July 23, 2014, 07:14:34 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 - Radiating

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 23
Lenses / Re: Educate me about why 70mm <> 70mm...
« on: January 05, 2013, 02:50:53 PM »
Focal length is rated at INFINITY and on top of that focal length is typically rounded within a range of +/- 7%

Canon usually only rounds a little on most pro lenses. 

Your photos are the result of focus breathing from the two different lens designs though. Focus breathing as mentioned earlier can have a huge effect, resulting in 135mm @ 200mm at MFD.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Cannot Keep Screwing It's Customers Over
« on: January 04, 2013, 11:00:14 PM »
If you actually talk to Canon USA's internal folks (which I do because I take photography way too seriously as a hobby) you'll notice that they speak a lot more about marketing and economics. Whenever they talk about a product they are always talking from a market perspective.  "Q:Why don't you release a updated 1Dx with f/8 AF points, A: because people will buy our cameras regardless, we aren't going to implement a feature if it's not going to be a money maker".
Did you miss the fact that Canon added f/8 AF to the 1D X via a firmware update, just 4 months after the camera hit the streets?  How much money did Canon make from that firmware update?  So...either you made up that conversation, or you talked to some junior lackey with no clue about Canon's business operations.  "Hello, Canon 800-number operator, please put me through to the guy who washes the dishes in the commissary, I have important economic questions..."

Just so you know I was the one that got that feature implemented on the 1D X. I wrote a technical article that was run by various internal Canon departments on how to implement f/8 AF on a camera which did not have f/8 capable AF points. I was given the opportunity to review the 1D X a week before it hit the streets and ran into an issue with lacking  f/8 AF.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Cannot Keep Screwing It's Customers Over
« on: January 04, 2013, 02:13:07 AM »
"I'm an economic analyst so thanks for posting something relevant.

I think everyone here is horribly missing the point and this sort of ignorance is what lets these companies avoid initial backlash."

Really, an economic analyst who doesn't know the difference of depreciation and market value as you posted earlier!?!  Maybe you can explain why Canon's stock valuation has gone up 24.61% in the last 3 months???  I think A LOT of real economic analyst's would disagree with your assessment... but everyone seems to agree you are making an ass out of yourself.

You know you have to be a real peice of work to try to insult someone who went to school for 10 years in 4 words with such certainty.

If you actually talk to Canon USA's internal folks (which I do because I take photography way too seriously as a hobby) you'll notice that they speak a lot more about marketing and economics. Whenever they talk about a product they are always talking from a market perspective. "Q:why did the 5d Mk III take so long to come out? A: Because knew we could keep selling the 5D Mk II, it was actually ready last year, but we just let it sit on the shelf until now, same with the 24-70mm Mk II" "Q:Why don't you release a updated 1Dx with f/8 AF points, A: because people will buy our cameras regardless, we aren't going to implement a feature if it's not going to be a money maker".

If you talk to the same Nikon reps you instead get the impression that they are actually trying to make the best product. "Q: Why are your lenses backwards compatible with 30 year old technology? A: Because we don't want to leave out photographers with older lenses".

Canon seemingly does not care about their clients, they care about making money and marketing, or more over exploiting the market, or so it would seem.

There's a popular economic theory that goes against most people's preconceptions of capitalism that has been backed up by numerous studies that shows that companies that have a corporate culture of expoiting customers tend to fare worse in terms of long term growth compared to companies that try to serve their customers. Think Apple as a prime example of companies that serve their customers and experience significant growth (this is regardless of price level and market dirupting products).

I couldn't have said THAT better myself.  I bought my 5DII for 2700, used it for 5 years, sold it for 1400.  It seems that the cost of ownership was 1300.  I read that guy's post and wondered what the heck he must be smoking.

Let's imagine that you purchased your 5D Mk. III at Canon's new markup and price slashing policy. That would mean you paid $3350 a few months ago and should sell it for $1300 in 5 years.

If you use historical pricing for the D700 as an indicator for the D800, then you'd pay $2700 for the body and sell it for $1700, as per the post release body pricing, and 5 year price based on the D700.

D800 cost of ownership = $1000
The 5D3 cost of ownership =$2050

Now, tell me how many Nikons you can own for the cost of ownership of 1 Canon over 5 years?

EOS Bodies / Re: Shot wedding with 5DIII, dissapointed in AF
« on: January 03, 2013, 10:57:41 PM »
My wife and I shot a wedding yesterday, we brought two 5DII bodies, and one 5DIII body.  I didn't bring out the 5DIII until the reception because I didn't want to use it for the critical stuff until I've spent more time with it.  For the reception ( private room inside restaurant ) we were using the 85 f/1.2L II, 35 f/1.5L and 50 f/1.4.  I lost many good shots because the 5DIII took 2-3 seconds to focus.  I tested focusing in the low light with all the lenses, and the results were similar ( well, the 85 was even slower, because that lens is just slow focusing ).  For AF, I had "one shot" selected, and the center point with the 4 surrounding points.  I couldn't easily do a side by side because I didn't have two of any one lens, but I did switch lenses between the bodies and played around some.  The 5DIII was as slow, or possibly even slower than the 5DII to achieve focus.  The amout of natural light in the reception was around ISO1600, f/1.4 and 1/60.  Oh, and I had a flash on, putting out that red focus assist as well during all this testing!  Anyway, just giving people a heads up on what I experienced, and I've seen some others post the same.  I've also seen people post results of miraculous AF improvement with the 5DIII...

You don't seem to understand how focusing works. So the point of the 5D Mark III is to improve focusing accuracy in good light such as sports. In situations with bad light you should use something like a 6D.

You're doing the equivalent of saying "man everyone says this Ferrari F430 is so great, but it can't even tow a trailer, what a peice of a junk!"

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Cannot Keep Screwing It's Customers Over
« on: January 03, 2013, 10:55:21 PM »
The point is that Canon is playing pricing games, like neither they nor Nikon has ever done before, and they are pricing their products 20% higher for the first 6 months than is "normal". This means your depreciation goes from 1% per month to 5% per month.

It's called intertemporal price discrimination, and it's been around for a long time in many different durable goods markets. 


I'm an economic analyst so thanks for posting something relevant.

I think everyone here is horribly missing the point and this sort of ignorance is what lets these companies avoid initial backlash.

People have this ridiculous tendancy to blame buyers at every turn and think anyone who has issues has them of their own fault.

Look here is the absolute fact in this situation. The cost of owning Canon gear has increased by 4 fold over the long term. They are playing pricing games on their newest gear, and they are playing pricing games on their older gear. Everything from the 6D to the 24-70mm II to the 60D to the 5D III to the 5DII, to the 35mm/24/28 IS etc and even the 7D is going to cost much more to own.

The easiest way I can explain this is that this means that you just essentially paid $14,000 for your 5D Mark III, $4,000 for your 7D, $ 2,500 for your 60D, $7,000 for your 5D Mark II, and $9,000 for your 24-70mm Mk II etc.

What Canon has done is they have simply hidden the cost of ownership and made it so that you are essentially taking a long complex loan against yourself.

I could personally care less about their pricing games, I make enough to buy hundreds Canon pro bodies a year and have enough left over to live comfortably after throwing those in the trash, but I think it's worth taking note of this craziness.

This will backfire for Canon both from a supply and demand standpoint and from a customer sentiment standpoint. People aren't dumb and you can't leverage existing demand and think it will last forever if you destabilize the market. Once customers realize the true cost of owning the product is now 4 times greater, some sentiments will change.

Anyways I hope this is helpful, my purpose is simply to point out that this strategy is not economically viable.

EOS Bodies / Re: Are you really serious about 6D?
« on: January 03, 2013, 01:35:41 AM »
Please help me understand why people are excited about 6D? I cannot be excited about 97% VF, 1 x-pt AF, crippled 6D with wifi and facebook buttons. I will stick to a 5-year-old beloved 5D Mark II which is identical in IQ to Canon's newest sensors. Canon, you are not getting a dime of my money on your recent cameras. I have diversified my lenses so am not hostage to inferior sensors anymore.

You're missing the point of the 6D

Lenses are generally limited to around 22 megapixels of resolution, and no zoom has ever been made for 35mm that can exceed 21.3 megapixels over more than 15% of it's center frame.

The point therefore of the 6D is that it has less than HALF the noise of the 5D Mark II and 60% better shadow recovery while having enough megapixels for any lens or just under.

The 6D really shines at super high ISO though, at ISO 16,600, the 5D Mark II has the same ISO performance as the 6D at 51,200. Thats 3 times better high ISO, in addition to the 2 times less noise at low and medium ISO.

One might be mistaken to assume that the 6D has the same or equal resolution to the 5D Mark II, because it has 99% the linear resolution. This would be a mistake, the 6D has 13% MORE resolution due to an improved AA filter using the latest technology.

It's also lighter, smaller and has much better AF, the price will hit $1700 in 6 months too. Guaranteed.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Cannot Keep Screwing It's Customers Over
« on: January 03, 2013, 01:15:16 AM »
Well, I bought a few L series lenses a few years ago, and most of them have increased in value. It's the bodies that diminish in price. Naturally so, since the sensors keep getting better.  That's one of the regrets I have regarding digital photography. Back when I bought my first Nikon F, I felt it would always be there for me. It was. Right up to the point when I bought the Canon 20D.  I would never buy a Leica M9, since it will be worth quite a bit less in five years in my opinion. 
It's the nature of the technology. I wish I only had to buy new film to get the benefit of the latest technology. And my Nikon F made ME focus the lens.

The point is NOT that gear depreciates. This is a given and you have to accept that.

The point is that Canon is playing pricing games, like neither they nor Nikon has ever done before, and they are pricing their products 20% higher for the first 6 months than is "normal". This means your depreciation goes from 1% per month to 5% per month.

Nothing depreciates that fast. Not even a car when it's driven off the lot. It's mind blowing.

It's so crazy that it would almost as expensive to RENT the camera as to buy it.  :o

In fact if cars companies took pricing from Canon's recent products, you'd be paying $1,000 a month to lease the redesigned 2013 Honda Civic.

So it's not the depreciation, it's the incredible level of depreciation.

I have a canon 550d rebel and was considering the "jump" to FF.

The Canon 6d is in my budget. However the Nikon D800 is available (refurb) for $2,300.

I ask myself - why spend almost the same on the inferior 6d ? Why does canon seem to give less and charge more ?

The 6D and D800 are in different classes. You need to compare apples to apples:

D800 refurb $2300 + $450 grip = $2750

5D Mark III Big Value Inc Brand New (limited quantities) = $2499 + $275 grip = $2775

You need the Nikon grip to do 6 FPS fyi, otherwise you get a meager 4, which isn't a lot in the real world.

The 5D Mark III has a half a stop ISO advantage over the D800, a reviewers comparing raw files find that the raw files have equal amounts of base noise, but the D800's ISO is calibrated 27% higher than the D800's (meaning iso 1000 on the 5D III is equal to iso 1270 on the D800), the 5D III was also designed to repond better to noise reduction by having a more gausian distribution of the noise, so that adds another quarter stop of noise, after NR.

The 5D Mark III then has slightly better AF in many back to back tests (depending who you ask they are even though, as both are good), and tests have also shown that no zoom lens can max out the 5D Mark III over more than around 90% of the image area, meaning with zooms there will be no real world resolution difference, and with primes only a select few (EXcluding most Zeiss lenses and Leica lenses and only including exceptionally exceptional lenses) can outresolve 28 megapixels, and only between f/8.0 to f/4.0, so the nikon resolution advantage is slim or none due to the limits of most lenses.

The major real world advantage to the D800 is of course dynamic range for shadow recovery, and those megapixels for landscape shooters that use ideal setups and need to eek every last drop from the camera (but it's a smaller advantage than the marketing would lead you to beleive). There are of course other minor differences, but for the most part the 5D3 is a better journalist or portrait camera and the D800 a better landscape and studio camera.

For most work they cost the same and offer similar features.

The core Nikon lenes are generally more expensive too, if you ignore Canon's insane early adopter "tax", the 24-70mm II is said to go down the $1600, which is the same as Nikon's with higher quality and other than that the core lenes on Nikon are slightly more expensive for Apples to Apples lenses.

Hope that helps.

Based on the likely optical design they will choose, the 12-24mm will simply have better image quality

Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 F/2.8L II USM on 7D
« on: December 22, 2012, 07:59:26 PM »
Hi everybody,

I have 7D + EF-S 10-22mm & i plan to buy the new EF 24-70 F/2.8L II USM, but im not sure this lens can give the top IQ on crop sensor like 7D.

Anybody 7D owner have this lens? maybe you can share your photo/review about this lens.


Tests show that good copies of this lens perform better than the 15-85mm and bad copies perform worse than the 15-85mm on the 7D.

The 17-55mm performs much better on the other hand. And has IS.

If you're spending that much money though why not buy a 6D and a 24-105mm, it will delivery better image quality in every measurable and conceivable way, be equivalent to f/2.5 which is a faster f stop, have more megapixels, AND will have a greater equivalent focal range.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Cannot Keep Screwing It's Customers Over
« on: December 21, 2012, 03:02:40 AM »
Maybe I'm looking at things from an overly logical standpoint, but look here are the facts.

Canon has PROVEN that they are willing to create pricing situations which result in new quadrupling of depreciation on both old and new gear. The 5D2 AND the 5D3 were affected, as well as the T4i, and to a lesser degree the 1DX ($900 in 3 months).

For most photographers we are constantly upgrading, meaning depreciation IS the amount we pay for our gear. I've bought lenses that have changed hands 18 times based on serial number look up. Gear changes hands a lot based on needs.

Canon's new pricing strategy indicates they have quadrupled the net costs of owning their equipment for most of their major cameras.

If we as photographers are logical, we would be very weary to buy Canon cameras until they prove they will cease the shenanigans. Canon cameras did not suddenly start producing images that were 4 times better, the competition is extremely close and really only a small bit of personal preference separates them.

Simply put in the cost/benefit equation Canon has increased the costs 4 fold. This is a huge game changer and photographer's relationship with Canon would benefit from being reconsidered.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Cannot Keep Screwing It's Customers Over
« on: December 21, 2012, 12:39:11 AM »
Did that make you feel better?

My primary income is from investments. I really have no personal feelings when it comes to taking a loss on something. It's business.

My point is simply that Canon is actively trying to screw over it's customers without lube with absurd and insulting markups.

I am simply pointing out facts, and giving both photographers and Canon business advice. Photography product sales are not driven by mark ups and mark downs, they are however driven by stability and trust. Once Canon starts to burn customers they may never see those customers return. Canon has very capable competition, and trust and stability may be all it takes to convert people.

EOS Bodies / Canon Cannot Keep Screwing It's Customers Over
« on: December 20, 2012, 11:58:16 PM »
I'm writing this post mainly to criticize Canon for it's recent outrageous pricing policies, and to simply say that they cannot keep doing what they are doing.

I was one of the first people to support Canon's new higher pricing due to the yen/dollar conversion, which in a way justified it, but now Canon seems to be actively trying to destabilize the market for their gear and alienate all of their customers.

The specific issue I am talking about are the huge price cuts and markups on their older and newer bodies.

Let's talk the last 3 months because this is the most relevant time frame.

3 months ago, buying a new 5D Mark III for $3400 was a bargain, and buying a new 5D Mark II for $2050 was a bargain, and buying a T4i for $750 was a bargain. So I got my 5DIII & 5D II (but waited on the t4i)

How much are these cameras worth 3 months later? $2500, $1300, & $480, and I picked up a new T4i for $480 today.

That's  $1920. Gone in 3 months. In depreciation. On $6000 of cameras.

Let's compare Nikon on the other hand. 3 months ago, the D800 new for $2800 was a bargain, now it's a bargain for $2450. With the Nikon D700, 3 months ago it went for $1650, now it's $1550, the D7000 went for $860, 3 months ago and now it's $780.

That's only $520 in depreciation. Which is nearly 4 times less than $1920.


This means I could theoretically own nearly 12 Nikon bodies for what it costs to own 3 Canon ones with their new insane mark ups and mark downs.

Why is Canon seemingly actively screwing over it's buyers with insane price cuts, and equally insane introductory mark ups? The only reason I can come up with is that they want to lose customers and lose credibility.

Considering this insanity, I just don't feel comfortable buying any Canon gear any more. Based on this trend, the 24-70mm Mark II should hit $1600 by March, and then it's perfectly believable that when the 24-70mm f/4.0 IS Macro comes out, the 24-105mm which now sells for $750 will be sold for $520 within weeks or months from now. The 35mm f/2.0 IS which I was also interested in which goes for $849.99 now should go for $499 in March as well.

Canon may think themselves smart for playing pricing games, but they are trading brand loyalty and credibility for profit, which is not a sustainable strategy in the long run.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 35 f/2 IS Resolution Test
« on: December 15, 2012, 01:24:18 AM »
A few months ago, comparing the old 35mm f/2 against the 35mm f/1.4L would have been considered an unfair comparison, given their wildly different prices.

Now we have an even better and much cheaper 35mm f/1.4 in the Sigma, and an improved but much more expensive replacement for Canon's 35mm f/2. And now, we consider comparison of these two lenses to be valid. I wonder if this would have been the case if the new Canon were priced at $500, and the Sigma at $1,100, or would we then have seen more clearly that these two lenses are, in reality, a league apart?

The Sigma 1.4 absolutely has harsher broken than the Canon 1.4, comparison tests have been misleading. The Sigma only shows harsher bokeh under particular and particularly contrasty backgrounds. Back to back comparisons have avoided the right set of circumstances to trigger harsh background blur but I'd you look at sample photos you can see a harsh background blur in about 20% of photos with a keen eye, but lenses like the 70-200mm Ii and 100mm macro IS also cause harsh background blur ocassionally. The sharpness is phenomenal though so its a trade off.

Lenses / Re: What's your dream lens
« on: December 04, 2012, 02:10:18 PM »
Having actually researched lens design here are some realistic dream lenses that would be top notch quality wise, supertelephoto level quality:

EF f/2.0 Zooms

19-35mm f/2.0L

This lens would be an ultra fast ultra wide angle lens, while it couldn't go to the widest super wide levels, it would serve most people's wide angle needs while providing excellent aperture and excellent quality. Note the lack of IS which would be too difficult to design in.

95mm filter thread.

35-70mm f/2.0L IS

This lens would be a normal zoom, without the added wide angle we're accustomed to. The most difficult part of designing a normal zoom is the wide angle, so by getting rid of that you can essentially create substantially more extreme lens designs.

85mm filter thread.

70-150mm f/2.0L  IS 1.4x

This lens would be a larger and faster version of the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, leveraging the built in 1.4x telecovnerter system to make up for the added reach.

82mm filter thread.

EF f/2.8 Zooms

35-105mm f/2.8L IS

Again by eliminating the wide angle we can get more extreme lens designs, as I mentioned this would be supertelephoto quality. This would be an excellent portrait lens.

85mm filter thread.

EF Primes

35mm f/1.6L  IS

Make it much sharper than the 35mm f/1.4, lose a third of a stop, add IS. This lens would be large.

77mm filter thread.

45mm & 60mm f/1.4L

The design of a 50mm fast prime is very challenging, and nobody has ever made a 50mm that has supertelephoto level resolution wide open, or even come close. You must move up or down the focal range to get better results, so these would be the answer.

72mm filter thread.

135mm f/1.8L IS

This is an existing Zeiss design, slap IS on it and tweak it to reduce purple fringing and it would be a mini 200mm f/2.0 IS L, make it a miniature supertelephoto in appearance with full supertelephoto quality.

77mm filter thread.

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 23