September 02, 2014, 11:18:46 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 - Orangutan

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 45
166
Man. You leave this thread for a day and come back to it and it's bounced around so much, you can't tell who is arguing what anymore.

Hobbes: all against all.   :P

167
Out of curiosity, what do you expect to get from an EF-S L prime that you can't get from an EF prime? Lighter? Probably. Maybe it will be cheaper to manufacture, but if they brand it as Luxury it's anyone's guess how much if any of that savings will be passed to the consumer.

I have found that L-lenses generally have better colour and more pleasing image rendition than non-L-lenses (made by Canon). But I suspect you don't view lenses in this light.

Um, okay, but that's not what I asked. At least, that's not what I intended to ask. Let me add the missing letter to my question:

What do you expect to get from an EF-S L prime that you can't get from an EF L prime?

I think he already answered that: smaller, lighter and cheaper.

What he hasn't addressed is the question of why Canon would incur the costs of engineering a new set of L lenses for a market segment so small (that being people who will buy EF-S L but not EF L)

I'm sure he'll move the goalposts again, though.

don't forget that these ef-s primes will be priced like ef primes if they did exist.  So a market of folks that won't spend more than $800 on a body will obviously be more than willing to spend $1500 on one lens.

Yup, he don't get that.  He's not stupid, but he seems challenged when it comes to business acumen.  For example, given the sales volume difference, it's possible that EF-S L primes would be more expensive than comparable EF L primes.

168
Try putting decent lenses like a 24-70/2.8L II, a 135/2L, or a Sigma 35/1.4A on a 70D, then shooting moving subjects indoors in a gymnasium, theater, or even typical living room.  You'll likely be at ISO 3200 or higher...and the resulting image quality will be nowhere even close to 'on par' with the same lenses on a FF camera.

Wrong, because you are using the characteristics of the sensors in order to draw a conclusion about the size of the sensors. Question: would your comparison still hold true if Canon placed a cropped version of the 1DX sensor in the (eventually) upcoming 7DII camera; or the inverse, if Canon placed an upscaled version of the 70D sensor into a (hypothetical) 1DXs camera?

Larger sensors collect more total light, meaning better IQ.  Feel free to argue the point, but you'll only succeed in making yourself look more foolish.

He's going to tap-dance around this as well: he'll say sure, a bigger sensor captures more light, but if Canon put Sony-quality sensors in their APS-C cameras that would be almost as good as Canon's FF (other than 1DX).

I think he's moved the goal posts all the way to Antarctica already, let's see if how long it takes to hit the next continent.

169
Out of curiosity, what do you expect to get from an EF-S L prime that you can't get from an EF prime? Lighter? Probably. Maybe it will be cheaper to manufacture, but if they brand it as Luxury it's anyone's guess how much if any of that savings will be passed to the consumer.

I have found that L-lenses generally have better colour and more pleasing image rendition than non-L-lenses (made by Canon). But I suspect you don't view lenses in this light.

Um, okay, but that's not what I asked. At least, that's not what I intended to ask. Let me add the missing letter to my question:

What do you expect to get from an EF-S L prime that you can't get from an EF L prime?

I think he already answered that: smaller, lighter and cheaper.

What he hasn't addressed is the question of why Canon would incur the costs of engineering a new set of L lenses for a market segment so small (that being people who will buy EF-S L but not EF L)

I'm sure he'll move the goalposts again, though.

170
You are one of the minority who bought lenses beyond the kit jobbie, including L-primes. This means it is A-OK for Canon to cater to YOUR desires, but not to mine. Again ... huh?

Quick business lesson for you:

Total profit = (profit per unit) * (number of units sold)

At the extreme ends of profitability, we have:

Mass market: (profit per unit) is small, and (number of units sold) is large

Niche:             (profit per unit) is large, and (number of units sold) is small

So what is your point?

How many Canon DSLR owners actually purchase a prime lens - excluding the macro lenses, 'cause that's all the rage nowadays? Yet Canon makes them. Thus, are they mass or niche?

So when, when playing the numbers game of a 4 billion world-population, does a niche product become a mass product?

Key point: The manufacturer gets to decide where in that range is "A-OK" for their business goals and capabilities.

Quick business lesson for you: Customers decide whether or not the manufacturer's A-OK'ed range of products caters to their personal requirements: whether and they buy, not and they buy another brand.

And, as many of us have been trying to tell you, Canon's market success shows that, over all, they've been doing better at this than any competitor.

(you're becoming predictable, you walked right into that one)

171
... Sella, why don't you give us your "top 5" list of crop lenses that Canon should make because you want them.

I have already ... just search for them on the forum.

Nice dodge.

172
You are one of the minority who bought lenses beyond the kit jobbie, including L-primes. This means it is A-OK for Canon to cater to YOUR desires, but not to mine. Again ... huh?

Quick business lesson for you:

Total profit = (profit per unit) * (number of units sold)

At the extreme ends of profitability, we have:

Mass market: (profit per unit) is small, and (number of units sold) is large

Niche:             (profit per unit) is large, and (number of units sold) is small

Key point: The manufacturer gets to decide where in that range is "A-OK" for their business goals and capabilities.


173
Yes, those are all excellent lenses ... but...

Since you seem so adept at moving the goalposts, Sella, why don't you give us your "top 5" list of crop lenses that Canon should make because you want them.

174
Dude, you worry too much about stuff that's just not worth worrying about.

You pay for those excellent corners, but don't use them on a "crop-frame" camera. Bad economy and a waste of good money ... like driving grandma to church in your Ferrari. It does the job, but at what expense?

You're suggesting that Ferrari needs to make an SUV, minivan, economy car (like a Honda Civic) and a commuter bike with saddle-bags, so I can always use precisely the correct transport for my needs.  Ferrari makes Ferraris; other people make SUVs, minivans, economy cars and bicycles.

it's more like putting racing tires on your honda civic (L glass on a rebel) then complaining that you can't get the speed of a ferrari (1dx with L glass)....

I thought his point was that he wanted L-quality EF-S glass, rather than put FF L-glass on a crop.  But Canon doesn't make that.

175
Dude, you worry too much about stuff that's just not worth worrying about.

You pay for those excellent corners, but don't use them on a "crop-frame" camera. Bad economy and a waste of good money ... like driving grandma to church in your Ferrari. It does the job, but at what expense?

You're suggesting that Ferrari needs to make an SUV, minivan, economy car (like a Honda Civic) and a commuter bike with saddle-bags, so I can always use precisely the correct transport for my needs.  Ferrari makes Ferraris; other people make SUVs, minivans, economy cars and bicycles.

176
Obviously they are not wasted.
Yes, L-primes are wasted on a "crop-frame" camera, because one of the characteristics of L-primes - and also that which makes them more costly - is the better corner performance. Only on a "crop-frame" sensor these, shall we say, quality corners are discarded/disregarded/wasted.

FP. 

Do you measure your food to 0.1 gram accuracy to make sure all your meals are perfectly in accord with the recipes?

Dude, you worry too much about stuff that's just not worth worrying about.

177
I've got another one next to me now doing 4 baby "Watch me grow" shoots with 4 shots printed out per shoot, an album at the end and all of the pics on a CD for £200 (about $335).

Quality of the pics are crap but people are booking her - is our art dead?

It sounds like a good value... I know people resisted grabbing market share, but you have to get people in the door before you can sell to them.

I agree mate, but the quality of the pics is awful - SOC and not even a levels adjust on them.
I actually thought they were taken on a (poor) mobile phone.

That speaks more of the clients than of the photographer.  Those clients were not going to hire you anyway.  Have you considered a "see the difference for yourself" campaign?  That would be side-by-side display of (1) good quality cell phone photo; (2) sooc jpeg using camera default settings; (3) your quality of work.   Anyone who can't see the difference wouldn't have been your client anyhow.

178
I've got another one next to me now doing 4 baby "Watch me grow" shoots with 4 shots printed out per shoot, an album at the end and all of the pics on a CD for £200 (about $335).

Quality of the pics are crap but people are booking her - is our art dead?

Have you ever looked at 100-year old baby pictures of your ancestors?  Did it bother you that the quality was crap?  Memory photos need to be just good enough to evoke memories, nothing more.  A low-quality photo with a smiling kid is better than a high-quality photo with a wooden smile or worse.

180
Some advanced features are left out, in part, because they generate expensive support calls.  E.g.. AFMA is not useful to many Rebel Users, but would probably generate a lot of self-inflicted focus wounds.

Classifying a "feature" as "advanced" is irrelevant. What matters is whether it is purely firmware-based and excluded. If so, then the camera IS deliberately crippled ... and thus both neuroanatomist and unfocused are wrong. So what do YOU want to be: right or wrong?

I always find your black/white thinking amusing...or something.

You're pulling out your personal definition of "crippled:" to my mind, it's not merely a matter of whether a no-cost feature was removed, but whether that feature would be expected to be used by the vast majority of users of the product.

For example, removing the "Japanese" language features from a product that's being marketed in China, but not in Japan, can't really be considered crippling since one can't reasonably expect that feature to be used.

You should re-examine your logic when you find yourself mincing words to manufacture a "win."

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 45