November 21, 2014, 10:18:38 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 - Woody

Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19 ... 44
241
This is a NL rumor. Highly unreliable.

242
Awful design. Awful price. Awfully big and heavy. Unnecessary wastage of company funds. A sure misfire, just like Canon's Powershot N.

243
EOS Bodies / Re: Two New Full Frame Cameras in 2014? [CR1]
« on: November 28, 2013, 08:42:25 AM »
I am 90% certain one of the FF cameras is for film.

PS: This is a NL rumor, so take it with a huge grain of salt.

244
Lenses / Re: IS Versions of the 50mm, 85mm & 135mm Coming? [CR1]
« on: November 27, 2013, 09:48:06 PM »
Can't wait for the 50 f/1.8 IS USM lens.  ;D

And the 16-50 f/4L IS USM....

245
Canon General / Re: TEN YEARS FROM NOW.
« on: November 26, 2013, 02:58:48 AM »
I donĀ“t believe there is any question that the future is mirror less. As soon as EVFs become good enough, there is no question that the benefits and flexibility they can provide will make mirror based cameras redundant.

One of my biggest gripes about EVF: not as bright as OVF, poor DR compared to OVF. I doubt the EVF can ever match OVF in this department because the human eye adapts far more quickly than EVFs.

246
Canon General / Re: TEN YEARS FROM NOW.
« on: November 25, 2013, 05:45:50 PM »
9. DR will be around 16 stops.

The ideal FF sensor will have slightly more than a stop of dynamic range compared to today's sensors. See:
http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Charts/PDR.htm#EOS%205D%20Mark%20III,D600,D800E,EOS%201D%20X,D4,Ideal_FX
Thus, if we believe DXOMark that the D800 sensor is capable of achieving 13.23 stops of DR at base ISO, then the highest achievable DR is at best 14.5.

247
EOS Bodies / Re: New EOS-1 in 2014 [CR1]
« on: November 25, 2013, 07:33:56 AM »
OK, coming back to the topic, I don't think we should take this CR1 rumor too seriously. Most rumors from NL are almost always wrong. So, let's not get too excited arguing about this vaporware. :D

248
EOS Bodies / Re: New EOS-1 in 2014 [CR1]
« on: November 25, 2013, 03:23:32 AM »
I really don't understand why Canon can't optimize their algorithms and achieve fast CDAF.

I am sure the lenses play a part too. Canon's USM/STM lenses may have been optimized for PDAF. I suspect a well tuned CDAF algorithm may require certain mechanical response not possible with Canon lenses.

249
EOS Bodies / Re: New EOS-1 in 2014 [CR1]
« on: November 24, 2013, 09:22:32 AM »
But most importantly: they look like they are enjoying innovation and are allowed to live it! I'd love to see some of that spirit at work at CaNikon. It would be good for us .. and even better for them. Good photographers like us :-) can take pictures with almost any gear. For CaNikon however it is about ... survival. :-)

Go ahead, enjoy your gear. I'm sure the A7R is a great camera.

But time will tell which company made the right choice. You know, Minolta came up with the first autofocus SLR camera... but where are they now? Conversely, Canon does not believe in 1" sensor, claiming 'once you go below APS-C the next logical size is 1/2.3 inch' - http://www.dpreview.com/articles/0336328811/cp-2013-interview-with-canons-masaya-maeda. And if you follow Amazon/BCN charts now, the RX100 is nowhere to be seen.

Canon and Nikon may not be at the forefront of technology, but they certainly instill more confidence in consumers than Sony, which is haemorrhaging financially.

250
EOS Bodies / Re: New EOS-1 in 2014 [CR1]
« on: November 21, 2013, 06:03:40 PM »
3/ 2012 - Did I miss the market-share numbers?!?
4/ 2013 - Still to come....

2012:
Canon sold 8.21 million interchangeable lens cameras
Nikon sold 7 million interchangeable lens cameras

2013:
Canon projects to sell 8 million interchangeable lens cameras
Nikon projects to sell 6.2 million interchangeable lens cameras

251
EOS Bodies / Re: New EOS-1 in 2014 [CR1]
« on: November 21, 2013, 08:31:23 AM »
All I'm saying, is Canon should be more innovative and charge less for products that are not neither innovative nor even fully competitive in all aspects ... if they want me to buy it. :-)

To each his own. I will never touch Sigma f/1.8 zoom lens for APS-C for the following reasons: (a) too heavy and big (b) inprecise AF (personal experience with multiple Sigma lenses incl. their recent releases... supported by DPReview's review of said lens). I'm sure there are many folks like me, and that's why Canikon never bother to release such a lens even if they can.

Incidentally, the Olympus f/2 zoom lenses were major flops too... optically fantastic, but very very few buyers. On the other hand, f/2 zoom lenses designed for FF cameras and sold at monster prices will probably attract enough buyers to offset the R&D expenditure. Sigma should have thought through their plan more carefully before releasing the APS-C f/1.8 zoom lens. If they are really good, they would have released a f/2 zoom lens for FF...

252
EOS Bodies / Re: New EOS-1 in 2014 [CR1]
« on: November 21, 2013, 07:09:09 AM »
The most obvious and likely explanation is ... "collusion". Anti-competitive market manipulation.

I've been pondering that too and I suspect you may be right.

Why is it that Sigma brings the first 1.8 zoom-lens to market? Why not Canon or Nikon with their vastly superior R&D resources and much better access to market due to huge installed base of camera bodies? Exactly, because Canon wants to continue to sell their cr*ppy 16-35 "L" II  ... at nearly twice the price of a Sigma 18-35/1.8.

This is incorrect for many reasons: (a) Olympus produced the world's first f/2 zoom lenses for interchangeable lens cameras with their 14-35 f/2 and 35-100 f/2 (b) Canon 16-35 f/2.8 is for FF sensor while Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 is for crop sensor

253
EOS Bodies / Re: New EOS-1 in 2014 [CR1]
« on: November 20, 2013, 11:36:01 AM »
Like I said before. Canon's "Answer" to the Nikon D800 (and future D900, and the Sony A7R) will come as a big bulky elephant sized 1D-body, with a price tag that most people can't touch. :D

Oh Canon..

I don't particularly care if the high pixel sensor is stuffed in a 1D body or 5D body.

I'm more curious about the sensor performance, particularly its low ISO dynamic range. If Canon shows no improvement in this department, it's unlikely we'll see anything better coming out of Canon sensors in the next 4 to 5 years. Now, that will be really depressing.  :'(

254
EOS Bodies / Re: New EOS-1 in 2014 [CR1]
« on: November 20, 2013, 11:28:08 AM »
You did not answer the question: do you have specific sales numbers for Nikon D800/E and 5D III?
My personal guess is, that Nikon sold more D800/E. 

If you had followed the sales trend for the D800 vs 5D3 on US Amazon charts, you'll notice D800 took the lead initially with 5D3 trailing just slightly behind. Now, the 5D3 is in the top 10 while the D800 is nowhere positioned in the top 30 DSLR. Give it another year. If you see the same pattern emerging in mid-2014, you can be quite certain the 5D3 has completely trounced the D800 in sales.

In case you wanna argue it's all about pricing, I can assure you that's not the important factor at play. Rather it's the poor factory QC that killed the D800 sales. Check out the customer reviews: (i) for 5D3 - out of 327 reviews, 278 were 5-stars and 31 were 4-stars (ii) for D800 - out of 309 reviews, 189 were 5-stars and 26 were 4-stars. Pretty big difference there. Remember the left side focus problems with a number of copies of the D800? That's just one example.

You'll see similar sales trends for 6D vs D600 (remember the Nikon factory debris issue), 5D2 vs D700 (well it's 21 vs 12 MP) etc.

The single biggest advantage that Canon has over Nikon etc is the massive success they achieved during the early DSLR years. Canon had such a commanding lead with the release of their sub-$1000 DRebel 300D (despite all the fanboy attacks on its poor AF capabilities, relatively smooth high ISO performance etc) that the competition has never been able to match, not even today.

255
Lenses / Re: DxO Mark
« on: November 20, 2013, 06:17:30 AM »
Excuse me, but what I don't understand is why there is so much discussion regarding DxO Mark?...

It should also be clear that marketing statements ("image science"?) are sometimes contrary to actual fact. So please excuse DxO for publishing what managers think they should publish, because as a company they have any right to do so. On the other hand there is no reason to complain about this or that score being somewhat different from other tests or actual real life experience.

There is a lot of discussion because many people take them seriously, including somewhat respectable sites like DPReview. Luckily the latter carry out their own tests too.

Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19 ... 44