February 27, 2015, 10:33:04 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 - gmrza

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 34
EOS Bodies / Re: DSLR & Lens Coming on January 15, 2013? [CR1]
« on: January 15, 2013, 12:06:47 AM »
Hmm, it's 4pm AEDT on the 15th - nothing yet.  I would have expected an announcement to be out by now....

Lenses / Re: 17-40 vs 16-35, which one got the mojo ?
« on: January 13, 2013, 04:44:37 PM »
I've found the 17-40 comparable with the 16-35 between apertures of f/8 - f/11. f/4 is a bit tricky though and best avoided unless left without an option.

I've would recommend that the OP should go through the image threads for both the lenses and (i) try to see the difference in IQ; and (ii) decide which lens has "mojo" that you are looking for.

I think that sums it up - if you are shooting primarily landscapes with a tripod or are doing studio work between f/8 and f/11 it probably doesn't matter which lens you buy - you may as well choose the cheaper option which is the 17-40.  If you need to shoot at f/4, the 16-35mm is probably better.  And of course if you want the subject isolation you get with f/2.8 or you want to shoot action, the 16-35 is probably your choice.

United Kingdom & Ireland / Re: Jessops close to administration?
« on: January 09, 2013, 07:24:43 PM »
Prior to the advent of online buying, a buyer had the option of buying locally, or calling a mail order outfit, usually one who advertised on photography magazines, and many of them were awful.  I did discover B&H that way back in the 1980's and have bought from since.  I also discovered a couple that only got one order!
Although we are a relatively small town, our local Camera store branched out into high end Audio Video and into online sales, and even opened a second store after 100 years in business.  Even so, their stores do not generally keep the high end 1 series bodies or the D4 in stock, so I have to order  from the warehouse if I want to see it.  (I can pick it up, its only a short distance from the store)  They do have a reasonable assortment of tripods, heads, and other accessories, but nothing close to what can be ordered online.
This is a typical example of adapt or die, stores that did not take internet retailing seriously and do what it took to stay in business are paying the price.

You've hit the nail on the head here.

Unfortunately for high-street retailers, a lot of sales of more "technological" devices, and this includes cameras, sports equipment (like bicycles) and consumer electronics, consumers know the part number they want, and the only differentiator is price.  e.g. I know I want an EF 50mm f/1.4 USM lens, or LP-E6 battery, 5D III body, or a Shimano 105 chain.  - There is no value a sales assistant can add to the sale, because I have made the purchasing decision before I walk into the store (or navigate to the site).  The only factor that will change my purchasing decision is purchase price and after-sales service - e.g. I know that if I buy from Wiggle I have a local return address in Australia, and don't have to post faulty items back to the UK.

The bricks and mortar stores that are surviving are the ones that got online early and the ones that have targeted markets where the customer is looking for help to make a purchasing decision. - e.g. "I'm looking for a camera".  Even the latter approach is getting thinner pickings because sites like DPReview are making it easier to choose a camera yourself if you lack in-depth knowledge.  To go back to the bike shop analogy, the ones that are surviving, apart from the ones that went online, are the ones that have good workshops (who do the servicing that customers can't do themselves), and the ones that can provide a professional bike-fitting service - where the knowledge of the shop staff is so specialised that even a top cyclist can benefit from their help.

All retailers have to adapt to this trend, or die.  The only ones that are being spared this at the moment are the sellers of perishable groceries (i.e. supermarkets) but even that may change.

The online business is also all about scale - which is what the likes of B&H or Wiggle have achieved. - For instance I was at a LBS recently where the assistant complained that their cost is higher than Wiggle's retail price.  They just don't have the scale to move sufficient volumes to get the input costs that the big online guys have.

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Inside the Canon EOS-1D C
« on: January 08, 2013, 09:53:29 PM »
For me the base problem i can see here is not with the people that are purchasing this camera and their wealth.

It's more to do with the fact that canon has priced this camera at the point it has to not hurt sales of their other products like the 1DX and the C100 (both of which retail for around $7k).

If they reduced the price of the 1DC to say $500 more than the 1DX who honestly would buy the 1DX anymore?
Let alone the C100.
So instead they put it up with the C300 and claim that its double the camera than the 1DX and thats why its double the cost.

I don't understand why Canon cant just put 4K into the 1DX, call it the 1DX Mk2 or 1DX "C" or whatever at the same price point as what the 1DX is now and thats the end of that.

They would create a second "DSLR video Revolution" as they like to call it, and the other manufacturers would have to play catch up again.

Oh well greed/profits always win out in the end.

Another reason for the price may also be to throttle demand.  Paradoxical as this may sound - if Canon cannot fulfil higher volumes, the solution is to price it at a level which will reduce demand.  There may be an element of this happening, in that Canon is pricing higher to reduce demand until it can streamline production.  It has already been pointed out that this is a small volume camera, so unit production costs will be high.  Manufacturing is a scale game.

Canon also does not have any direct competitors in this space (yet), so it can bide its time and perfect the product before opening the floodgates.

You don't have to like this strategy, but it is an approach Canon could viably take.

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Inside the Canon EOS-1D C
« on: January 08, 2013, 09:01:00 PM »
Hacking aside, I don't think the 1D C makes sense at it's current price level. It's too close to other entry level pro video camera bodies that (Red, Sony, Panasonic) that offer greater flexibility and control for $15-20k. And a good sale or promotion will wipe out even the slight Canon price advantage.

I think where Canon is targeting the 1DC is at users who would prefer stills and 4K video in a single body, with the ergonomics of a stills camera.  I would hazard a guess that documentary makers would be a major target market, especially where there is a need to travel light.

As far as the price is concerned, this is a "tool of the trade" so the willingness to spend the purchase price has nothing to be with being wealthy, but with the ability for the camera to satisfy a specific business requirement better than other products also available on the market.  If a documentary maker (for instance) can reduce the overall weight or cost of equipment carried, that may satisfy a business requirement.  A weight consideration may even sway a decision in favour of the 1D-C, even if the output quality is inferior to what RED or Sony could deliver, if the logistics of a production are sufficiently simplified or made cheaper.

Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS Exists as a Working Prototype [CR2]
« on: December 20, 2012, 05:14:47 PM »
With a FF body, IS is not needed for the 24-70 range unless you are doing video.... 

Well maybe that's true for the way you shoot, but it's possible yours is not the only shooting style on the planet. Throw someone creative a new tool like IS on a 24-70 and chances are they'll start delivering shots that were not possible to achieve without it. Every new option delivers potential for new creative possibilities.

From the day that film cameras stopped being mainstream, we have had a rapid, almost endless succession of new and exciting developments in what is still a very young, though rapidly maturing industry. I'm talking about the digital revolution and it HAS been a revolution, now maturing into brisk evolution.

24-70 with IS? Bring it on. Also bring on all the developments still in R&D and also those not yet invented. We live in exciting times.


I think this is a case that there is probably market demand for both IS and non-IS versions of a 24-70 f/2.8.  For some the additional weight of the IS will not be worth it - there are a lot of people who can't afford to shoot at less than 1/60s or 1/80s, especially where people form part of the subject.
IS is very useful for cases where you can't, for some reason, use a tripod.  I think video users will also be very keen on an IS version of this lens.

Canon General / Re: What real Pros shoot...
« on: December 04, 2012, 09:08:55 PM »
Just to play devils advocate here. The most used knives in the world of professional chefs are Victorinox, and that has not much to do with excellence in steel or sharpness. It has to do with the fact that Victorinox has been very successful in pushing out knives set (suitcases with basic, intermidiate, and advanced sets) to pretty much cooking students all over :) They can get away with a basic suitcase for the same price as two Kai Shun knives...

That is why I am wondering if the preponderance of Canon in the stats is due to a commercial arrangement between Reuters and Canon.  For instance, does Reuters have an arrangement with Canon, which gives Reuters staff access to preferential pricing from Canon?

Canon General / Re: What real Pros shoot...
« on: December 04, 2012, 05:37:22 PM »
Clearly IQ isn't the most important thing in photojournalism. It's all about capturing stories. Canon is great for this because of the speed and ergonomics. Some of those pictures aren't the greatest compositionally, creatively, etc, but they tell a story. Obviously stats from say studio photographers are going to be totally different.

Pretty obvious stuff, and I don't even know anything.

Even if that is a valid point, Nikon seems dramatically under-represented in the stats.  There must be some other reason for that.  If the photos are largely shot by Reuters staff togs, that may be due to a business relationship between Reuters and Canon.  If you think purely of large sports events - there are not that dramatically more big white lenses than black ones in the photos that circulate the web.

EOS-M / Re: EOS-M With Viewfinder Coming Late 2013? [CR]
« on: December 04, 2012, 05:18:11 PM »
For those asking for full frame it's not happening any time soon and if it does than I'd expect a minimum of 3499 and a non EF mount due to the flange distance is not suitable for anything remotely compact.  I'm sure an EF adapter would be possible but pretty much the best you are looking at is Leica M9 @ $4000 with autofocus and a new lens lineup that is not EF compatible and at canon L prices.

I'd much rather see something comparative with the fuji xe-1 which has pretty much the best aps-c sensor

Good AF, good lens lineup size, great control scheme and awesome styling

Any camera with a normal EF mount would still have the same flange distance as current EOS DSLRs.  With a mirrorless design, all you would lose is the bulge of the pentaprism (I am assuming a pentaprism, since all full frame EOS bodies use a pentaprism).

To get any size benefits on full frame would require a new lens mount - or at least different optics, which allow for the rear element to be placed closer to the sensor.  In addition, the sensor would need to cope with incident light coming from a more oblique angle - something that digital sensors do not do well.  Leica has had to do some clever things with its micro-lens arrangement and IT and low-pass filters in order to get the lens closer to the sensor - something that was not a problem with film.
Even with the 85mm f/1.2 lens, Canon is doing some fudging of the sensor sensitivity because of the oblique angle at which the light strikes the sensor - the sheer size of the rear element is something to behold.

Given current technology, a full frame mirrorless camera would not give any size advantage over a DSLR.  Given that OVFs are superior to EVFs, that begs the question, of why even to bother with a full frame mirrorless camera.

In my mind, APS-C mirrorless makes sense, full frame doesn't.

Lenses / Re: Is this the normal bokeh for an L series lens
« on: December 01, 2012, 04:14:58 AM »
Here is another example that shows some of the aberrations that show up in the OOF blur, this time with the 100mm f/2.8L IS USM macro.

Street & City / Re: Recommendations Amsterdam
« on: November 30, 2012, 05:55:17 AM »
Some of the best views can also be seen from the water - a tour of the canals can be very rewarding as well.  The only challenge there is that the weather may not be ideal this time of the year.

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS M or ...???
« on: November 27, 2012, 12:46:14 AM »
Any reason that you're looking at the "G" bodies?  The S110 should have similar performance in a smaller, lighter, lower cost body.  A pocketable camera is a good supplement to a DSLR when travelling.

When you look at the price of the EOS-M and G1X, I just feel there is better value options out there with other brands.

In my mind, the main reasons to want the G15 over the S110 are the hotshoe and wired shutter release.  If you don't need those, you are probably served just as well by the S110.

EOS Bodies / Re: First Round of EOS 7D Mark II Specs [CR1]
« on: November 26, 2012, 09:06:34 PM »

I also think it will have built in wifi and gps like the 6D has.

As long as it has a mag-alloy chassis, it most probably will not have integrated GPS and WiFi.  The mag-alloy chassis acts as a Faraday cage, preventing decent radio reception/transmission.  Canon would probably compromise on the integrity of the chassis in order to get the wireless antennas into a position where reasonable radio performance is possible.

EOS Bodies / Re: First Round of EOS 7D Mark II Specs [CR1]
« on: November 26, 2012, 06:13:25 PM »
I'm not going to get overly excited about CR1 specs from an "unknown source."

Reserve judgment on a sensor until real specs and results are known (probably won't know that until several months after the announcement). Consensus on this forum seems to be that noise and dynamic range improvements are more important than the number of pixels. Absent a major change/breakthrough in sensor design, I would be surprised if Canon ups the pixel count of the APS-C sensor above that of its full frame offerings.

New battery is a mild disappointment, but I assume Canon would make the change because they have to for design/engineering reasons.

Please, let them keep at least one CF card slot in a dual card system.

New ergonomic design is too vague to warrant comment at this point.

All in all, I'm more excited that we are finally getting rumors about a 7DII. At this point, the content of those rumors aren't as important as the fact that there are rumors circulating.

If we look at what people are unhappy about with the 7D, generally it is to do with noise and image sharpness.  I am not aware of anyone being unhappy with the pixel count.  Canon may however need to up the pixel count to 24MP to match Nikon and Sony, rather than to address any real need - i.e. for marketing reasons.  Assuming Canon continues to flow the same sensor down through its APS-C range, that would be a reason to move to 24MP. - In the market for APS-C (and especially entry-level) DSLRs a lot of customers are still comparing "mega-pickles".

EOS Bodies / Re: First Round of EOS 7D Mark II Specs [CR1]
« on: November 26, 2012, 06:07:46 PM »
New Ergonomic Design

Why is everyone assuming this means smaller?  I find the design of a 1-series body to be much more ergonomic.  :)

It's funny that this statement means different things to different people.  My reaction to that part was that it probably entailed a redesign of the controls, rather than the form factor of the body.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 34