April 17, 2014, 12:15:43 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 ... 28
166
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Off Brand: Nikon Announces the Df
« on: November 05, 2013, 09:43:06 AM »
Oh, can we also put to bed the "take away video and make the camera cheaper!" arguments for good now. Here's a stills camera aimed at photographers at the expense of videographers, and its 50% more expensive than their more mass-market D600/D610. It's gonna double the street price of the 6D, which is the same size and has video.
No video makes it more niche, which makes it more expensive

A true test would be for CaNikon  to sell say the 6D and D610 each in a video-enabled" "v"-version and a "p"- pure photography version with absolutely everything equal, including outer design, except video-capture/video out [not firmware hackable]. "p" version being sold at USD/€ 1500  and the "v" version at 2500.  One grand more is still dirt cheap compared to purchase of both a video and a stills camera. THAT way, we would see, whether videogrpahers really are only cheapskates piggybacking on stills shooter's DSLRs or whether they are willing to pay for the fact, that they want to use a device for two purposes.

I KNOW what the market split would be. Less than 10% of those yelling for all sorts of video crap in DSLRs wpould be willing to pay anything for it.

More faulty logic: you are still assuming that video costs extra, whereas it's been well-argued (1) that video is largely a bonus derived from LiveView.  Furthermore, the difference in manufacturing costs is negligible, it's all about R&D and sales volume.  Mainstream cameras without video will not sell well, which will drive up the per-unit costs.

If you don't believe that video is nearly free, consider that there's half-decent video in $300 P&S cameras.  Try to argue your way around that.  A truer test would be to offer both models at the same price, and see which sells.

Quote
I KNOW what the market split would be

If you really believe that then you are deficient in your science education.  No one "knows" until the test is actually done.

(1) I say "well-argued" because while we don't have direct access to Canon's cost info, the principles have been well developed.

167
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Off Brand: Nikon Announces the Df
« on: November 05, 2013, 09:07:09 AM »
Oh, can we also put to bed the "take away video and make the camera cheaper!" arguments for good now. Here's a stills camera aimed at photographers at the expense of videographers, and its 50% more expensive than their more mass-market D600/D610. It's gonna double the street price of the 6D, which is the same size and has video.

No video makes it more niche, which makes it more expensive

+1

Well, it's a great marketing test: basically they crammed D4 innards into a retro design.  This may tell Nikon a few things:
  • How many stills-purists are out there; i.e. whether they constitute a legit market
  • How many wealthy amateurs over 60 still pine for their glory days, and want to carry an expensive reminder.  It's kinda like seeing a paunchy guy with thin grey hair driving an early-70's Barracuda.

And to all you CR stills-purists, here's your big chance to make your case.  But if this doesn't sell well, please accept the results of the experiment and drop the anti-video complaints.  (this comes from someone who rarely shoots video)

168
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: I hate to say you told me so, but...
« on: November 02, 2013, 12:46:08 PM »
I know canon have tried to design a system that doesn't alienate existing EF users, ...

I think canon may have been better ripping it up and starting from scratch, it does seem a bit mental that the 70D got the tech the M should have had.

I don't know what bit I got wrong though, might you elucidate?

I totally agreee with you, that the 70D should have been served up as a mirrorless cam.

Wrong? Your statement "I know Canon have tried to design a system that does not alienate EF users" ... is plain wrong. Canon does not care whom they alienate or not. Truth is: Canon was and still IS simply NOT ABLE  to deliver a better MILC than the sub-par EOS-M.

* Canon has no clue.
* Canon  is NOT ABLE  to bring an APS-C sensor matching the Nikon D7100 - 2 years later!
* Canon is NOT ABLE to bring a FF sensor matching the D800. 2 years later.
* Canon is NOT ABLE to produce a mirrorless FF system camera like the Sony A7/R.
* Canon is NOT ABLE to produce PD_AF that performs as good as an Oly OMD1 or a Panasonix GX7.

All Canon is able to do ... is to charge outrageous prices for their last century DSLR technology and "video-optimize" it. Canon has become a real bunch of losers.

Neither you nor anyone outside of Canon is ABLE to say what Canon is able to do, only what they have chosen to do.

We can say that they are ABLE to outsell their competition in DSLR's, and likely ABLE to make more profit than their competition.

Serious question here: why do you think Canon is not a for-profit business?

Your attitude is like a petulant art critic who thinks every artist should starve to put every drop of energy, creativity and money into each piece they produce.   DSLRs are not works of art, they're the products of a for-profit business.

169
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: I hate to say you told me so, but...
« on: November 02, 2013, 11:36:13 AM »
That's good news.  I know it'll take a couple years for Canon to catch up, but I'm glad we're headed in that direction.

Here's a question for those who know SLR innards: is there any remotely feasible way to have a hybrid EVF/OVF?  My imagination is that it would act like a normal SLR with OVF until you turn on Live View; then the the EVF display would move into the optical path of the VF.  If this were feasible, and not too expensive, it might be a way to make everyone happy during the (eventual) transition to EVF only.

Just speculating...

170
Software & Accessories / Question about scanning film
« on: November 01, 2013, 08:58:46 PM »
Before I bought my first digital camera in 2004 I was just a point-n-shooter with film.  I have a few dozen "memory-quality" rolls of film (and prints) in shoe boxes I'd like to scan.  I bought a Canon 9000F MkII and have been playing around with it.  I'm generally happy with the results; the output is not fantastic, but it's about all I'd expect from the cameras I used.

Question: What can I do about dust on the negatives?  I've been using my blower before scanning, but there's still some dust that my blower can't remove.  I don't want to go to extreme lengths to remove dust, but would appreciate advice for a better way.  I saw on the Web that some people rinse and dry their negatives before scanning, but I'm reluctant to do that unless I'm sure it's safe.

Any suggestions are appreciated.  Thank you.


171
"The D800E is for tweaks who care more about pixels than pictures, but that's most of my readers! Yes, I'm sure the D800E will be much sharper at 100% on-screen when shot by an expert under controlled conditions"

... which means if it's most of his readers, it's 99% of the readers around here :-)

I think this may be the key sub-quote here:

Quote
when shot by an expert under controlled conditions


This means studio or landscape using tripod, where you can anticipate and avoid moiré at capture, rather than (fail to) correct it in post.   The numbers in this market segment will be very small.  A camera without AA filter will also incur a substantial support cost since all the newbs who don't understand what they're buying will return their new purchases as defective (my buddy's iPhone doesn't do this!)  On the plus side, that means more available from the refurb store!

My guess is that camera vendors could only get away with such a specialty product if it's so expensive that the clueless newb buyer would be embarrassed to admit he (probably a he) made a mistake in buying it.  :P


172
I wished they have never included the video features but focus on improving image quality instead.
This is likely a false premise, and it has been well-hashed here.  There is very little to suggest that including video has negative impact on stills

But there is: For video, esp. with sensors that don't scale down to video res as well as the 5d3, you need a (stronger) anti-aliasing filter which at the same time reduces stills sharpness - that's why Nikon has two versions of their d800.

There is a potentially legitimate argument there; however I think there are few people who print so large that the AA filter makes much difference in sharpness.  Also, I think the D800E is targeted at those who want to go MF but can't afford it.  If the AA filter is the main concern, Canon doesn't need to forgo video entirely, they can just offer versions of the 5-series and 1-series without AA filter.  Problem solved?

And it's still true that any model of DSLR without video will be a niche product, and will cost more.  Again, think of the D800E: it costs $200 more to get a camera without the AA filter.  Shouldn't it cost less?

I'm not a big video person: I've shot maybe 20 minutes of video on my 3-year 60D, but video is here to stay.  If you have specific needs, well, that's understandable, but it won't do any good to curse video.

173
I wished they have never included the video features but focus on improving image quality instead.

This is likely a false premise, and it has been well-hashed here.  There is very little to suggest that including video has negative impact on stills (with one exception a few months back suggesting that there was a trade-off regarding speed at which the sensor is cleared, if I remember correctly).  Also, any camera that can't do video these days is a niche product: it will not sell well, and so will be much more expensive, regardless of IQ or features.

Finally, consider that the D800 sensor everyone drools over also does video.

This idea probably doesn't hold any water: video is largely a software thing, and is essentially a free bonus.

174
EOS Bodies / Re: An Announcement Coming in November? [CR1]
« on: October 31, 2013, 06:18:43 PM »
But I think the public is growing tired of Canon...

Would that supposition be based on your extensive market analysis, or on Canon's superior sales numbers, or on your belief that you are the public?

It sounds like argumentum ex culo.

175
EOS Bodies / Re: An Announcement Coming in November? [CR1]
« on: October 31, 2013, 09:42:56 AM »
Oh little EOS M. What are you going to do now that Sony has launched their EF-capable A7 and A7R?

If the past offers any predictive value, the "little EOS M" will be less expensive, more portable, more reliable and more profitable.  The A7's look good on paper; but profit rules, and Canon knows how to do that.

I really do hope the A7's perform well, both in use and in the market: that would create pressure on Canon, and these are the kinds of bodies I'd like Canon to produce.  I'm not, however, holding my breath for Sony to offer any legitimate market-based competition.

176
It's so obvoius... Don't you guys see it?

In the post above, AvTvM really nailed it - these companies simply decided to ignore consumers


OK, let me see if I understand you: you seem to be saying that consumers are punishing Canon (and others) not by buying a similar product from a competing brand, but rather by not upgrading frequently and enthusiastically, regardless of brand?  I.e., consumer says "70D isn't a big enough upgrade from the 60D, I'll keep what I have for another two years" rather than "I'll go buy a D610 and Nikon lenses?"

If that's your point at least it's remotely plausible, but it would take some serious market research to show it to be more than speculation.

Edit: I should note that this happens to be true for me: the 70D did not offer enough to make me upgrade from my 60D.  However, I'm only one example, so this says nothing for the market as a whole.

177
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: High Megapixel DLSR a niche market?
« on: October 26, 2013, 09:31:30 AM »
Also remember that markets change: what constitutes a niche market today may be mainstream in 5 years.  9 years ago, when I bought my first digital camera, its 8MP was considered large for its class, and there was a shot-to-shot lag writing to CF.  As processors and memory get faster, and as user demand increases, eventually there will be a need for more MP.  Demand may have hit a plateau after it achieved the speed/IQ/reliability to replace 35mm film.  18-22MP is more than adequate for most amateur and pro uses, and there are diminishing returns beyond that.

At some point, MP will creep up to meet slowly advancing demand and supporting tech.  Yes, 35MP+ is a niche market now, but it won't stay that way forever.

From the business perspective, those companies who push out huge MP FF cameras not "innovative" they are desperate.  Think of it: why would a tech company, any tech company, blow all its best tech on a current generation product?  They'd want to hold some back for the next gen.  And who wants a mutant camera with a great sensor, but second- or third-rate components and "fit and finish?"  Some, yes, but not most.  Most people want something like a 5d3, where everything just works.

I don't mean to disparage the D800, which seems to be a great camera, and I really hope the Sonys turn out well because competition is good and I'm a fan of EVF; but yes, these are currently niche cameras put out by companies desperate to improve their market position.  As long as Canon (any company) leads in market share, you can expect them to trail slightly in innovation because innovation is inefficient.

178
Not releasing anything interesting except the 70D could have something to do with it.
Yep. When your competitors are experimenting with new models and new lines, and all you're doing is giving minor updates to your existing stuff, you lose market share. Ask Apple.


Did you not read what neuroanatomist said above?  Canon's competitors, who supposedly have superiorproducts, are having a worse time of it!

179
The importance of the first DSLR is to spark an interest and desire to learn and improve.  Get your sister a camera she will be happy and proud to carry everywhere and use for everything.  The next best thing you can do is to invite her to go out on photo excursions with you, at which you share your enthusiasm, but hold back on the teaching and critique. 

180
EOS Bodies / Re: 70D Diagonal Image Processing (DIP) Defect
« on: October 20, 2013, 10:26:03 AM »
YES it is camera shake. But ALWAYS IN THE SAME DIRECTION??.
You can't be sure of that without well-controlled tests: the eye can be fooled when there are multiple sources of distortion.

Quote
The birds and BG seem to be 'different' images.
If this doesn't happen with all your lenses, then it's very unlikely to be a sensor or processing problem.  It would be weird, VERY weird for Canon to have their firmware record the raw image differently based on type of lens.  Sure, it's possible that JPEG processing might take into account the lens characteristics, but not the raw image.

Quote
The problem has NEVER occurred with nearly 1000 pics using the same lens on the 5D Mk II.
There may be other usage differences between the two that account for that.  Can you do controlled tests side-by-side?  Are you using a faster shutter to account for the crop "zoom" factor of the 70D?

Quote
The main reason for posting is indeed 'Has anyone else experienced the problem?
So far the answer seems to be negative, so it seems unlikely to be a design flaw of the 70D model.

It's possible there are multiple issues combining for this apparent effect, try to isolate one variable at a time.  Also, could you post your image settings?  Also, try shooting at 1/2000th.

I'd be interested to see the results of your tests.

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 28