October 21, 2014, 04:04:40 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 - Bob Howland

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 18
91
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.

92
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.

93
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!

94
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.

95
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.

96
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.

97
Will there be 200-400mm f2.8 ART for $4000? ::) ::) ::)

That would be too large and heavy. How about a 200-500 f/2.8-4, where the aperture is constant (maximum of 2.8 ) between 200mm and 350mm, then allowed to increase gradually to f/4 as FL increases to 500mm? Even that would be larger than the 200-400s from Nikon and Canon. (I've been suggesting a lens like that to Sigma for about 3 years.)

98
EOS Bodies / Re: An Update on the 75+mp Camera in the Wild
« on: July 25, 2013, 08:49:31 PM »
A few wild guesses:

First, it's mirrorless with an EVF good enough for professionals;

Second, it has 80MP, but they're paired as in the 70D;

Third, when they say "high frame rate", they mean 24 to 30FPS;

Fourth, it's in the 1Dx body 'cause it's a power hog.

99
Sigma should introduce its Big Brother, a 200-500 f/4.

100
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.

101
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.

102
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.

103
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.

104
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.

105
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?

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 18