April 18, 2014, 07:31:46 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 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 16
61
EOS Bodies / Re: The Next EOS M Camera(s) [CR1]
« on: July 19, 2013, 06:48:33 PM »
People that bag on this camera at the $299 pricepoint crack me up. What decent camera can you buy for $299 new these days? I own a 60D and a 5Dc and this little guy can spar with them, and go home in a coat pocket.

I'm glad you're amused. I've owned a G10 for several years (plus a 5D3, a 7D and a slew of lenses) so, for me, the real alternative is not in buying a different camera, but rather not buying any camera at all right now and waiting for something that fills my needs better, even if it is more expensive.

62
I would upgrade for some combination of much better dynamic range, better high ISO image quality, more pixels and higher FPS, in decreasing order of importance. I don't expect these improvements to be compelling enough to upgrade until the 5D5.

63
EOS Bodies / Re: The Next EOS M Camera(s) [CR1]
« on: July 08, 2013, 08:15:20 AM »
The easiest way to think of what a speedbooster does to your sensor size and focal length is the following:

When you don't use a speedbooster, you constantly multiply your focal lengths by 1.6 to get the "equivalent focal length". With a speedbooster that is no longer necessary.

WITH A SPEEDBOOSTER, YOUR APS-C CAMERA JUST BECAME A FULLFRAME CAMERA, AND ISO IS ACTUALLY TWICE AS HIGH AS WHAT THE CAMERA SAYS

So, when I use a 50mm on my NEX-5N with a speedbooster, set at f/1.4 and with ISO 200, I get an image with the same field of view, depth of field, and exposure, as I'd get with that same 50mm on a 5D3, set at f/1.4 and with ISO 400.
There, no more math. It becomes a FF camera, end of story.

You should get an additional 1 1/3 stops of light. If Canon makes it, I imagine they would compensate by making f-stop read accurately... so that the camera would see f/1.8 instead of f/2.8, for example.

Using the booster with the 50 f/1.2 or 85 f/1.2 might prove interesting. The resulting maximum aperture  would be something like f/.75. I suspect that the corners would be a bit ragged.

64
EOS Bodies / Re: The Next EOS M Camera(s) [CR1]
« on: July 08, 2013, 08:07:35 AM »
Why is it that people never seem to get that retailers are not Canon and an individual retailers pricing decision often occurs independent of Canon (or any other manufacturer).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

Fact: Canon is not offering the EOS M for $299.
Fact: There is no rebate currently offered for the EOS-M, which means no enforcement of minimum advertised pricing.
Fact: B&H offered the camera for $299.
Fact: We don't know why B&H made this offer.
Fact: Adorama and Amazon are major competitors with B&H.
Fact: Adorama and Amazon matched B&H's price.
Fact: We don't know why Adorama and Amazon matched B&H's price, but we can speculate it has something to do with the competitive marketplace.
Fact: Eventually, the EOS-M will be replaced.

Assuming any relationship between the last fact and all those preceding, without correcting for all of the other variables, is simply sloppy reasoning.

Have you ever investigated "dealer incentives" that car manufacturers offer to their dealers? The price reduction could have come about because Canon let it be known to its retailers that it had a warehouse full of M kits that it was willing to sell to them (the retailers) at a much lower price and B&H, being B&H, was the first retailer to reduce their price in response. Dealers don't typically sell stuff at a loss without good reason, even if their competitors decide to. Even if the M is being replaced, the retailers could simply hold onto their current kits and reduce their prices to the break-even point when the new model appears. Given Canon's pricing history, that break-even point is likely to be well below the price of the new models' kits.

65
EOS Bodies / Re: The Next EOS M Camera(s) [CR1]
« on: July 07, 2013, 08:58:36 PM »

"Also in development is a focal length reducer for EF lenses, this will be announced with the 20mp EOS M camera"

That is something you hear about more in astronomy.  But a 0.8 focal reducer that would turn your 10-22 3.5-4.5 into, say, a 8-18 2.8 - 3.6 would be interesting.  A Meade or Celestron focal reducer costs in the neighborhood of $100.  Count on the Canon being $300, maybe.  Because it is Canon, and because it has the EOS electronic connections. 

Let's see -- a .8 reducer would make the 85 1.8 a 68 1.4.  But the efl would still be a bit over 100mm because of the crop factor.   This sounds intriguing, but will probably not be inexpensive.

A reducer factor of 0.63 would restore EF lenses to their full frame optical values. (0.63 = 1/1.6).  I wonder if that's it....

The 10-22 is an EF-S lens. It looks like this would only be for EF lenses only. I think you are right on the 0.63 reducer, though. I'm excited for that. The EOS-M just gets more and more appealing.

Agreed -- I got to thinking about it and was about to follow up with a post saying that it likely be EF only because it would need the extra clearance.   I also would like to revise my price guess: this will be marketed as a piece of pro gear -- a Canon teleconverter runs about $450 -- so that would likely be the ballpark for the reducer -- $450 - $500.   I hope it's closer to the first guess, though!

It isn't a matter of clearance, it's how large an image circle the lens throws onto the sensor. With an EF lens, the adapter shrinks the image from 43mm diameter to about 27.6mm. An EF-S lens already has a (nominal) image circle of 27.6mm so shouldn't be reduced more.

66
EOS Bodies / Re: The Next EOS M Camera(s) [CR1]
« on: July 07, 2013, 08:52:10 PM »
So Canon just dumped their current model at a ridiculously low price so that could introduce a very similar model?? The only reason I can see why they would do that is because they figure the current model's reputation is so bad that nobody would buy it at a higher price, so bad, in fact, that they had to incur the cost of a firmware upgrade to make it marketable even at the ridiculously low price.

I wonder if the people who decided to bring the current model to market are still working at Canon?

67
EOS Bodies / Re: Why can't the 70D be 40MP in regular mode?
« on: July 06, 2013, 09:12:58 AM »
When you're not using live view, will it be possible to take 40MP pics?

WHY?

What do you mean why? Are photographers still stuck on this anti-megapixel circlejerk from 2002?

Huh? Of the Canon 1Dx, 5D3 and 6D, the 1Dx, the most expensive model, has the fewest pixels. Of the Nikon D4, D800 and D600, the D4 has the fewest pixels. Does that mean that Canon and Nikon are "stuck on this anti-megapixel circlejerk"?

68
EOS Bodies / Re: Why can't the 70D be 40MP in regular mode?
« on: July 06, 2013, 09:07:45 AM »
No, I don't think that 40MP images will be possible, mostly because, individually, the pixels are not square. As far as I know, (almost) all current digital cameras use square pixels, presumably because it simplifies image post processing. If anybody knows of exceptions (after the Nikon D1X), I'd love to hear about them

69
EOS-M / Re: Will version 2 use the new 70D sensor?
« on: July 06, 2013, 08:54:44 AM »
The real question is: What will the M2 be? I can see three plausible directions, all with the 70D sensor: (1) something extremely compact like the current M; (2) something larger with an EVF and a more button-centric user interface; (3) a video camera, with the appropriate user interface. My guess is that (1) is fairly unlikely, considering that Canon just upgraded the firmware to the current body, (3) is something that Canon will get to eventually if not now and (2) is what we can expect.

Then again, somebody is trying awfully hard to get rid of current M bodies.

70
Could this mean they are coming out with a new version of the EOS M?

And maybe within a couple weeks. I'd probably have gone for it if the 70D hadn't been introduced.

71
EOS Bodies / Re: Predictions for next EOS M....
« on: July 02, 2013, 02:22:26 PM »
Dual Pixel Liveview Autofocus ... If it is there on the EOS-M, we have a winner.  :)

+1.  I can live without the EVF, if they provide one I hope it's a hotshoe accessory to keep the body size small.

The problem with a hot-shoe EVF is that you can't use the EVF and an outboard flash simultaneously and I have a 270EX on my G10 almost all the time.

72
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Dual Pixel Liveview Autofocus
« on: July 02, 2013, 07:26:59 AM »
Interesting and promising.  Still not as fast as true phase AF, I expect.

Still...I was considering the EOS M, but maybe I'll wait for the EOS M MkII with this technology...   ;)

For video, I would not want instantaneous autofocus, since that would provide no transition period. I would, however, want the autofocus to be smooth, with no hunting whatsoever, basically a superb electronic implementation of a highly-skilled focus puller (i.e., first assistant cameraman). (High slew rates provide faster response but are more prone to hunting.)

As for the M MkII, I agree completely, something to replace my G10 but with superb ISO6400 image quality and a decent EVF.

73
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 40D to 5D Classic. Good upgrade?
« on: June 27, 2013, 05:55:51 PM »
I used to use a 5D/40D pairing but replaced them last year with a 5D3/7D pairing. The 40D was used almost exclusively with my 100-400 and 300 f/2.8, which is how I use the 7D now. I have two 20X30 landscape photos made with the 5D, with lots of tree leaves but a minimum viewing distance of about 30 inches. They look fine.

Biggest complaint with the 5D is that the focusing is not very fast and the highest ISO is 3200. It is definitely not a sports camera.

74
5D3 body with a $4500 price. My problem is that I really don't need more resolution than the 5D3 already has but, then again, I'm not trying to sell 40" x 60" landscape prints as corporate decoration.

75
Lenses / Re: What is the next Canon lens you want or covet and why...
« on: June 08, 2013, 01:46:44 PM »
200-400 f/4 L IS 1.4X, to photograph outdoor sports, especially in dusty locations

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 16