April 18, 2014, 05:22:56 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 - Albi86

Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20] 21 22 ... 55
By the numbers:

  • Nikon reported a 1H-FY13 (Mar-Aug, 2013) drop in y/y unit sales of dSLRs of ↓28.5%
  • Canon reported a 2Q13 and 3Q13 (Apr-Sep, 2013) drops in y/y unit sales of dSLRs of ↓4% and ↓3%, respectively

So for a similar 6-month period, Nikon had an 8-fold greater drop in unit sales compared to Canon.  Nikon's already-lower dSLR market share is dropping fast...

Actually, according to this article, the situation is a bit different:

Canon has sold 23% less cameras than a year earlier, Nikon is down 18.2%, and Sony and Fujifilm are each off about 35%.

I would argue that a year-to-year comparison is more reliable than a quarter-to-quarter one.

First, it is tough times for any expensive luxury item, so everyone is hurting on sales.  Its sad to see Nikon hurting so much, they seem a bit dysfunctional and keep casting around seemingly at random looking for a winner.

Strongly disagree.
The crysis hurts middle-class people, who buy consumer- and middle-range products. The market of luxury items doesn't care because its customers in most cases have not been not affected. It's not a coincidence that both Canon and Nikon are trying to focus on the "high-margin" markets.

Interesting display of capability by the a7r, but for a comparison with other cameras we should know what lenses have been used on them: "our very sharp reference lenses" means absolutely nothing to me.

Also these tests with JPG OOC are sort of pointless because they don't reflect how cameras are really used in real life - see lenstip's image samples.

I want to bet that Sony actually makes the screen itself...

Or LG. I heard somewhere that almost all screens such as phones, laptops etc are manufactured by LG. Maybe nowadays Canon do too? Have they ever made screens before?

[one google search later ...]

Edit - Canon weren't on the list of LCD makers on Wikipedia but LG certainly were.

From wikipedia -

"They (LG) are one of the main licensed manufacturers of the more color-accurate IPS panels used by Dell, NEC, ASUS, Apple (including iMacs, iPads, iPhones, iPod touches) and others, which were developed by Hitachi."

Samsung and Sharp do plenty of stuff for Apple as well.

It got me interested until I saw the price tag. You're better off stitching iPads together :)

The news being...?

Every manufacturer has cut profit forecasts.

For me, the big question is how well autofocus will work, particularly since most Canon's have an F5.6 AF limit.....

All of the 3rd party f/6.3 'spoof' the camera into thinking they're at f/5.6, so AF works fine.  Well, I guess I should say Af works as well as possible, given that most 3rd party lenses aren't known for having good AF performance. 

For me, the optics are the big question.  I know 'world class image quality' is going to fall short of my Canon 600/4L IS II, but how far short?  If the IQ is decent (Tamron did a good job with the 24-70/2.8 VC), the AF doesn't suck, and the lens is priced decently, this will be a big benefit to many telephoto shooters.

I am expecting the optics to pale in comparison to Canon's more recent lenses, particularly the prime lenses.

Given the same vintage, primes beat zooms... you don't have to design for a range of focal length, you optimize for just one length.... and a lack of moving parts to zoom the lens means lighter and (hopefully) more robust.. I would love to see a Canon 400F5.6 for those who want reach and quality at an affordable price and still have a portable lens.

My experience with "longer yet affordable lenses" is:
Sigma 50-500... the worst of a bad breed
Tamron 200-500... almost as bad
Sigma 150-500.... better, but still not sharp
Canon 100-400... better, but lots of copy variation.
Sigma 120-400... best of the zooms, but BARELY ahead of the very outdated Canon 100-400
Canon 400F5.6... beats them all, but it is a 20 year old design with no IS

and interestingly enough, the 70-200 with teleconverter outresolves the works of them.....

All that said, Tamron might surprise me. Anyone remember thier 90mm macro lens from the adapt-all mount system? That was a classic lens that could compete with the best of them... perhaps they can do that again, but I doubt it, particularly on a big lens with no flourite elements...

Your experiences are way out of the choir, since the Bigma is widely considered the best of Sigma affordable telezooms, with the 120-400 being the worst (and not by chance the cheapest). The recent Tamron 70-200/2.8 VC USD also got good reviews.

It's obvious that this lens will not compete with 600mm primes costing 4 or 5 times as much, although I'm sure the web will be full of Captain Obvious who will lament their indignated dissatisfaction about that. If performance is solid and the price doesn't go too far north of 2000 (which is twice the price of the current version), this lens will open up a world of possibilities to many people.

It's likely aimed at competing with brandname 100-400's and will likely trade some IQ with the longer range and lower price.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Dynamic range Nikon/Sony vs Canon
« on: November 06, 2013, 12:23:24 PM »

Now consider that 600LII will last several camera bodies. Will Nikon still be leading two or three generations down?

Comment of the day!

Well, the answer might well be yes. Canon's policy of manufacturing their own sensors limits the possibility of frequent tech upgrades. It means that if at any point Canon will have an edge again, it probably won't last long.

However, the great advantages of Sony sensors - at least of this generation - are only such up to ISO 800 - 1600. And on top of that, in the 500-600mm range Canon seems to have an edge. So for the OP's needs and wallet Nikon is not a sensible choice.

None of us has looked through the viewfinder yet :)

And if only they have managed to make the green dot more accurate at wide apertures, that alone would help a lot. But of course I'm just guessing. I'm curious about the special edition 50 mm kit lens that, if I understand correctly, should come with a better manual focus usability - whatever it means.

To be honest, this camera will probably sell well, which is a shame because it will encourage Canon to follow this stupid retro fad. Don't get me wrong, if retro means focusing back on individual user needs and building cameras that are a better fit to them, then I have no problem. In the case of the DF, retro goes as far as looks (which it doesn't quite pull off) and adding another layer of complexity to the control set-up. It will sell well because it looks fashionable, reminds the grey-haired crowd (who have higher disposable incomes) of the cameras of their youth, yet doesn't lose any of the features that give you bragging rights down at the local camera club.

Yet this camera is not a sign of things to come, it is an awkward hark back to a previous era. It feels disjointed in its concept because cameras have moved on in the last three decades. The latest Nikon 'G' series lenses lack aperture rings, which means that the DF needs a way of setting aperture on the body. A multi-point AF system, multi-mode metering, variable frame rates, as well as all the 'digital stuff', add their own levels of complication. This leads to a messy design, which when combined with the desire for retro styling, gives birth to a bizarre Chimera.

Except I believe the Df will not sell well. Way too expensive compared to much better cameras (5D III, D800).  And those old greyhaired photogs are not stupid. It's more the younger crowd that falls for "retro" looks. Pseudo hipster kinda thing.


Nikonians, as far as I see, are not really so impressed. The thing that might save this camera is if it (somehow, it's not clear yet) performs better with manual focus lenses. That could be an interesting perk, especially if you have a lot of Zeiss, Voigtländer and old Nikon lenses.

Anyway, I wouldn't be surprised to see it 2500 in 6 months, and closer to 2000 in 1 year. Hell, a great camera like the D7100 is now 900€ from its 1100€ of launch price.

Third Party Manufacturers / Lenstip review of the Zeiss Sonnar 135/2
« on: November 05, 2013, 12:21:00 PM »

Basically one of the best lenses ever.

This sort of lens makes me really rethink my idea of buying a mirrorless.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Off Brand: Nikon Announces the Df
« on: November 05, 2013, 11:52:27 AM »
Maybe I am just an idiot...but what is the retro look about and why does everyone want it? I sure do not want to walk around with a camera that looks like its from the 20's......maybe thats just me?

The physical controls are the part that I like. The EV one is the best imho, just because usually changing this setting is the less straightforward operation. Had they one for flash exposure compensation it would be just perfect.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Off Brand: Nikon Announces the Df
« on: November 05, 2013, 10:32:27 AM »
If I were a Nikon afficionado, for the same price, why would I buy a Df over a D800?

Or would I buy the Sony a7 AND the Zeiss 24-70/4 for the same price?

Nikon went all wrong on two important things: AF and MP.

You can't sell a camera for 3K in (almost) 2014 and have the same AF module of a middle-range consumer camera from the last generation (D5200).

With the performance of the 24MP D600/D610 sensor, it is all to be demonstrated what we're buying at the price of 8 MP, and if it's worth it. Better to buy a D800 and resize the files to 16MP. This camera doesn't offer amazing fps either, so the advantages of lower resolution are...?

As a final touch, a kit would be welcome with a better lens than the 50mm/1.8 - the 1.4 version, at least? Please?

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Rumor: Nikon Digital FM2 - Retro look
« on: November 05, 2013, 04:13:57 AM »

for all you grudger out there: acceppt it, its a great, good looking camera, unfortunately not branded with CANON.

I'm a Nikon user too, and many folks around here know I have no love for Canon (nor any other brand). They are manufacturers of tools and I am the customer and the user of those tools, that's all as far as I am concerned.

This camera had all the chances to be a successor to the adored D700. It failed in one thing: the AF system. You can't put in a 3000 USD camera the same AF module as the D5300. You can't have the cheapest prime as a kit lens. You can't say "no distractions" while asking people to buy a wi-fi module, a gps module, etc etc.

Also, as far as the sensor is concerned: the D4 has less MP because is a photojournalists' camera and they don't care about high MP count as much as high fps. I have no knowledge that the D4 sensor offers any better IQ or is more expensive to produce - actually I would say the opposite. If someone is more informed in this sense please let me know. I have to say, I would have liked the 24 MP sensor much much better.

It's yet another example of a camera that was close to be fantastic, yet is not, and you wonder what made Nikon overlook such fundamental aspects. The camera ends up feeling like a fashion accessory for loaded vintage-loving hipsters and nostalgics. That is, more a marketing novelty than a photographic one.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Rumor: Nikon Digital FM2 - Retro look
« on: November 04, 2013, 04:41:15 PM »
NR reports it will cost 2750$

that price will make a lot of nikon fanboys unhappy.
they hoped it will be cheaper then the D610.

Fanboys are actually the only ones who are going to buy it. It's about all others that I would worry.

This camera, at this price, is just an EPIC FAIL.

Someone at Sony's opened a good bottle tonight.

Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20] 21 22 ... 55