December 18, 2014, 06:54:02 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 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 53
91
EOS Bodies / Re: Next Rebel Going EVF? [CR1]
« on: October 02, 2014, 01:47:06 PM »
... offer an EOS-M EVF ...

Olympus tried this with the E-Px series and now they are concentrating on the SLR-like E-Mx series. The conclusion is to quote Rincewind: "That doesn't work."  ;)

... consider a higher end EF-M body ...

How higher? On par with the 70D? That'll kill their "prosumer" mid-level camera range for sure.  :'(

92
EOS Bodies / Re: Next Rebel Going EVF? [CR1]
« on: October 02, 2014, 01:35:00 PM »
On your first bit, sure, but let's say they keep the EF-S mount setup and switch to an EVF.  That EVF will gobble up battery and have a very small lag, which are downgrades from an OVF.  I'd need to know why they'd shoe-horn in an (almost) must for mirrorless in a body that has room for a mirror.  What is the upside to doing that?  Cost?  More compositional feedback a la LiveView (for the entry level?!).  I must be missing something here.

A few random points to maybe fill in the parts you might be missing.  ;)

A larger body (for a mirrorless camera) offers the opportunity for a larger or second battery. This point is one of the great Catch-22's of current mirrorless cameras ... the camera is small, so the battery must also be small; yet the camera requires more power, apparently. I say apparently, because the battery of my FUJIFILM X-T1 lasts about 400 actuations; but then I nearly always use the EVF exclusively (and set to auto-on/off).

The EF-S mount allows no-brainer attachment of EF (read L) lenses. This provides a clear upgrade for a novice from a mirrorless "Rebel" to L-lenses to a full-frame camera. The EF-M mount is single-use only; plus it will require duplication of lenses for those photographers who want the benefits of using both a full-frame camera and a mirrorless camera.

An EVF is also a cheap way to create a huge selling point ... a big viewfinder. With the small mirror in APS-C cameras it is not (easily) possible to have the same size viewfinder as on for example the 1D-series, without resorting to optics (an expense). But an EVF can be made as large or even larger than the viewfinder in full-frame cameras at basically no extra cost - beyond that of the EVF itself.

Then there is the bugbear of lag ... Hehehehe, the EVF in my X-T1 sometimes does funny things, but overall the lag is ... wait, what lag?  ;)

But why should Canon actually do it ... put an EVF in a "Rebel"? Because (a) almost everybody else uses EVF's in their cameras, (b) mirrorless is here to stay and (c) they have to put it somewhere.

On your second bit, you make a fair point -- Rebel can evolve.  I just don't think Rebel will evolve overnight.  If this rumor is true -- and that's a big if -- one might imagine there would not be a hard exodus from mirrors.  So you'd have Rebel SLRs alongside Rebel mirrorless -- they'd have to call them something very clearly different (like Rebel Mirrorless), and that seems a bit of a fragmentation of the brand rather than an evolution.  I'm not opposed to it so much as curious why they would do this here instead of grow the EOS-M brand with an EVF, smaller native lenses, etc.

I think mirrors will be a part of Canon's camera strategy for a few more years, especially in their top-end cameras. However, I feel strongly that the 100D/SL1 should have been a mirrorless camera, co-existing with the larger 700D/Rebel "whatever" camera. This would have given consumers a choice between sticking with the traditional or going for the new. And it would have given Canon a great market analysis as to the viability of mirrorless in terms of their brand.

The EOS-M is a cute camera. However, it is a dead-end in terms of long-term development of the photographer, as the EF-M mount doesn't lend itself to a seamless "upgrade" path to ... well, full-frame.

If Canon does indeed decide to grow the EOS-M brand, then they will have to add much more in terms of capabilities and lenses; and this will bite into their top-end cameras. If they don't add these things, then the EOS-M brand remains a once-off, cute camera for hobbiests. (The current poor battery-life of the EOS-M makes it unsuitable as a travel camera, although this would be a great application of it.)

93
Canon General / Re: Financial Times - "Digital cameras: out of focus"
« on: October 02, 2014, 12:51:49 PM »
How many people who buy a used 5MK II for their first DSLR buy lenses? 

Ah, but the article is about CAMERA sales, not lens sales.

... what is hidden in the numbers is for every upgrade like I plan to do, there are more people who will then enter with used gear and wind up getting more lenses, flashes, etc.

Of which many will be bought secondhand from "upgraders" - as you also stated.

There appears (at least to me) to be a solid core of DSLR shooters who will likely remain DSLR shooters.

True. However, there are also a lot of people who bought middle-range DSLR's and have now found that their iPhone is just so much more convenient ... and takes alright'ish enough pictures semi-equivalent to the kit lens. So they sell the practically brand-new 60D to finance the next-generation iPhone. Canon makes zippola, because the DSLR is not "upgraded" with a new DSLR.

Hell, especially for long teles, I still see FD versions sell well probably because of Ed Mika adapters alone. 

For which Canon doesn't get a dime, penny or cent.

But in the next 12 month we should have the 7D MK II, the 5D MK IV, the 1DX II and perhaps a high MP if that is not one of the two later.

You wish.  ;D

Do you think Canon's 23% might rise greatly with 3 - 4 top end Pro/Prosumer bodies in 12 months?

Canon already has too many DSLR models on the market, IMO. This causes buyer confusion.

94
Canon General / Re: Site trolling
« on: October 02, 2014, 12:30:10 PM »
It is a question of capability, not intent.

Maybe the patent game backfired on Canon and now they may not use that great sensor they just developed?

95
EOS Bodies / Re: Next Rebel Going EVF? [CR1]
« on: October 02, 2014, 12:25:15 PM »
2) Now this battery of questions is interpreting this rumor to mean the new Rebels will get an EVF which replaces the traditional mirror setup.  In this case, it would be EVF only / mirrorless.  Questions if this is the direction:

  • Why?  They'd either keep their EF-S mount to sensor distance (to protect their stable of EF-S glass) and have a far thicker body than any mirrorless competitor or they'd adopt something smaller (like EF-M) that would require a lot of new lenses to be developed.

There is no absolute law that states mirrorless cameras must be small and have a short flange to focal plane distance. It is just something that somebody started to do and now everyone else does it. So maybe Canon has cottoned that these super-small SLR-like cameras - e.g. E-M5 & E-M10 - are just plain too small and that consumers will possibly want something a tad larger ... i.e. maybe their ergonomics experts have determined that their current line-up of DSLR cameras are just the right size?

  • Why convert Rebel's identity -- i.e. the most used SLR -- to mirrorless?  Fantastic brand recognition, sure, but why redefine it so?

Why not? The "Rebel" line started as a film SLR camera, then became a DSLR camera. So why not progress it to a mirrorless camera? Especially since the target audience for the "Rebel" line are more prone to adopt "new" technology than the more "settled" bunch for the top lines.[/list]

96
Canon General / Re: Financial Times - "Digital cameras: out of focus"
« on: October 02, 2014, 11:21:51 AM »
A more telling number are number of cameras / DSLRs in use.

Whilst this is certainly a valid train of thought, the problem with it lies in that companies - like Canon, Nikon, FUJIFILM, etc. - only receive revenue when we BUY A NEW CAMERA. They make absolutely zilch income when we continue to use our trusty 30D for six or more years; or buy secondhand. This means that as manufacturers build better cameras that people use for longer periods, revenue drops; and when revenue drops, so do profits; and this makes the shareholders very cross.

Now, if they can reconfigure the cameras so that we rent them AND pay a per shutter actuation fee ...  ;D

97
EOS Bodies / Re: Next Rebel Going EVF? [CR1]
« on: October 02, 2014, 11:11:36 AM »
... Once EVF improves to a point that's good enough for mass-market consumers (that time might be now) then it makes sense to introduce it on the lower end cameras first. 90% of people who buy the Rebel line don't know the difference between EVF and OVF they just see features. "Hey it's brighter!" An EVF will likely be good enough for soccer moms and birthday party shooters because they aren't sophisticated enough to know the difference. That's not a insult to those shooters, it's just what you will find when you segment the market appropriately.

I'm thinking something like the Fuji XT1 that still "looks pro" so it'll appeal to this market ...

To quote Basil Fawlty: "You upper-class snob!"

98
Canon General / Re: Site trolling
« on: October 02, 2014, 05:20:36 AM »
You cannot ask a question on this site anymore without someone saying go buy a sony because Canon sucks...

Actually ... go buy a FUJIFILM.  ;D

Many of those bringing up the Canon sensor at low ISO are actually long time, even decades long time, Canon users.

Actually ... almost any issue with Canon is usually the result of a decades long "friendship" being broken up by Canon's decisions to go into another direction than that particular user.

It would cost Canon a lot of money ... So all the complaining and pointing out, at the end of the, day might be good, for Canon users.

You can tell from their interviews that they just don't feel like spending the money, so nothing less than people going on and on and then starting to buy other stuff and suggest other stuff will prod them into action. And yeah you can get other stuff, but Canon does some stuff very well, so it would be ideal to all they do well plus the sensors and not have to wait another decade.

It's us against the shareholders ... and the shareholders will always win. This means that the only way to actually get Canon off its duff is to spend our dinero elsewhere AND then tell Canon why we did so (and on what). As more and more consumer do the same, Canon's revenue will fall, the shareholders will become itchy and Canon will start making the products WE want to get their greedy paws on our dinero again so as to increase profits and thus please the shareholders. Apparently we have not yet hit that point on their fiscal graph.

I do believe that the term "Troll" is being mis/over used on these sites.  Sometimes it seems that if someone has a different opinon, they are too quickly labeled a troll. It is a good ad hominem attack.

I wholeheartedly agree!  :o

99
Canon General / Re: Financial Times - "Digital cameras: out of focus"
« on: October 02, 2014, 05:06:06 AM »
Pleasantly surprised to see FUJIFILM in third place with 11.4% - especially since they are exclusively in the mirrorless segment.

Anyway, this situation (of falling camera sales) is quite obvious and inevitable, as camera-type cameras are pushed out by camera-enabled devices. The reason is quite simple and two-fold: for most people a camera-enabled devices produces sufficient image quality that is mostly on par with nearly all P&S and entry-level DSLR's with kit lens; and the camera-enabled device nearly always offers functionality and ease of use that is not provided by basically all DSLR cameras still on the market.

100
(Although, I think it could become even more lucrative if hey would offer more variety...a black case, maybe a couple other colors. I could easily see people matching their Rebels to their phones and tablets.)

Or a white 1DX to match the white 600mm L lens; or black L lenses to match the current black of cameras; or the 1DX & 7DII in "team colours" for sports photographers (official & supporters).  ;D

101
Am I alone in thinking it looks ok?

It's not so much whether or not the bag looks OK. For me the main issue is that Canon is resorting to "fashion" so that they can sell a camera that is in itself "fashion". What I mean is, the regular 100D obviously did not sell very well - because the 700D outspec'ed it for not much more dinero and the small size of the camera was negated by the big'ish zoom and lack of EF-S prime. So, Canon made a white 100D - although I suspect a light pink one would have sold better - in order to catch the "dare to be different" crowd. Now that that has obviously failed, they're going for the whole hog and putting a "serious" name on an accessory.

What is very interesting - to me at least - is that Canon appears to be incapable of learning from its competitors. Olympus tried the same to boost sales of the (overpriced) E-P5 and it was a terrible flop ... yet here we have Canon doing the same thing.  ::)

102
Lenses / Re: Would you buy a hypothetical 85mm f/1.4L portrait lens if...
« on: September 29, 2014, 07:06:15 AM »
...
this is just wrong.

...

In short, the above post is just perpetuating misinformation! I hope inexperienced photogs aren't mislead by it.

You keep telling yourself that and all will be fine.  :P

103
Geez, I didn't think things were so bad at Canon ... but this is clearly a desperate act.

104
Lenses / Re: Would you buy a hypothetical 85mm f/1.4L portrait lens if...
« on: September 27, 2014, 08:13:34 AM »
Wide maximum apertures are not only for shallow depth of field.

True, and I said so.

Anyway, the wider the max aperture the better the T-Stop usually is. The better the T-Stop (maximum transmission through a lens), the more light is available for the AF system to work. This can lead to improved low light focusing (all other factors being equal).

Also true, but advances in AF systems are also negating this point.

For flash photography: "Guide Number" / "f-Stop" = range
If you have sufficient DoF, a wider aperture allows you to place your flashes further from the subject (e.g. further out of frame) or to use a lower power setting so you can get more shots from your batteries, while not sacrificing IQ, which would happen if you were to simply jack up ISO.

"If you have sufficient DoF ..." This naturally depends on the lens focal length, subject distance and set aperture. With a 24mm lens (for example) you nearly always have heaps of DoF ... or heaps of barrel distortion.

Wide-field astrophotography??? I know this is a much more niche type of photography but the wider the max aperture the better.  Shallow DoF has nothing to do with it, Ultra high ISO is pointless and IS is irrelevant. With ISO 12,800 you will get tons of noise and when you are trying to photograph little points of light, that kind of noise is seriously detrimental. No current lens will give you the required 9-or-so stops of stabilization for an exposure in excess of 20s.

Yes. So shame on Canon for not making such lenses for the 60Da ...  ;)

105
If AMD did not exist, Intel would have no incentive to invest in improving their processors just to beat the competence. Their only incentive to release more powerful processors would be just to encourage customers to upgrade.

Since when, again? Oh, they add more "cores" to the CPU nowadays, but that's not the same as making a better processor ...

And, of course, without AMD, they could charge whatever they wanted for their processors.

Erm, ever went shopping for a XEON-based system? (Check this out: http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html.)

But to be a good analogy, Intel should build their own computers, as Canon and Sony do. In that case, other computer manufacturers would always be afraid of Intel reserving their better processors for their computers.

Actually, they do.

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 53