August 22, 2014, 06:31:42 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 - Random Orbits

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 87
46
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Speculation [CR1]
« on: June 18, 2014, 11:37:15 PM »
I don't disagree that Canon's strategy was wrong with the 5DIII vs. D800/E...

...to which I was responding?

Oh, I know – nothing.  But you lost the original argument, won't acknowledge that you were wrong, and are instead moving the goalposts.

Sorry, not going to play that game.

That was an error on my part.  What I meant to write was that I agreed with you that Canon probably did the right thing by making what the 5DIII what it is.  However, we don't know for sure because the alternative was never produced.  Who can say whether or not a Canon-like D800 would have sold as well.  After all, Canon sells a lot more lower tier APS-C cameras than Nikon does even with some of the advantages that Nikon has (i.e. wider selection of crop lenses).

My original post on this topic was this:
Quote
I think most companies do not hold back because it's unprofitable.  Why would you delay the release of something that will get you more profit?  100-400L II rumors have been around for years.  Has it been held back all this time waiting for a 7DII or is it more likely that worthy successor to the 100-400L had yet to be developed?

I remember when the 5DIII/D800 came out, and Chuck Westfall stated that Canon had high MP technologies and implied that Canon could respond quickly if the market demanded more MP.  Well, it's been 2 years and still nothing.  Maybe the response will come this year, but it won't be cheap and it won't be across the Canon product line (70D didn't have it, 7D won't have it [according to rumors]).  People that work in PR or deal with media are there to tell the outside world what the company wants them to hear.  It's in Canon's interest that we think Canon can respond to the threats of other companies (so that people don't switch away from the Canon ecosystem), but they don't tell you when.

My main two points were

1.  I don't think Canon holds back ready-to-produce products because it is less profitable in the long run.

2.  I don't think Canon could have responded to a high MP challenge as quickly as people thought.  Perhaps people thought Canon could have responded in a year; I think it's closer to a full product cycle (as clarified in my latter posts).

47
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Speculation [CR1]
« on: June 18, 2014, 10:51:17 PM »
Oh, ok.  When did it become wrong?  When Nikon decided not to maintain two D800 models, both of which are outsold by the 5DIII, and instead are refreshing the line with a D800s, hoping that will prove more competitive?  When Sony released a 12 MP version of the a7 because the 36 MP a7R was such a smashing success? 

Or maybe you're saying it hasn't become wrong yet, but will at some point in the future.  If so, let me know who'll win the next Super Bowl, so I can place a bet on your 'sure thing'.  ::)

Whatever.

Yeah, because market research is always right.  ::)  Because the EOS-M was such a hit in the US based on their original market analysis that the USA was part of part of M1's product launch.  Because the SL1 "met" their expectations too.  Whatever indeed.




48
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Speculation [CR1]
« on: June 18, 2014, 10:18:18 PM »
You don't disagree that Canon's strategy was wrong?  That double negative means you think Canon's strategy was wrong.  Given that the 5DIII has sold better than the D800/E, please explain the flaws in Canon's strategy...

Canon is developing a high MP body?  They produced a 120 MP APS-H sensor, clearly they have the capability.  But if your 'evidence' for an imminent high MP body is rumor posts, we'd have seen a new 100-400L over five years ago.

I think you miss the point.  Westfall said Canon could respond quickly if the market demanded it.  The fact that the 22 MP 5DIII has outsold the 36 MP D800/E and a7R supports the idea that the market has not demanded high MP...therefore, Canon sees no need to respond, quickly or otherwise.

Please note that 'the market' does not comprise a few complainers on Internet forums.

I don't think Canon's strategy was wrong at the time.  Canon produced a 120 MP APS-H sensor, but at what price?  I don't think they could have done it two years ago when the 5DIII came out at the D800 price.  I don't think Canon could have produced the D800 two years ago at the D800 price period, which has nothing to do with whether or not the 5DIII was the right product for Canon to make.

I don't believe that Canon could have responded "quickly" if "quickly" meant a year.  Now if "quickly" means 3-4 years, then yes it can respond "quickly."  We'll have to see when/if a large MP body comes.  If it arrives around 3-4 years after the D800, which is similar to Canon's pro product cycle length, then I would think Canon is reacting to the D800.  If a high MP comes 5 or more years later (or never), then Canon decided that the high MP market was not worth its while.

49
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Speculation [CR1]
« on: June 18, 2014, 08:13:56 PM »
I remember when the 5DIII/D800 came out, and Chuck Westfall stated that Canon had high MP technologies and implied that Canon could respond quickly if the market demanded more MP.  Well, it's been 2 years and still nothing.

The 5DIII has outsold the D800/E.  Maybe it has 'been 2 years and still nothing' because the market HAS NOT demanded more MP.

I don't disagree that Canon's strategy was wrong with the 5DIII vs. D800/E, but then why is Canon developing a high MP body now if it doesn't think it is profitable?  Unless the high MP rumor is smoke in the wind and there won't be a 35MP+ Canon body at all.  I take exception to what Westfall implied that Canon could respond "quickly."  At 2 years and counting, it's getting close to a full product cycle.

50
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Speculation [CR1]
« on: June 18, 2014, 07:40:15 PM »
The DIGIC6 is supposed to have 20 percent more computing power than the dual DIGIC5+, so yes I agree that it is more powerful... but computing power and I/O bandwidth are two different things. I am sure that there are many instances where the extra pins of two chips are better than the faster pins of a single chip.

Computing-wise, if a 60D can handle 5.3fps at 18M, then a single DIGIC6 should be able to handle 100fps at 36Mpixels.... but there is no way the I/O of the DIGIC6 will support that so the comparison is meaningless.

about the only safe statement is that if they use dual DIGIC6 it will be faster than dual DIGIC5+.

Agreed.

51
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Speculation [CR1]
« on: June 18, 2014, 07:38:00 PM »
I guess it's a matter of semantics. I consider "holding back" to mean you have something all ready to go and you are choosing not to release it when you could. I don't think of all the ordinary, if massive, steps needed to move a product into the release stage as holding back.

At any rate, my point was the a camera body is not going to be held back by a version II of a long-existing lens. Much more likely, that the release date of a lens, which has a far longer shelf life and much more stable development path than a camera, is going to be determined by the release date of a camera, rather than the reverse.

I think most companies do not hold back because it's unprofitable.  Why would you delay the release of something that will get you more profit?  100-400L II rumors have been around for years.  Has it been held back all this time waiting for a 7DII or is it more likely that worthy successor to the 100-400L had yet to be developed?

I remember when the 5DIII/D800 came out, and Chuck Westfall stated that Canon had high MP technologies and implied that Canon could respond quickly if the market demanded more MP.  Well, it's been 2 years and still nothing.  Maybe the response will come this year, but it won't be cheap and it won't be across the Canon product line (70D didn't have it, 7D won't have it [according to rumors]).  People that work in PR or deal with media are there to tell the outside world what the company wants them to hear.  It's in Canon's interest that we think Canon can respond to the threats of other companies (so that people don't switch away from the Canon ecosystem), but they don't tell you when.

52
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Speculation [CR1]
« on: June 18, 2014, 07:23:15 PM »
No you don't need a 1DX. To get 12 fps you need dual DIGIC 5+ processors, but a single DIGIC 6 can do 14 fps. That is the processor currently in point and shoot cameras. And there is almost certainly an upgraded version of DIGIC 6 in the works to provide the additional horsepower for the needs of video functions in cameras. Dual DIGIC 5+ is obsolete.

14 FPS at how many megapixels?  DIGIC 6 is used in PowerShot G16, PowerShot N100, PowerShot S120, PowerShot SX280 HS and PowerShot SX270 HS, which are all about 12 MP.  According to CanonUSA, the max sustained frame rate is closer to 9 FPS (without continuous AF)... not 14 FPS.  What DIGIC 6 camera does 14 FPS at >= 18 MP?

Digic4 - can handle 5.3FPS at 18MP (60D)
Digic5 - 6 times faster than Digic4
Digic5+ - 17 times faster than Digic4
Dual Digic5+ - 34 times the computing power of Digic4
Digic6 - 20% faster than Dual Digic5+, or 41 times the computing power of Digic4

Somehow, I don't think a lack of computing power is slowing down frame rates

Tugela's post implied that 1 DIGIC 6 can outdo the processing of a 1 DX (Dual DIGIC 5+).  Do you disagree?

53
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Speculation [CR1]
« on: June 18, 2014, 07:13:06 PM »
Sure it does.  You need more circuitry and processing power to sustain processing higher MP/sec.  To sustain 12 FPS at 18 MP, you need 1Dx processing capability.  More processing require larger/faster memory, processors, buses, etc. and that does take more power even when not used to to its capability.

You seem to be using the words "power" and "energy" interchangeably.  Faster processing requires more power, all other things being equal, but not more energy.

No, not interchageably.  A Chevy Malibu is traveling on the highway (EPA profile) next to a Corvette.  Both are going the same speed.  The Corvette has lower drag and is slightly lighter, yet its highway efficiency is 29 mpg compared to the Malibu's 36 mpg.  Larger components (engine, transmission, etc.) required for greater performance use more power on average and more energy over the same distance.

So far, so good.  But using a thermodynamic analogy isn't a good idea.

Quote
For electronics, components spec'ed for higher performance also take more power even if they're doing the same work.

In most cases, the opposite is actually true, due to thermal reasons and enabled by process technology.  To have a faster device, it needs to be more efficient, not less, or it will get too hot.  If it's less efficient AND doing more work, it will dissipate a lot more power, not just a little, making the thermal management more difficult.

One of the big reasons computers can get more powerful with each generation is that they consume less power per switching event.  If this were not the case, we would have current generation CPUs demanding tens of kW, and burning up during POST.

Now compare options within the same generation, and your case doesn't hold water.  DIGIC 5+ is used in the 70D, 5DIII, 6D and 1DX.  Unless you're counting on the 7DII to sport a DIGIC 6+...  Canon has a longer pro body cycle than Nikon.  But what has the D4S done compared to the D4?  Same MP, 1 more FPS...  To get the 7D II to get the same framerate as the 1DX, which has dual DIGIC 5+ and a DIGIC 4, it'll need that same processing ability with a smaller battery.  And to get more MP at that frame rate, you'll need even more processing power.  So, unless Canon leap-frogs the competition in computational efficiency, I don't expect to see a large difference in Canon's processing abilities.

You're original post:
Quote
I would argue that wildlife and action photographers need it more than landscapers do.  Wildlife and action often lead to focal-length-limited situations that result in heavy cropping.  More pixels helps with that in a big way.

Wildlife/action applications have favored higher FPS to MP (1DX vs. 5DIII, D4 vs. D800).  Nothing that you have posted has suggested that there isn't a trade between MP and frame rate, and most wildlife/action users favor higher FPS to MP.

54
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Speculation [CR1]
« on: June 18, 2014, 06:42:25 PM »
No you don't need a 1DX. To get 12 fps you need dual DIGIC 5+ processors, but a single DIGIC 6 can do 14 fps. That is the processor currently in point and shoot cameras. And there is almost certainly an upgraded version of DIGIC 6 in the works to provide the additional horsepower for the needs of video functions in cameras. Dual DIGIC 5+ is obsolete.

14 FPS at how many megapixels?  DIGIC 6 is used in PowerShot G16, PowerShot N100, PowerShot S120, PowerShot SX280 HS and PowerShot SX270 HS, which are all about 12 MP.  According to CanonUSA, the max sustained frame rate is closer to 9 FPS (without continuous AF)... not 14 FPS.  What DIGIC 6 camera does 14 FPS at >= 18 MP?

55
So, in other words, third party manufacturers have more faith in the M "system" than Canon USA :P

Only if it releases it in the USA...

56
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Speculation [CR1]
« on: June 18, 2014, 04:15:19 PM »
Sure it does.  You need more circuitry and processing power to sustain processing higher MP/sec.  To sustain 12 FPS at 18 MP, you need 1Dx processing capability.  More processing require larger/faster memory, processors, buses, etc. and that does take more power even when not used to to its capability.

You seem to be using the words "power" and "energy" interchangeably.  Faster processing requires more power, all other things being equal, but not more energy.

No, not interchageably.  A Chevy Malibu is traveling on the highway (EPA profile) next to a Corvette.  Both are going the same speed.  The Corvette has lower drag and is slightly lighter, yet its highway efficiency is 29 mpg compared to the Malibu's 36 mpg.  Larger components (engine, transmission, etc.) required for greater performance use more power on average and more energy over the same distance.  For electronics, components spec'ed for higher performance also take more power even if they're doing the same work.  They are capable of higher power consumption but will also consumer more over doing the same task at a slower rate as less capable components.  Take a look at computer processors.  The fastest use more power for incremental performance improvement, so the ratio of performance/(power or energy) decreases.

57
Lenses / Re: 35L vs 35/2 IS
« on: June 18, 2014, 03:23:07 PM »
I got the 35L years ago, before the S35 and 35 f/2 IS came out.  I picked up a 35 f/2 IS when it went on sale at the Canon refurb store.  The 35 f/2 IS is nice, but I prefer using the 35L more.  I use it indoors for family gatherings/events and the flexibility of having an extra stop for creative uses or for blurring a background slightly more is welcome.

58
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Speculation [CR1]
« on: June 18, 2014, 03:02:03 PM »
What is it with the "more megapixels"? This is a camera for action and wildlife photographers, not for landscape photographers.

I would argue that wildlife and action photographers need it more than landscapers do.  Wildlife and action often lead to focal-length-limited situations that result in heavy cropping.  More pixels helps with that in a big way.

For a given amount of energy (battery capacity) and processing capability, you can either have more pixels or a higher framerate, not both.  The 1DX has a higher frame rate and lower resolution than the 5D.  It'd be nice if the 7DII could match the framerate of the 1DX, but that would require the same amount of processing power (both 18MP).  With the 5DIII at 6 FPS, the 7D II would have to be a bit faster for people to consider a 5DIII/7DII combo, like many people had done with the 5DII/7D.

A higher frame rate doesn't require more energy for the same total number of shots, just more power.  Now, if you're arguing that a higher frame rate leads to more shots, then maybe that's so, but 2,000 shots is still 2,000 shots.

Sure it does.  You need more circuitry and processing power to sustain processing higher MP/sec.  To sustain 12 FPS at 18 MP, you need 1Dx processing capability.  More processing require larger/faster memory, processors, buses, etc. and that does take more power even when not used to to its capability.  In any case, most sports users value FPS over MP.  The 1DX was state of the art 2 years ago, and it uses a larger battery.  D4S is 11 fps at 16.2 MP.  The 5D3 already reaches 6 FPS, and if the 7DII is to improve on the 7D's 8 FPS, it'll have to get closer to 10 FPS, which is approaching the computing requirements to what the flagship cameras do, even if it remains at 18 FPS.

59
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Speculation [CR1]
« on: June 18, 2014, 12:26:18 PM »
What is it with the "more megapixels"? This is a camera for action and wildlife photographers, not for landscape photographers.

I would argue that wildlife and action photographers need it more than landscapers do.  Wildlife and action often lead to focal-length-limited situations that result in heavy cropping.  More pixels helps with that in a big way.

For a given amount of energy (battery capacity) and processing capability, you can either have more pixels or a higher framerate, not both.  The 1DX has a higher frame rate and lower resolution than the 5D.  It'd be nice if the 7DII could match the framerate of the 1DX, but that would require the same amount of processing power (both 18MP).  With the 5DIII at 6 FPS, the 7D II would have to be a bit faster for people to consider a 5DIII/7DII combo, like many people had done with the 5DII/7D.

60
Which body are you using for your interview work?  Will you have sufficient focal length coverage with either sensor size?

If you can control the lighting and keep your ISOs low, then the 7D should be just fine. 

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 87