July 22, 2014, 10:07:02 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 ... 45
61
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Any old K-mount lenses worth getting?
« on: June 09, 2014, 02:53:36 AM »
The PENTAX-M versions are the best. And really don't throw away that 50mm f/1.7 lens ... cheap and brilliant.

62
If I have to prove to you multi-million dollar firms conduct (effective) market research, then I give up.

I study what people/societies/companies/governments do, instead of what they say they do. My observations clearly show that Canon is marking time, because they have either absolutely no idea what the market wants, or they are incapable of providing it. Either way, a failure of effective market research.

Do you also ask for proof that the earth revolves around the sun?

Depends on the point of reference: since the centre of the universe is unknown, everything revolves around everything else.

How about a circumstantial evidence? Sony is down in the stocks and Canon turned a profit. Proof enough for you?

Those two "facts" are not equal: either directly compare stocks to stocks, or profit margins to profit margins.

Marketing (sic= should be market research) dept doesn't count as the few people. They record what people want, they don't impose their own wants.

Then (a) why does Canon cripple their cameras, and (b) doesn't bring out EF-S L-primes?

Trendsetter based marketing is not a basic marketing theory. Is it what they taught you at school? You should ask for your money back.

The fashion industry, Apple, Microsoft, BMW ... you listening, 'cause you're wrong ... not.

This is a very risky technique that will work only under certain conditions: Is the number of trendsetter significantly large? How likely are they to influence the rest of the market? Can the company sustain the slow growth in the beginning until the trend catches? What is the likelihood of competition waiting the initial lag phase and then ramping up just as the log phase is reached.

Is that not why marketing dept. receive the big bucks, to negate the risks?

Yes, that is one possibility. That is why I generalized it to an economically valid reason. However, unlike you I don't have access to Canon's business secrets to state it as a fact.

See above.

Don't make such comments that make you look silly just for the sake of arguments. So this is why Sony isn't bringing out FF E-mount lenses? Because very few people need them?

Haha!

I am guessing you have never used a macro lens, or shoot small birds with a 70-200 f/2.8?

Macro lens: almost every week. 70-200mm f/2.8: I preferred my 400mm for LBJ's, and now use a Minolta RF 500mm with 2X converter.

You are stating the obvious, and acting smug for doing so  ::). Of course the different A7 cameras cater to different markets; my point was, bringing out the A7s while the A7/r setup is still lacking the lenses might imply that the stills market isn't as profitable as they hoped, so they are trying to boost the entire line by bringing out the video-centric model.

And you're stating your same argument ...

63
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DOUBLE SMACKDOWN on Neuro
« on: June 08, 2014, 01:01:00 PM »
... but you can't very well bring birds in flight into a studio setting.

Go tell that to the BBC ... Anyone remember that flying geese setup they did with the bicycle?

64
On topic: Companies like Canon do a lot of market research before plonking a FF sensor in a mirrorless body (and similar new models).

Proof? (And a budget isn't really proof ... it just means that the MR dept. knows how to spend money.)

They do not rely on intuition or what a few people might want- because it has to be profitable.

A marketing dept. is "a few people" ... but that is not my point. Rather it is that if you give the "trendsetters" what THEY want, then the sheeple will follow. Basic marketing theory.

So if Canon isn't bringing out a mirrorless FF (so haven't anyone other than Sony yet) there must be an economically valid reason.

They don't have the technology for it and purchasing said technology will make it unprofitable. So, yes, there is an economically valid reason.

Tell me, why hasn't Sony brought out those A7/r compatible lenses yet. Only 4 lenses for the world's only FF mirrorless camera, and they are more intent on bringing out a 3rd model. Please tell me this demonstrates an amazing demand of their existing FF models.

Yes, Canon has made dozens of lens models, but how many do you actually need? Is the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 II and the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II not sufficient for nearly everyone's FF needs?

IMO, it is because Sony is experiencing lower sales than expected in the mirrorless STILLS market and therefore brought out the A7s to give the line a shot in the arm through 4K video. They aren't sure of the viability of this line, so are not investing in new FF E-mount lenses until they see sales take off.
It's a guess, but an informed one.

Good guess, only partially correct. MY guess is that Sony is optimizing the various cameras for the various needs of various photographers. For those people who primarily do video, there's now the A7s; for those who primarily do stills, there's the A7r; and for those on a budget, there's the A7. Is Canon not doing the same with the 1DC, the 5DIII and the 6D cameras, respectively? Yes, they are.

65
Canon's so-so M is something of a failure but has niche uses ...

I am actually looking for one with the EF adapter to use on my copy-stand ... provided it can work off an AC adapter and save the (RAW) images directly to a computer ... very niche indeed, huh?

66
Mind you, IMO, I see mirrorless differently than you.  I see a major issue with mirrorless being the form factor - IE everything smaller and lighter.  While that may appeal to some that doesn't apply to all of the market.

Actually, if you read most of my posts on this forum regarding mirrorless cameras, you'll notice that I in fact do say exactly that: that manufacturers must stop equating mirrorless with tiny.

Did sony put out a decent FF mirrorless?  Yeah, they did but it's not without issues.

I wouldn't know, as I went with FUJIFILM ... full-frame doesn't exactly fry my bacon.

What I absolutely love about the adapter right now is that it does prove a point that many would use mirrorless if it were in the same form factor as the current ecosystem.  I'd rather wait until mirrorless jumps a few more steps, until it matures.  think of it like this, there is a lot of real estate inside a 5d series body - Plenty of room to have it's native mount be EF (so all the L lenses we currently have work still, it's just another body upgrade then...).  Little things like - without a Mirror to "slow things down," I want things like higher flash sync speeds--- little things like that!

Above and beyond all that though - Look at how many are loving the convenience of the adapter, now think of it - if an M5d (mirrorless 5D) were sitting on the shelves, would that not be a compelling product?

If the Canon EOS 100D had been a mirrorless camera (even crippled as it is) or if the Canon EOS 70D had been a mirrorless camera, then I would have certainly bought either or both. But they're not and as Canon has given absolutely no indication that they'll ever do something of the sort, I went to another system ... because I needed a new camera now and Canon didn't have the goods now.

67
Given Sony's haphazard approach to long term product development I doubt they'll have a 'full stable' of lenses in our lifetime. But you can continue to dream...

Given Canon's lacking approach to long term product development I doubt they'll have a "full stable" of EF-S lenses in our lifetime. (Compare this approach, for example, to Pentax DA Limited primes.) So I have stopped dreaming ...

68
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: The Answer to Everyone's Complaints
« on: June 05, 2014, 04:50:23 AM »
If you are unhappy with Canon's perceived failure to offer (choose any of the following)  high megapixel body, mirrorless full frame camera, more dynamic range, shadow detail) I propose the following:

Send me a check or Pay Pal me $2,000 as a deposit, telling me what feature you want improved.

Too late. I already gave it to FUJIFILM.

After you and 50,000 of your like-minded friends have sent me these checks, I will forward the money to Canon as a deposit for them to use in developing the camera feature you want. It is no guarantee they will comply, but I suspect the fact that 50,000 people have demonstrated a willingness to place a $2,000 down payment on the camera of their choice, will indeed get Canon's attention.

I am pretty sure that world-wide 50000 people have already bought an Olympus, Panasonic, FUJIFILM and/or Sony camera, instead of buying a new Canon camera. It apparently did not "get Canon's attention" as we're classed a minority and a niche market - even though it's worth $100 million.  :o  Gulp! That's a niche market with negligible revenue!?

Basically, you must put your money where your mouth is. This has the added advantage of demonstrating whether or not there is a demand for the features you find so significant.

As stated above ... my mouth-money was placed into a FUJIFILM X-T1 camera.

If, after two years, any account has not reached the threshhold of 50,000 participants, I will refund the money minus a small handling fee.

I did a similar thing with my Canon lenses when Canon didn't produce the goods ... I sold 'em.

69
I don't get one part of this.  Sony has the only FF mirrorless body out there now - and it allows those in the canon system to buy it without having to do a complete switch (how many of you are there are using an a7 with canon lenses???).  Mirrorless is new and may or may not take off - and if it does who knows what form it will take.  Pro grade equipment or mass market equipment.  so both Canon and Nikon are letting sony do the market research for them.  Canon is actually in a good position considering with this - early adopters aren't selling off their gear to switch, most are keeping their canon gear and adding the sony...

A few points, if I may.

Quote
Sony has the only FF mirrorless body out there now - and it allows those in the canon system to buy it without having to do a complete switch (how many of you are there are using an a7 with canon lenses???).

The "Metabones" adapter is (a) a stop-gap solution for Sony whilst they build a full stable of lenses, thus (b) enabling Canon/Nikon users to spread out the cost of the transition to Sony over a period of time. Nice of them, huh?

Quote
Mirrorless is new and may or may not take off ...

Mirrorless is already soaring with the eagles. Please accept it.

Quote
so both Canon and Nikon are letting sony do the market research for them.

Actually, Olympus did most of the market research and it is now all done. Sony, Panasonic, Olympus and FUJIFILM are now applying the results of that research and reaping the benefits. By the time Canon (and Nikon and Pentax) finally get going, all those people who are willing to embrace new technology (in the form of mirrorless) will be already using other systems than theirs. Now, you might argue the adapted lens stance, but remember that a company like Canon does not make the bulk of its "photographic" profit from the sale of 600mm lenses ... they make it from the sales of xxxD/Rebel with a single kit lens jobbies.

Quote
Canon is actually in a good position considering with this - early adopters aren't selling off their gear to switch, most are keeping their canon gear and adding the sony...

Nope (see above), but to reiterate: neuroanatomist made the argument regarding the majority and the minority. Well, does the majority of Canon users own a 600mm lens - or even any L-lens, for that matter? Nope, these people (who own grand lenses) form the minority and thus a niche market. And since the majority on this forum feel that niche markets are negligible, it means that the minority of people who actually do own a Sony with Canon glass and thus still contributing to Canon's revenue can effectively be disregarded. This then leaves the majority purchasing xxxD/Rebel cameras with a single kit lens ... how long will this last? A whole heap of 'em have already found that their iPhone is just as good and a whole lot more convenient than an oversized Canon DSLR camera. The P&S market already croaked because of it ... and I tell you as a fact that crippled "entry-level" DSLR's are next in line.

The future lies in (a) mirrorless and (b) high-MP mirrorless ... and the future is NOW.

70
Lenses / Re: Need a 600mm. Don't want to pay for one
« on: June 05, 2014, 03:04:25 AM »
I want a 600mm focal length for zoos on my 5d3 but I can't afford the big canon glass.

What you need is a decent wealth redistribution program ...  :-X

71
What is very interesting, however, is that FUJIFILM appears to be doing the same as Canon. This is really going to be interesting to watch.

oh, gawd, no!  I like Fuji more than Canon.  But Fuji believes in doing good for the consumer, even if to their detriment at times.  It's a noble Japanese custom...  Apparently not so much so for Canon...  Well, Canon DID eventually release some updated firmware that unlocked hardware features that could have stayed hidden...
Yes, this might be interesting.

Just to clarify, I meant it in the context of product availability. It is now actually easier to purchase FUJIFILM X-lenses than Canon L-lenses ... over here, of course.

Quote
Oh, did I mention my friend who is a wildlife photographer and recently switched from Canon to Pentax? Well, I am now. Yip, Pentax.

I'd like to know why.  I have Pentax too.  I like it but I tend to fall back to Nikon or Fuji more now.

He says it is the WR lenses and the Limited primes that did it. (Note that he isn't one of those people who wants to photograph the mites on the ticks on the rhino at 300 metres; he prefers to photograph the animals/tourists within the context of their environment.)

72
Quote
Now, if your friend is NOT a professional (portrait/wedding) photographer, but just an enthusiast with a "professional-grade" camera, then why did you mention him?
This is a false dichotomy logical fallacy.
Nice try, but no cigar. Your argument was that your friend is a "fanboi" locked into the Nikon system due to the financial constraints of switching to the Canon (or another) system. I assumed that he is a professional photographer specialising in portraits and weddings - which you have confirmed. So I wrote what I wrote from that perspective. But if you had instead said that your friend is an enthusiast who scrimped and saved for almost a year in order to buy a D800 camera, then my post would have been quite different and I would have in all probability agreed with you.

Oh, did I mention my friend who is a wildlife photographer and recently switched from Canon to Pentax? Well, I am now. Yip, Pentax.

The question is not whether he is, by your definition, a professional.
Actually, I follow the definition of the Oxford dictionary, i.e. "engaged in a specified activity as one's main paid occupation".

The question is whether he is skilled enough to recognize the relative merits of two different systems.  For the record, he's a part-time pro in the process of building his business.  Obviously, you would need to take my word that the guy is smart, thoughtful and has fairly solid skills, but you won't.
I wouldn't know as I haven't seen his work, but do take your word for it. However, even as a "part-time pro" what I wrote stills holds. If that D800 isn't generating the money to pay for itself within a given timeframe, then it's bad business management.

Quote
your friend MUST always provide his clients with the very best product possible
Here's a part you may not understand: different equipment is suited to different needs.  I think few would argue that the D800 is the superior studio/portrait camera (assuming you have the glass to go with it).  And of course, all those MF enthusiasts will argue that the D800 does not rise to that level.  There are very few pros who can kit up with $200k of gear and have several assistants running around as pack-stock.  Most pros must spend money wisely to cover the range of their business.  Pros who buy too much may price themselves out of the market.
I think you have misunderstood my use of "best product possible". By "product" I did not mean that a photographer must use the (perceived) best cameras and lenses; I meant that a photographer must provide his/her clients with the best possible photographs ("product") that it is possible for said photographer to produce given his/her tools (i.e. cameras, lenses, etc.) and skills.

And that's another iron-clad business truth: your services are worth what the customers are willing to pay.  If the customers are not willing to pay enough that you can maintain a broad range of equipment, then you'd better not try to maintain a broad range of equipment.  In some markets, there just aren't enough high-end customers to justify more than a handful of boutique photographers.
True and I agree. But would also like to add that if your clients aren't willing to pay for the "quality of a D800", but are satisfied with what a "Rebel plus kit lens" produces, then that's what you use in your business. The objective is to make money, not flaunt your expensive gear.

I've seen "pros" who can't shoot their way out of a burlap sack.  I've seen amateurs who take wonderful photos, even with cheap P&S cameras.
Same here.

The arbitrary definition of a full-time pro, who makes nearly 100% of income on photography is no longer valid.
Here I must differ. There is nothing arbitrary about the definition of a professional photographer. If someone, as you said, can't shoot their way out of a burlap sack, but still generates 100% of his/her income from photography, then he/she is per definition of the word a professional photographer.

Please try to broaden your perspective.
Ditto.

73
Canon General / Re: 9 Sins of a Newbie Photographer
« on: June 02, 2014, 04:58:59 AM »
All of them ... every day.

74
Perhaps I'm being unfair. But, when people assert that a company is headed toward financial disaster because the specific product that they as an individual would like to see produced isn't available and when in reality that company's products consistently outsell their competitors' comparable models across the entire product line, the charitable assumption is that the person making the assertion doesn't quite grasp some fairly basic economic principles.

Let me try this again from MY understanding of basic economic principles. In order to succeed, most companies need at least two types of products, i.e. foundation products and mass products. The former (foundation products) are what you build your company reputation on and are also the products that support your company through any lean years, recessions and failures to predict the swing of the market. The latter (mass products) are the hugely popular products you sell to the masses at huge profits, i.e. the cash cows, and which support the growth and development of your company.

For Canon, IMO, the 1D-series and the 5D-series are foundation products, whereas the 6D and the "xxxD"-series with their kit lenses are the mass products.

Mass products come and go, but foundation products stay for the count. It is therefore vital for any company to always maintain this distinction within the company itself. Placing reliance on the revenue from the mass products for the financing of essential corporate functions is always a one-way ticket to insolvency.

But, due to the fickleness of the mass market consumers, a company must always be ready with the next big mass market "thing". IMO, in cameras, this is mirrorless.

Problem for Canon, IMO, is that not only do they not have any decent mirrorless cameras or a "high-MP" (portrait/architecture/landscape) camera waiting in the wings, they are also allowing their competitors to actually steal the early adopters of this "new trend" away from them. You snooze, you lose.

(I could go on, but I've probably lost everyone's attention by now.)

There are certainly less charitable assessments that could be made – perhaps some people just enjoy being trolls and don't really believe what they write.

Or it could be research into the thought-patterns of the influential persons within the market. For example, what I've determined through my incessant ramblings/trolling/flaming is that (a) sales figures sell products, (b) a product sells simply because it is the best of what is offered and not because it is actually any good, and (c) extremes sell best.

Yes...here in the U.S. Nikon and Sony offers their products to exclusive outlets like Walmart, Target and Best Buy.

Two things then ... obviously the "regional managers" of those brands have a better understanding of the importance of placing products on shelves; and perhaps we here in Africa could be a significant untapped market for those brands ... if they only tried.

75
<sarcasm>You must be independently wealthy, or you are one of those people who has no concern about spending the rent money on toys.  Many people would understand the implications the of the expression "nearly switched:"  You see, camera systems are rather expensive, and only very wealthy people, such as yourself, can afford multiple systems.  Therefore, a compulsion to switch has to be so strong as to be worth the loss of a large amount of money on the sale of the old system vs. purchase of the new system.  That's where that word "implication" comes in: even to contemplate that switch seriously means you have a substantial preference for the "other" system, but just can't afford to make the switch.   You may now go back to your chardonnay and caviar.</sarcasm>

Wrong, because your friend is a portrait/wedding photographer. Thus his photographic equipment are not only tools, but revenue-generating tools. This also implies, if he follows sound business management, that every piece of equipment is (a) justified and (b) calculated to pay for itself within a specific timeframe. I know this sounds cold, but it is the reality of running a business. So, if a particular piece of equipment cannot satisfy BOTH these criteria, then there is absolutely no reason to purchase it; and he should then rather rent it, which implies absolutely zero investment on his part. (Compare this situation with the enthusiasts who have a day-job to support their GAS.)

Coupled with criterion (a) is the fact that as a professional (portrait/wedding) photographer your friend MUST always provide his clients with the very best product possible. This then will invariably necessitate a constant upgrade/replacement of photographic equipment (aka tools) and this must be factored into criterion (b). Again, I know this sounds cold, but it is the reality of running a business.

Now, if your friend is NOT a professional (portrait/wedding) photographer, but just an enthusiast with a "professional-grade" camera, then why did you mention him?

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 45