July 31, 2014, 10:33:37 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 - c.d.embrey

Pages: 1 ... 20 21 [22] 23 24 ... 27
316
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Mirrorless [CR1]
« on: February 06, 2011, 12:16:07 AM »
After reading the posts, I have the following thought:
1. In order to complete with the DSLR, the auto focusing speed of the EVIL must be as fast as  the DSLR.
Quote

Why do you think that a Mirrorless needs to compete with a DSLR ??? There are an awful lot of people who are not interested with carrying a large, heavy DSLR when going on a family outing. But want something better than a P&S.

Quote
2. Overall size is important ... needs to have its own set of lens to make the size to be small to lure people from their DSLR.

No need to lure away from a DSLR ... many people will own both. And some P&S owners with buy them who aren't interested in Big & Heavy DSLRs. Two different groups to sell to.

Quote
3. ... FF in EVIL is almost a dream ...

Sounds more like a nightmare. If people wanted oversized cameras Olympus, Panasonic and Ricoh wouldn't be selling all the cameras that they do.

Quote
3. Marketing pressure/ user perference. Due to the lower demand, the sales volume of EVIL will be quite a bit smaller than the DSLR. So in order to get the R & D and tooling expense back, the EVIL (body and lenses)will be selling a lot higher than the DSLR at the same performance level.  So how many people will buy an EVIL instead of  a DSLR???

P&S cameras out sell DSLRs because there are many people who don't want or need a DSLR. Mirrorless cameras will sell to people moving-up from a P&S you don't want the size and weight of a DSLR and don't need image quality of a DSLR. How many of your acquaintance s print their snapshots at 20x30 ???
Quote
4. What is the advantange of EVIL over the DSLR beside size???
 

For many people that is enough. Mico 4/3 cameras sell well because of their size and good enough quality. BTW why don't you own a 60 MP + MFD, much better quality than a DSLR :D  :D
Quote
5. my personal choice of mirrorless is down to two. 1. Leica M9. It combined the best of classic interchangeable lens range finder and the digital. Too bad at $8000 body only is too steep for me, even I have some Leica lenses from my M4.  2. FujiFilm X100, I look at it as a high tech  M9  with  a fixed lens.

I think I'll go with a Panasonic GF2 with a 20mm f1.7 lens. YMMV

317
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Mirrorless [CR1]
« on: February 05, 2011, 01:47:18 PM »
Quote
they are not going to risk cannibalizing sales of any of their SLRs...
They won't any more than the current situation, if someone wants a mirror-less camera they will get one,
if they were not going to buy my(if I were Canon) dslr I'd want the customer to buy my mirror-less vs. the other guys.

There are many non-fanboys in the world who will buy what best meets their needs. Ricoh GRIII s are carried by many pros, so are Panasonic GF1 s.

Fuji's X100 will also be bought by many Canon shooters.

If Canon doesn't fill the perceived need, others will. Fuji, Ricoh, Olympus, Panasonic, Leica, etc stay in business buy building things that CaNikon won't.

318
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Mirrorless [CR1]
« on: February 04, 2011, 02:06:22 PM »
This would be a great camera, but Canon would never build it.

Something like a Leica M9, with simple film style controls, and short primes (NO ZOOMS) would be a good seller at a reasonable price.

319
EOS Bodies / Re: “1Dsq” & 3D [CR1]
« on: January 30, 2011, 11:33:11 AM »

Canon made the right choice when they switched lens mounts in '87. They knew, and understood from the outset, that AF worked best when the AF motor is in each lens.

That's beside the point. Doesn't make any difference why they did it, or that it was what allowed Canon to over-take Nikon with Pro shooters.

The point is that Canon did it ... and will probably do it again at some point, when they see an advantage to doing it, i.e. a square sensor or a mirror-less camera.

320
EOS Bodies / Re: “1Dsq” & 3D [CR1]
« on: January 29, 2011, 11:03:00 PM »

Back to the arguement about "Standard  height to width ration".  There is no standard. However, human vision do have more width than height, it is about 3:2, individual milage may vary. That is why the movie industry set this standard at the beginning and Leica adopted it since day one and evey body follows. TV has been using 4:3 for a long time. Movies has been using wide screen for a long time also. DH TV has moved away from 4:3. So what is the right ratio???

In the conventional motion picture format, frames are four perforations tall, with an aspect ratio of about 1.37:1, 22 mm by 16 mm (0.866 in × 0.630 in). This is a derivation of the aspect ratio and frame size designated by Thomas Edison (24.89 mm by 18.67 mm or 0.980 in by 0.735 in) at the dawn of motion pictures, which was an aspect ratio of 1.33:1

VistaVision (used for a few years by Paramount Studios) was an 8 perf wide (film running sideways in the camera) format that was changed from sideways (using an optical printer) to conventional 4 perf for projection at aspect ratios between 1.66:1 and 2.00:1 By making a reduction print from the larger they got finer grain prints. When film improved VistaVision died.

So no motion pictures were ever shown at 1.5:1. Low budget wide screen was done by shooting 1.37:1 and cropping the picture to 1.85:1 with a projector mask.

Leica just took vertical 4 perf and changed it to horizontal 8 perf for their cameras.

321
EOS Bodies / Re: 1Dsq & 3D [CR1]
« on: January 29, 2011, 10:31:11 PM »

 ... the most important thing I don't like is the cost of lenses that are large enough to cover a square image sensor.  and the need to buy a totally new set of them.  for that reason, I think all the square sensor rumors are very unrealistic, unless canon is looking to seriously alienate a large portion of its professional and serious amateur customer base.

Canon has done that before when they switched from the FD mount to the EF mount in 1987. The FD mount was introduced when Canon built their first Pro Camera, the F1. And lots of Pros were really unhappy when Canon made all their FD lenses obsolete. No reason that history can't be repeated.

322
EOS Bodies / Re: From the Land of Crazy! [CR0]
« on: January 24, 2011, 11:36:25 AM »
a quick google search tells me that the only reason is that nikon wants to sell grips harder than canon does, and cripples their cameras on purpose, then uncrippling them for the price of a grip

Different cameras for different jobs. Why should I pay a higher price for a camera with a built-in grip and higher frames per second, if I don't need high frames per second?

High frames per second may be important to sports photographers/PJs or fanboys, but I've never heard a portrait photographer complain about not enough FPS. A commercial shooter, shooting catalog pix, doesn't spray-and-pray.

I like Nikon's idea of only paying for what you need. Too bad that Canon doesn't have the same philosophy.


323
EOS Bodies / Re: From the Land of Crazy! [CR0]
« on: January 23, 2011, 08:58:34 PM »

Where do I have to sign for that one? sounds like "THE CAMERA"

I would not mind going for a loan in this one if canon goes all digital in their sensors. (Sony like)

Actually it sounds like the Nikon D800. 8-D

324
EOS Bodies / Re: *UPDATE* More 5D Mark III / 1D Mark V & Lenses [CR2]
« on: January 14, 2011, 12:38:55 PM »
For professional users the question isn't "Is the camera what I want?" but rather "Will it increase my income". An there are a lot of sujets  where the 5D performs just fine, making that a moot point. It will sell.

That's why I haven't bought a new Canon body since 2007. No new features that I WANT/NEED have been introduced by Canon. And from what CR has been posting, it doesn't look like Canon will introduce a new camera that will make me more money.

325
EOS Bodies / Re: *UPDATE* More 5D Mark III / 1D Mark V & Lenses [CR2]
« on: January 13, 2011, 02:23:19 PM »
Why do Canon owners want prosumer (hate the word) 7D focus, while Nikon owners get the same Pro focus/metering as the D3s with the D700.

Time to vote with your money. If the 5D III isn't what you want, DON"T BUY IT! And be very vocal about why you don't buy it!

I'm not advocating switching to Nikon. Just keep using your present camera, and write letters to Canon explaining why you aren't wasting your money on their new model. BTW Snail-Mail is much more effective than E-Mail.

326
EOS Bodies / Re: No 1Ds Mark IV in 2011? [CR2]
« on: December 22, 2010, 01:46:55 PM »
Megapixels?

The Nikon D3x is 24 megapixel, Canon 1Ds lll is 21 megapixel.

Quote
A naming/numbering scheme that makes sense?

What's so hard to understand?

D3s = 1D lV Pro Body sports camera

D3x = 1DS lV Pro Body studio camera

D700 = 5D ll Full frame Small Body

D300 = 7D Crop Frame Small Body

D7000 = 60D Consumer Camera

Most contributors to Canon Forums keep asking for better low light capability, not more megapixels. Which is why I said that Nikon is paying attention to Canon users, and is delivering what they want!



327
EOS Bodies / Re: No 1Ds Mark IV in 2011? [CR2]
« on: December 21, 2010, 10:33:46 AM »
On the Nikon side, people like Thom Hogan are expecting a complete replacement of their Pro Cameras - D400. D800 and D4. If these new Nikons are as good as the D7000, Canon is in trouble - it's that simple.

A 16 megapixel D800 will be awesome, Seems like Nikon has been listening to Canon owners.


328
Canon General / Re: Camera Body Breakdown [CR1]
« on: December 09, 2010, 10:38:58 AM »
I know you guys will hate me saying this, but for the 7th job in a row I'm renting the Nikon D3s because it is just so much nicer on skin, especially at low light, than my old 1Ds Mklll.  I also am blown away by how much crisper their 24-70 zoom is. I thought they'd never equal Canon again, but right now they really have stolen a march on Canon.

If Canon don't get their act together soon, and at least let us know when the 1Ds MklV is coming I'm jumping ship, and going back to Nikon altogether, (after exactly 20 years!) because a year of renting just isn't worth doing waiting and hoping Canon will introduce a camera that may never appear!

mac, I don't think anyone can fault you with wanting to go back to nikon, especially given that you're actually making a living off of your equipment.  I'm intrigued that you see such a huge difference between the canon and nikon systems in how they render skin tone, but I've heard it from others ... guess something I'm not seeing in the files.

really great work!  the shot of mila kunis you have on your page really is, as you said, stunning (although I know you were talking about the actress rather than the photo)

If I use it regularly I own it. If I use it occasionally I rent it. That just makes good economic sense.

It sounds like you should have bought that Nikon D3s a long time ago.

BTW this isn't Canon bashing ... it's just admitting that, for some people, Nikon has regained the lead in Pro Cameras and Lenses.

329
Lenses / Re: 70-300L & More
« on: December 06, 2010, 08:49:28 PM »
Very dissapointing re:50mm.


i see myself buying a 24mm f.14 Nikkor, 35mm F1.4 Nikkor and a 50mm f1.4 Nikkor in the near future. There are a lot of pros who don't shoot sports, and Canon is neglecting them.

330
Lenses / Re: Lenses [CR2]
« on: November 28, 2010, 12:43:00 PM »
All the TS-E 90mm needs is the ability to rotate tilt/shift like Nikon PC-Es or the Canon 17mm TS-E and 24 TS-E.

The only reason to make this an "L" lens is to jack-up the price $600.00-$700.00! Putting a red stripe on this lens won't make it any sharper than it is now.

Pages: 1 ... 20 21 [22] 23 24 ... 27