Shame it hasn't got a touch screen like the 70D, great with the dual pixel AF.
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.
Is the lack of a touchscreen an opportunity to sell an aftermarket touchscreen monitor for videographers? Would the USB port provide an interface to allow this?I would use a camranger or a DSLR controller along with a tablet if dual pixes is introduced on the next full frame. That screen is still too small, and touching the camera may introduce additional shake (unless you don't care).
As someone who has ordered a 7D mkII and who will probably not use video much (if at all) I'm happy not to pay extra for the touch screen and software to be built into my camera.
Can't wait to get my hands on the camera!
This is why I am not screaming about the lack of touch screen and swivel. I wouldn't use them if I had them; just like pop-up flash.
Others need them, I understand.
I just assume that there must be reasons why they didn't put it. Maybe extra cost + additional software indeed are two of the reasons.
Seems strange to me that Canon hasn't done more with their current mirrorless system. If you look at what Fuji are doing with a crop sensor, but pro level lenses and ergonomics. The problem with Canon mirrorless isn't that the sensor is too small (in fact, aps might turn out to be the optimum sensor size for mirror less), it's that they've made no effort to produce a system with fast lenses and pro level bodies.
I think they are (rightfully) hesitant to do that, as it's their golden goose. The EOS-M was them dipping their toes in the water and "beta testing" the EF-M mount, which I think could become the future native mount for all APS-C.
Canon is a big enough company, with a loyal enough user base, that they don't need to do what Fuji is doing right now. They can cede that market to the Fuji and the Sony, because once the market settles down and Fuji and Sony and Samsung have found the "magic formula" of what types of cameras people want, Canon can put their full weight behind doing the same thing except with a Canon nameplate, and full EF/EF-S compatibility, and then just steamroll the competition.
That is to say, Canon's strategy is not to tire themselves out with a flurry of punches early, but wait and play defensively until their opponents tire, saving their money and learning their opponents weaknesses, and when the time is right, go for the knockout blow.
It is just a market timing strategy, they are not neglecting the market.
Yep, a good read. Making a lens with very tight tolerances, with aspherics in the mix is very difficult (centering issues with aspheric lenses can be tricky). While Canon/Nikon do make fast optics in the 50mm range with aspherics / special glass, etc, they are soft wide open. This one isn'tHonest question. I don't get why a well made lens with half dozen machine ground lenses of a particular shape and in one configuration can cost 10-20x what another well made lens with a half dozen machine ground lenses of a similar shape and configuration? How can the shape of a lens element or the coating cost so much more to produce? What is special about this lens that Canon, Nikon or Sigma could not reverse engineer (i.e. lens shape) and produce for $400?
An interesting read from Lloyd Chambers here.
He won't say whether it is worth $4000 to me, but I will.Me, neither, but if they release a 24mm, as is rumored, then I might consider it. It would have to blow away the TS-E 24mm, though.
If you shoot 55mm all day long (think fashion or advertising pros) and do huge enlargements (think fashion or advertising pros again), I think this lens would probably be worthwhile. For the rest of us, no.
DOF is subjective? Hmm. If my DOF is 8 feet in a photo, that is, 8 real-life feet out in the field, how in the world does that ever change after I take the photo?? 8 feet is 8 feet isn't it?
Actually, I wouldn't even need to take the photo. The DOF is still 8 feet.
Are you suggesting that by being subjective, it could be 8 feet, or 6 feet, or 10 feet, or 7.23838383 feet? How silly.
It seems you think that based on your equipment, there's a 'slice' of the photo that's in perfect focus, say 3.8 feet in front of where you focused, and 4.2 feet behind it, then WHAM like magic at 4.3 feet behind the focal plane, everything gets blurry. That's not how it works.
Light from the plane of focus (which is best approximated by a plane in the geometric sense - 2D and infinitely thin) is focused on the image sensor (we're ignoring field curvature, of course). Everything outside that plane, even a few millimeters, is blurry...and the further from the focal plane, the blurrier it gets. That's optical physics. Whether it looks blurry to you depends on viewing size and distance and your visual acuity.
Tell me - how do you know your hypothetical shot has that 'real' 8 foot DoF? Did you use a DoF calculator? That calculator determines the 8 foot DoF based on an assumed specific print size and viewing distance (commonly 8x10" viewed at 1 foot). Change those assumptions, you change the calculated DoF.
The question is, why is the 5D III so superior to the 6D in this area? Is it processing power or something else?
Regarding switching between servo and one-shot, what is the appeal or benefit of the one-shot mode, and the switch between the two settings ?
I have always set my bodies to servo, and when the subject is motionless it seems to work fine.
Wow, but let's face it. Him buying that is similar to most of us lot buying a coffee! It won't even have caused a bump in his financial statements. Wonder what he uses it for?!