August 22, 2014, 04:12:11 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 - dilbert

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 186
16
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D3 No Longer in Production
« on: August 17, 2014, 12:32:49 PM »
So you're saying that Canon wouldn't want bring out a new sensor to try and spur sales growth across their lineup?

What - you mean, follow Nikon's lead?

Not doing them much good as far as actual sales of cameras is concerned, is it?

You still don't get it. Canon is selling more cameras than Nikon and Sony right now, with its existing sensors: because most photographers don't care about, or need, the niche benefits that "superior" low ISO DR provide.

So this "improvement" would be an irrelevance to the majority, and will do bugger all to "spur sales growth".

So in order to keep sales up..
- Nikon churns through models
- Sony reinvents the camera
- Canon does nothing except take consolation in knowing it sells more units than Nikon/Sony and just watches sales decline?

Irrespective of whether or not Nikon/Sony have better or worse technology their activity keeps their models current and in the mind of consumers. Shorter product life cycles means that they can react quicker too.

Whether people like it or not, based on past releases, it is safe to expect the 5D4 out next year and not 2016/2017.

17
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D3 No Longer in Production
« on: August 17, 2014, 12:27:34 PM »
Well against this outcome there is already the rumor that Canon will launch new models early in 2015.

Why would it do that?

To roll out new sensor technology across its line of DSLRs.

Why would it want to do that?

Re-invigorate sales and capitalize on having new technology to sell as a competitive edge against others.

The information in the story doesn't jive. They wouldn't have 2.5 years of stock, especially if they were ramping up to launch and announce a 5d4. I'm not saying it's not feasible to announce another model but they won't have 2.5 years of stock on the 5d3 which is why I question the knowledge of the salesperson in the first place.

I agree.

If this is true and Canon has already manufactured 2.5 years worth of 5D3 to sell alongside a 5D4, that makes them not only incredibly vulnerable to things like a firmware bug, which would need to be fixed on ALL cameras they have in stock, but it is also a huge waste of money to warehouse and ship those cameras when something new is available.

It also does not make sense to run two camera lines that are so similar from a manufacturing perspective, for 2.5 years. It would be much more efficient to put those resources into making more 5D4s or 1Dx2s or 80D or SL2 or whatever.

I don't think it's out of the question for them to announce something new even as a "speed bump", (for example, the 1D Mark IIn,) but they won't run it alongside the existing 5D3.

Yup! Canon have decided to stop making the 5D3 then they've likely got enough in the pipeline or in stock to see out the projected sales of that camera between now and the 5D4. And judging by past performance, that only needs to be 3 to 6 months.

18
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D3 No Longer in Production
« on: August 17, 2014, 12:24:30 PM »
To roll out new sensor technology across its line of DSLRs.

You mean the rumored new sensor technology which Canon may or may not have ready for production, for which we have no evidence other than rumors and patents (most of which never become products).

So you're saying that Canon wouldn't want bring out a new sensor to try and spur sales growth across their lineup?

So you're saying that Canon's dSLR sales are suffering because of their current sensors?  Got any evidence for that?

Their sales are declining.

Quote
Still, it would be great if Canon developed a new sensor technology that would appeal to consumers and could be rolled out to spur sales across the lineup.  Oh, wait...they did, with DPAF.

Except that none of the full frame cameras have DPAF or do you mean to say that consumers don't buy full frame DSLRs?

19
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D3 No Longer in Production
« on: August 17, 2014, 10:32:24 AM »
Well against this outcome there is already the rumor that Canon will launch new models early in 2015.

Why would it do that?

To roll out new sensor technology across its line of DSLRs.

Why would it want to do that?

Re-invigorate sales and capitalize on having new technology to sell as a competitive edge against others.

The information in the story doesn't jive. They wouldn't have 2.5 years of stock, especially if they were ramping up to launch and announce a 5d4. I'm not saying it's not feasible to announce another model but they won't have 2.5 years of stock on the 5d3 which is why I question the knowledge of the salesperson in the first place.

Ok, what are the rumors?
(1) That Canon have stopped making 5D3s
(2) That there's a new sensor in the 7D2 that will be announced next month
(3) That there will be follow up new cameras announced early  next year.

What don't we know?
(1) How many cameras makes per month
(2) What sort of inventory Canon has
(3) How long Canon thinks it will take to clear that inventory

Maybe Canon have reduced the lead in manufacturing for cameras to be closer to "on demand" and what's required rather than having large amounts of stock, meaning that if they stopped making 5D3s now that they'd be out of stock by Feb-March next year (6 months).

The 5D lasted for 3 years, 5D2 for 3.5 years and the 3 year timeout on the 5D3 is next year.

20
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D3 No Longer in Production
« on: August 17, 2014, 10:25:30 AM »
To roll out new sensor technology across its line of DSLRs.

You mean the rumored new sensor technology which Canon may or may not have ready for production, for which we have no evidence other than rumors and patents (most of which never become products).

So you're saying that Canon wouldn't want bring out a new sensor to try and spur sales growth across their lineup?

21
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D3 No Longer in Production
« on: August 17, 2014, 08:33:02 AM »
Well against this outcome there is already the rumor that Canon will launch new models early in 2015.

Why would it do that?

To roll out new sensor technology across its line of DSLRs.

Why would it want to do that?

Re-invigorate sales and capitalize on having new technology to sell as a competitive edge against others.

22
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: What does Sigma do next?
« on: August 17, 2014, 08:25:48 AM »
but very much like what you do with the wildlife. This lens appeals to me.

Very kind, and I'm as happy with the lens as I was when I bought it, nearly three years ago.

I shoot shoulder-to-shoulder with an ex pro, "Canon primes or nothing" guy - including the Canon 300mm f/2.8 - and we honestly can't see the difference in end-result between his images and mine, in terms of sharpness, CA, sharpness/light fall-off or anything else lens-specific.

Which pisses him off..!

;)

His lens probably focuses slightly faster I grant you, but not by anything like a significant amount.

Interesting - and your accounting for the 120-300's AF always being spot on makes for interesting contemplation when compared with the 35 and 50.

I wonder why that is? Is it the choice of lens that they choose to impersonate to the Canon, I wonder? Or something else?

23
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: What does Sigma do next?
« on: August 16, 2014, 10:04:46 AM »
........................
But then there's a 24-70, 120-300, 120-400 and three 70-300s. None of which are particularly good (especially the 70-300s.) In that space, Canon has a 100-400 that is well north of $2000, a 70-300 consumer grade lens that isn't worth owning (even Tamron's is better) and a 70-300L somewhere between 1200 and 1500 (depending on rebates.)




I think that the new Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 is producing some great IQ images. Look at the photos of Keith_Reeder
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=1280.6225


Yes, wildlife portraits.

The sharpness drops off quite substantially at the borders making it best suited for such applications.

But given that the new design is not that old (not even 2 years), it is hard to see it being replaced anytime soon.

Its pricing does move it well out of reach of amateurs or enthusiasts.

24
Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 16, 2014, 10:02:13 AM »
...
The original [CR2] post about no wifi was updated to read: "We’ve been told that the omission of the wifi in the 7D replacement is due to how the body is designed. The durable full metal body would make wifi transmission unreliable at best."  To me, that renders the source questionable, as there are a variety of simple engineering solutions to that problem which Canon could have implemented. 
....

Since it is so simple, why don't you demonstrate this by producing a fully fledged design where it works in the manner expected and required? I'm sure that Canon's team of engineers that develop cameras would love to get input from an expert like yourself.

25
Third Party Manufacturers / What does Sigma do next?
« on: August 16, 2014, 04:14:10 AM »
In terms of optical performance, Sigma are smashing it out. The 35 and 50 Art lenses are amazing but their 24-105 zoom not so (or at least not much difference to Canon's.)

In doing a 14-24 and 24 lens, Sigma clearly see a golden opportunity to deliver new lenses into a market segment that is not very well served (wide and ultra wide angle).

If they can deliver a 24-70/f2, that will raise a few eyebrows but how heavy will it be, etc? And for a lens like that, AF problems will not be acceptable because that market is a lot about indoor shooting at weddings, etc, where if you don't nail it with the first shot then you haven't gotten the shot. So they'll need to be on top of their game for that one.

But that makes me wonder, what other parts of Canon's lens lineup is weak? Where would you go ir you were Sigma and looking to capture a waiting market?

85mm Art? Is there anyone with a Canon 85/1.2 or 85/1.8 that is unsatisfied with their lens?
100mm? Again, do you read about anyone bitching that their 100 is no good? Or 135? Or 200?

When it comes to zooms, it's a bit more interesting.

They have a 14-24/4.5-5.6 that will likely be replaced by the 14-24/4.
They have a 24-70/2.8 now but rumors are that a 24-70/2 will replace it.
The 150-500 is kind of in a league of its own.

But then there's a 24-70, 120-300, 120-400 and three 70-300s. None of which are particularly good (especially the 70-300s.) In that space, Canon has a 100-400 that is well north of $2000, a 70-300 consumer grade lens that isn't worth owning (even Tamron's is better) and a 70-300L somewhere between 1200 and 1500 (depending on rebates.)

Could Sigma do a 70-300 Art at or just under $1000?
Or maybe in the $700-$800 space that provides enough value for money over Tamron's lens?
What about a new version of the 120-400? With Canon due to replace that soon, waiting to see how Canon position that in terms or price vs optical performance is sensible.
I can't see them replacing the 120-300 unless they introduce another medium zoom that os X-120.

There's a hole in the market for a good performing telephoto zoom in the 70 (or 100) to 300 for full frame that delivers good optical performance across the frame and is sub-$1000 (although I suspect that it needs to be more a sub-$800 lens to lure away buyers from Canon's 70-300L.)

What else?
If you were Sigma, what part of Canon's (or Nikon's) lens lineup is weak and easily attacked?

26
Smart.

There are much bigger weaknesses in the wide angles of various vendor lens lineups than there are at 85mm and beyond. Canon's 85/1.2L is already quite good, as is the 100 and 135. Although Sigma may want to play there later, there's less opportunity in that space of the lens market than at the wide end...

If Sigma do deliver a 14-24 and Canon's 11-24 is just a rumor for some time longer then Sigma will have that part of the Canon market all to themselves. Then there's all of Sony's market too.

Smart thinking by Sigma. Aim for where Canon is weak.

27
EOS Bodies / Re: Medium Format Announcement a \
« on: August 12, 2014, 09:07:57 PM »
So Canon MF will be like that 120MP APS-H sensor...

28
Business of Photography/Videography / Re: Who owns the photo?
« on: August 12, 2014, 02:41:51 PM »
In the absence of an actual photographer, copyright should belong to the person who owns the equipment.

It is the same principle as a remote camera. There is no physical human operator directing or framing footage, but the footage still belongs to the person who owned the camera.

It is not rocket science. This guy has been ripped off shamelessly, and people are trying to hide behind what they see as a loophole in the law.

Imagine that, instead of macaques, it's members of an isolated Amazonian tribe who have no experience with technology.  Now who owns the "selfie" and why?

Without coming to a conclusion on the original subject, only humans are considered people in law as far as I know (in most jurisdictions, right?). So these other cases aren't strictly equivalent. An animal cannot own property, intellectual or otherwise. It cannot sign a contract, nor can it commit a crime. Only humans can.

So if it isn't a person that sets the shutter or activates the shutter then the image has no copyright owner!

29
Business of Photography/Videography / Re: Who owns the photo?
« on: August 12, 2014, 01:01:02 PM »
If it is a tripwire shot, then how can the photographer own the copyright if the composition included material that wasn't there when the photographer framed it?

This goes back to an another post where an instructor tells everyone how to frame a subject in order to take a photograph. In that instance you would be arguing that the instructor owns the copyright because the instructor decided what the composition was which is clearly incorrect.

If a random stroke of lightning automatically sets off the camera to take a picture that happens to include lightning that wasn't there when the image was framed then how can the photographer claim that it was their composition of the lightning that created the image?

This has been addressed elsewhere in the thread, please re-read it.

Yes and you're wrong.

30
Business of Photography/Videography / Re: Who owns the photo?
« on: August 12, 2014, 12:21:55 PM »
These questions are clearly addressed earlier in the thread.

I would beg to disagree with respect to the automatic response.


http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=22140.msg423788#msg423788

Quote
To my mind, a timed or tripwire shot does belong to to the photographer if the framing of the resulting image is what the photographer specifically set up


There are several more as well.  Search for "trip" or "timed."


If it is a tripwire shot, then how can the photographer own the copyright if the composition included material that wasn't there when the photographer framed it?

This goes back to an another post where an instructor tells everyone how to frame a subject in order to take a photograph. In that instance you would be arguing that the instructor owns the copyright because the instructor decided what the composition was which is clearly incorrect.

If a random stroke of lightning automatically sets off the camera to take a picture that happens to include lightning that wasn't there when the image was framed then how can the photographer claim that it was their composition of the lightning that created the image?

Rinse and repeat with any other automatic activation that includes the cause of the activation.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 186