October 24, 2014, 08:05:41 AM

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 - ahsanford

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 62
106
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon mirrorless: Status?
« on: August 18, 2014, 10:11:04 PM »
there is nothing chaotic in the mirrorless market. Definitely less so than in the artificially crippled, "marketing-differentiated" world of DSLRs. Batteries, Battery grips, external WFT-Wifi bricks ... all of them totally incompatible even within one manufacturers line of cameras! Canon offering 5 different APS-C mirror-slappers in parallel - 1200D, 100D, 700D, 70D, 7D/7D II at the same time .. Nikon running 3 different APS-C DSLRs, all with the same sensor in parallel and moving towards 5 different FF DSLRs in parallel-  D610, D810, Df, D4s + one new rumored. And to make the mess even worse ... all of these grandfather-DSLRs "video-optimized", although mirrorless cams will always win the video game. Naturally. No mirror to be flapped out of lights' way all the time! :-)

Now where's the primordial ooze? The mess. The clunkiness. The mirror-slappin. Fat, greasy, old and heavy 19-century mechanical tech stuff?  Looks rather like Jurassic Park to me. Soon to go extinct. :P

You speak as though a side needs to be taken, and that would imply you've missed my point.  I'm not name-calling and pissing on mirrorless -- far from it.  What I am saying is that it is a market in a very early stage and tiers/price points/styles of shooters are still being worked out.

DSLRs -- and thanks for bringing that up -- have violently clear feature sets that differentiate starter to upgrade to premium to pro to flagship.  Are there too many price points?  Yeah, probably.  But do you know exactly why each higher line of camera commands a higher price? You betcha.  That lets shooters size up who they are and what features they need.  Easy peasy.  It's not better and it's not worse than mirrorless. It's just a more mature market where consumers know where they stand and can opt in as best suits their budget, shooting style, and needs.  (Hint: Canon and Nikon both play this arena really, really well, and they print money here as a result.)

Mirrorless, on the other hand, is still figuring out what people are willing to pay for and what matters most.  It's not just sensor size (see my prior comments on point and shoot FF rigs and feature laden / pro-build m43 rigs).  And until that is figured out, Canon and Nikon coming in strong wouldn't be driving the market, they would be stabbing at it in the dark, and that's not either company's style. 

Canon and Nikon seem to be content to have a basic offering to appease their enthusiasts (there are strong EOS-M devotees on this very forum, even though they admit it has flaws) while the market sorts itself out.  When it becomes clear what everyone wants, both will make a hard call on sticking with their mount/sensor combo and producing a ton of new lenses for it [Cough: Canon], or scrapping it for a new one that is more built for the future [Cough: Nikon].

In a sense, Canon and Nikon are waiting this market out before they are so committed to a mount/sensor combo that they have to ride it out in a poor competitive position.  That's pretty wise in my book.

- A

107
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon mirrorless: Status?
« on: August 18, 2014, 06:15:24 PM »
  • 1" ... Nikon 1 ... bound to die. Sensor too small. Only one player without much of clue. Dead end, stay away. 
    mFT - many players. also a dead end. Sensor too small relative to camera and lens size. Glass does not scale proportionately. Will be around for some years to come though. Enjoy it, while it lasts. Market leaders: Oly, Panasonic
    APS-C ... very reasonable budget alternative. One stop less photographic opportuniities at significantly lower cost than FF. As in DSLRs. Will survive for many years to come. Clear market leader: Sony/E-Mount.
    FF - 135 format. 36-24. Gettinmg more affordable by the day. ANd really small. Inclduing nice pancakes that don't cost an arm and a leg. Clear market leader and innovator: Sony.

Thank you -- you actually are making my point for me.  IQ isn't everything in this market.  In mirrorless, the needs are so wide and varied that the size of the sensor very well may not be the best way to 'tier' the market!  A huge sensor typically means bigger lenses, and the folks in this market don't always welcome that.  Size, features, and useability and IQ seem to be judged hand in hand in this market.

Food for thought:  We're seeing some pros drop 'two sensor sizes down' and opt for the m43 rigs, while Sony is offering (effectively) a point and shoot FF rig with a fixed lens?!  Up is down!  Dogs and cats living together -- mass hysteria!

Sprinkle in the availability of grips, hybrid VFs and weathersealed options and you see what I'm getting at -- each sensor size is trying to say "Yes we can" to as much as possible, and the definitive 'best' / market leader has not yet surfaced.  All we know is that Sony has great FF sensors, Fuji has very good sensors and the ergonomics/soul of an older film camera, and that people really love their m43 rigs for some reason.  None are a train wreck, none are categorical winners, and all are still innovating.

Again, I'm not arguing for Canon/Nikon to avoid this market, but it makes some sense that they let this chaotic primordial ooze of a market evolve further before trying to conquer it.

- A

108
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon mirrorless: Status?
« on: August 18, 2014, 04:48:59 PM »
Honestly, if I were dying for a mirrorless I would buy a Fuji. (Mostly because they are cool.) But, I also have never gotten why a mirrorless camera needs to have interchangeable lenses. As "A" says, the usable range for mirrorless is about 24-85 (I might suggest it could be a little longer, but not a lot -- maybe to 110mm or so)

If Fuji were to come out with a fixed lens zoom in that range or if Canon would improve a little on the G1X, I really think those would be better options.

I'm intrigued why more fixed-mount lenses with a simple, high quality zoom aren't offered more often.  Right now, the best bet for fixed-mount lens with a small, high quality zoom are some "cheaper" APS-C Leicas or the high-end point and shoots like the Sony RX100 series or the G1X II.  Fuji has the X10, X20 bodies that do this as well, I think...

I think the reason why is manufacturers want lens pullthrough dollars, so the added cost / hassle of making it modular in as many body designs as possible is more profitable in the longer term.  Just guessing, though.

- A

109
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon mirrorless: Status?
« on: August 18, 2014, 04:42:09 PM »
I still think the biggest problem of mirrorless is that it lacks any kind of real identity.  It wants to be small and compact but those that have the $$$ to plunk down for it also want the IQ and speed you get in a standard body - for that you need a few more years because they R&D guys are faced with the problem of having all these great optical formula's that they have to reinvent in order to size it down to 'mirrorless size.' 

+1.  The mirrorless market is a zoo right now.  A thousand options that are partially being served by the various manufacturers = a hazy, risky investment for Canon and Nikon.

IMO, mirrorless only really takes off when EVF tech gets substantially better and can be placed in a standard FF body (same size as 5d, 6d, and 1dx) - FF mirrorless in a pro sized body with a native EF mount = no compromising on glass. 

-1 on that one (at least for me).  FF mirrorless with an EF mount would be massive.  Isn't the point of mirrorless to remove the mirror-box and skinny up all that thickness?   

I think you need a new mount based on the need to thin things up, which means you need (a) all new lenses or (b) a combination of new lenses and EF/EF-S lenses on an adaptor.  Canon clearly has chosen the latter.

- A


110
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon mirrorless: Status?
« on: August 18, 2014, 03:36:47 PM »
If the #1 reason Canon isn't going all-in on mirrorless is to protect SLR (and EF lens) sales, the #2 reason has got to be the lack of clear market segmentation.  In this thread alone, people have asked for different things:

  • People who want a compact 2nd body that works with their Canon EF/EF-S glass.
  • People who want a small set of high quality primes.
  • People who want a discreet camera system, usually for shooting street or photojournalism
  • People who want a simple, smaller sized camera system
  • People want everything in the SLR market run shrunk down to mirrorless proportions

And people on other threads want something stylish or retro looking, have a hybrid VF, a grip, 87 color choices, etc.

And we wonder why Canon hasn't waded into this soup...   ::)    We should not be surprised EOS-M is half-baked at this point.

Consider:  it's possible that Canon has put the following logic together... 

'Mirrorless actually is the future, but specifically what that future's market will be is all over the place right now.  It's best to let Sony/Fuji/m43 wade through the aforementioned buzzsaw of different users and different expectations, try and fail a bunch of times, until which time the market has clearly settled.  Then we'll come in and roundly and thoroughly support that market with 2-3 dead on-target bodies and a proper lineup of lenses.  We, Canon the almighty, believe that the market will solidify into something we can divide and conquer faster than we will lose an unacceptable level of our core professional customers.  We might be wrong, we may lose the farm on this math, but it's the math we're sticking with.'

This very well may be where they are.  But as a stubborn SLR guy who is admittedly intrigued with mirrorless, I hope they don't take too long to pick something and get on with more native (EF-M) lens offerings.

- A


111
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon mirrorless: Status?
« on: August 18, 2014, 12:12:37 PM »
I'm probably in the minority here, but I think everyone who wants a soup-to-nuts 'yes, we offer that' in mirrorless would be wiser to leave Canon/Nikon immediately.  Fuji, Sony and the m43 gang will far, far better support your ambitions.  They have multiple mirrorless body price points and all sorts of tiers of tiny/average/big sensors and cheap/okay/semi-pro build qualities.  Plus, they have a ton more lenses that are native to the mount than with EF-M.

I also do not understand why folks want reach for these microscopic bodies.  I might be way off here, but mirrorless needs to be small.  Period.  The minute the camera gets above length X with lens attached -- let's say 6-8" -- I think the upside of that tiny body is lost.  Sure, it will pack in a bag far more efficiently when you take the lens off -- and I see a lot of folks rave about how small it truly packs down to -- but I always have a lens on my camera, so that awkward 'T-shape' of camera plus lens will still be a pain to deal with.  In my mind, Canon should cap mirrorless to a FF equivalent of 85mm perhaps.  Otherwise you get something like this (see attached) and I have no idea why on earth you'd do that without the bigger body as a counterweight and grip to properly wield that thing.

I think mirrorless ought to be well served from, say, FF equiv 24mm to about 85mm and stop there. Who wants to hold a pickle jar of a lens with a body as big of a deck of cards?

This also might serve as a way Canon could nerf (make less appealing) the EOS-M in an intelligent way to protect SLR sales.  Rather than withhold vitally needed tools (like a viewfinder) or cripple the performance (the AF), just limit the focal length options.  Think of this sales pitch instead of what we have now:  "EOS-M will give you stellar shots with all the viewfinder comforts and knobs and switches you love and great AF performance, but only from 24-85mm FF equivalent.  If you want an ultrawide or a tele, please see our terrific line of EF-S and EF mount cameras."

But if you want Canon/Nikon to evolve all their hardware -- lenses, bodies, flashes, etc. -- into the smaller format, give up now.  Won't happen for years and years.  Again, consider a company like Sony/Fuji/m43 who is actively trying to build up their mounts with more options.  You'll find more joy there.

- A

112
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon mirrorless: Status?
« on: August 18, 2014, 10:48:23 AM »

Would be nice to have a smaller body camera...


...without needing an adapter.  Adapters are a bridge to EF/EF-S glass until more EF-M lenses are made.  But buying an EOS-M and then slapping an adaptor on it is a fail.  The killer app for this system is size, and when you bolt the old mirror box distance back on, what's the point?

Small EF-M high quality primes with USM, an EVF, and DPAF would make this go from a no way to a no brainer for me.  I don't need L primes --> just make them as good as the recent non-L IS USM lenses we've seen recently.  I'd be ecstatic with that in a small EF-M form factor.

But the minute it looks like this (see attached), I'll stay with my proper SLR.

- A

113
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon mirrorless: Status?
« on: August 18, 2014, 10:40:15 AM »
Is Canon working on another mirrorless camera to replace the M2 (even though the US doesn't officially have it)? The hybrid sensor in the M2 that had better high ISO capability and a good EVF would be enough.

If they don't then Rebel series cameras will become the bulky alternative to Fuji/Sony/Olympus/etc. The separate EVF for the G1X II shows that they have another ingredient in place for future mirrorless models. It reminds me of the messing around with autofocus before Eos was launched in 1987.

It will happen, it's just a question of when.

Yeah, I was stunned to see Canon's first ever consumer EVF head to a high end point and shoot line like the G1X II and not be offered for the EOS-M.

I don't believe mirrorless is such a certain and imminent part of our future that Canon and Nikon will be overrun by it someday (as pundits at many photo blogs would believe), but both have tremendously underwhelmed with their mirrorless offerings to date.

Canon has to decide if they want to risk cannibalizing SLR sales and offer a more comprehensive mirrorless system.  So far, the answer has been a resounding 'No'.  They still lack:

  • An EVF
  • Native EF-M mount lenses
  • High quality lenses with USM (no, on an adapter does not count)

Until those things are offered, EOS-M will only be a second/third body for people with tons of Canon glass or a first body for people who don't know how much better their other options are.

- A

114
I notice that the 14-24 f/4 is not rumored to be an "Art" lens. 

I'm waiting to see the quality level of the lens when and if it's announced.

'C' for contemporary?

Nope.  'R' for rumor.   :P

- A

115
24mm f/1.4 A $1100?

Please anyone, what was the introduction price of the 35mm?

If memory serves...

$899 for the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art
$949 for the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art

- A

116
Smart.

There are much bigger weaknesses in the wide angles of various vendor lens lineups than there are at 85mm and beyond. Canon's 85/1.2L is already quite good, as is the 100 and 135. Although Sigma may want to play there later, there's less opportunity in that space of the lens market than at the wide end...

If Sigma do deliver a 14-24 and Canon's 11-24 is just a rumor for some time longer then Sigma will have that part of the Canon market all to themselves. Then there's all of Sony's market too.

Smart thinking by Sigma. Aim for where Canon is weak.

If that 14-24 is front filterable and comparably sharp as the Nikon 14-24, it's a land grab for Nikon landscape business as well.  That Nikon lens has a sterling reputation but has gone without any serious competition. 

- A

117
24 1.4?

Dangit.  I was looking forward to an 85 1.4 Art this Fall.

The 24-70 f2 possibility is very cool, however.  Might drown my sorrows then look forward to that beast!

I wouldn't give up on an 85 f/1.4 Art.  That's been rumored for some time on other sites.  Most rumor mongers say Sigma needs both the 24 and 85 to complete the standard Art prime line. 

Further, Dustin Abbott (fellow CR forum member but also does his own reviews) said that he's already been approached to review a early Zeiss Otus 85mm.  Any 'Otus' developments are absolute gold for Sigma, who have demonstrated that they can make an autofocusing lens 95% as good for 1/4 the price.  So if Zeiss is making one, Sigma will gladly swoop in, outperform an aging Canon L in that FL, and gobble up a good chunk of the high end dollars there.  Be patient.

- A

118
I'm curious about the rumored 14-24, though I think the 35mm end of the 16-35 makes it a more practical zoom lens.  Also, it would be the first 14mm FF lens to take a filter, so that makes me wonder.

Surprised Sigma hadn't pounced on a really wide UWA zoom for FF some time ago.  Before they were killing it with Art lenses (and delivering much higher quality product), they were undercutting for price and niche/gap-filling lenses Canon wasn't making.  I would have assumed they'd have tried this FL by now.

I ran a poll recently that pegged why so many people coveted the Nikon 14-24, asking them to choose if they could only have one of two things -- that lens's sharpness OR it's focal length, which was more important?

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=20915.15

Though a large majority said they really just wanted a sharper ultrawide in general, a quarter of respondents really thought that focal length was the killer item.

So I think a Sigma 14-24 will sell well if it were offered just from pent-up demand of 14mm UWA zoom covetees and the IS should please some event photogs.  Now if it is nearly as sharp as the Nikon and it takes front filters, it will sell like hotcakes to the landscapers.  The Nikon 14-24 is great, but from what I've read, it really handcuffs photogs from a filtering flexibility perspective.   As I understand it, Nikon 14-24 users can't use the main Lee setup and need to buy a specialized Lee rig that is limited in some way.  (I want to say they can't stack much or they can't use a CPL -- someone please correct me.)

Regardless of whether this Sigma lens is real or not, I agree with RLPhoto -- I'll be perfectly happy with my new Canon 16-35 F/4 IS.  It is a brilliant tool which says yes to nearly everything I need:  it's sharp, it has IS, natively works with my Lee setup, can handle some rain, and doesn't weigh a ton.  Love it love it love it.

- A

119
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« on: August 15, 2014, 10:57:30 AM »

Sigma: 14-24 F/4 OS is rumored for Photokina...

120
Lenses / Sigma 14-24mm OS lens at Photokina?
« on: August 14, 2014, 05:41:34 PM »
Oh snap.  Ultrawiders who really want 14mm on a zoom might be happy to see this rumor...

http://photorumors.com/2014/08/14/sigma-lenses-rumored-for-photokina-24mm-f1-4-art-and-14-24mm-f4-with-os/

...but I think someone will complain about not having f/2.8 before anyone can say woohoo to a 14-24 lens.

- A

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 62