Messages

151

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Anyone else intrigued by the new Fuji X20 and X100s

« on: January 08, 2013, 10:14:55 PM »

I am intrigued by the X100S.  Fuji seems to have addressed every problem of the original X100.  The list of improvements is very impressive.  They seem to have extracted the best suggestions from various X100 user wishlists and said "Build it!". 

152

PowerShot / Re: Canon Announces The PowerShot N

« on: January 08, 2013, 12:28:54 AM »

He slams the 5DIII as an upgrade - in what world is the 5DIII not a decent upgrade to the 5DII?  Yes, the 5DIII has DR capabilities (and IQ) equivalent to 5DII, but if it's crap, why are he and his friends still using it?  I contend that the thing about the 5DII that didn't need upgrading was the IQ - and Canon did a great job with AF, frame rate, dual slots, sealing, etc., i.e., everything else.

The 5DIII is an ok upgrade to the 5DII. In terms of what matters to me, the 5DIII basically is a 5DII, except with a vastly superior AF. They have similar sensors, MP, DR, etc. The 5DII had awesome image quality, when the 5DIII came out, no one was shocked or astounded by how good it was. Rather, we were told that in JPG, we might get 2 stops better ISO, maybe 1 stop better in RAW. I'm sure the 5DIII is better, but it is rather similar to the 5DII image quality wise and I'm not hearing many 5DII owners complaining about IQ compared to the III. In fact, for months after the 5DIII came out, when Nikon fans were showing reflections in eyeballs at full screen and giggling about how good the D800 was, Canon users were complaining about black borders at high ISO, smearing of details, and overly aggressive AA filtering. Now, the firmware is a little better, LR has better tools in place for editing, and now the 5DIII has settled in as a great camera(as the 5DII was.)
However, for me, the 5DIII is what the 5DII SHOULD HAVE been. If the 5DII had the AF of the 5DIII, then it would have KILLED the D700 in every way. Instead, the 5DII was awesome for video, while the D700 was more of a sports camera. If you want video and great skin tones, you went Canon, if you wanted AF you went Nikon(or 1D.) When the 5DII was current, all I wanted was better AF and I would have bought it. Me, and many other people think the 5DII should have had a better AF to begin with. Thus, prior to the 5DIII, all I really wanted was a 5DII with a better AF. However, given time, technology, etc. I thought that this upgrade would come in at a similar price point(every new Macbook pro with better features remains similarly priced to previous models.)
INSTEAD, the 5DIII came in at 1000 dollars more than the 5DII. The most obvious difference is the AF. So, in 4 years of waiting, Canon managed to release a somewhat similar camera to the 5DII, but with the AF the II should have had to begin with, and at a $1000 higher price.
So yes, for me the 5DIII was just an updated II with an inflated price tag. It looked like a great camera, but it should be for $3500!!!
I realize that you love Canon Neuro, but you need to understand that many people want to love Canon and were very disappointed in their products. I was a huge Canon fan for several years, but in the past 2 years got sick of their ridiculously inflated pricing on release(obv not a problem for some people here.)
Yes, the 5DIII was an upgrade, but it didn't come cheap, the price was also significantly higher.

The 5D3 came out at $800 more than the 5D2 at its introduction ($2700).  So the $1000 price increase is an exaggeration.  Now the 5D3 has dropped about 15% in price at reputable dealers ($3500 > $3000), but Canon still gets bashed for the $1000 price increase.  The 5D3 is now only $200 more than the 5D2 was in 2008 and all of 2009.  Canon gets no credit for dropping the price of the 5D2 to unbelievably low levels in recent months.  Price increases are always blamed on the manufacturer, while price decreases are always credited to competition forcing prices down ... as if prices are set with no regard to the market.  It seems that people who liked the 5D2 enough to buy it at $2700 found a new reason to blame Canon when the price fell by $1000; the big price cut just gave them more ammunition to bash the "similar" but "overpriced" 5D3.

Canon made dozens of improvements in the 5D3, bringing it closer to the much more expensive 1D series.  The whole camera is more responsive and refined.  New AF, new shutter, new viewfinder, better high ISO, higher frame rate, dual cards, etc.  Just because autofocus is the only improvement that matters to you doesn't mean that Canon didn't build all of the other improvements, which happen to be improvements that matter to others who requested them.  These improvements made the 5D3 a viable substitute for many 1D users, and thus a much cheaper alternative to the 1D cameras they had previously bought.  For them, the 5D3 was the baby 1D they wished for, and a welcome price break even at the initial price of $3500.

Whenever a new model comes out, some people always say:  "This is what the previous model should have been!"  But that ignores how cameras are developed.  It also ignores what the cost would have been had the later model been developed that much earlier.  Let me use the same logic to top your claim that the 5D3 is what the 5D2 should have been in 2008.  No, ... the 5D3 is what the D30 should have been been in 2000.  (Nevermind what it would have cost then.)  And the 1DX is what the 1D should have been in 2001.  The 1V is what the EOS 620 should have been in 1987.  The Nikon F6 is what the Nikon F should have been in 1959.  The Leica M7 is what the Leica II should have been in 1932.  And so on.  Does this make any sense?  Do we seriously want to blame manufacturers for evolving their products?  Are we perpetually disappointed that all previous models where just bungled attempts at the current model, which itself is just a minor update of the previous model?  Is the glass always half empty?

153

PowerShot / Re: Canon Announces The PowerShot N

« on: January 07, 2013, 05:35:11 PM »

By the way, to all those upset at Canon for not announcing a new lens or DSLR body: I understand the disappointment, but remember, this is the Consumer Electronics Show, not the Photographer Electronics Show. This is exactly the venue to unveil consumer-oriented (even gimmicky) products.

I don't understand the "upset" at all.  And yet it happens every year.  They announce products that are intended for someone else -- that meet someone else's needs very nicely -- and everyone else has to complain.  It goes something like this:

"They announced the Powershot N.  That's a toy!  Where is my 7DII!?"
"They announced a 200-400/4 IS zoom.  That's for pro sports and wildlife photographers!  Where is my 50/1.4 with IS!?"
"They announced a new printer/copier.  Oh crap, it's a printer/copier!  Where is my 12-24/2.8L!?"

Why don't people realize that the day they announce the exact thing you wanted is the day when thousands of other people will be awaiting something completely different?  Not every announcement is going to fill your personal sweet spot for the thing you need to be new that month.

154

PowerShot / Re: Canon Announces The PowerShot N

« on: January 07, 2013, 05:20:40 PM »

Really? I still think the 5D3 has a craptastic sensor, with its decade old DR capabilities.

Not everyone bends over to Canon's marketing machine. Me and most of my friends are still shooting our 5D2s, happily waiting for the 5D4 / 5DX or whatever the next generation will be called.

I guess people who think the 5D3 is a great upgrade from the 5D2, will also like the Powershot N. They will buy anything that Canon throws at them.

Dude, just get a D600.  The grass is really gDReener, the colors are bDRighter and you'll be just DRelighted with the non-craptastic (but possibly oil-spattered) sensor.

Absolutely!  Why wait for the 5D4, or whatever Canon "throws" at you next, when you can have the D600 right now!?  Just get a D600 ... now.  Thankfully, Nikon has no marketing machine whatsoever.  They just engineer pure goodness and then sell it at a loss so that photographers can live better lives.  They don't spend even a dollar on marketing ... it's all pure word of mouth with one Nikonian spreading the good word to another.  Those of us who bend over for Canon's marketing machine must suffer with the craptastic sensor of the 5D3.  The decade old DR is just killing our photos, but we don't know any better.  Oh woe, if only we had more DRRRRRRRR ..... 

He didn't mention Nikon at all, did he? It's funny some just assume if you chide Canon, you must be a Nikon fanboy. From the sounds of it, he and his friends are still Canon users, so am I. So if you're a Canon user, you must never say anything bad about Canon? Is camera brand loyalty a religion now?

If you're going to insult all Canon 5D3 users for "bending over to Canon's marketing machine" and for "buying anything that Canon throws at them", then you can expect to get some feedback on that.  Just a little.

If you're going to complain about the "craptastic sensor" and "decade old DR" of the 5D3, then you must be in the market for something vastly better.  Ever since the advent of DxO, we've been hearing that Nikon provides that.  So that is the logical answer:  just buy a Nikon already and achieve your sensorial bliss.  Their sensors are made in heaven and freshly infused with each day's latest technology.  Moreover, they come with a special layer of divine inspiration (and a few oil spots).  Those who are entrapped by Canon are cursed to suffer without such goodness.  But perhaps you're right and the Nikon inference is all wrong.  Perhaps the proper inference is Leica, Mamiya, Hasselblad, Pentax, Leaf, etc. ... surely they have all of the sensor goodness that Canon is missing.  If only we Canon users had such DR, then finally our photos might turn out OK. 

155

PowerShot / Re: Canon Announces The PowerShot N

« on: January 07, 2013, 04:27:52 PM »

Really? I still think the 5D3 has a craptastic sensor, with its decade old DR capabilities.

Not everyone bends over to Canon's marketing machine. Me and most of my friends are still shooting our 5D2s, happily waiting for the 5D4 / 5DX or whatever the next generation will be called.

I guess people who think the 5D3 is a great upgrade from the 5D2, will also like the Powershot N. They will buy anything that Canon throws at them.

Dude, just get a D600.  The grass is really gDReener, the colors are bDRighter and you'll be just DRelighted with the non-craptastic (but possibly oil-spattered) sensor.

Absolutely!  Why wait for the 5D4, or whatever Canon "throws" at you next, when you can have the D600 right now!?  Just get a D600 ... now.  Thankfully, Nikon has no marketing machine whatsoever.  They just engineer pure goodness and then sell it at a loss so that photographers can live better lives.  They don't spend even a dollar on marketing ... it's all pure word of mouth with one Nikonian spreading the good word to another.  Those of us who bend over for Canon's marketing machine must suffer with the craptastic sensor of the 5D3.  The decade old DR is just killing our photos, but we don't know any better.  Oh woe, if only we had more DRRRRRRRR ..... 

156

PowerShot / Re: Canon Announces The PowerShot N

« on: January 07, 2013, 11:10:26 AM »

This is one of the ugliest cameras I've ever seen.

Actually, it's quite elegant.

I agree.  It's an elegant design.  People seem to dislike anything that doesn't meet their current personal needs for a camera, not realizing that it may meet someone else's needs quite nicely.

157

Lenses / Re: Canon 35mm f/2 IS VS the Sigma 35mm f/1.4

« on: January 04, 2013, 08:42:23 PM »

I just felt like Canon didn't even challenge themselves with the 35mm f/2. What prime doesn't look good at f/2, how hard is it to put IS in a prime if you can easily do it in zooms, and then lets charge double the amount as typically charged for this type of lens.

How did they not "challenge themselves" with the 35/2 IS?  The new lens is dramatic improvement over the original 35/2 —
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=824&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=122&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

What prime lens doesn't look good at f/2?  How about the original Canon 35/2?  How about the Canon 28/1.8?  How about the Sigma 20/1.8?  How about the Nikon 35/2?  Just look at the fuzzy corners on those lenses.  The new Canon 35/2 IS is a dramatic improvement over those lenses.

The new Sigma 35/1.4 looks outstanding, but it's a much bigger and heavier lens that offers an extra stop of light.  It's a direct competitor to the 35L, not to the new 35/2 IS.  Not everyone is looking for the biggest, heaviest 35mm lens they can find.  Canon has a unique offering with the 35/2 IS.

158

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Cannot Keep Screwing It's Customers Over

« on: January 04, 2013, 08:22:57 PM »

overpriced

Please define this term precisely.  In all seriousness, I don't know what you mean here.  To me this word could have any of these definitions:

• higher price than I'm willing to pay for it
• higher price than my (hypothetical) customer is willing to pay for it
• artificially high price due to collusion with other companies; i.e., not subject to normal supply/demand market pressures

Is it not one of these?

Apparently it means "higher priced than the very cheapest third party competitor that offers lenses for the same mount".  Nevermind any cost-cutting by the competitor, such as the three tiny bits of glue that hold the front element of a third-party's 24-70 zoom.   And nevermind any incompatibilities caused by the third party reverse-engineering things.  And nevermind their wrong-direction zooms.  And nevermind any unique characteristics of the Canon offerings, such as the outstanding resolution of the 24-70/2.8 II, the built-in image stabilization of the 35/2 IS, the radio-controlled flash of the 600EX-RT, the variable raw file size and amazing quiet shutter mode of the 5DIII, the amazing 17mm tilt-shift or the 8-15mm fisheye lenses, etc.  It follows from this logic that Canon should be competing on price with everyone else out there, and letting innovation and quality take a backseat to price competition.  If a third-party ever makes a cheapo Canon-mount DSLR, then Canon should downgrade the 1DX and 5DIII to match it, to avoid being "overpriced".  It also means discounting every product from the first day on the market, to avoid any introductory pricing, despite countless other businesses doing the same thing. 

159

Lenses / Re: Making the most out of a 50 1.2?

« on: January 04, 2013, 01:30:46 PM »

Yes, but how sharp 'p your 2470@ 1.2?

And actually, the sharpest aperture of the 50 L is around 5.0-5.6.

If that's true, then that's really disappointing considering the cost.

Considering the cost (~ $1,300), it is a fabulous lens.  It is plenty sharp around f/2 and draws very, very beautifully -- which is its main selling point.  There is no need to stop it down, except for more depth of field.  Canon could have included a floating element to address a slight focus shift when stopping down, but then people would freak out even more about the price.

If you want a better fast 50mm, you have to spend $4,000 for a Leica 50/1.4 or $11,000 for a Leica 50/0.95, and at least $5,450 for a camera body on which to mount it.

160

Pricewatch Deals / Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS in Stock at B&H Photo

« on: January 03, 2013, 11:40:43 PM »

I'd like to have a FF camera, i was about to buy 5D3 or 6D but i see both of those cameras aren't worthy of their prices, while D600 is a steal!
24-70 2.8 II is a big disappointment (no IS and over expensive)
24-70 f4 IS too (too expensive and since 24-105 exists and it is a GREAT lens for all around use, no reason to buy this 24-70 f4 is)

The new 24-70/2.8 II is a great lens, worth the price.  The new 24-70/4 IS is a high quality small zoom with macro.  It will be even better than the 24-105/4 IS.  The 5D3 is fantastic and the price has come down.   But why wait to switch if Canon "died" and Nikon is so much better & cheaper?  I don't understand the hesitation.

161

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Cannot Keep Screwing It's Customers Over

« on: January 03, 2013, 01:26:35 PM »

The point is that Canon is playing pricing games...

It's called "intertemporal price discrimination" (as someone noted above) and it's smart business.  They make lovely products and should make money on them.  That money pays for a lot of people and materials and facilities, which then help them make more lovely products.  We don't tell them how to price their cameras and they don't tell us how to price our photography — that seems like a fair arrangement.  If the prices really bother someone, there are plenty of other camera makers out there ... Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Olympus, Fuji, Leica ... 

162

Lenses / Re: DXO Mark review the 28mm f/2.8 IS...

« on: January 03, 2013, 10:34:52 AM »

It's a very good lens, as the DxO report shows.   High quality in a small package.   There is nothing wrong with the lens or its marketing.  I don't understand why every thread needs some cynical remarks about marketing.

163

Lenses / Re: Prime Lens for 6D

« on: January 02, 2013, 08:43:15 PM »

My main question is, what do you guys find the best focal length for an everyday prime lens?  I feel kind of restricted at 50 mm, but I wonder if 35 mm is too wide for an everyday walk-around lens.

35, 40 and 50mm are all great everyday walk-around lenses.  Only you can decide which focal length you prefer.  When I don't want to carry too much, I choose either the 50/1.4 or the 40/2.8 pancake.  The new 35/2 IS looks like an ideal walk-around lens, but maybe wait till the price comes down.  The Sigma 35/1.4 looks lovely, but is too big & heavy to be the ideal everyday walk-around lens.

164

Lenses / Re: 24-85mm Lens?

« on: January 02, 2013, 08:24:58 PM »

Did the EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS cease to exist while I wasn't looking?

It still exists.  It's mid-range.  And it's pretty affordable.  But somehow people are being "turned off by the 6D" because this lens doesn't exist.  How strange. 

165

Lenses / Re: Making the most out of a 50 1.2?

« on: December 24, 2012, 03:29:16 PM »

+1.  Do what bdunbar79 wrote.  Enjoy!