October 30, 2014, 01:31:15 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 ... 47
EOS Bodies / Re: Thinking Out Loud: EOS 7D Mark II Thoughts
« on: December 16, 2013, 07:14:42 PM »
1. There had better be a 7d MK II.

2. I hate video. Optimize my camera for still images.

Divergance is an extremely important concept Canon does not get. See this link...


3. The 7d mk II MUST be APS-C. I have discussed many times on this forum the superior nature of APS-C.

Canon, listen, or let the K3 eat your ever dwindling customer base...

I'm not interested in video either (I was delighted to discover, after accidentally pressing it, that the movie button on the new OM-D can be assigned any one of a number of useful functions such as AF-assist or disabled altogether; perhaps that's true of all other cameras too...), and I also like the ideas of specialization and simplicity.  We may be in a tiny minority, though (not only do people seem to like things that do everything, but I suspect that the longer the list of specifications, the more appealing it is to a certain sort of consumer).

Besides, these problems are exaggerated.  It's easy not to use the movie functions in a camera (how much do they add to its cost), and some modern cameras, despite looking dauntingly complex, can be set up so that they are, in fact, extremely simple to use (the latest OM-D, for instance).

As for Pentax, its high-end dslrs have given better sensor performance than anyone else's for several years by some accounts (esp. DxO scores), even when they're using the same sensor as others, but that doesn't seem to have hurt Nikon, let alone Canon, and it's hard to see why it should start now.  Even with its improvements, I don't think anyone is claiming that the K3's AF performance comes close to rivaling Canon's, and when it comes to lenses, not only does Pentax have nothing like the range of Canon, overall the quality isn't as good either (especially in terms of AF speed and accuracy).  Sure, they have a few cute little primes (far more attractive aesthetically than anything made by Canon), but hardly any of them have really fast apertures and many of them have focus problems (speed and/or accuracy).   

As it happens, before I switched to Canon I owned a K5 (five minutes with 5DII & 24-105L and I was sold), and am once again enjoying using a few old Pentax manual lenses (Takumar) because they work even better on my new OM-D (with its excellent and easy-to-use in-EVF magnification and focus assist).  These new-fangled complex cameras have their advantages....

EOS Bodies / Re: In defence of the 100D
« on: December 16, 2013, 05:38:03 PM »
So, overall, I'd not be trading my 5dii for one, but...
I am seriously considering this cute one as back up and travel DSLR.
I've read several tests about the fast AF and decent picture quality.
An despite the size it feels really comfortable in my hand.

As far as I can tell, its image quality is as good as any other recent Canon APS-C body's, and it works very nicely with not-so-long primes; unless you need a fancier focus system (I've no idea how well it does with fast moving things, but mine works just fine on other subjects) or don't already have a FF body (and don't plan to), or find them too small to hold comfortably (I was pleasantly surprised), these cute little things seem rather appealing.  Cheap, too - bought mine a couple of months ago for c. $450, including kit lens.  I too like the touch screen (though nothing beats the combination of touch screen and EVF & masses of external controls provided by such cameras as the latest OM-D), though Canon's ergonomics are so good it's not the boon it would be for, say, Nikon.

Canon EF Zoom Lenses / Re: Canon EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS USM
« on: December 15, 2013, 11:25:32 PM »
Finally, a shot of Independence Hall, Philadelphia, in a near-blizzard two days later - but this time with the lens on my 6D, and with all concerned nice and dry - this was taken through my office window (whose greyish coating tends to get in the way, but Lightroom helped).

Canon EF Zoom Lenses / Re: Canon EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS USM
« on: December 15, 2013, 11:05:46 PM »
And here are three more.   I rather like how it made the out-of-focus lights behind the statute look almost as though they're radiating in large concentric circles from behind it, but they're not - they're simply the lights on the Rockefeller Center tree....

You can see more along these lines, if so inclined, here:


Canon EF Zoom Lenses / Re: Canon EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS USM
« on: December 15, 2013, 11:03:27 PM »
One attribute of this lens that doesn't seem to get mentioned much, perhaps because it's not exactly fast, is how well it performs in low light - at least when attached to a FF body - when merely taking hand-held snapshots.  A week ago I was wandering around NY with my 5DIII & 70-300L (I left everything else in the car) and ended up in Central Park as the light began to fade; and as it did, it began to snow.  The light was magical and the camera/lens combination did a rather good job of capturing it.  (They also did a rather good job of ignoring the snow - I had nothing to protect them with, not even an umbrella, so I just occasionally shook or blew the snow off as it accumulated and kept going until I decided to stop a couple of hours later.)   No noise reduction despite the rather high ISOs (I think the grain enhances the look).  The results could perhaps have been better with a faster lens or a tripod or someone better behind the camera, but none of those were available....   These four are in Central Park.  In the next post I'll add three from a bit farther south.


Not arguing, but thinking aloud that 300 should be enough with planning for a smaller package.

Sure, depending what and how you shoot. However, IMHO,  more buyers than not will buy the A7/A7R and end up shooting zero.  I suspect it will be bought by wealthy hobbyists, most of whom don't shoot much anyway.

I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that the c300 limit isn't so much a Sony thing as a mirrorless thing, especially when an EVF is involved as it is here; they simply use more power than dslrs.  I don't get much more than that with my Olympus OM-D EM5 (haven't had my new EM1 long enough to find out); the first time I went to Longwood Gardens with it I ran out of power after about three hours and had to switch to a Canon dslr.

As for who's interested in the A7/A7R, I have no idea (landscapers with tripods strike me as a small minority, but who knows?), but - and this doesn't really prove anything of course - I spent a fair amount of time in B&H on Sunday.  The place was packed, unsurprisingly, with lots of people milling around the Nikon and (especially) Canon stands and wanting to see the latest Fuji Xs and Olympus OM-D.  To my complete surprise, while there were a few people at the Sony stand, the only person I'm aware of who ventured near an A7 was me; the lonely salesman seemed pleased enough to chat even though I didn't have much to say except that I lost interest when I realized they had no IBIS - he seemed sympathetic.  I must say, though, that it was quite nice to hold and the EVF looks impressive.  And it really is small - displayed among a bunch of small Sony point-and-shoots it made no impression whatsoever (aside from being black).  Hard to imagine using anything but the smallest primes on it (without a tripod, at any rate).

Lots of good advice here!
My take on the subject: EVF, OVF, button placement, sensor size, DoF, high ISO IQ, all that comes second to AF, which is what matters most. (You already have your 60D for taking photographs with good IQ when tricky subjects and important events appear.)
You'd rather have a noisy photograph that's in focus than the other way around, so consider having the camera in your hands and testing the AF system before you buy it.
Good luck!

That's a very good point, and given the high quality of most sensors these days, the trade-off in noise will be minor.  The fastest, most accurate (at least on things that aren't moving fast) AF around seems to be the Olympus OM-Ds (though it seems Fuji bodies may be catching up, assuming their lenses are as fast too).  But you can buy two or three SL1s with kit lens included for the price of the OM-Ds without a lens, and while the SL1 has nowhere near the number of focus points or coverage of an OM-D, in my fairly limited experience (I've only owned it for a couple of months) its focus is fast and accurate (again, for things that don't move fast - I don't photograph things that do, so I can't comment there).  You can't fit it in a pocket, of course, but for my taste the SL1 provides an incomparably more pleasant experience than an M or any other small viewfinder-free camera.

The comment I made in this thread six months ago still stands, though - it's hard to keep a camera system small/compact/lightweight if you have an APS-C or FF based system and need/want to use anything bigger than the smaller primes.

PLEASE don't call me PR!!!

Well, that's what you get for writing something nice :-p ... I'm not up to the correct obvious terms obviously as you relate to the public - otherwise you'd just write a PM to the op - but maybe PR is something different entirely and is considered deprecating since it made you post your qualifications ... so sorry for that.

Nevertheless, Helen does end up indirectly providing the best imaginable PR.  Adorama, and its customers, are lucky to have her.  (And she's every bit as helpful to those who don't complain in public beforehand.)

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS M2 Not Coming to North America
« on: December 05, 2013, 11:01:42 AM »

Well considering that you are in an EOS M thread I think it is safe to assume that many of us posting here are in the market for a mirrorless system and are very dissapointed with the way things look to be turning out for the M.
I am not one of those with a limitless supply of funds for camera/gear. I have 2 little ones in daycare and a wife that doesn't accept financial tomfoolery, as I don't either. I absolutely love my M and credit purchasing this awesome little camera with getting me back into my first, and most intense hobby. I love this system for a number of reasons, first and foremost being the size and portability of it. I hike and ride extensively and this has just fit right in. But I chose the M for 2 reasons: I had been with Canon for about 10 years with a 20D and then a 40D, and because of the firesale price. I felt loyal to Canon because, even though I didn't use them very much, I really loved those to cameras. As for the price of the M, I concede that to complain and whine when I bought it at bargain basement price is a littly petty, but since getting the kit I’ve purchased the other two lenses, flash and filters. I have-what I consider to be-a sizeable investment in the Canon version of the mirror less system now. I was really looking forward to a version of the M that would have been more in line with the OMD EM1/5, EP-5 or GX7. Now it's looking very sketchy that we will EVER see that from Canon.

So yes, it pisses me off because now I feel like I've been marginalized by Canon because of my geographic location. Secondly, I am REALLY not interested in selling off all my stuff at probably half or, if I'm lucky, 2/3rds what I paid for it just to get me about 2/3rds the way there to an EP-5, or GX7.

And before I get flamed I'll also acknowledge that in the big scheme of things this is not a big deal. But in my little photography world that I live in on the weekends...this is supremely frustrating hahahahaha...

Your post makes perfect sense.  I'm not trying to say you're wrong, but I'll just point out a couple of things.  First I'm not sure how much you would end up losing if you sold your M gear.  I bought mine in the first fire sale - not as much as yours, though (body + flash + 22mm + 18-55) - didn't like it and sold it a couple of months later on ebay for more than I paid for it all (good timing, perhaps - the first fire sale had just ended).  Second, yesterday amazon's "gold box" camera was an Olympus M43 E-PM2 (same excellent sensor as the OM-D EM5, but no EVF); you could buy it + two kit lenses (the equivalent of 28-84mm & 90-300) for $349.... 

(I also feel inclined to note that while it is, of course, possible to buy from Japan, if enough of us do that it will only reinforce the impression that mirrorless cameras don't sell in the US, thereby continuing the problem!)

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS M2 Not Coming to North America
« on: December 05, 2013, 10:03:51 AM »
People no longer buy gear that just does enough..
We buy new cameras and of course expect to have new tech inside, regardless if we need it or not or if the old tech works as well..that's no longer the point.
It's all about innovation and keeping up with the times. when another company releases something new, it will most definitely be something "new" worth upgrading to. Canon seems to be the only one releasing new models using old tech and not changing much else.
We just feel short changed that's all..it's not because we need the new tech..it's because we're paying for something new, we'd want something new.

But the "we" you're referring to is a group of people who chat about this sort of thing in forums like this.  Canon's "new models using old tech", at least in their dslrs, are still outselling everyone else, even if "we" don't think they deserve to; and even then, "we" tend to be awfully fond of Canon's lenses, especially the newer ones; and those lenses work best on Canon bodies, so.... 

I've been using my 6D less since buying a 5DIII and OM-D, so I took the 6D on a short trip the other day with nothing but the 24-105L (the other half took the OM-D) and ended up, unexpectedly at a museum which was very dark inside and followed that with a brief visit to another after dark which happened to be very photogenic from the outside.  The camera performed flawlessly (I wasn't trying to photograph "herons catching fish") and although most of the resulting images were ISO 6400, the only time I applied any noise reduction afterwards was a couple of shots with a lot of dark sky, and they didn't really need it anyway.  I dare say new tech could conjure up something even better, but for my purposes at least I don't know of anything currently available from other companies that would perform any better.  That's just me, of course, but I suspect the that number of people out in the real world who find current gear to be inadequate is a rather small "we" that doesn't have all that much influence on the market.   (Although not in the same class, the OM-D did very well too, by the way; I - perhaps unnecessarily - set its max ISO to 1600, but with Olympus's good fast lenses and excellent IBIS it didn't need to go higher.)

So why the big difference between Asia and the USA/Europe?

Well, (without being a racist) I suppose that:

1) Asian people are more fascinated by 'latest hi-tech things' and change/buy them more frequently than European and American consumers who prefer 'reliable long-time investments'.

2) Asian people like to travel abroad and use 'package' vacation type with a lot of organized excursions (e.g. a big bus full of tourists from Japan is a usual thing anywhere in the world), so they like light travel cameras.


1. may be right, and, for all I know, so is 2.  But it's also pretty clear that more than a few Asians don't mind traveling with large dslrs - my office is on Independence Mall in Philadelphia, which receives busloads of tourists every morning.  dslrs seem almost as common as smaller cameras/iphones/ipads, and I don't think all that many of the small cameras are anything better than standard point-and-shoots.  For whatever that's worth.

As for the ergonomic argument, it may well be that some find any mirrorless camera too small (though one of Panasonics is more-or-less dslr-size and shape), but in other respects they're not all the same - one could easily conclude that some, such as the two Olympus OM-Ds, are even easier to handle than dslrs.

The situation in the West may simply be a matter of price: the best mirrorless cameras cost more than most aps-c cameras and don't really yield better results (in many cases, probably not as good), and just about every review points this out.  They may be smaller, and they may, in some cases, focus more accurately and faster and be easier to use, but those differences likely don't matter much to most camera buyers.  As far as I'm concerned, the only advantages the M has over a Rebel are its fire-sale price and the cute little 22mm lens.  Unless Canon makes more, similarly small lenses, the size advantage is greatly reduced when you attach any other lens (except perhaps the 40mm pancake).  All that being so, and given its poor performance, it doesn't seem surprising that people bought dslrs instead of Ms and that Canon seem unwilling to market a marginally updated M that costs $700-800, i.e., more than most Rebels.

Canon General / Re: So what have we bought this Black... Er, Weekend?
« on: December 03, 2013, 03:34:25 PM »
I didn't buy any camera-related items in a BF sale this year, but I did buy the newest Olympus OMD and zoom lens and an 4/3-M43 adapter before the Olympus deal expired (it had nothing to do with BF) and, at the opposite end of the price scale, three "legacy" manual lenses (Olympus OM and Minolta) with suitable adapters - just for the heck of it (and dirt cheap for reasons unrelated to BF).

People that want small body cameras in the USA and Europe have already moved or jumped to other manufacturers and Canon is too late to the market. Canon realize this and hence why the other EOS-M lens has never been made available in the USA.

Wrong. (a) After severe price cut, the EOS M is selling well relative to other mirrorless cameras in the market, particularly the A7/A7R (b) In USA and Europe, DSLRs outsell mirrorless cams by 9.5:1 and 8.5:1 respectively, so there's no point in shipping mirrorless cameras to these continents now.

I don't think your posts are contradictory, despite your opening word - Canon arrived late with an overpriced, inferior product which didn't sell until they improved the focus speed and slashed the price dramatically.  How many here would have bought it without the price drop?  I certainly wouldn't have.  The new M won't have that price advantage any more. 

Do you (or anyone else) know how the M sells in Asia relative to other mirrorless cameras before vs after the price drop (assuming there was a comparable price drop there)?  It's unclear what its appeal would be to anyone relative to the competition (M43, Fuji, Sony etc.), unless you're someone with Canon lenses who doesn't want to jump ship, doesn't mind the extra bulk of using them on the M, and thinks the SL1 is too big.

Canon, of course, can say there's no point selling small mirrorless cameras in the West if it can make more money from selling dslrs there.  Those of us who like mirrorless (regardless of size) are lucky that several of the companies who specialize in them don't have that choice and, instead of retreating, seem instead (perhaps foolishly) to be trying even harder (much harder than Canon and Nikon, it seems) to make their mirrorless bodies even more appealing.  They're the only new cameras released this year that have grabbed my interest, at any rate.  (If one of Canon's rumored new FF cameras happened to be mirrorless (big would be fine with me) and with in-body IS, I would happily buy one, but it doesn't seem likely.)

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS M2 Gets Official
« on: December 03, 2013, 10:15:05 AM »

My assumption is that Canon (as many other large corporations) believes in statistics when it takes market decisions.

And judging by CIPA statistics primary mirrorless market is Japan (and Asia) where mirrorless hold about ~ 35% of "interchangeable lens cameras" market (the rest are DSLRs ~ 65%).

In Americas mirrorless is only 8-10% while DSLRs hold whole 90-92%.

So, what you see as "EOS M" and "EOS M2" are tiny cameras with minimalistic design that are targeted for Japan (in first place).

You may well be right.  Doesn't matter to me because it doesn't seem much improved over the first version, which I hated using, and because I'm generally not persuaded that tiny camera bodies are a useful vehicle for anything other than small lenses - which most EF & EF-S lenses aren't.  Over the past weekend you could (in the  US) buy a Rebel SL1, kit lens included, for c. $400; makes more sense to me (I bought one a month or two ago for $450).  For small size/weight, M43 still wins as far as I'm concerned.

Lenses / Re: The price you paid for your 70-300L ??
« on: November 27, 2013, 09:47:15 AM »
I paid c. $1000 for mine, a used copy from lensrentals, in the equivalent of the sale that begins in a couple of hours at lensauthority.  Superb lens, for all the reasons given by others; I don't think I've used my 70-200 f4 L IS since (not because it isn't as good optically, but because the extra 100mm matters to me).  As with all other lenses there may be some dud copies out there (the first one I bought, new, wasn't any better than my 70-300 non-L, so I didn't keep it).  Given how well lensrentals maintains its stock, and the excellence of their customer service, buying used from them seems relatively risk-free.

Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23 ... 47