July 22, 2014, 07:46:21 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 - sdsr

Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23 ... 43
Canon General / Re: Consumer DSLRs "dead in 5 years"
« on: October 28, 2013, 03:40:18 PM »

I don't understand some of the fascination with a smaller, lighter body. The whole advantage of the DSLR is that the lenses are interchangeable. If you aren't going to carry additional lenses, why even have a interchangeable lens system. And, if you are going to carry additional lenses, the weight and bulk of those lenses make the bulk of the actual camera kind of irrelevant.

In fact, one of the of the advantages of the DSLR over the mirrorless cameras is with large lenses. A small mirrorless might have some advantage with a lens up to about 135mm equivalent. But, once you get beyond that, does it really matter how big the camera is? (BTW, I just looked at their website and it looks like Leica doesn't even sell a lens longer than 135 for their M system)

Same with the fascination with a full-frame mirrorless system. If the main selling point is size and convenience, much of that will be lost with the larger format.

I think you're exactly right.  You can't have a small system unless you can keep the lenses small, and beyond a certain lens size ergonomics makes small camera bodies a nuisance.  Until there's some technological revolution that lets FF lenses resemble M43 lenses in size and weight - as you point out, Leica don't have anything longer than 135mm, and how small is that lens anyway? - the new small mirrorless Sony FF bodies will only provide a size advantage for those interested in lenses of a rather limited focal length.  I would love it if a bag of FF lenses  could be as light as my bag of M43 lenses, but....

Canon General / Re: Consumer DSLRs "dead in 5 years"
« on: October 28, 2013, 03:26:15 PM »
Two aspects everyone is missing ...

DSLR's outsell "mirrorless" cameras simply because, for the most part, a DSLR is priced lower. For example, over here a new Canon EOS 100D cost ZAR6500,00 ... but an Olympus E-M5 cost ZAR12500,00 (both body only, same as the EOS 70D).

Well, that's logical...compare the price of a mirrorless camera near the top of the lineup with a dSLR on the low end of entry level.   Try comparing apples to apples, like the SL1/100D with a lower-end Oly Pen or Sony NEX - I think you'll find no one is missing anything.

Quite so.  At amazon for the past several months you could, and still can, buy a M43 Panasonic G5 with kit lens for $400 or body-only for $330; it's a good camera and, not surprisingly, one of amazon's best sellers, apparently.  I don't think any new dslr costs as little as that (certainly not the SL1/100D).

Canon General / Re: Consumer DSLRs "dead in 5 years"
« on: October 28, 2013, 03:11:06 PM »

of course i can only speak from my own experience.
and i guess in america it´s something different with the "soccer moms".

Maybe there's empirical research on the matter.  I've introduced a couple of colleagues to dslrs, but most seem to assume they're too much bother, too expensive, overkill, etc.; and while I've been asked to take photos of a friend's baby on several occasions, they don't seem in the least bit interested in buying a dslr and learning how to do it themselves. 

For what little anecdotal evidence is worth, I see relatively high dslr usage amongst tourists in Philadelphia & New York (including a few wearing pairs of the heaviest, biggest FF cameras you can buy) - almost always Nikon or Canon, and Canon more than Nikon - though of course I have no idea what proportion they comprise. 

I was amused by a friend last week who reported that on a recent visit to MoMA in NY it was overrun with tourists taking photos of the art with their iPhones....  (Perhaps, given how crowded it gets, that was the only way they could actually look at any of it.)

Canon General / Re: Consumer DSLRs "dead in 5 years"
« on: October 28, 2013, 02:51:42 PM »
DSLR-like ... looks like a DSLR ... operates like a DSLR ... handles like a DSLR ... only perceivable difference is an EVF instead of an OVF ... Olympus E-M5 and E-M1; Panasonic G3, G5, G6, GH2 and GH3; and Sony A7 and A7r.

So...the AF capabilities of all the cameras listed, in terms of speed and accuracy including tracking of moving subjects, are the equal of current dSLRs such as the 70D or 5DIII?  Or would one perceive a difference?

Frankly, I wouldn't know ... as I own none of those cameras, but have used the E-M5. The Olympus certainly is better at AF than the xxxD series cameras that I've handled. But don't pick one aspect and then use that to trash the mirrorless concept. Rather look at the future potential.

Based on what I've read and my own limited experience (I've owned an OM-D E-M5 for six months and briefly owned a Panasonic M43 and EOS M), the E-M5 can, at least with native lenses, focus as fast as anything, maybe even faster, provided the subject isn't moving; but that only the forthcoming E-M1, with its hybrid focusing, comes anywhere near the better dslrs in tracking moving things.  That's not important for me, but for someone who photographs a lot of moving things - children, racehorses, etc. - it's not just "one aspect"; it's surely dispositive.  But you may well be right to suggest that mirrorless cameras could catch up - provided their sales don't continue to decline so fast that they vanish from the market in a year or two....

EOS Bodies / SL1/100D vs EOS-M image quality
« on: October 27, 2013, 07:51:46 PM »
(Apologies if this has been asked/answered before, but if so I can't find it.)  I couldn't stand using the EOS-M but was impressed by its image quality as far as APS-C sensors go, somewhat better than the Rebel I briefly used for a while as a back-up.  Can anyone who has used both in RAW mode say whether the SL1 offers similarly improved image quality?  (There are lots of reviews of each around the web, of course, but the only comparisons I've seen are of out-of-camera JPEGs and thus useless.)   Thanks in advance.


I agree with you on many of your points, Lichtgestalt, but the problem is one of Canon (and the entire dSLR industry's) own making.  Cranking out an "updated" camera every three years at an exorbitant price-premium with minimal, if any, feature changes, is not a way to run a business or get brand loyalty.  Yes, it's worked for Apple, but they are the lone wolf in this regard and can run their business that way due to their rabid fanbase.  dSLR users by nature, are a much more finicky bunch that won't be duped by minor spec improvements.  The "check out our new dual-pixel AF!!  Now give us 1,200 of your hard earned dollars!!" marketing approach just doesn't work on the majority of us.  We're simply not that impressed by the cost per feature.  And as you stated, many of us already have dSLRs and the image quality is fine, so getting us to shell out $3,200 for the next FF consumer model is a tough sell.  Heck, the 8 year old 10MP 40D is still more than plenty for the average enthusiast, and one of the first bodies I recommend to new dSLR shooters.

That said, I still think massive innovations can be made.  I, for one, am still clamoring for a sensor that mimic's the dynamic range of film.  I don't need 40+ MP, but having better shadow performance would be something I would gladly pay for.  (and something I am still envious of regarding the D800)

But this is all nit-picking silliness that only demonstrates the point I think we all agree on... the dSLR manufacturers are on an unsustainable trajectory.  Without major shifts, and I'm not sure what those shifts should be, they will only hasten their own loss of market share.

A few posts back you were complaining that Canon etc. weren't listening to consumers, but here you're telling us that "many of us" are satisfied with the cameras we have and that you recommend an old model to novices.  What does *that* tell Canon etc.?

(And if better shadow performance is something you would "gladly pay for",  and since you're envious of the D800 (and presumably D600/610, whose DR is about the same), why don't you gladly jump over to Nikon?  It's not difficult to switch, and except for camera bodies bought new there's little loss involved.)

For all we know, Canon *does* listen to customers - it could be that, notwithstanding the complaining here, most customers just don't care about DR (if they really did care, wouldn't they have jumped to Nikon by now?) and, to the extent they want to buy dslrs, are quite happy with what Canon provides (its sales may be down, but its market share isn't, is it?).  What are the demands of camera customers that you and that other chap think the companies are ignoring?  Are there marketing surveys we can read or is this all just empty speculation?  (We do seem to know that lots of people are quite happy to use smartphones exclusively; what that tells Canon and Nikon etc. isn't so much that they have dslr demands that aren't being met but that they have no interest in dslrs - maybe Canon and Nikon should start making phones....)

And just how important is "listening to customers" anyway?  Is that what drives innovation?  Or is it more a case of supply creating demand? 

Canon General / Re: Consumer DSLRs "dead in 5 years"
« on: October 27, 2013, 06:39:06 PM »

The interesting thing about the new Sony is that if you are a previous customer who has shown them any loyalty at all then you'll only need to carry about 4 adaptors with you to use your previous lenses.

It's even worse than that: their dslrs and slt bodies all had IBIS, so if you were a loyal Sony customer chances are you don't own any lenses with built-in stabilization.  The A7 doesn't.  Oops....

Canon General / Re: Consumer DSLRs “dead in 5 years”
« on: October 27, 2013, 06:16:08 PM »
The odd curiosity is that Sony, despite dominating the professional video marker since forever, despite developing most of the technology that comprises a DSLR sensor, have never really caught the publics imagination in the way that Canon and Nikon had (a problem they inhereted from Minolta to be fair)
So is Alpha dead?  Is NEX dead? Now this new system.

What about SLT?  Wasn't that going to kill of the SLR?  If I had bought into Sony DSLRs when they first arrived, and then bought say an a700 or a900, I would be pretty pithed off.

Every year they change the game, and every second year they change it again.

Sony claims that Alpha isn't dead (not yet, at any rate) and that they will introduce a new Alpha camera or two early next year.  Assuming that's true, I hope they're like their previous cameras, except mirrorless rather than SLT (their SLT cameras have appalling noise starting at surprisingly low ISOs), still with IBIS, unlike the A7, and, as far as I'm concerned, they can be standard dslr-size, especially if they're FF.  As someone else pointed out in this thread, it seems pointless to make a small body if most of the lenses have to be big, which is one reason why I fail to see why the A7 is a nail in anyone's coffin (except perhaps Sony's); it may be that you can attach small Leica lenses to them, but how many people will be willing to do that?  (If Canon made a mirrorless FF camera the same size as a 6D or 5DIII I would be quite pleased (though I realize few seem to agree).)

I suppose it's true that, as the article says, Canon's line-up is "boring", but to the same extent so is Nikon's; and that's presumably because, as the article noticed, the status quo for both in terms of the quality of their cameras is extremely good (DR & MP whiners notwithstanding). Meanwhile, Olympus and Panasonic seem to be responding to the far worse sales performance of mirrorless cameras by making some of the most appealing/innovative/high quality cameras out there; I guess they figure that if they make just that much more effort they can slow or stop the decline.  I wouldn't mind if they're right, but....

I don't pay much attention to ads, but it's hard not to notice that we live in a bizarre world where phone manufacturers compete on the basis of the quality of their in-phone cameras, leaving camera manufacturers to advertise themselves as taking better photos than a phone can.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: High Megapixel DLSR a niche market?
« on: October 27, 2013, 12:02:33 PM »
Almost every current-production Nikon dslr contains a sensor with more pixels than a 5DIII, starting with their inexpensive entry-level D3200.  High megapixel cameras aren't a niche market as far as Nikon is concerned.

The whole discussion is for the want of an extra 2MP (which is <10%) advantage cameras like the Nikon D3200 have over the 5Dmk3? Gee...

Beats me - I don't think anyone in this rather odd discussion has defined what "high megapixel" means.  I was merely responding to someone who asserted that that high mp is a niche market and gave as an example the 5DIII.  (I mentioned the D3200, not because I think it has any advantages over the 5DIII but because whatever else it is, it surely isn't a niche market - unless "people who buy Nikon's cheapest dslr" qualify....)

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: High Megapixel DLSR a niche market?
« on: October 26, 2013, 07:30:49 PM »

...high megapixel DLSRs was a "niche" market.

Of course it is a niche market. About the only group of professionals remaining today that constitutes a market of any size are portrait, wedding and event photographers. That's a grueling, highly competitive business with a high failure rate and a high rate of turnover. Canon initially priced the 5DIII at a premium for that market because they were confident that the value added by the camera as a competitive tool would prompt these photographers to buy it. From the sales figures, it's obvious they were right.

? Almost every current-production Nikon dslr contains a sensor with more pixels than a 5DIII, starting with their inexpensive entry-level D3200.  High megapixel cameras aren't a niche market as far as Nikon is concerned. 

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: High Megapixel DLSR a niche market?
« on: October 26, 2013, 10:45:32 AM »

You summed it up here; I saw the same thing after using a 5D mkii. Looking at the files on screen I thought 'this is much better than the original 5D. But it doesn't translate to the image as a picture, at least not one of a 'normal' size.

The only photographers who will benefit from very high mp all the time are those that like to look at their images at 100% on screen.

And to enjoy doing so, they may well have to adjust their shooting style and brush up on their technique if not using a tripod.  Consider these comments by Roger Cicala on the D800 at the end of his enthusiastic comments on the rental page for that camera at lensrentals.com:

"All of that [= high praise] being said, I know already that between 25 and 50 people are going to email after using the camera and say their shots didn’t seem much sharper than their old camera. And I’m going to ask to see their pictures. And they’re going to send me shots taken with a nice prime lens at f/1.4. Repeat after me: there is no lens that can do justice to this camera at f/1.4. The best primes can at f/2.0, but most primes will need to be at f/2.8. Even the best zooms will be better at f/4 than f/2.8. If you need to shoot at wide open aperture, save some money and rent a D700."

Presumably that will be true of any camera with a similar sensor.  I happen to like looking at images 100% on a large screen from time to time, just to see how much detail the camera happened to pick up, so I rented a D800E just for the heck of it.  I think he's right.  It also seems to be the case, as others have said, that you have to be able to hold a camera really steady if not using a tripod - in several cases, I found that photos which looked perfectly good viewed at a normal size on a 30" monitor revealed evidence of slight movement at 100%, something I hardly ever see with my FF Canons.  The detail was wonderful, but....

Don't care what it's called as long as i get more background blur and more main subject pop at a certain focal length and aperture, distance lens to attractive subject and distance subject to obnoxious, ugly background. Which means i'd rather drop dead than buying another aps-c camera or even worse a thumbnail sized micro thirds camera. Now, when there are finally 36 delivious millions of pixels available in a small package.

And if more dof is needed, i'm going to close down the aperture all the way to f/11 on a full- bore sensored- camera  rather than being limited to f/5.6 on a quarter-sized sensor for fear of  freakin' diffraction.

So much for dof in my shooting. :-)

While it may be true that it's easier to blur out backgrounds using a FF camera, many seem to underestimate what you can achieve with said "thumbnail" M43 sensors.  Here are a couple of photos (JPEGs unaltered, aside from size, from the camera; haven't had time to process the raw files yet) I took walking home from work a couple of days ago with my Olympus OM-D E-M5 + Olympus 75mm.  The beet colored mass is a row of large coleus plants growing in planters along a narrow busy street in the middle of Philadelphia, the green in the background is from trees lining the street a block away, the grays are a department store, the circles are streetlights, traffic, etc.  But you might not immediately know from the first one, shot at 1.8.  You can see a bit more easily in the second photo, shot at 2.8.   And if you go here


you'll see some photos I took with the same camera and the Olympus 45mm 1.8 lens in a liquor store a couple of months ago while waiting for the other half to finish shopping.  Not the ultimate in blur, perhaps, but not bad for a thumbnail....


After using their A77 and the 6D, I'd gladly buy your camera for the right price.  Only problem might be is I don't know where you are.  I'm here in Malaysia as an expat.  :)

I'm not sure what you didn't like about the A77, but a huge problem with Sony's fixed translucent mirror cameras, such as the A77 and the FF A99, is that less light reaches the sensor, which presumably explains in large part why the resulting images are so noisy.  One reason why I was interested in the A7, before I learned that unlike all previous Sony A cameras it would have no IBIS, was the prospect of trying some highly regarded Minolta lenses and I decided to stick my toe in the water a couple of days ago by buying the entry level A58 (it nevertheless gets rave reviews in some quarters) and a Minolta 50mm prime, but was so appalled by the noise (even at ISO 400 you wouldn't want to crop much) that I returned it the next day (noise is a problem with the A99 too, I understand, though obviously to a lesser extent).  The A77 is doubtless a better camera in other ways, but it was a huge relief to return to my Olympus OM-D, 6D and 5DIII (and not just because of the image quality).  Whatever other flaws the A7 may have, presumably such noise isn't one of them.

EOS Bodies / Re: Sensor Dust - DSLR vs Mirrorless
« on: October 23, 2013, 11:40:21 AM »
One of the arguments I often see from those not enthused with mirrorless cameras is that the sensor is more apt to get dusty - that the mirror somehow magically keeps dust off the sensor.  My OM-D requires less attention than my Canon in that regard. Is anyone aware of a thorough review/test on the subject? I'm inclined to think that the argument has no real merit.

I can't answer your question, but will merely note that my experience, um, mirrors yours - I probably change lenses on my OM-D more often than I do any my dslrs (I mainly use primes on my OM-D), and I've never seen evidence of dust on a photo, whereas I have a couple of times on dslrs (easy enough to remove, though).  Perhaps Olympus has uncommonly effective sensor-cleaning technology?

Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23 ... 43