April 21, 2014, 01:20:11 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 - Bob Howland

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 16
16
EOS-M / Re: Is the canon eos-m a dead end system?
« on: February 18, 2014, 08:19:31 PM »
If this EOS-m [was] still selling @ $700-$800, I wonder how many of us would consider the M as backup camera?

Probably not many, especially considering that an SL1 body costs less than $500. Given the competition, including the competition in Canon's own lineup, a reasonable price for an M or M2 body is $300-$400, no more.

17
EOS-M / Re: Is the canon eos-m a dead end system?
« on: February 17, 2014, 04:32:15 PM »
You are mistaken. The eos-m mount can ├╝hysically not handle an ff image circle. Sony was smarzer and made their e-mount just barely large enough to also handle ff. Canon was stupid, as so often. Aps-c only. Dead-slow AF. Same tired old 18 MP sensor, a dinosaur from 5 years ago. Bad low iso performance. Poor hi-iso performance.

Sony was smarter?? They now have to support both the E-mount and Alpha-mount in both APS-C and FF versions and they don't seem to be providing clear guidance about which mounts and configurations will be emphasized, thereby creating confusion among potential buyers. Fuji and the micro-4/3 manufacturers are doing a much better job of creating workable systems.

FF is the Holy Grail only because it is the same size as a standard slide or negative, resulting in an enormous body of legacy lenses. In a similar fashion, in a similar fashion, Super-35 is a video standard because of the dominance of that image size for movies and the resulting development of now-highly prized and extremely expensive PL mount lenses for that image size.

There's no technical reason why Canon couldn't release an EOS FF mirrorless system by simply shortening the distance between sensor and lens flange to 18mm, introducing an adapter allowing use of DSLR lenses on the mirrorless bodies and taking their time introducing FF mirrorless lenses. About the only thing that Canon has done right with EOS-M is restrict it to APS-C-sized sensors. Canon has publicly stated that the emphasis of the EOS-M system would be small size. It's too bad that their implementation sucks.

 

18
EOS Bodies / Re: What's Next from Canon?
« on: February 16, 2014, 11:38:13 AM »
It's lower by around 6-8 stops.

Proof?

I've tried it.  The EVFs are showing what is in essence the out-of-camera JPEG, with about 1 stop clipped from each end.  And as we all know, the out-of-camera JPEG contains several stops less DR than is available in the raw data.

The out-of-camera JPEG would probably contain considerably more resolution than the EVF requires, or are you talking about something like the JPEG that gets embedded in the Raw? Could you provide more details about how you "tried" it?

19
PowerShot / Re: More Images of the PowerShot G1 X Mark II
« on: February 11, 2014, 08:22:32 AM »
Rumored focal length range is 24-150 mm. Image shows 12.5-62.5 mm. So, what is the size of the sensor? The above numbers show sensor size is ~ 4/3 sensor. So, Canon entering the 4/3 market but only for compact cameras? Interesting

The current G1X has a 15.1-60.4mm lens, billed as a 28-112mm equivalent. With the same size sensor, 12.5-62.5mm gives a 23-115mm equivalent, a 5:1 ratio. The rumor calls for a 6.25:1 ratio, so it would seem the rumor is wrong. My guess is that Canon will call it a 24-120mm lens. That's fine with me, although the absence of a built-in OVF or EVF means I won't be buying it.

20
Canon General / Re: Canon PowerShot G1 X II Image
« on: February 08, 2014, 08:17:32 AM »
It looks like the external EVF goes where an external flash would also go. Unfortunately, I have an external flash on my G10 almost all the time.

21
Aren't Gitzo and Manfrotto owned by the same company and didn't Manfrotto do the same thing a few months ago?

22
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: EF-M 18-40 Pancake
« on: January 20, 2014, 12:08:55 PM »
Ok. I'm going to ask this, knowing some eye rolling will occur. In what way will this be different than the 18-55? It's just going to be smaller? I know I'm not a photog expert here and I'm new (sort of) to this hobby, but...why? I must be missing something. Somebody much smarter/more experienced than me please enlighten me as to what I'm not interpreting from this.
The distance between the back of the lens and the sensor can be MUCH less than for a DSLR lens, since there's no mirror to contend with. Presumably, this allows a different optical formal to be used, resulting in a smaller, maybe better lens. (That's the extent of my knowledge on the subject.)

23
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: EF-M 18-40 Pancake
« on: January 19, 2014, 07:51:03 PM »
"Oddly marketed" doesn't begin to describe this fiasco. Anyway, I have to agree with Lee Jay. A 15-50 would be much more useful than an 18-56.

24
Lenses / Re: Get a 300mm or 600mm? Oh the agony...
« on: January 02, 2014, 03:32:53 PM »
You didn't provide enough information for anyone to really give you a good recommendation.

We do not know what you shoot. We do not know if what and where you shoot if the size and weight of a 600mm set up could be used. We do not know what will make you happy.

I'll second that! You say that you don't have enough reach. OK, how much do you have to crop to get the images that you want and what focal lengths would give you those images?

For example, the first time I went to Watkins Glen, it was with an EOS-3 film camera and a 100-400. Looking at how much I had to crop, I decided that I needed 800mm or its equivalent. Now I use a 7D with either a 100-400 or a 300 f/2.8 with 1.4X and 2X TCs. By next spring, I'll probably own a 200-400 zoom.

FWIW, Sports Illustrated photographers typically prefer the 400 f/2.8 with 1.4X and 2X TCs over a 600 f/4 with a 1.4X TC.

25
Sports / Re: Your favourite motorsports events
« on: January 02, 2014, 03:10:15 PM »
First, Watkins Glen, obviously not NASCAR weekend, nearly a decade ago
Second, Saturday night at a dirt track near Batavia, NY
Third, Frozen Ocean motocross track, upstate New York

26
Lenses / Re: Patent: 16-120mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM
« on: December 29, 2013, 08:41:58 AM »
I like the idea of a 16-120 zoom for the EOS M!

So do I, although a 15-85 would be just a good.

27
EOS Bodies / Re: A New EOS M with EVF Second Half of 2014?
« on: December 14, 2013, 10:30:30 AM »
The only reason to buy this EOS-M2 (and the future EOS-M3) is the seamless integration of current EF/EF-S lenses. 

+10. Some of the M4/3 models are looking mighty tempting. However, my 5D3 with a small prime lens and without the battery pack is "small enough" for most of my uses. I don't put cameras in my pockets.

Quote
As a system (or a camera) in own right, the EOS-M/M2 is nearly four years behind micro-4/3. By the time Canon gets to where mirrorless systems are today (e.g. Panasonic GX7 and Olympus E-M1), even Sony will have (in all probability) a fairly decent set of (native, FF mirrorless) lenses.

I think you're being overly pessimistic. Canon could make up the entire 4-year lag in the next one or two models, for example introducing a couple models comparable to the GX7, except that one is FF. The question is whether they want to.

28
EOS Bodies / Re: A New EOS M with EVF Second Half of 2014?
« on: December 09, 2013, 11:43:29 AM »
Second half of 2014 with an emphasis on video? The Panasonic GH4 is coming out in the first half of 2014...with 4K/30p video.

29
Ok, the EOS M Pro - when it gets released, if ever.


I'll be all over it, and the M->EF adaptor.

+1

I currently own a G10, with a 270EX flash mounted on it constantly, that I'd like to replace with Canon's answer to the Fuji X-E2, Panasonic GF7 and Sony NEX-6. The G10 still takes great pictures though, if there's enough light.

30
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS M2 Not Coming to North America
« on: December 03, 2013, 09:43:39 PM »
For one thing, in the USA there is no way that an end to launched at $800 could compete with the current M priced $500 cheaper.  There seem to be quite a few of those in retail channels right now.

And it certainly doesn't help that an SL1 body can currently be purchased from B&H for $500. The marketing of the M system has been one botch job after another.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 16