August 29, 2014, 02:26:57 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 4 ... 41
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Reviews / Re: NIKON Releasing a Medium format DSLR 50MP
« on: August 08, 2014, 03:28:26 PM »

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

EOS Bodies / Re: 7DII - where are the leaks ??
« on: August 05, 2014, 01:03:00 PM »
I'm guessing a big issue here is that Canon and Nikon seem likely to be in very direct competision with the 7D2 and the D400 so both are keeping an extra tight lid on any specs.

EOS-M / Re: The firesale begins... EOS M in UK £199
« on: July 30, 2014, 10:51:13 AM »
Seriously tempting as a street shooting body, whats the AF performance like now with the updates?

EOS Bodies / Re: DSLR ? - thinking out loud ....
« on: July 18, 2014, 08:05:01 AM »
I imagine similar conversations took place in Britain in the 1960's when the first Japanese motorbikes arrived in the UK. At first they just weren't good enough, compared to Nortons and Triumphs. Early adopters were sneered at, the proud riders of Brit iron rumbled and roared into the distance (usually stopping around the corner to fix oiled plugs).

But the Japanese persisted and they got better, bit by bit. More Hondas and Kawasakis appeared and people started to actually enjoy them, their ease of use and their reliability gained supporters. The Brit manufacturers secure in the vocal support of their customers dismissed the upstarts.

As the product developed their handling improved, their performance improved - they were of course always more reliable.

Then another new generation of products arrived and suddenly they were faster, better handling and of course still more reliable and cheaper - much cheaper. Almost overnight the British bike industry disappeared, the manufacturers just couldn't grasp that people are ultimately pragmatic, often conservative but ultimately pragmatic.

Why buy a bike that is slower, doesn't handle or brake as well and is a hassle to own and use when compared to the new stuff and much more expensive? Answer only an idiot or sentimentalist would and there just weren't enough of those about to support an industry.

I own a Canon 60d, I'm pretty happy with it, but I'm thinking of upgrading, so I await the new 7D mk2 with interest. But I wonder how good will it be? How much better for example will it be compared to a Panasonic GH4?

It will definitely be a lot more expensive, the body will likely be 20% heavier and (assuming the 7D is an APSC) all of the lenses will be much larger.
So will the new Canon's feature set and image quality be a sufficient step above the GH4 to justify the cost and weight?

 Will  I go from my old Triumph to a flash Norton or jump for the Kawasaki?

You could of course just as easily point to many products that were talked up as likely to upset and existing market that roundly failed to do so, indeed Sony themselves have been behind two of the most famous ones in recent decades with Betamax and Minidiscs.

Where this question becomes relevant of course is whether it should inform your buying decisions today. In that reguard I have a lot more confidence that the EOS and F mounts will be well supported in 5 years than I do any current mirror less mount.

EOS Bodies / Re: DSLR ? - thinking out loud ....
« on: July 17, 2014, 01:21:15 PM »

Pretty good point but of course it all comes down to numbers.   Economics of scale and all of that.  Im a DSLR guy myself.  DSLR for Video and stills and have a BMCC as well for video only.  How large a market will FF have in 3-5 years and will it be large enough to merit continued investment?  I like your point and Im thinking that we might see a much smaller product line down the road if the demand shrinks more.

I worked for Apple for 15 years and I'm well aware of what technology can do and how focused companies like Apple are. Apple with a market cap 10x that of Canon and Nikon put together has no intention to pull back on developing what small mobile products can do.  Of course a smart phone is not a FF camera "Duh" ... but its all about market economics pure and simple.

Personally my view is that Canon have probably taken the right decision in trying to target video more with there very high end professional releases. For the amateur market I suspect that phones are "good enough" for more people than they are with stills simply because your looking at lower resolution output.

To me its looked like Canons tactics in recent years have generally been to target the high end markets with quality and the low end markets with price whilst tending to focus less attension on the middle. Honestly I cans ee the logic behind that too I think the "gadget" market is a very tough one to go after, you have consumers with limited amounts of money to spend who also demand constant advances.

Maybe the delays in getting large amounts of the 70D sensor made? maybe a decision to leave putting that sensor into a rebel for another year?

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 41