.  Consumer lenses (slower than f/2.8 ) are accurate within one full depth of focus.  An f/2.8 or faster lens (like most L-series primes...well, not my 600/4) is accurate to within 1/3 the depth of focus, so even needing (and not able to get) a 4-unit AFMA, the fast L-series prime will still fall within the precision range of the slower consumer lens that came with the Rebel.  Then...there's noticing the problem in the first place.  If the user shoots wide open, a slightly misfocused L prime may still appear sharper than the wide open kit lens (they can be great stopped down, but wide open isn't their forte). Finally, if the person does notice a problem, if the lens was bought new, Canon will calibrate it for free.

So what you are saying is that AFMA is not really that much of a necessary feature ... that it is more of a plaything for gearheads? Or a gimmick to sell expensive cameras to gearheads?

What I really don't get is ----outside of the the majority of the market, people who learn and want to step up and buy nicer gear ---if they are at that place then they would know what bodies can be calibrated and which can't.  And sorry, if your at that stage and want to keep the budget low then you have to make compromises.  You go with a used body, and rock your L prime on that.  Or, accept the limitations and turn lemons into lemonade. 

Again, nothing is preventing anyone from using an L prime on a rebel - yes you won't get the same functions as some of the higher end bodies but that isn't stopping you from using them.

Again, I agree in essence with everything. From the perspective of the user/consumer it makes perfect sense to compromise and perhaps purchase secondhand.

However, for a company like Canon who is in the business of making a profit, nudging a customer towards purchasing a secondhand camera instead of a new one, is anathema ... or at least it should be.

OK, you could argue that A bought the camera from B, because B bought a new camera - this is one sale for Canon. But if A rather buys new, because the latest "Rebel" is better than what B is selling; and B anyway buys a new camera, then it is two sales for Canon ... and C buys B's camera, thus pulling in a third potential repeat customer. Next round we might see three sales for Canon and a fourth, fifth and sixth entrant. However, in the first scenario, only B ever buys a new camera and the rest buy secondhand (A from B, C from A, and so on) - it thus sticks to one sale for Canon, forever.

If everything revolves around everything else, the sun must also revolve around the earth unless the sun and/or the earth aren’t part of everything.

Basic physics. Perhaps read a book about it ... or go watch Takalani Sesame.

Chuck, you sound like you have an understanding of the viewpoint of the majority of dSLR buyers.  Fortunately for Sella174 (and unfortunately for the rest of us), I don't think comprehension is contagious…

But why, o great neuroanatomist, do you not then conform to the majority of DSLR owners and own only a "Rebel" with a single kit lens. Why, oh, why have you turned your back on the majority ... and joined the minority by purchasing a 1DX and heaps of L-glass?

Gotta say something about this ---Rebel owners aren't excluded from any of L lenses - in fact, it's FF owners who are excluded from using EF-S lenses.  Hell, some even LIKE using L glass on crop cameras because of the crop factor - one can make a very valid argument that things like soft corners aren't an issue as much using L glass (not just primes) on crop because your getting the sweet spot of the lens!  Either way, on any given day if you followed the path of 100  first time slr buyers, how many of them will actually pursue photography in more than a very casual manner?  My guess is not that many.  I am not saying that in spite, or to be insulting - whats wrong with just wanting a nice camera to take pics of the kids????

I completely agree with that in general.

However, why do the "higher-end" cameras have (or should that be, need) AFMA? Whatever the reason (manufacturing tolerances or deliberate), just because the "Rebel" jobbies lack said functionality, an L-prime in all probability will not work/focus 100% (or even 98%) on said "Rebel" camera(s). This effectively prevents "Rebel" owners from using L-primes on their cameras ... or the other way around, preventing people already owning L-primes from using "Rebel" cameras. (To prove last statement, the 700D is a better camera than my ancient 30D ... in most respects. It thus prevents upgrading through downgrading.)

Photography Technique / Re: Help, I've lost my mojo!
« on: June 09, 2014, 04:45:23 PM »
This happened to me some years back when I started using zoom lenses. Photography became boring ... and heavy. I switched back to primes ... and the magic returned.

EF-S primes ... so that the 100D makes sense.

In camera games, including ScummVM ... for those boring conferences.

A true B&W sensor (in the 70D) ... each photosite is an actual pixel.


OK, I get it. Canon is playing the numbers game: the once-off sale of a "Rebel" camera to a "soccer mom" is sustainable because there are 4 billion people on earth. No way that market is ever going to dry up.

In any case, any impression of personal attack was unintentional and I extend my apologies.

Accepted, and therefore a shall read the rest of your post.

1. You say you study people/societies/companies/governments: Do you mean professionally (...)? If not, what is the method of observation? What parameters or metrics do you use, for example, to say Canon is clueless about what the market wants. An experienced analyst will have access to the market demands as well as evidence of Canon's ignorance in this case. Do you?
It is okay if you do not know, but to not know and pretend to is not going to work in a forum filled with intelligent people.

I look at what others do, try to determine why they do it, then look whether it succeeds or not. Then, when I see somebody else doing the same that has already failed, I conclude that else isn't exactly thinking.

2. The fact that earth revolves around the sun does not depend on the point of reference. Even if sun and earth are revolving around something, still the statement is true. For example, even though the earth and the moon are both encircling the sun, it is correct to say the moon revolves around the earth.

I said, and I quote, "everything revolves around everything else". It was 100 who unfortunately misinterpreted that to mean that the sun revolves around the earth.

3. Profit margins and stocks aren't equal, but they are connected. In either case you aren't comparing any tangible parameters at all, just blowing hot air, so you should be one to talk!

Yes, they are connected ... only not in the way you connected them. You cannot directly compare the profit margin of Company A to the value of the stocks of Company B, and then draw conclusions based on it.

4. Crippling cameras: ... However, AFMA on Rebels: it is standard for entry level items not to come with luxury extras (yes, AFMA is a luxury that you only need with fast, accurate lenses- on a f/3.5-5.6 zoom it does not matter). When you want regular coffee, all you get with it is cream. You buy a latte for twice the price, you get steamed milk. That's how all companies serve- you pay a premium for premium services. Doesn't matter how much it costs to offer it.

That is a very condescending attitude towards owners of "Rebel" cameras. It is also, IMO, a shortsighted one if you are in the business of selling cameras AND LENSES. Basically, you are excluding an owner of a "Rebel" camera from purchasing an L-prime; from which this person will probably migrate to FF as and when the ol' wallet permits.

It is very interesting when we compare this attitude of removing "advanced" features by certain camera manufacturers with what other companies do. Take, for example, Microsoft and how they are packaging their Office program. Oh, yes, they have various different packages containing different combinations of the programs. But Word is Word, irrespective of whether it is the Student or the Full version. And how many features of Word or Excel does the average user use? I've read figures of 20% ... but it is not the same 20% for everyone. Thus Word is usable by a really wide audience, i.e. big market.

L EF-S prime: Who will an EF-S L prime serve? Every single person who wants to buy a crop camera is either someone who never plans to upgrade and will be happy with kit lenses OR has an eye on upgrading in the near future. The former do not care about primes, and the latter will benefit from buying FF-compatible lenses. And you must agree, Canon has brought out excellent non-L primes for very reasonable prices (ok, eventually reasonable). A friend of mine, quite well off, didn't buy the 35/1.8 because it wasn't part of a kit. Even though she specifically wanted to shoot low-light images of her toddler. She settled for the 50/1.8 just because it is cheaper. So, where is the market for an L EF-S prime?

Are you not now doing what you are accusing me of doing: basing a statement of fact on a single person? But that aside, yes, "eventually reasonable" because nobody bought them and Canon HAD TO LOWER the price to get units moving off shelves.

Also, really, not everyone aspires towards a FF camera ... well, at least not until Canon gets the pixel density up to the same as their current APS-C sensors.

5. You cite some random companies- does that imply trendsetter-based marketing is the usual strategy. Yes, it is occasionally applied (under the situations I mentioned), but generally marketing strategy is very conservative and incremental. Even then, your examples show nothing. How about one single proper illustration of the concept (there are many examples out there, I just want to see if you know what you are talking about).

One single example, huh? How about the fashion industry? Who sets the trends? Definitely those folks at Cannes, the Oscars and, in Europe, of the royal families. Who does not set the trend? Sods like me who wear functional clothes ... usually mud encrusted and grime smeared.

6. You use macros and telephotos and yet say the two f/2.8 zooms serve everyone. Good one, I think I shall stop wasting my time arguing with you at this point.

The point of debate was that Sony only has four lenses for the FE-mount, but Canon has a gazillion and one. My point was simply that of all the available Canon lenses, those two (the 24-70mm and the 70-200mm) are the lenses most recommended BY MEMBERS OF THIS FORUM to others seeking advice on purchasing a lens (of the L-zoom-type). So, the deduction is that if everyone recommends them, then, on the assumption that they also actually own them, those two lenses are the lenses that suffices in most consumers' needs.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 47