April 19, 2014, 11:19:35 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] 5 6 ... 16
46
EOS Bodies / Re: Bad News Closing out 2013? [CR2]
« on: September 20, 2013, 09:58:04 PM »
About right. The 7DII is strictly " dust in the wind " never happen at this point.

True. Imagine everybody's surprise if, instead of introducing a 7D2, Canon introduces a high-end EOS-M model to replace the 7D.

47
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS M Update Information [CR1]
« on: September 18, 2013, 08:46:41 AM »
If Canon wanted to introduce a FF mirrorless camera, my guess is that they would simply shorten the sensor-to-flange distance of the current EF mount and introduce both a new series of lenses and an adapter so that current lenses could also be used. APS-C is full frame for the EOS-M lensmount.

As for reinvigorating the EOS M line, fanfare would be good but only if they use it to introduce a much broader range of bodies and many more lenses.

48
Lighting / Re: Finally getting some Eneloops, but will my old charger work?
« on: September 14, 2013, 05:23:31 PM »
http://www.mahaenergy.com/mh-c9000/

If you have rechargeable batteries, this charger is a no brainer.


If you have eneloops, how is this ~$60 charger better than the ~$6 charger from Sanyo?


Update: Some days you get the bear and some days the bear gets you.

First, what is the model number of the Sanyo charger? (Update: NC-MDU01 for the 2-battery unit powered from a USB port and MQN04 for the 4 battery unit powered by mains.)

Second, does the Sanyo charge each cell individually or does it connect them in series pair and charge the pair, a strategy which eventually destroys the weaker of the two batteries? (Update: The NC-MDU01 charges them individually while the MQN04 charges them in series.)

Third, what is the normal charging current of the Sanyo charger? (Update: 850mA for a single battery plugged into the NC-MDU01 and 450mA when two batteries are plugged in. 250mA for the MQN04) My LaCrosse BC700's normal current is 100mA (Update: 200mA) and my Maha MH-C800S 8-battery model defaults to 500mA (Update: 1000mA) but can be reduced to 200mA (Update: 500mA). More current is worse since it heats up the battery and damages its internal structure.

Anyway, I use the LaCrosse almost exclusively. The Maha is used when I have a lot of batteries that need to be charged in a hurry, but that's why I bought it.

49
Lenses / Re: Is the future USM or STM? Or both..
« on: September 13, 2013, 10:33:16 PM »
I don't think we'll be seeing STM used in L-series lenses. AF during video is a consumer 'feature' - pro video shooters focus manually (often with a whole host of accessories to facilitate that - looking at a complete dSLR video rig, it can be hard to spot the camera!).

According to the professor at RIT's Imaging Arts & Sciences school that I asked, that isn't always true. For documentaries, where subject/talent motion isn't tightly controlled, AF is routinely used. Where the motion is controlled, yes, MF is used. At the time, he was conducting a shoot with two of his students at a local historical village, using a Canon XF305. Because of the subject matter (static Civil War cannons being fired) AF was used to set focus, then MF was used to hold it. Without MF, the camera kept trying to shift focus from the Cannon to the smoke.

Some high end camcorders do have autofocus, and for TV and documentaries, they use AF.
 
However for Cinema or high end commercial use, the use of autofocus is rare, in fact, few if any Cinema cameras or lenses have autofocus.  I don't think Panavision makes a autofocus lens, for example, and the Zeiss Compact Primes are manual focus.  Sometimes there is a bit of footage inserted into a movie taken with a camcorder, but its not the rule.
 
Its just a matter of what level of professional use you are dealing with.  Does the professor belong to ASC?

Haven't a clue if he belongs or not. I didn't talk with him all that much. All I know is that the documentary is supposed to appear on PBS nationally some time next year (confirmed by a museum employee). I explicitly asked him about AF vs MF because I'd already concluded what he confirmed, that it isn't a matter of amateur vs professional but rather a question of how much subject motion can be anticipated and/or controlled. It makes sense that, for an expensive feature film or commercial, greater efforts would be made to control everything possible, not to mention putting their expensive talent through multiple rehearsals and takes.

50
EOS-M / Re: The Next EOS M [CR2]
« on: September 13, 2013, 12:02:34 PM »
Any more CR dirt on this?

I am eagerly waiting for some kind of signal as to whether the EOS-M is an evolutionary dead end (at least in the US), or whether it will continue and be worthy of investment.

Mirrorless Rumors is saying wait until Photoplus Expo, starting the 23 of October.

51
Lenses / Re: Is the future USM or STM? Or both..
« on: September 12, 2013, 02:59:20 PM »
I don't think we'll be seeing STM used in L-series lenses. AF during video is a consumer 'feature' - pro video shooters focus manually (often with a whole host of accessories to facilitate that - looking at a complete dSLR video rig, it can be hard to spot the camera!).

According to the professor at RIT's Imaging Arts & Sciences school that I asked, that isn't always true. For documentaries, where subject/talent motion isn't tightly controlled, AF is routinely used. Where the motion is controlled, yes, MF is used. At the time, he was conducting a shoot with two of his students at a local historical village, using a Canon XF305. Because of the subject matter (static Civil War cannons being fired) AF was used to set focus, then MF was used to hold it. Without MF, the camera kept trying to shift focus from the Cannon to the smoke.

52
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sony's new little cameras
« on: September 07, 2013, 09:37:37 AM »
The concept is ridiculous. People are abandoning point and shoot cameras because of the convenience of using their phones...something already have with them. Adding this large, cumbersome camera into the mix is actually more complicated than simply carrying a thin, light Sony RX100. I truly don't get this at all.

This won't fit in your pocket on its own or while mounted to your phone. So, the steps to use are, 1) take out of purse/backpack whatever, 2) dock and attach to phone, 3) take picture, 4) put away? That is a worse solution than either just using your phone or pulling a point and shoot of your pocket.

It also looks incredibly awkward to hold when not mounted to the camera. People are going to be dropping and  breaking these like crazy while try to mount them to their phones.

+1

53
EOS-M / Re: The Next EOS M [CR2]
« on: September 03, 2013, 06:55:57 PM »


To me, that sounds like bigger.  In the case of the M, I don't think bigger is better.


A Sony NEX-6 isn't much larger and it has a man sized hand grip http://camerasize.com/compare/#375,351


Now that is a useful website! Thanks!

54
EOS-M / Re: The Next EOS M [CR2]
« on: September 03, 2013, 05:25:02 PM »
There's no reason why there can't be a body with a built-in EVF and one without.

If Canon (or Canon USA, at least) is having trouble pushing one model, how will they feel about two?  The other problem I see with that is that I'm afraid the two models will have different sensors - a cheap one (T5i/SL1 sensor, no EVF) and a more expensive one (70D sensor, EVF, and bigger).

I don't think the M system can survive with only one camera model. The implication would be that Canon isn't really serious about this system and Canon needs to start treating it like a system, even if a small one. As for using separate sensors for the two models, I agree with those who believe that the 70D sensor (or a close relative) is the minimum that could reasonably be put into any new M body. If not, why not just keep selling the current M body at the current price (or perhaps $100 higher)? That being said, one thing that has always puzzled me is why Canon went to the expense of revising the firmware in a model that was going to be replaced in a few months.

Just a guess... I don't think the price drop would have been enough to get people to buy into the system, the AF needed to be sped up.

+1.  It was a smart move, actually, because there is certainly a buzz over the M that was non-existent three months ago.  It may prove to be the springboard Canon needed to making the line a success with future models.  Price sells - particularly in the North American market

Or maybe the cheaper upcoming body will be the same as the old body, but with manufacturing costs reduced, for example with a plastic body instead of a metal body.

55
EOS-M / Re: The Next EOS M [CR2]
« on: September 03, 2013, 04:07:31 PM »
There's no reason why there can't be a body with a built-in EVF and one without.

If Canon (or Canon USA, at least) is having trouble pushing one model, how will they feel about two?  The other problem I see with that is that I'm afraid the two models will have different sensors - a cheap one (T5i/SL1 sensor, no EVF) and a more expensive one (70D sensor, EVF, and bigger).

I don't think the M system can survive with only one camera model. The implication would be that Canon isn't really serious about this system and Canon needs to start treating it like a system, even if a small one. As for using separate sensors for the two models, I agree with those who believe that the 70D sensor (or a close relative) is the minimum that could reasonably be put into any new M body. If not, why not just keep selling the current M body at the current price (or perhaps $100 higher)? That being said, one thing that has always puzzled me is why Canon went to the expense of revising the firmware in a model that was going to be replaced in a few months.

56
EOS-M / Re: The Next EOS M [CR2]
« on: September 03, 2013, 12:38:22 PM »
I'd be interested in an M with a built-in EVF. A camera with an awkward  hot-shoe EVF just doesn't cut-it with someone who uses a lot of fill flash.

To me, that sounds like bigger.  In the case of the M, I don't think bigger is better.

There's no reason why there can't be a body with a built-in EVF and one without. However, I'm with c.d.embrey on this one. A shrunken DSLR form factor would be good, something like the rumored Olympus E-M1, with tiny lenses to match, for when I don't want to carry around a 22-lb photo backpack.

57
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Big Sigma Primes [CR2]
« on: August 25, 2013, 09:12:10 PM »
At the risk of repeating myself, yet again, a 200-500 f/4 zoom lens would be a lot more useful to me than those primes!

58
EOS-M / Re: Some EOS M Information [CR1]
« on: August 21, 2013, 11:12:51 AM »
"If only the new M had wifi and GPS and EVF and flippy outy screen and a flash and better video" ... and all that other stuff you people want - you'd end up with a EOS M brick.

It's small and compact. Fix the bugs and leave it alone.

If you want all that other stuff buy a SL1 or rebel.

We'll have to agree to disagree about that. I never put my camera in my pocket anyway, so pocket-able size doesn't matter to me. The model that I want would have a user interface and size similar to the G series, up to G1X size, only with a world class EVF. I would also give a hard look at something like the Olympus E-M1. A tiny 15-85 f/3.5-5.6 lens would also be greatly appreciated.

59
EOS-M / Re: Some EOS M Information [CR1]
« on: August 20, 2013, 07:30:04 PM »
I'd say most of the M bashers in this thread have never used an M.

I "used" one in a store for about 5 minutes. That's all that was required to determine that the nay-sayers were largely correct.

60
EOS-M / Re: Some EOS M Information [CR1]
« on: August 19, 2013, 06:34:11 PM »
Why should people overcome adversities to support imperfect product (only blind fanboys do that)?

Fair enough.  Can you please point us in the direction of that 'perfect product' your statement implies exists?  ::)

How about something that sells spectacularly well, far beyond expectations and makes incredible profits for its manufacturer? There may not be such a thing as a "perfect" product but, according to the marketplace, the original M body was thoroughly imperfect. I also don't see why it is a sign of good character ("overcome adversities") to waste money on that bad a product.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 16