November 23, 2014, 03:25:24 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 ... 48
You've moved them so much I've lost track -- where was that again?

Actually, I only moved them once: back to their original positions. It is you and your friends who keep moving them about due to assumptions based on hero-worship and indoctrination.

don't forget that these ef-s primes will be priced like ef primes if they did exist.  So a market of folks that won't spend more than $800 on a body will obviously be more than willing to spend $1500 on one lens.

Price check on the 70D is about $1000. The upcoming 7D2 will be, what, about $1500. Whatever, because the price of the camera is irrelevant to this "EF-S L-prime" discussion. The fact is that such lenses would be, as some have said, an "investment" that will last several cameras.

For example, given the sales volume difference, it's possible that EF-S L primes would be more expensive than comparable EF L primes.

I was not asking for Canon to make EF-S lenses for which there are already EF lenses available. I was asking for lenses for which there are no equivalent EF primes, like for example an EF-S 35mm f/1.8 L MACRO or an EF-S 10mm f/4 L or an EF-S 75mm f/1.2 L ... or an ...

He's going to tap-dance around this as well: he'll say sure, a bigger sensor captures more light, but if Canon put Sony-quality sensors in their APS-C cameras that would be almost as good as Canon's FF (other than 1DX).

I think he's moved the goal posts all the way to Antarctica already, let's see if how long it takes to hit the next continent.

What happened? You're suddenly back at stage one.

Um, okay, but that's not what I asked. At least, that's not what I intended to ask. Let me add the missing letter to my question:

What do you expect to get from an EF-S L prime that you can't get from an EF L prime?

You are moving the goalposts, but what the hey ... I'll walk right into it, so's you-know-who can have a giggle.

An EF-S L-prime would take advantage of the shorter "back-focus" distance. This could possibly eliminate the need for a retro-focal design in certain focal lengths, as an example. If you don't know why this is desirable, then you also wouldn't understand it if I explained it to you. And I suspects you don't, which why you also cannot fathom the point of EF-S primes (L or not).

Larger sensors collect more total light ...

True, because a "full-frame" sensor covers a larger area (864mm2) than a "crop-frame" sensor (337.5mm2). Basic geometry.

... meaning better IQ.

Wrong, because it is the size of the photosites (and cross-talk between them) that determines image quality, together with the lens.

Feel free to argue the point, but you'll only succeed in making yourself look more foolish.

You're still at stage one, neuroanatomist. Others are already at stage four. Come on, hup, hup, hup!

I'm sure he'll move the goalposts again, though.

Yes, back to their original positions!

You seem to be a niche within a niche within a niche, within a niche, and no canon isn't going to tailor make a custom rebel with 7d AF, AFMA, and EF-S primes just for you.   

I never said I wanted all that in a "Rebel" camera. If Canon had released the 60D with the same (general) specs as the 70D, then I would have bought one ... then. However, technology has moved on, hence I did not and will not buy the 70D.

(you're becoming predictable, you walked right into that one)

So I have ... and you made the archetypical stage four response.  ;)

Your just going in circles now.

No, it only looks like it because you are standing still.

Basically you want a crop 1dx in a rebel body with a rebel price and EF-S primes to go along with that????

No and I have never said this.

... but coincidentally a colleague who has a 20D told me yesterday that he looked at the 70D and 6D, and has decided to buy the 6D.  In his words, "The 6D's AF is basically the same as my 20D, but the full frame sensor is much better."

This is too good to pass up on ... Consumer opinion: the AF-system of the 6D is basically the same as ancient technology.  :D

Try putting decent lenses like a 24-70/2.8L II, a 135/2L, or a Sigma 35/1.4A on a 70D, then shooting moving subjects indoors in a gymnasium, theater, or even typical living room.  You'll likely be at ISO 3200 or higher...and the resulting image quality will be nowhere even close to 'on par' with the same lenses on a FF camera.

Wrong, because you are using the characteristics of the sensors in order to draw a conclusion about the size of the sensors. Question: would your comparison still hold true if Canon placed a cropped version of the 1DX sensor in the (eventually) upcoming 7DII camera; or the inverse, if Canon placed an upscaled version of the 70D sensor into a (hypothetical) 1DXs camera?

No, wow you need to take a moment and actually read.  What we're saying is the majority of crop users will buy the kit and no more.  Then there's few who like photography enough to take things to the next level, those are the people that buy L glass and aspire to FF - those are your hobbyists, enthusiasts and maybe future pros.

And I am also saying that you should take a moment and read (...). The "next level" and "buy L glass" does not per definition also include "aspire to FF". I know that that is how Canon has been marketing their DSLR system for years now, and that that is how nearly everyone on this forum understands it, but it is simply not written in stone.

Think about this: if all/most hobbyists, enthusiasts and maybe future pros are only shooting for "full-frame", then why are "crop-frame" systems like micro-4/3 and X even selling? Granted, sales are not anywhere near that of Canon's Rebel jobbies, but that is not their intended target market. Look at how good those systems sell and some of the lenses aren't exactly cheap, e.g. the D.ZUIKO 75mm and the FUJIFILM 56mm? It simply means that "full-frame" is not as important as Canon has led you to believe; but that quality is important, irrespective of the form-factor of the sensor/system.

Nice dodge.

Yeah, but I prefer Opel.

A 35mm macro would have been nice, and a fisheye. Maybe an internal-zoom 50~200mm, as well (you said crop lenses, not just primes). Perhaps a 10mm, for landscapes and interiors. All of 'em weather-sealed, to go with the 7D and the (apparently) upcoming 7DII.

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.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 48