April 24, 2014, 12:55:41 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 - Diko

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 40D with grip for $300, or something else?
« on: February 06, 2014, 04:57:48 AM »

Hi Mr Canuck.
I still have my 40D as a backup to my 7D, still a great camera main thing lacking as far as I'm concerned is AFMA, if your lenses are good on the body it does great, if like me the kit lens was OOF (took me way too long to realise the problem) the pics won't stand pixel peeking! Have a good copy of the kit lens now and it takes great pics, still fire off a few frames with it due to the certain something it seems to give the images, they look good. Incidentally there is someone in Manchester UK selling a very rare new one £399! eBay!

Cheers Graham.

Excuse me... what is AFMA (Auto Focus ... ??) ? What is OOF (out-of-focus?)  ???

Thanks in advance for the explanations :-)

Hi everyone...

I wonder what would be the impact of this camera over the market segmentation:
Samsung's dual grip WB2200F Smart camera boasts 60x optical zoom

Here are some additional details.

These three specs details IMO are a small nightmare.... If these were better it could have been a game-changer.

* - Sensor size: 1/2.3" (6.17 x 4.55 mm)
* - ISO: 80 - 6400
* - Screen dots: 460,000

EOS Bodies / Re: New EOS-1 in 2014 [CR1]
« on: November 29, 2013, 06:22:07 AM »
While the 700D deserves everything it gets, don't forget everything Canon has done with glass in the last few years. Had I been shopping for a high end camera in 2009 I very well may have gone for the NIkon D700, Nikon glass was very competitive at the time. But that's not when I entered the market, from what I can see Canon has very little competition right now, their recent lenses mop the floor with the competition (at least on the long end, we'll see what happens with the short end next year).
If you're looking for a nice walk-around camera, sure, switching to a different company might be easy. If you want anything more specific out of your camera the number of options falls quickly, pretty much right down to 2. Compact system manufacturers simply don't have the lenses, and as I pointed out above, the nearest competitor has some catching up to do. I'm confident Canon's lens line-up can carry them for quite a while when it comes to the high end market. The real problem is cell phones.

We are on the same line here. It is CANON's leverage to its leadership's position in its amateur/pro line.

The fact is that everyone here are kind of either trying to explain me what the obvious situation here is. Or the one with customerS & CANON's shareholders' happiness goals.

Does anyone realize that the majority of efforts here are on explaining to 2-3 individuals how we are wrong to want more and should accomodate our wish lists according to the majority of people?

When one reads this whole topic, he/she would stay with the impression that everyone's happy with CANONs doings...

For GOD's sake, wake up people! This is a RUMOR site. NOT a final TECH SPECs listing place. Stop speaking obvious facts that we all know.

Better concentrate on what you WANT!
Not on EXPLAINING Canon's reasoning.

If I were from CANON's marketing dep. and read this here (and someone of you definitely is, even if as a guest) I would report that people around here acknowledge this and that issue... but are pretty, pretty happy - ergo could put the solution's R&D on this and that on a lower priority level for now.

It depends on us that CANON doesn't sleep :-))))

And don't forget that you are:

:D :D :D

I am sorry for the pathos but got in the mood, because of that MEGATROLL pic, which is hilarious! :D :D :D I laughed for a while quite a bit.

I have read a few quite good examples of trolling here, but alongside every once in a while maybe you are missing some good points. ;-)

EOS Bodies / Re: New EOS-1 in 2014 [CR1]
« on: November 26, 2013, 07:47:10 AM »
  But patent attorneys need research-based claims to file on, so clearly Canon is spending a lot of money on R&D.

I was at a Canon presentation tonight and the video they showed said they spend 10% of global revenues on R&D.  They also quoted global revenue at us$45.6 billion.
That is a Significant R&D budget, regardless of which company or business you compare it to!

Now someone's talkin' digits.

I guess it could be true (trying to turn off that "everybody lies" mode for a brief moment). Than definitely I must agree with Eldar.

Having in mind that HP back in the days invested about 14% then they went down to 3-4% (if I recall it correctly) and now after the crisis they turned it back to 8%.

EOS Bodies / Re: New EOS-1 in 2014 [CR1]
« on: November 25, 2013, 05:31:13 AM »
Regardless of what Canon is doing, there are other companies that most photogs have bought into that do the same thing or worse i.e. apple and most continue to buy in. Bleeding out tech, coming out with things later than others, charging 50-200% more than the competitors for the same or less hardware, disabling compatibilities unnecessarily, withholding bs features from one model only to help create product separation for the next model. To me, canon isn't even as guilty as they are (if they do happen to be guilty of any of those things).  Bottom line, they are not alone if they are trying to make a profit through these measures. If you're going to blast canon for it, you might see if you can head over to all the other forums for the other companies you have purchased products from to do the same thing.

Can we all please just recognize that none of these companies are non-profits with YOUR specific desires/needs at the forefront of their business decisions? Go out and take some pictures please.

Interesting perspective you have.  To compare Canon to Apple though, is rather silly, don't you think?  And if your main complaint with Apple has to do with the products they make, or the lack of control you as a consumer have over their products, or them as a company in general...well that's amusing!

I think you completely missed my point.

I don't care whether these companies are doing it or not. What I was saying was that people should stop saying companies are horrible simply because they aren't tailoring their business decisions to that specific consumer's specific need as a consumer.

You are right. It is silly which is exactly the view I thought I expressed.

Actually I don't find it silly. As absurd as it is (yes, I do acknowledge it's absurdity in a way) look at the new iPhone 5c & the "new" EOS Rebel SL1/Kiss X7 in White. I always thought that crippling just comes as is with a lower price tag... Now it comes, but with style;D ;D ;D

The last time I checked both companies were STILL quite everything else but NON-profit  8)
So then they have tailored the design according to the true needs of the majority of consumers.

[sarcasm] Now my dream will come true and I will probably get the ORANGE 1DXs for Christmas 2014.

I know - I am the only person on this forum to actually ask for better ISO & DR in the same body... I have to admit quite unnecessary features indeed. [/sarcasm]

EOS Bodies / Re: New EOS-1 in 2014 [CR1]
« on: November 24, 2013, 05:39:19 PM »
I don't really understand why a bunch of people here are so fanatically trying to defend CANONs interests instead of their own?

What I had to say I've said it. I am interested in my needs not in anyone else's needs. And I don't really need any basic knowledge in Economics.... I tend to understand CANON's steps (generally speaking). And I don't like them... That is my point of view.

And as a good agent acting in the free market will be unhappy with CANON's current doings. But that's me.

BTW my guesses are that Neuro is on that picture of CANONs 1D developers :D :D :D

I am a fan of big and heavy (for both bodies & lenses) due to the steady factor and also can't wait for the new CANON 1D (megapixel) and would love to combine it with that awesome Carl Zeis Otus babe. ;-)

EOS Bodies / Re: New EOS-1 in 2014 [CR1]
« on: November 24, 2013, 05:51:57 AM »
Given that the USPTO allowed RSA encryption (based on a mathematical formula) to be patented, it would be interesting to know what those patents covered and what the quality of them is. If Canon is anything like other companies then employees get a bonus for each patent, meaning that a lot of people focus on generating patents "just because." I know one guy that has the walls of his office covered in patent plaques, many of which are "just ideas" that never even got to prototype phase... would I say that he's a better innovator than someone with only one or two that have actually made it to products? Nope...
+1 mate!



1/ Jrista - WTF? Getting PR statment out of the company's website is bigger CRAP than anything else.

2/ Neuro - I said it last time: CANON has 3000 patents and some of them quite interesting, actually but 95% never put into real world application. INNOVATION is NOT = number of patents.

For the other you are right that I don't put into account the time to put a technology on the shelves....
However from my perspective you are naive. ;-)

So I guess we are both right to some extends as long as we are both making assumptions.

And NEURO, really how on earth did you come up with that comparison between NASA (a non-profit organization) and CANON?

3/ As AvTvM put it: it's all about
true innovation that we should rightfully expect from Canon as well as other suppliers of 21st century imaging gear.

And ... such innovative cameras might even be worth asking prices of up to 7000 USD/Euro that CaNikon today are charging for only marginally improved iterations of their age-old mirrorslappers.  :-)

4/ ELDAR... don't you remember 5D m3 Memory leaks issue and its perfected to death solution?

5/ Orangutan - exactly that white kiss got me into this discussion. What now? Is Canon a subsidiary of Apple? And due to that DSLR Yakuza small companies such as Lytro might provide TRUE INNOVATIONs but might as well not be able to ;-)

5/ 1DX ONLY true huge innovation is the FPS. ISO may be an advancement, but is also a trade off for DR. Everything else is iteration of an existing technology.

When I worked in Ericsson, making cell phones, we had the next generation models as fully working models long before we released the prior generation to the market. There is no reason to believe the situation is different for a camera producer.

Look at the car industry. If you go to a car shows you´ll see fully working stunning models that may become the next generation cars and we wonder when we can buy one. Only to learn that it may be a production volume car in 5 years time and when they finally become production models, they don´t look so gorgeous, because the model was handmade and did not have to take the limitations given by a volume production situation into consideration.

 Yeah as I said... NOW CANON maybe already has a 75 MP Dual Pix AF camera with at least 50K ISO... but most probably we will NOT see it before 2017 as a 1DX Mark 3.

7/ Of course it's business and it was the point all the time and NO: 1DX does NOT provide what I want... NIKON to some extends does. But all my glasses are CANON and I can't switch, because I will loose a good amount of money! Since it's business I am being blackmailed by CANON. Get the picture now?

EOS Bodies / Re: New EOS-1 in 2014 [CR1]
« on: November 22, 2013, 03:33:16 PM »
Canon has officially, publicly announced the technology: August 31st, 2010 (actually quite before that, but I seem to be unable to find the info on the net now).

Let us calculate, Neuro feel free to correct me: if APS-H is 120 MPs then FF would go to about 150 or so.

Now putting into consideration Dual Pixel Tech we might need to divide them by 2 (actually the DPAF is not like that but for the sake of simplicity... :-( ) that would make about 75 MPs.

Now we are talking about Emerging tech in 2010. And that article in July 2013 if less than a real product I would call CANON total bunch of hypocrites looking ONLY for profit. 

That means 1DXs shouldn't be less than that! IF it is, it would be marketing's dep. fault that would claim that if they release 45 MPs now and 75 MPs in 2017 Canon would make way more money.

Without accident in 2010 CANON also showed off with this Leaving you on your own thoughts... ;-)

Now having new technologies like Lytro and
RH-1 "Ultra" Anamorphic Lens Small | Large
I hardly believe that CANON would need the whole 9 yards... I mean 20 years.

ANY given company has its Business Plan ahead for 1,2,3,5, 10 & 20 years. Each one in its own paste and milestones. Each subject to some extend to modification. However all those patents that Neuro mentions are there ONLY to guarantee the company's leadership. What I mean is that we might be seeing technology developed as early as 2006.

EOS Bodies / Re: New EOS-1 in 2014 [CR1]
« on: November 22, 2013, 03:11:09 PM »
Sorry, but I don't follow you.  The 5D Mark II came out in 2008, and the 7D came out in 2009.  Availability was limited at first, but you are at least one year off your "year of the" timing.  Canon's greater marketshare is most likely because in the categories listed, as well as entry-level cameras, Canon simply outsold Nikon.
GOSH! When DID that time passed by?  ;D ;D ;D ;D My bad....

Never-the-less where I live all around me people are with the above mentioned bodies... What I am saying - 7D & 5D M2 saved the day when it comes to market leadership of CANON as long as we do NOT consider the CANON glass owners. They also are quite a reason why the CANON's leadership is difficult to be disputed.

So Neuero, nobody could persuade me that the new line of 1000Ds was the new star.... Nor the 1Dx - most Pro already committed to the 1D series just upgraded... Increase in the numbers on that serie....no. M series? Even CANON themselves admitted it that outside JP they failed.

No innovation, and very little spent on R&D?   Canon was awarded over 3000 US patents in 2012.  Each year for over 25 years, Canon has ranked in the top five companies worldwide in terms of numbers of US patents awarded.  Granted, that means they spend a lot of yen on lawyers.  But patent attorneys need research-based claims to file on, so clearly Canon is spending a lot of money on R&D.
And again: GOSH! :-)
You better than anyone else would know that I try to follow those patents and if CANON really DID what they patented we would be quite on another plane... ;-)

In fairness, I think you misread Diko's point.
Yes, they did. My fault!  :'(
  I think he means that Canon has had the ability to have the most megapixels since 2002 (and in fact did have the most megapixels for most of those years).

That's certainly true, since Canon introduced an industry-leading 18 mp APS-C in 2009, which means they could have produced a 46 mp full frame sensor at any point during the past four years. 

But, I'm not sure what "battle" they "lost." Clearly, since Canon could produce at least a 46 mp full frame camera but has not, there is a reason for that. Perhaps one reason is the legions of customers on this and other forums who, prior to the release of the 1Dx and the 5DIII were demanding fewer, larger pixels, higher ISO performance and better autofocus (in the case of the 5D).

Canon delivered exactly what the customers said they wanted. Customers responded by making the 5DIII (at least) a consistent top seller, basically crushing the competition in the marketplace. Yet, now we have a handful of people who insist that Canon is a failure because they have yet to release a high megapixel camera to compete with a competitor's high megapixel camera that doesn't seem to be doing all that well in the marketplace.

Perhaps Canon has "lost" the high-megapixel "battle" but they certainly seem to be winning the war.

Naturally the Canon's shareholders were always on the winning side. My point is that the user on the other hand was NOT since 2010. ;-)

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.

This is a good example of why we should be oh so concerned about sales figures.  Canon has been behind in low ISO dynamic range throughout their sensor lineup for a few years now, and it hasn't hurt their dSLR sales. 

If the roof on your house looks to be in excellent shape and doesn't leak, would you replace it?  Unlikely…if it ain't broke, don't fix it.  From Canon's perspective, their sensors 'ain't broke'.

Excuse me if I have misquoted anyone...

Let me answer in a separated thread....

EOS Bodies / Re: New EOS-1 in 2014 [CR1]
« on: November 21, 2013, 01:21:59 PM »
Of course I care about the camera as a whole but that does not take away from the FACT that that Canon sensors are lagging behind. Perhaps other brands do not have things that are going for Canon but this does not change the fact that Canon sensors need and a bit of a fix. How can anyone argue with that? I use 5d3 and will use it but how am I wrong in wishing it's sensor gets better?

Sure, Canon could improve their sensors.  Nikon could improve their lenses, their ergonomics, etc.  Both of them could lower prices, too.  There's no such thing as a perfect system - you pick your compromises and make your choice. Maybe you use both. Maybe you get a Fuji.  There's no right or wrong answer for an individual. 

Earlier, Canon was referred to as a tech company.  How many tech companies have held the top spot in their market for 10 years?  Not that you're doing this, Sanj, but some are crying doom for Canon because they don't see Canon addressing their specific, individual needs.  Those folks aren't seeing the forest for the trees...Canon continues to meet the needs of a majority of customers.

ОК. Now my turn:

As knowledgeable as Neuro is I still find it quite pointless to discuss something as obvious as Canon's RD in the last few years.


1/ 2010 - the year of Canon 5D MII
2/ 2011 - the year of Canon 7D
3/ 2012 - Did I miss the market-share numbers?!?
4/ 2013 - Still to come....

IF you are still following me - total respect to CANON and their RD performance until 2010... Followed by 3 full years of NO... I say NO innovation...

Finally the first great one which was an OBVIOUS REQUEST by everyone was the "dual pixel" technology...

And it is about time that the JP house should come up with something unless they want to loose the leadership race in their 11th year....  Although having in mind all the Canon glass users... it would be really hard for anyone to achieve it these days.

Interesting is NIKON who first went into the battle not with CANON but with MF cameras in general. Now Canon lost a competition and no one can't ever tell me that they don't have the MEGA pixels since 2002....

But NIKON won that battle as CANON won the video battle before that.

And BTW 800D actually is quite popular again thanks to (Carl Zeiss) Otus 1.4/55.

So 1Dx was ONLY 18 MP for nothing else but profit (even if all the technology was already available).... They sold it for $6k a piece, so now they WILL sell the new MEGA pixel 1DXs for $8k, $10k or even $12k.

So the PROFIT is always the most important... and no one can tell me that CANON invested THAT much in RD...

NO way!

EOS Bodies / Re: New EOS-1 in 2014 [CR1]
« on: November 21, 2013, 12:32:59 PM »
Nope but it doesn't give me better lenses or cameras, so I don't care. Do you know for a fact that Canon profits are put back in increased R&D? Pointless to discuss this without knowing the facts.  ;)

Can anyone really give me any source on that since I don't really believe it as well.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Dynamic range Nikon/Sony vs Canon
« on: November 08, 2013, 05:14:38 PM »
... Also, as pointed out, the DXO mark tests show you achieve better resolution with the Canon despite the smaller Nr of pixels, because each system is a composite of sensor resolution and lens resolution. So the Canon lens is better.
If you need higher pixel density, you can always hook up your 600mm lens to a 70D body

Hmm Interesting... lens resolution... What about: Otus 1.4/55?

I wonder what glass do THEY put instead of fluorite... They claim that is more expensive than GOLD...

Lenses / Re: UCSD Science FAIL
« on: September 26, 2013, 05:35:45 PM »

I'm not even sure where to begin with this article.  If anyone can find the paper on which this is based, I would love to pick apart their scientific method.

Here is a more info:


Third Party Manufacturers / Re: BlackMagic makes fun of Canon
« on: September 25, 2013, 04:08:45 AM »
They've changed it to "Common DSLR Shot"

Third Party Manufacturers / BlackMagic makes fun of Canon
« on: September 17, 2013, 11:43:58 AM »
The guys from BlackMagic Design makes fun of one of Canon biggest CMOS flaws: DR!


Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5