August 23, 2014, 01:27:41 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 - moreorless

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 40
1
EOS Bodies / Re: Update on the EOS 7D Mark II Spec List
« on: Today at 11:05:55 AM »
I'd argue that with a camera like this matching Nikon's pixel count at doesn't matter as much simply because its pixel density that's likely key for a lot of users, 20 MP at a 1.6 crop factor is pretty similar to 24 MP at a 1.5 crop factor.

Some new kind of sensor never seemed likely to me, especially given that multi layer sensors have traditionally had poor higher ISO performance.

2
Landscape / Re: Rural Landscapes
« on: Today at 02:06:29 AM »



3
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Samyang Teases New Lenses
« on: Today at 01:16:39 AM »
I'm not sure, 50mm is kind of a standard do-it-all prime, and I would like it to have AF :). My 40mm pancake with some extension tubes can do macro as well. The 1:2 mag. would require a tube too, but its working distance is unusable for hunting insects. The AF 50/2 Macro would be great though, I would trade my 40 for that.


EDIT: I know some people have like 8 different 50(ish)mm lenses in their bags for whatever reason :). I'm not that guy.

For some an F/2 50mm that can do good but not fully macro is a multi use lens, I own the Zeiss partly because it allowed to me replace a standard 50mm AND a stanardish macro. Price there though is probably an issue for a lot of people, I managed to get the Zeiss fairly cheap used but no way would I pay full wack for it.

And by cheap you mean $1000 (give or take) ? :)
I'm sure that Makro-Planar 50/2 is a nice lens (and possibly a dream lens for videography :) ), but, like you, I really can't justify buying $1300 manual focus lens, which won't even be my primary tool for macro. Zeiss Makro-Planar 100/2 is $600 more and still needs a tube for 1:1 macro. I doubt that anything can beat my Sigma 150/2.8 at the moment.

It was £450 used for an original zf version(I moved to the darkside for FF a couple of years ago) and as you say I couldnt afford to pay full price. Definitely not a lens for serious insect macro but generally I tend to shoot plants/fungi more in the closeup range so 1:2 is good enough for me and its both sharper, contrastier and has much better bokeh than my old Nikon 50mm 1.8 G.

I wonder whether Canon will ever upgrade the old 50mm 2.5 macro? a 50mm f/2 IS with 1:2 macro with Zeiss like performance would likely be popular.

4
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Samyang Teases New Lenses
« on: August 22, 2014, 11:43:39 AM »
I'm not sure, 50mm is kind of a standard do-it-all prime, and I would like it to have AF :). My 40mm pancake with some extension tubes can do macro as well. The 1:2 mag. would require a tube too, but its working distance is unusable for hunting insects. The AF 50/2 Macro would be great though, I would trade my 40 for that.


EDIT: I know some people have like 8 different 50(ish)mm lenses in their bags for whatever reason :). I'm not that guy.

For some an F/2 50mm that can do good but not fully macro is a multi use lens, I own the Zeiss partly because it allowed to me replace a standard 50mm AND a stanardish macro. Price there though is probably an issue for a lot of people, I managed to get the Zeiss fairly cheap used but no way would I pay full wack for it.

5
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Another Nikon full-frame
« on: August 21, 2014, 04:23:32 PM »

and if you ask me, Nikon's lineup seems really good if you're looking to upgrade to full frame:

D4s for professional sports
D810 for studio and landscape
D750 for semi-professional action and wedding and event pros.
D610 for advanced amateurs
 
Desperation? more like excellent planning for if canon had such lineup many here would be praising their wide selection instead of making stupid comments about how this somehow weakens their system. Many people have asked for this camera and nikon listened which IMO is a quality canon should follow.

Well surely that equates to:-
D4s 1DX for professional sports
D810 MIA for studio and landscape (though Canon seem to have been of the opinion that their sensor tech and higher MP in the 135 format are not a market they are interested in)
D750 5D MkIII for semi-professional action and wedding and event pros.
D610 6D for advanced amateurs
 
Of course you failed to mention the Df, and that is the one that that has thrown the Nikon FF lineup the curved ball and elicited the smirks and derision it seems to have deserved.

The Df for me is really a camera that fell into fanboy no mans land, hated by the mirrorless crowd for pushing in on "there turf", hated by those pushing the standard DSLR form factor, hated by the Canon fan. Ultimately though I'm guessing its gotten Nikon are fair few sales from people outside these camps and probably didn't cost them a massive amount(new body but no new sensor, AF system etc).

Canon might potentially be able to do without it but today I think even Nikon really needs to go after the niche markets, the key is I'd say to do so in such a way that its cost effective.

6
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Samyang Teases New Lenses
« on: August 21, 2014, 04:17:48 PM »
What Samyang should really do is designing a nice MACRO LENS or two (like 100mm and 200mm). Good manual focus ring works beautifully for macro photography and there is little need for AF, if at all.

Maybe the 50mm will be a semi macro as well? Zeiss's 50mm and 100mm f/2 2:1 macros don't really have much competision besides the Tamron 60mm f/2.

7
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: What does Sigma do next?
« on: August 16, 2014, 10:29:53 PM »
I think Tamron has already tried to answer that question, 150-600 mm.  Either with a top end zoom or a serious of primes.  Take Canon on at 400 f/5.6 OS or, even better, 500 f/5.6 OS.  Or, have Sigma update their zooms that go out to 500 mm.  They would have to beat Canon on price in the 85-135  mm range. 

Granted, I've always wanted to see a "portrait" zoom, 50-150 f/2.8.

The problem I see Sigma having trying to offer greater performance with their zooms is that they may not be able to follow the same "give up size saving for optical performance" philosophy they have for a lot of their recent releases.

Something like the 35mm 1.4 becoming a bit bulkier isn't that big an issue for most users, adding extra size/weight to a zoom that already weights 700-900g is more of an issue.

8
EOS Bodies / Re: Medium Format Announcement a \
« on: August 13, 2014, 10:30:57 PM »
To be fair I think a lot of it isn't brand fanboyism but rather the idea that Canon or Nikon if they got into MF would look to offer either better value for money than current MF manufacturers or better performance(especially in AF/FPS).

My guess would be that if Canon are putting any research into MF its so that they could react to any Nikon/Sony release. Sony releasing a MF system would IMHO be a sign of desperation given how many lens mounts there already dealing with(all with lots of gaps) but I can see a bit more logic to Nikon. The smaller size of the F mount does seem to mean they are limited to F/1.4 AF lenses, Canons 50mm and 85mm F/1.2 lenses do likely cost them a significant number of customers after great DOF control plus Nikon aren't dealing with having to introduce cine lenses.

9
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Another Nikon full-frame
« on: August 13, 2014, 03:51:22 AM »
Whether or not nikon will be expanding its lineup to a total of 5 tired old FF mirrorslappers or not. And whether Canon will or should do so too. Rather than finally launching a top-notch mirrorless FF camera system and enter the era of smaller, lighter and more capable camera gear. :-)

That would definitely boost Canon's battery sales! ::) Over on SLR Lounge, one reviewer (who switched from Canon to the Sony A7) admitted that for a full day of shooting, he needs 4 fully charged batteries (at $80 a pop), and for shooting video, he needed 8-10! His stack-o-batteries was impressive.  :P

Seriously, we probably won't see Canon move into full frame mirrorless until battery life, EVF and AF speed/accuracy rival their DSLR counterparts.

Edited to add: It's also currently a market of smaller, lighter and less capable revenue/sales.  :P

Your also taking a much more significant investment when moving to mirrorless, a new FF DSLR just means a new body that's using a lot of already existing tech and maybe even a lot of the same parts. A FF mirrorless body means using mostly new tech and designing a lineup of lenses to use.

I would point out as well that even though the 6D and D610 are sold partly as small entry level bodies really in terms of handling there still pretty high end cameras compared to the A7. I think theres room for releasing something potentially smaller and/or cheaper which would also have the benefit of a much cheaper lens lineup.

10
Reviews / Re: NIKON Releasing a Medium format DSLR 50MP
« on: August 09, 2014, 06:23:07 PM »
Exactly what pentax is doing and is a big shift for MFD. Inversely, I sold the majority of my 35mm kit and I'm loving MFD. I would probably drop my 5d3 to an aps-c camera if I was in a pinch but I wouldn't let my Blad go so easily.

The problem Pentax seems to have is that it really doesn't have the resources that Canon or Nikon would in terms of either offering improved features or building a modern lens line-up.

The 645z has more AF points that most MF cameras for example but there all clustered around the centre because its reusing an ASPC AF system, really not much better than your typical central AF point on other MF cameras. As you've said before it lacks LS lenses as well.

With the lens selection on offer today the 645z to me clearly seems to be aimed at the landscape/macro photographer. The problem I'd say is that whilst the body is much cheaper than alternative MF the lenses are not and these markets are very price dependant, there aren't many amateur or pro landscape shooters who can afford to spend $15,000+ on their setup.

11
Reviews / Re: NIKON Releasing a Medium format DSLR 50MP
« on: August 08, 2014, 03:28:26 PM »
http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/08/canon-doing-market-research-on-medium-format/

Of course, Canon isn't Hasselblad or Phase One, so like Leica, Canon's market research can't possibly be accurate.  ::)
Wow neuro this makes you look even dumber. It's a rumor at best, canon hasn't said anything, and why would they enter a market where Leica said there is no sales beyond 6000 units? Oh that's right because they know Leica is full of it and will research it anyway.

Canon didn't take Leicas word for it, because they aren't as dumb as you to keep quoting them. They also aren't saying pretentiously about a number because phase1 and Hasselblad aren't just going to give them exact sales figures.

I'm guessing its probably less "mistrusting Leica" and more looking into what kind of market could be created with a system that potentially offers improved functionality and/or a lower price than existing MF.

At present you sacrifice quite a lot of functionality going MF relative to Canon and Nikons best 35mm DSLR's, I remember talking to my second cousin who shoots a lot of pro travel photography and he ultimately sold his Hassleblad system and went with a 1DX for that reason.

12
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Doing Market Research on Medium Format?
« on: August 08, 2014, 01:53:27 PM »
MF only has reduced DOF if the lenses are built proportionally. Currently, no MF system is capable of producing shallower DOF than a Canon system. It was true in the film days, and it's even more true now.

With the same level of technology (for example, putting a roll of Tri-X in a Nikon and another roll into a Bronica), you have to double the diagonal for there to be a noticeable difference in the image quality.

My wall is full of very large prints made from cameras from the 30D to the 5D, Mk II. I'd challenge anybody to tell which ones were made with the FF camera vs the APS cameras. There just isn't that big of a difference between APS-C and FF. I only switched because of the lenses.

In this respect I actually see more reason for Nikon to go MF than Canon, at present there at a disadvantage with DOF control as there seemingly unable to create F/1.2 lenses with AF due to the smaller size of the F mount where as Canon have shown they can create F/1 lenses if needed. Going MF would give them the chance to come up with something with similar of better DOF control.

I disagree with your point about needing to double the diagonal to see an improvement in image quality but I suspect a big factor will be whether 35mm lenses can be designed easily to make the best of 50 MP+ sensors or whether MF might actually make designs easier.

13
Is there not a flange distance issue w/ EF TS lenses?

There is actually a Russian company that's designed a camera specifically for the Canon T/S lenses if I remember correctly although its not an SLR. When you look at the focal lengths I can understand why, the 17mm is wider than any native medium format lens I know of.

The talk about the Leica S does I'd say show you the problem Pentax have with there digital 44x33mm system, its still using a 645 flange distance that's I'd guess about 20mm longer than it needs to be resulting in a massive(I'd guess partly empty) box infront of the camera. They would IMHO have been smarter to go with a smaller flange distance like Leica and just make an adapter for the older lenses.

14
I liked the 645Z but the its the lens lineup that kept me from buying one.

They have just released a 28-45mm wideangle zoom with IS but its priced at the same kind of level as the 25mm.

If there looking to really exploit the low light/shallow DOF potential of the camera I'd say they need to put out a lens with at least F/2.
They needed some LS primes.

There is an older 75mm F/2.8 with a leaf shutter I believe but they do clearly lag behind something like the S2.

At present the Pentax 645 system seems to be aimed much more at Landscape/Macro users.

15
I liked the 645Z but the its the lens lineup that kept me from buying one.

They have just released a 28-45mm wideangle zoom with IS but its priced at the same kind of level as the 25mm.

If there looking to really exploit the low light/shallow DOF potential of the camera I'd say they need to put out a lens with at least F/2.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 40