December 18, 2014, 07:46:10 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 - ahsanford

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 71
32
How have QVC missed this rare talent?

Nice

33
.
I don't waste my time on jerks!

He's such a pinata to swing at, though. 

- A

34
(CR Forum admin, please don't tuck this into the currently running TR thread again -- this is a NEW video from a couple days ago about what gear to buy.  It's not the same video about switching from Canon to Nikon.  Thank you!)

Our favorite camera pundit is at it again:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=subDtZIRmnE

Best witty comeback to his latest opus earns my undying respect.

...annnnnnd Go!

- A

35
EOS Bodies / Re: Petapixel: Canon Full Frame Mirrorless
« on: December 06, 2014, 01:44:27 AM »

Based on that, I think it's safe to say that the entire EF-M format is an evolutionary dead end, and that there's basically no advantage to Canon ever building a full-frame mirrorless camera.
I respectfully disagree. Canon may be using EOS-M as a learning tool for the mirrorless. It is doing well in the Asian market. There is no reason why Canon cannot have a new mount for the FF mirrorless. Just remember that Canon was in competition with Leica in the film range finder camera until the late 60's. In fact 18mm lens flange is too short to do a good job for FF digital camera. Sensor like to have as close to vertical light ray angle as possible. Even the Leica  M9 or ME with a lens flange of 28mm still needs the microlens to be offset to get a more even exposure. After that they still needs software correction.

Remember all the prior commentary that EF-S is the cash cow for Canon?  If mirrorless is the inevitable future, perhaps the EF-M is the future cash cow mount for Canon.  I wouldn't write it off just yet.

The question is -- if a new standalone FF mirrorless mount is also coming -- how well will Canon support all four mounts during the 'great industry migration to mirrorless'?  Given how poorly they've supported EF-M since it's launch (again: only two Canon EF-M lenses are for sale at B&H right now), I have concerns that Canon will water down any transition period with adapters until they have to deliver lenses or lost customers.

- A

36
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Tony Northrup Attacks Again -- Run For Your Lives
« on: December 05, 2014, 07:40:36 PM »
Our favorite camera pundit is at it again:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=subDtZIRmnE

Best witty comeback to his latest opus earns my undying respect.

...annnnnnd Go!

- A


37
EOS Bodies / Re: Petapixel: Canon Full Frame Mirrorless
« on: December 05, 2014, 07:25:23 PM »
Honestly if Canon was looking around at the business performance of rivals I'm guessing it wouldn't be Sony or Fuji they would be interested in but Leica. Unlike all the loss making mirrorless manufacturers they actually seem to be making a profit aiming at the higher end of the market rather than the gadget market. Maybe a "rangefinder" rumour isn't that strange in that respect? Something akin to the Leica M sold at a hefty premium could have the potential to bring in serious cash.

I think that's what Sony was gunning for with the RX1.  I know it lacked a proper rangefinder OVF, but a $2,800 (at release) fixed lens camera was nothing if not a luxury item.

- A


38
EOS Bodies / Re: Petapixel: Canon Full Frame Mirrorless
« on: December 04, 2014, 02:33:45 PM »
Agree.  One upside to having to make a new mount for FF mirrorless (if they did it) would be that you wouldn't have to make every popular EF lens in the new format.  Native mirrorless glass would only retain a small body+lens footprint in shorter FLs -- i.e. the upside of the 'tiny' body is wasted on a 300 prime.

That's assuming they even need to change the mount at all.  Assuming the EF-M mount is wide enough to not vignette existing EF lenses with a full-frame sensor (I'm not sure about that), then there's no practical reason why they couldn't use the existing EF-M mount.  Existing crop-body EF-M hardware would use the center part of a full-frame EF-M lens just like it does for EF lenses.  And for full-frame EF-M cameras, the camera would just need to know whether to crop the image or not.  This is, of course, fairly trivial:

1.  Add a new lens command to query whether future lenses are designed for crop sensors.
2.  Create an exception list containing all the existing crop lenses (both EF-M and EF-S).

And they'd already have to do both of those things anyway to support EF-S lenses on full-frame EF-M bodies, so it's not like they'd be expending any extra effort.  :)

This is the part where I get lost.  Could the EF-M mount / flange distance / diameter actually support a FF sensor?

- A

39
EOS Bodies / Re: Petapixel: Canon Full Frame Mirrorless
« on: December 04, 2014, 11:57:05 AM »
The rub, of course, is that blasted FF mirrorless mount.  If they keep the same EF setup (i.e just pull the mirror with no size reduction), interest in those bodies will be limited to the most keen enthusiasts and pros who want a very specific mirrorless advantage (fancy EVF, peaking, burst, etc.).  Or, Canon could make a standalone FF mirrorless mount that requires new glass and/or an adapter to walk back to the EF flange distance.  The latter is undoubtedly a more attractive smaller product, but it would also be a financial back-breaker in the near and mid term.

One advantage of that design is the ability to use EF-S lenses.  So as a replacement for the Rebel line, an EF-mount full-frame mirrorless could ostensibly make sense.  On the other hand, one big disadvantage to such a design is the inability to take advantage of the shorter flange focal distance to build smaller wide-angle lenses.  And a full-frame camera is where you'd most like to do so.  And you'd lose the ability to use the existing, smaller EF-M lenses, which ideally should make the use of EF-S lenses mostly moot.  So I'm not sure that's a good trade.

Agree.  One upside to having to make a new mount for FF mirrorless (if they did it) would be that you wouldn't have to make every popular EF lens in the new format.  Native mirrorless glass would only retain a small body+lens footprint in shorter FLs -- i.e. the upside of the 'tiny' body is wasted on a 300 prime.

So Canon could make some new mount for FF mirrorless with lens options ranging from, say, 14mm - 135mm, and then everything else above that length is not offered.  Canon would then force you back to the EF fold through an adapter for those lengths.

If that is palatable (and for someone who wants a smaller rig like myself, it is), you could conceivably get by with a relatively reasonable splash of high quality smallers lenses for the new mount:

14-24 f/4
24-70 f/2.8 (likely include a smaller f/4 option)
24 or 35 f/1.4 (or smaller f/2 IS option)
50 f/1.4 / 1.2
85 f/1.2
100 macro
135 f/2
+ sprinkle in some non-L starter lenses: an f/3.5-5.6 standard zoom perhaps.

I have no delusions that this -- from Canon -- wouldn't take a very long time, but it could work.  But it's a heck of lot less lift than trying to recreate the best of all of EF's reach in another format.

The tricky bit, of course, is saying goodbye to regular 70-200 use (which would sit right around that 135mm inflection point I previously mentioned), which I love on my 5D3.  I just don't see a compact mirrorless version of that being practical to hold in FF.  (In smaller formats like m43 there are reasonably holdable 70-200 equivalents, but not in FF with a small body.)

- A

40
EOS Bodies / Re: Petapixel: Canon Full Frame Mirrorless
« on: December 04, 2014, 11:05:47 AM »
I have to ask, what's the point of the mirrorless camera if it used EF lenses? The 6D isn't that much bigger than the A7, and they could probably shave some size off the next one if they wanted to.

How about a successor to the 1Dx (or 7D2) capable of getting 24 full resolution still images per second. The Sony A6000 does 11FPS, faster than the 7D2. Imagine how good it could be if it was engineered to sell for $1800 or $6000, not $450. Also, a mirrorless FF camera, with a shortened sensor-to-flange distance and using EF lenses, would allow Canon to introduce native lenses at a more reasonable pace.

My guess is that a FF Mirrorless Canon camera could be about the same size as the Sony A6000, except a little taller to accommodate the larger diameter of the EF mount.

There's that damn new FF mirrorless mount again.  As much as it's a clear opportunity in the long term, it's categorically crippling in the near term.  We either have to like adapters or we have to like waiting.  I keep hearing folks say a mount transition would not be that bad -- "we just need a few key lenses" -- but in reality the key lenses each of us want is different and Canon would take 3-5 years to deploy those.

Don't get me wrong -- I want a great mirrorless ecosystem to climb into -- but 'great' is compared to what I have today.  And the options I have today in EF are staggering.

- A

41
EOS Bodies / Re: Petapixel: Canon Full Frame Mirrorless
« on: December 03, 2014, 06:57:57 PM »
So the transition you refer to is not happening... not at Canon, at least.   :D

But probably they've learned from the aps-c mirrorless, or even never intended it to really succeeed (and that's why the m2 isn't available outside Asia)?

Probably the upcoming introduction of a mirrorless ff mount is also the reason for Canon not updating the old primes - they are planning to release ef-m-ff mount versions of these?

One has to wonder.  EOS M has been out (roughly?) 2.5 years and there are presently two first party EF-M lenses for sale at B&H.

Two.

And no, adaptors do not count.  See attached picture, giggle.... annnnnnd resume waiting for more EF-M glass.

I still think Canon is going to ride out the crop format (not a bad call sensor-wise -- it's a great call for IQ / size for mirrorless), but yes, Marsu, they haven't exactly spent billions on supporting the EF-M mount.  So an awkward retraction that they got it wrong and a follow up with an FF mirrorless mount is not Canon's style at all, but it is possible given how little they've spent on EF-M to date.

- A

42
EOS Bodies / Re: Petapixel: Canon Full Frame Mirrorless
« on: December 03, 2014, 06:34:45 PM »
Marsu42, it is possible for Canon to produce/market in parallel a full frame mirroless lens mount system as a transition period.

Dolina, this is a dream scenario for Canon folks who want mirrorless.  For a transition period of 3-7 years (who knows how long is needed), every time Canon offers a new FF sensor, there are separate mirrorless and DSLR bodies offered that uses it.  Folks would not have to choose between format (SLR vs. Mirrorless) and the best sensor, and Canon could ramp up in Mirrorless users while they ramp down in DSLR users without there being a huge cliff to transition from.  As DSLR popularity slowly erodes in favor of Mirrorless over time (as tech improves), Canon will simply stop offering DSLRs in specific price points -- one would imagine that Rebels would go first, XXD models would go second, and 1/5/7D models would be the last to go (if they do at all).

The rub, of course, is that blasted FF mirrorless mount.  If they keep the same EF setup (i.e just pull the mirror with no size reduction), interest in those bodies will be limited to the most keen enthusiasts and pros who want a very specific mirrorless advantage (fancy EVF, peaking, burst, etc.).  Or, Canon could make a standalone FF mirrorless mount that requires new glass and/or an adapter to walk back to the EF flange distance.  The latter is undoubtedly a more attractive smaller product, but it would also be a financial back-breaker in the near and mid term.

Now replace the word "full-frame" in your question and in everything I wrote above with "Crop".
  That's exactly what Canon could have done when EOS-M launched: Rebels and EOS-Ms being sold side by side.  But with a far far greater financial commitment in SLRs, lenses, etc. Canon has made the EOS-M effectively a stillborn while Rebels continue to sell relatively well. 

So the transition you refer to is not happening... not at Canon, at least.   :D

- A

43
EOS Bodies / Re: Petapixel: Canon Full Frame Mirrorless
« on: December 03, 2014, 06:16:52 PM »
And if others recall earlier rumors about a possible Mirrorless Rebel. I picture the Rebel ergonomics, look and feel to stay the same, aka take out mirrorbox, etc and go to a EVF and maintain the current EF-S/EF mount. This seems like a strategy a conservative company like Canon would go for.

I'm torn here. 

To simply pull the mirror assembly out of the body is a nice science project for Canon, but it won't reduce the size.  For all the great comments we've seen on this thread about EVFs with more useful information / focus peaking, more reliability without a mirror mechanism, etc. the basic draw of mirrorless is to make it smaller, so a good chunk of folks who did like the EOS-M's small form factor would find such a body a step in the wrong direction.

So my gut is telling me that Canon will stay conservative (for now) and do the following things with the next EOS-M:

  • A more modern sensor, DPAF, etc. = 90% likelihood (fair amount of speculation that it will be the 70D sensor itself)
  • Improve AF speed = 100% likelihood (one would assume the prior bullet point would greatly assist this)
  • Offer some form of an EVF -- either a modular one (Canon loves it's grip and wireless transmitter upcharges...) or possibly a split into a non-EVF body and a better body with an integral EVF = 75% likelihood
  • More native EF-M lenses (for smallest possible size) = No idea.  (They've been so slow on pushing out EF-M glass.)

Canon really has to do the first three things or I think it will remain DOA to enthusiasts or pros looking for a second body.  Some folks love their EOS-M bodies, but I will not touch one without a viewfinder.

- A

44
EOS Bodies / Re: Petapixel: Canon Full Frame Mirrorless
« on: December 03, 2014, 04:47:03 PM »
Why would canon develop a FF slr that its still in general the same size as the 5d,6d body size and keep the lens mount and distance to the sensor the same
As far as I can see the reduction of body size is a bit overblown especially for FF as the lenses still need to observe physical limitations. Sony's FF lenses are evidence that the masters of miniaturization cannot skin that cat.

This gets to market segmentation.  You have multiple users of mirrorless with different needs.  Consider just two (of many) groups coming to mirrorless from SLRs:

1) People who love the small form factor for carrying or discretion reasons — street, reportage, travel shooters and such. They *don’t* want big lenses, huge grips and such. They want 90% the IQ/features of a same-sensor-sized-SLR in 50% of the size.

2) People who are migrating to mirrorless from DSLRs simply for the best IQ they can get (i.e. people buying the various a7 Sony models) — a good example would be Canon landscape shooters wanting more MP or more DR. These folks don’t give a damn about form factor and are bolting big L lenses on to these bodies with adaptors. Effectively, they *aren’t* mirrorless devotees so much as fans of wonderful sensors and don’t mind fighting through the limitations (battery life, AF, etc.) of today’s mirrorless rigs.  An A7R and an adapter is a much cheaper way to upgrade your sensor than buying a D810 and new lenses.

Normalnorm, it appears to me that Group 1 above really cares about size, and Group 2 couldn't give a damn if it takes the best shot (and, bonus, lets them keep using their old glass).

I think -- just maybe -- that the complexity of the user's needs in mirrorless might scare off Canon and Nikon as (at least for now) being a bit too unpredictable to make a major investment -- i.e. should they aim their mirrorless efforts at fully replacing what DSLRs do, or should they focus on getting the size down?  Doing both could be irresponsible w.r.t. time & dollars.

- A

45
EOS Bodies / Re: Petapixel: Canon Full Frame Mirrorless
« on: December 03, 2014, 04:37:28 PM »
Canon is losing quite a few landscape photographers these days, because there is stiff competition to fill all the broad and niche landscape needs. I still use Canon for landscapes because I like their system and I have no complaints with my process. I can still see vast majorities of people wanting to get into landscapes who are not even considering Canon because of lower MP and less DR. I personally stitch and bracket all of my shots (never missed a shot), so I have not much to gain by leaving Canon, but others certainly see the need.

Respectfully disagree, Johan.  Canon isn't really losing folks to mirrorless nearly as much as they are losing folks to Sony sensors -- people are 'switching to mirrorless' just to get their hands on what they think will get them better IQ.

Consider:  one of the Sony a7 bodies with an adaptor is probably the cheapest way to get a "better" sensor for FF work without having to flip all your glass.  Landscapers are the ones willing to give this a try first, as they need AF far less than most photographers and LV can get them by.

But we continue to hear of everyone leaving Canon for a host of reasons, principally due to the sensors, and secondarily due to their avoiding any significant commitment to mirrorless.

Canon will eventually commit large dollars to mirrorless and make a proper go of it -- with APS-C, not FF.  (I don't see a 4th mount happening.  But they'll pony up an EVF, offer DPAF, and (please) offer a greater variety of small, native EF-M lenses and people will buy it.

The big wild card is when.  I've heard a thousand forum-dwelling photography enthusiasts that claim that Canon is falling so far behind and that everyone is leaving them, but I haven't seen a speck of sales data that shows that Sony / Fuji / etc. are converting large numbers of DSLR users from them.  If that starts to happen, Canon will deploy more competitive products in that segment.

- A

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 71