« on: November 28, 2013, 08:25:57 PM »
Awful design. Awful price. Awfully big and heavy. Unnecessary wastage of company funds. A sure misfire, just like Canon's Powershot N.
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.
I don´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.
9. DR will be around 16 stops.
I really don't understand why Canon can't optimize their algorithms and achieve fast CDAF.
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. :-)
3/ 2012 - Did I miss the market-share numbers?!?
4/ 2013 - Still to come....
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. :-)
The most obvious and likely explanation is ... "collusion". Anti-competitive market manipulation.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That's a good example, while still convoluted, their new methodology seems more in line.