April 21, 2014, 06:35:44 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 - dlleno

Pages: 1 ... 26 27 [28] 29 30 ... 38
406
Lenses / Re: Recommendations for vacation lenses and gear
« on: June 21, 2012, 11:23:52 PM »
24-105 is probably the only lens you'll use in Disney.  And I second all the advice here to concentrate on preserving the photograhic moments of your family as upposed to the scenery.  For example, when my wife and I go to the zoo with our kids and grandkids, I'm usually the one a few steps away, or ahead,  capturing the kiddos.  I sneek in an occasional animal portrait but the memories I take away will be of the little ones.   the 50mm will be perfect for those indoor shots of kids looking through windows. 

The last time we all were at a zoo, we saw a group of togs (no kids) carrying around huge amounts of 1 series bodies, L lenses, and Gitzos. It was more than enough to generate serious tog envy and  I'm sure they got some cool animial portraits -- but not of any little girls or boys looking at them :D

At disney, take the time to wait for the characters and get the kiddos obtaining signatures (by all means get them autograph books).   Go to goofys kitchen at least once.  spend the time at poohs corner and capture kids with Eyeore, etc.  let them play on the fire engine....   the 24-105 will be perfect.

407
I tend to agree Richard8971, esp as I consider those names to be brands, with a particular market perception that Canon wants attached to them.  It will be interesting if Canon Shakes things up, though, with name variants like 70DX, but whatever they do you can count on the fact that a lot of expensive salaries will have contributed to whatever branding strategy they come up with!

408
After getting a 5DII and 16-35mm f/2.8L II, I sold the 10-22mm.

FWIW, after about a year of use I sold my 10-22mm for only $50 less than I paid when I bought it new from Amazon.  Pretty low barrier to moving to FF, IMO.  A bigger barrier that some people cite is the cost to replace those lenses with their FF counterparts.  But I disagree - for the 10-22mm, even though I got the expensive 16-35 II, the 17-40mm is only 1mm less wide.  Likewise, there are a whole bunch of people who claim that there is no EF 'replacement' for the 17-55mm since the 24-105mm is a stop slower and the 24-70 does not have IS.  To that, I say false!!  The 'FF equivalent' of the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS would be a hypothetical 27-88mm f/4.5 IS lens - therefore, the 24-105mm on FF is wider, longer, and faster than the 17-55mm on APS-C (note: faster in terms of DoF for the same framing, but the 1.3-stop ISO advantage of FF more than makes up for the 1-stop loss of shutter speed, so really the only thing you lose is activation of the f/2.8 AF points).

I haven't actually heard the argument that there is no FF equivalent of the 17-55, and would gladly take a FF/24-105 over an APS-C/17-55 combination!

as for the migration penalty -- yea I think those who have invested in the high dollar EF-S lenses will find the used market attractive enough to make the transition worth it with minimal cost penalty. These lenses will hold their value in the Rebel market for some time, I expect.    I do suspect that other of the EF-S lenses would not hold value as well, but at the same time represent less overall financial risk anyway --  but I'm speaking without experience there...

Indeed I would agree that the 17-55 still makes a very good general purpose lens for a 2nd (APS-C) body

409
aside from the three mentioned, what is your total investment in EF-S long glass? what long glass do you reach for when needed?

Who said my EF-s lenses were long reach? They make other EF-s lenses. If I choose to spend any amount of $$$ on ANY lens, regardless of EF or EF-s, you better believe I thought it out first and will use it until it dies!

D

sure, not very many of us invest in glass without thinking it through.  For example, I have invested in the 10-22 and the 17-55 and this is not a trivial investment, but necessasy to optimize IQ across all conditions with one camera body. So let me re-frame the background of my question -- I was just calling out that there are three major EF-S lenses which form the biggest case for an investment in EF-S glass that would give one pause in a migration to FF, and that an investment in LONG EF-S glass is not sizable.   I did think, initially, that your response implied an investment in long EF-S but I see your comment is a more general statement that one  one should account for examples other than what I mentioned.     

Not to trivialize anyones choices or investments I was just highlighting the biggest case representing the most likely IQ fanatics that have a sizable EF-S investment that would be most impacted by a move to FF and that Canon would be the most concerned about in their branding and upgrade paths.  What are the EF-S lenses you have?   

410
I think the logical conclusion to what you are saying is that if you buy APS-C then you are locked into it for life?
Only if you buy EF-S lenses. However, many of us buy EF (L) lenses and those work on FF as well. The advantage of APS-C (and the prosumer/pro 7D) is that you can get a much longer reach.


The "reach" APS-C argument doesn't really belong in the same room with the EF-S lens compatibility argument.  with the possible exception of the bargin zoom, 55-250 or whatever it is, the folks who want "reach" don't buy EF-S long lenses -- they buy long "L" glass,  and after market FF compatible long lenses.

  The only practical value to  the EF-S compatibility argument is for the WA and UWAs -- the 10-22s and the 17-55s and the 15-85s  -- where a significant investment has been already made, both in $ and in IQ, that cannot be utilized in FF.  These folks have to either sell their EF-S lenses and re-invest, or keep the old APS-C body.  If one has invested in long EF-S glass, that investment is not very sizable.

Tell that to Canon, they keep making EF-s glass and some of it is expensive! I own some EF-s glass that I wouldn't trade for anything!

D

aside from the three mentioned, what is your total investment in EF-S long glass? what long glass do you reach for when needed?

411
I think the logical conclusion to what you are saying is that if you buy APS-C then you are locked into it for life?
Only if you buy EF-S lenses. However, many of us buy EF (L) lenses and those work on FF as well. The advantage of APS-C (and the prosumer/pro 7D) is that you can get a much longer reach.


The "reach" APS-C argument doesn't really belong in the same room with the EF-S lens compatibility argument.  with the possible exception of the bargin zoom, 55-250 or whatever it is, the folks who want "reach" don't buy EF-S long lenses -- they buy long "L" glass,  and after market FF compatible long lenses.

  The only practical value to  the EF-S compatibility argument is for the WA and UWAs -- the 10-22s and the 17-55s and the 15-85s  -- where a significant investment has been already made, both in $ and in IQ, that cannot be utilized in FF.  These folks have to either sell their EF-S lenses and re-invest, or keep the old APS-C body.  If one has invested in long EF-S glass, that investment is not very sizable. 

412
There is absolutely no reason that the XXD line has to continue as an APS-C camera. It actually makes a lot more sense to have entry level APS-C cameras be XXXD/Rebels, and an entry level full frame camera be XXD cameras, and your pro level cameras regardless of sensor be XD.

could be!  nor is there any reason why 7D2 cant be APS-H.  most of us here would quickly adjust to whatever Canon does. 

Canon can do whatever they want, but their marketing departement might tell them that the 70D brand is important, and that the upgrade path for people with EF-S lenses from 60D to the Rebel branded camera is not acceptable.  Here is where we are venturing into the marketing mind of Canon, a venue where not many of us are qualified...

I like 70DX though.  cool suggestion  by TMartin. 

413
The 7D being a flagship?

Why spend so much time on sticking a label on these products?

The 7D is just what it is, with exactly the features that it has! Discussing the "flagship" or "pro" labels doesn't help anybody because it's completely irrelevant, it's not as if the camera changes because it gets assigned an arbitrary label.

Let's at least speculate about the constellation of the product line-up, or about specifications of non-existing cameras, anything is more interesting than these labels!

To go on a journey you have to have directions. Directions are useless unless you know where you are.

So whether the 7D is indeed a flagship product is important and it will detirmine the marketing direction of its replacement

from a marketing perspective, names are essentially a brand and Canon has accumulated a great deal of marketing capital in the 7D brand. If you consider that the 7D brand itself embodies the top APS-C body, it does seem likely that it would continue to emphasize that brand, and all that it stands for,  and therefore unlikely that it would change sensors.   

We can consider this from the standpoint of branding and how Canon intends to fulfill its stated commitment to pro sports/wildlife. Here are some scenario choices, which I would arrange in the following order of likelihood:

1.  Canon emphasises the 7D2 "flagship" APS-C status enhancing the 7D brand to include pro wildlife activities as a companion to the 1DX.  This of course depends on suitable APS-C sensor technology that can produce convincingly better images, even under low light,  than one can obtain by cropping 1DX images to the same FOV. 

2.  7D2 doesn't quite make it as (1) above describes, but Canon continues their wildlife niche camera brand with a new APS-H camera body, essentially a successor to the 1D4, that does produce convincingly better photos than the 1DX (or 5D3) cropped to the same FOV.  If they cannot produce a "flagship" APS-C body with sufficient IQ to appeal to the the pros, or to compete directly with Nikon,  they might still punt with an H body -- as expensive as that would be to continue the manufacturing investment of APS-H for only one body.

2.5:  on edit:  I guess a less likely (to me) but possible scenario is to put a twist into the 7D brand by making the 7D2 an APS-H body and propelling the 70D to the top prosumer APS-C body.  THAT would be a fascinating show to watch, especially on this forum :D

3.  Canon walks away from its its stated commitment to pro sports/wildlife, and produces no worthy crop body companion to the 1DX, and the pros just crop their 1DX images as subject distance requires.  BTW, the equivalent APS-C crop is ~6MP.

414
I agree a different sensor would make more sense with a different number - 2,3,4,6,8 and 9 are free  ;D

although... When canon introduced a different sensor back in 2002, they kept the same integer :D  I guess 10 years later they decided not to do that anymore  :P

415
Can someone explain the logic here to me, because no matter how hard I try, it just doesn't make sense.

Well I dont' pay much attention to random silliness :D  so some these I've never even heard of.  for example:
Quote

4) You can't have an APS-C body with a single-digit designation.

even on a rumor site, this one isn't even worth typing in "canonrumors.com" to read :D

416
The APS-H is a compromise for everyone.  Those who want "reach" don't want to drop down to 1.3x, and those who want FF benefits don't want to, well, drop down to 1.3x.  It should die.
well it is a compromise, but not for everyone. APS-H would fill the same niche that it does today, which is a very good compromise/mix between reach and IQ/ISO/noise, esp in certain wildlife situations that have been mentioned.  With sufficient APS-C advances in IQ of course, the need for H will diminish, and that could be what Canon is marching towards or even trying to accelerate.

in any case, the arguments against "H" have not yet credibly addressed the market needs of those currently served by it, imho anyway.  Unless it is "7D2 will be killer APS-C with great low-light IQ, and the pro togs will be proud to carry that along side the 1DX"  :D

417
...I am not sure I see the XXD becoming FF. Reason? It's the same reason why the XD line will not become FF, too many XXD owners and XD owners have EF-s lenses. An upgrade HAS to be justified by the buyer and if the upgrade cannot use ones current hardware, what's the point of upgrading?

Example, the 5D line has ALWAYS been FF, just as the Rebel line has ALWAYS been APS-C and so on and so on. Canon intergrated two high performance lines (1Ds and 1D) for the better, BUT APS-H bodies CANNOT use EF-s lenses SO, it makes sense to upgrade to the newer body.

I forsee the XXD and XD line becoming the new flagship APS-C camera (into the 7DII) and a new 5 series (or 3D) FF entry level. Canon will likely stay within current camera labels or create new ones (I.E. 3D or 6D) Simple marketing is my reasoning, they will likely keep the current tried and proven trends going.

D

nothing wrong with your reasoning;  I would just bring in the following factors that seem to get left out of the discussions:

1.  Canon has already telegraphed a willingness to shake up what has "always" been, in the product line, by merging the 1D and 1DS.   So names like 7D2 and 7DX could appear, even at the same time, or some new integer that hasn't been used before. 

2.  The "glass" impact in (1) above for the 1D folks is not trivial.  these guys have to either buy more glass and/or produce lower res shots by cropping.  This is no insignificant thing especially for birds and small wildlife.  make no mistake:  the distance-constrained situation does actually happen, in spite of all the comments from those are speaking without experience.   

3.  Canon has not yet telegraphed how they will maintain their stated commitment to pro wildlife market

These factors leave lots of room to speculate on how Canon will fulfill (3) above.  I see two possibilities

1.  APS-H is out:  pretty clear;  7D2 re-asserted as flagship crop body in APS-C and the pro togs carry a 7D2 as a second body.  I'm still not sure there is room for four APS-C bodies... but thats another subject

2.  APS-H is in: no matter what the new H body may be called, there will still be a premier APS-C body, so current 7D owners will have a choice to upgrade to the latest APS-C or have both H and C bodies to preserve their EF-S investment. 

418
the whole EF-S lens thing is really a non issue for the following reasons

1) lets be real there are a total of 2 EF-S lenses worth having that are affected the 17-55 and the 15-85
the rest are blown away by EF lenses

I don't think I can buy this argument.  first of all, you left out the 10-22.  All three are high dollar S lenses which equal or approach L optical quality in a less expensive build quality.  serious APS-C body users will have one and usually two out of the three 
Quote

3) when people are using the crop for reach arguement they are NOT talking about EF-S lenses they are using longer EF lenses and often L lenses

well this point is not valid either because when people use the crop for reach argument along with the EF-S lens question they are talking about preserving their camera body's ability to function at WA and UWA FOVs with their existing glass.  Look up the price of the 10-22 and the 17-55, and then imagine the migration to a FF body,  making that investment suddenly useless.  Thats big evidence in favor of an APS-C 7D2, and 70D bodies. 

419
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon APS-H mirrorless rumor from the past...
« on: June 18, 2012, 06:41:41 PM »
There are some things about this rumor that don't line up.  One of the stated motivations for APS-H mirrorless was to share the R&D costs with the 1D4, which we know isn't happening.  We also have to keep in mind that the rumor is 2 years old, and a lot can change in 2 years.

I tried to bring some sanity to this earlier but my post was deleted. Apparently some people can't handle the truth.

This is a two-year-old rumor based on an e-mail that Photo Rumors guy received. No doubt, Canon Rumors Guy had access to the same information but it never showed up on this site, even as a CR-1.

The rumor precedes the announcement by Canon that it has merged the 1D lines into a single full frame body. That decision solves the problem of having orphaned R&D costs.

The rumor talks about this mysterious APS-H mirrorless camera being released soon. It takes quite a leap of faith to think that "soon" hasn't come and gone over the last two years.

If people want to search the Internet for outdated rumors and then speculate on them that's their prerogative. But, please understand that the likelihood of this materializing is roughly equivalent to finding Elvis working at a gas station in Birmingham, England.

+1 I enjoy speculation as much as anyone, but it isn't worth firing any more neurons at this one.

420
Lenses / Re: Recommendations for vacation lenses and gear
« on: June 18, 2012, 11:32:11 AM »
I can see a 50mm 1.4 and a 70-200 at the zoo.  I switch between 17-55 and 70-200 all the time, but as I say that is only possible if you have a bag like the slingshot that allows you to do that quickly and while walking, so that you don't hold up the rest of the family, some of which is inevitable of course.  At the zoo you will have a great many lighting conditions, from indoors under low light and outdoor bright sunlight.  you'll just want to plan ahead what kind of photos you want. 

Yea I agree with the suggestion to take all three.  outdoors you'll use the 24-105 the most I would say, and stick on the 70-200 for the occasional animal portrait, esp if you have a 1.4x.  the 50mm 1.4 would be great for the indoor low-light shots. 

I love zoos and my grandkids so I come prepared for all lighting conditions.  I don't take a tripod in because of the bulk, and because personally my objective isn't necessarily to get every possible animal portrait -- I'm there to capture the kids as they interact with the scenery too.

Pages: 1 ... 26 27 [28] 29 30 ... 38