July 31, 2014, 01:58:57 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 - dilbert

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 181
46
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 24, 2014, 11:34:37 PM »
...
This really isn't a surprise. DxO and Nikon are inseparably joined at the hip.
...

Do you have any evidence of this?

All of this (everyone's comments) just sounds like more sour grapes from Canon fans because their cameras don't score as well and it is well recognised that Canon's sensors aren't as good.

Does anyone complain that the scores for Canon sensors are too high?
Or that DxO incorrectly says that Canon camera X has a better/worse sensor than Canon camera Y?

^--- This ---^

Isn't a surprise, either. :P  ;D Our resident Nikon foreverfanboyyayz!

BTW, Dilbert...are you ACTUALLY asking me if Nikon and DXO are "literally" joined at the hip?

Well you're the one making the claim so what I'm doing is asking you to provide evidence to back up your claim.

If you can't see how companies would be joined at the hip then why claim that they are?

47
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 24, 2014, 11:23:53 PM »
...
This really isn't a surprise. DxO and Nikon are inseparably joined at the hip.
...

Do you have any evidence of this?

All of this (everyone's comments) just sounds like more sour grapes from Canon fans because their cameras don't score as well and it is well recognised that Canon's sensors aren't as good.

Does anyone complain that the scores for Canon sensors are too high?
Or that DxO incorrectly says that Canon camera X has a better/worse sensor than Canon camera Y?

48
EOS Bodies / Re: High Megapixel EOS on the Way as Mentioned by Canon
« on: July 24, 2014, 08:27:25 AM »
The line says that 4-5% dont buy lenses other than the kit lens.

Which line?  The one in the original Japanese, or the one in the poor machine-translation of the original?   ::)

70 million cameras, 100 million lenses – 1.43 lenses/body isn't consistent with 95% of people buying additional lenses.

5% of 70,000,000 cameras is 3,500,000
That means 66,500,000 kits where there is a one to one ration of lens to camera.
That leaves 33,500,000 lenses which were not bought with the camera.
On average, that would mean the 5% of camera owners (3,500,000) have ~9.6 lenses each.

49
Lenses / Re: Sigma 50mm Art 1.4 Focusing problems
« on: July 24, 2014, 08:22:32 AM »
...
But it's annoying to buy a fairly expensive AF lens which you're expected to fiddle around with on a docking station and even then seems best used, in the case of many copies at any rate, in MF mode.
...

Why do you think AFMA exists on Canon cameras? To address the same problem that the docking station is for.

The problem isn't QC it is engineering tolerances and the fact that neither camera nor lens are all made the same. There is copy variation between each camera and lens. This means that whilst AFMA might be +5 for a given lens on your camera, that same lens might be -5 on my camera and that same lens might be +0 on someone else's camera.

I don't disagree with any of that (to the extent you're talking about AFMA adjustments rather than inconsistency).  My comment wasn't specifically about Sigma, though it seems more of their lenses need adjusting than others and more of them focus inconsistently within any given AFMA tweak.  But after using a variety of mirrorless cameras over the past 18 months, where AFMA simply isn't an issue, I'm getting less tolerant of/patient with this aspect of dslr technology.

So with mirrorless, AFMA isn't an issue because the focus is "calculated" based on what's drawn on the sensor rather than light diverted to an AF sensor that may or may not be the exact same distance from the mirror as the sensor.

Every time you see someone talking about a soft Canon lens, that is typically something that AFMA has been designed to help deal with.

The goal of AFMA is to give the camera system owner a tool by which they can tune the camera to match the lens due to manufacturing inconsistencies with both - regardless of who the manufacturers are.

Having either perfect lens or perfect camera manufacturing is not enough to get rid of AFMA. Both need to be perfected and in alignment with each other for AFMA to not be needed.

50
EOS Bodies / Re: High Megapixel EOS on the Way as Mentioned by Canon
« on: July 23, 2014, 11:47:29 PM »
no news here: "we look forward to the advent of high-resolution model of the EOS".  We are all looking forward to that.  This poor guy works for Canon and he is looking forward to the same thing we are.

Pretty much my thoughts.

What?!!!

That there is heresy! How dare you blaspheme and validate Nikon's 36MP D800/D810 or Sony's cameras?

You should be saying that a high MP will be hard to work with, your computer is not fast enough, storage cards too small, pixels will be smaller and noisier, etc.

51
EOS Bodies / Re: High Megapixel EOS on the Way as Mentioned by Canon
« on: July 23, 2014, 05:10:30 PM »
...
Unless those 4-5% are each buying multiple lenses. I mean, personally, I have purchased five different lenses than the 18-55mm lens that came with my original 450D kit. I know I'm not even remotely close to a "lens collector", as many people are.

Another thing I'd bet is, Canon only accounts for new lenses other than the kit bought. I am quite certain that more than 5% of DSLR buyers also buy other lenses, but I think there is a very significant market for used lenses. I'd be willing to bet that at least 30% of Canon DSLR owners buy another lens, and the majority of them buy one used.

I'm willing to bet that you underestimate how many kits get sold.

Go somewhere like Paris in summer, near the Eiffel Tower and do a visual survey. Most cameras (by a huge margin) will have a kit lens on them.

I'm also willing to bet that Canon are able to look at returned warranty cards and correlate that data.

52
EOS Bodies / Re: High Megapixel EOS on the Way as Mentioned by Canon
« on: July 23, 2014, 08:59:47 AM »
Interesting:

"Iwamoto: EF16-35mm F4L IS USM, has adopted a double-sided aspherical lens to lens with a large diameter of the first group. We chose two-sided aspherical lens with a large diameter of this much this product will be the first of its kind."

And yes, the 16-35/F4L has been designed for higher IQ than the 16-35/F2.8L. Read the interview.

53
Lenses / Re: Sigma 50mm Art 1.4 Focusing problems
« on: July 22, 2014, 07:15:41 AM »
...
But it's annoying to buy a fairly expensive AF lens which you're expected to fiddle around with on a docking station and even then seems best used, in the case of many copies at any rate, in MF mode.
...

Why do you think AFMA exists on Canon cameras? To address the same problem that the docking station is for.

The problem isn't QC it is engineering tolerances and the fact that neither camera nor lens are all made the same. There is copy variation between each camera and lens. This means that whilst AFMA might be +5 for a given lens on your camera, that same lens might be -5 on my camera and that same lens might be +0 on someone else's camera.

Like we've said soo many times before, it's NOT about afma ... Sigh, it's the  inconsistency ! Please print this message and tape it on your fridge.

AFMA is there because there is inconsistency. Canon recognizes that there is inconsistency in camera/lens manufacture and thus introduced that feature to allow people to tune their own camera. If every lens was the same, AFMA wouldn't be needed.

54
Lenses / Re: Sigma 50mm Art 1.4 Focusing problems
« on: July 21, 2014, 07:56:40 PM »
...
But it's annoying to buy a fairly expensive AF lens which you're expected to fiddle around with on a docking station and even then seems best used, in the case of many copies at any rate, in MF mode.
...

Why do you think AFMA exists on Canon cameras? To address the same problem that the docking station is for.

The problem isn't QC it is engineering tolerances and the fact that neither camera nor lens are all made the same. There is copy variation between each camera and lens. This means that whilst AFMA might be +5 for a given lens on your camera, that same lens might be -5 on my camera and that same lens might be +0 on someone else's camera.

55
There is much more going on here and its market wide.  High quality images are rolling out accross all price points now.  There was a time when the diffirence between a $40,000 movie camera body and a $2,000 camera body (in image quality alone) was pretty wide.  We are now about 90% to a place where the diffference will be much more subtle.  In that market, a market where images will all look very close in quality from camera to camera, how will Canon or anyone else distinguish themselves from the pac?

The same as they do now - with the lenses that you mount, especially the Zeiss PL mount. That and the "high end" will start shooting in 6k or 8k.

56
...
Why couldn't Canon continue the revolution they started? What was wrong with making the 5D3 even more awesome for video?
...

Because Canon saw that there was an opportunity to extract money from the market and developed products to hit specific price points in order to do so.

57
There were a ton of 5D MK II's sold because of video, and the first thing that most users found was that they could not edit the files, even viewing then took some high end hardware.

But that changed and now they can ... TV studios do real time editing of SDI feeds for 1080p.

And so too do I expect that the ability to work with 4k video will change.

58
Quote
I asked someone in the know recently if Canon had market research on who buys the EOS 5D Mark III and for what purpose. I was told that the videographer focused purchaser of the EOS 5D Mark III was less than 10% of the total sales. The camera is, and has always been, for the still photographer.

What was the proportion for 5D Mark II sales (for video)?

To put another perspective on this, if you want to experiment with 4K video or start building your 4K catalogue then you're forced into buying Panasonic or Sony.

59
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« on: July 17, 2014, 04:30:57 AM »

IS data re-run with Neuro's advice in mind.  A solid 2s run-up with the IS was used for each shot.
...
Neuro, is this true with all IS lenses?  That might imply sports guys with long glass never net as sharp a shot with the first frame in a long burst that they might get with the rest...

I thought everyone knew that IS took a while to kick in. Hasn't everyone used it in a situation where they've been able to visibly see the difference it makes?

And I wouldn't worry about the sports guys - they're already getting the shots that they need from their equipment, with or without IS.

Be aware that IS won't stay running forever - it usually turns off after 2 to 3 seconds of running so that it doesn't kill your battery. Check your camera/lens manual for more information.

60
Lenses / Re: Sigma 35mm f/1.4 ART questions
« on: July 16, 2014, 07:22:47 PM »
I'm now on my third copy of the Sigma which is the best one out of the three. That being said, it is still nowhere near the performance of the 35L I had with regard to Autofocus accuracy and speed in all scenarios.

Did you use the USB dock to tune the AF of the Sigma 35/1.4 Art?

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 181