January 31, 2015, 06:03:07 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 ... 46
EOS Bodies / Re: First unboxing video of Tamron SP 15-30mm f/2.8 VC USD
« on: December 28, 2014, 04:23:06 AM »
Not really surprising given the specs, if it wasn't for the difficulty using filters it would certainly interest me, the Nikon 14-24mm is for my use a bit limiting at the "long" end as well as lacking stabalisation.

EOS Bodies / Re: Built in adapter?
« on: December 21, 2014, 06:56:05 AM »
You're proposing they're selling a 6d-size camera with just the phase af, mirror+metering removed? Sure it's a possibility, but on the long run they'll most likely want to make use of smaller cameras with ff iq.

That's assuming of course that reducing the flange distance would be the only size saving advantage of mirrorless. I would argue that when your dealing with a FF camera the reduced flange distance is less of an advantage than with APSC or m43. With those sensor sizes you dealing with much smaller lenses(and the user base generally will be after less ambitious lenses) so cutting down on the flange distance can produce quite a small overall package. With FF there will be very few lens options that can create a truly small overall package even with a reduced flange distance which will count for less relative to the larger size/length of the lenses involved.

I would say that potentially a more important size saving with a FF mirrorless system maybe the removal of the prism and AF sensor. In that respect the reverse is true compared to APSC and m43, your actually saving a lot more size/weight by removing a much larger prism with FF. Added to that as well of course Canon could produce a camera with duel mounts akin to the current EF-S one that takes both regular DSLR lenses and lenses where some of the optics push into the body of the camera.

Looking at Sony's problems with the FE lenses as well I would question whether very small flange distances are even a good idea. They've looked to try and tie together there FF and ASPC lens lineups but it might well be that the "ideal" FF mirrorless flange distance is more like 30mm meaning a good deal less size saving.

EOS Bodies / Re: Petapixel: Canon Full Frame Mirrorless
« on: December 05, 2014, 06:56:56 PM »
Personally I think looking at Canon's releases in recent years something that notable is how little effort they have made to chase the "gadget" dollar. You could I spose argue the G1X's were somewhat going that direction although little effort was made to sex them up but generally they seem to have paid little attention to those wanting "cool new tech". Even the EOS M didn't really target this market(much to its chagrin) and instead looked to go after the more basic ultra compact mirrorless market that EF-S couldn't service which makes up the majority of sales in the far east(and I'd imagine by default overall). I suspect part of the reason is that whilst people who buy such gear tend to be very active/vocal on the net(and so much of the net media actively target them) the market they represent isn't actually very profitable as its both very demanding(limited shelf life until the next cool product is released by a rival) but also quite price sensitive.

Honestly if Canon was looking around at the business performance of rivals I'm guessing it wouldn't be Sony or Fuji they would be interested in but Leica. Unlike all the loss making mirrorless manufacturers they actually seem to be making a profit aiming at the higher end of the market rather than the gadget market. Maybe a "rangefinder" rumour isn't that strange in that respect? Something akin to the Leica M sold at a hefty premium could have the potential to bring in serious cash.

Sony are their own worst enemy.  The A7 series are amazing cameras.  Professional's all over should be lining up to buy them.  Which pro wouldn't like a lightweight body that doesn't make you feel like you've had a workout after using it for a day.

Unfortunately Sony seem to always completely miss the point.  Which amateur is going to blow so much money on the A7s?  Very few.  But pros need more than just a fancy body.  We need professional lenses.  Where's the E mount 24-70 f2.8?  70-200 2.8?  Where are the standard primes?  I mean come on.  Samsung are bringing out the NX-1 and have already announced the 17-50 & 50-150 2.8 glass!

So meanwhile Sony don't bother to introduce lenses we'd actually want and instead bring out new camera bodies every week!   ::) ::)

Sony know that F/2.8 glass would be too large to balance with the A7 cameras, it might also have issues with the mount size.

EOS Bodies / Re: Modular DSLR Coming from Canon? [CR2]
« on: October 31, 2014, 12:47:42 PM »
Nice idea, but Sony's SLT system is a far cry from an SLR. All the drawbacks of an EVF, coupled with a stop gap workaround before on sensor phase detect AF was mainstream, resulting in a significant reduction in light transmission.

A bolt on SLT mount adapter makes no sense with current mirror less tech, and a bolt on SLR mount adapter would be much more complicated.

An interchangeable EVF/OVF with a conventional EF mount and mirror box built into the body makes more sense, but I see no reason why a true hybrid EVF/OVF cannot be done - after all Fuji have had a rangefinder style version of this in production models for some time.

We can question the merits of an EVF vs an OVF but Sony's system does offer superior performance with SLR lenses to a standard mirrorless adapter.

Its also worth considering that whilst as you say it is of questionable use on a system that's sold on small size the same need not be true of a future Canon system. I would argue when/if mirrorless really starts to replace SLR we will probably see larger bodies with more controls and better grips(with larger batteries), such a camera would work a lot better with that kind of adapter compared to the small A7 system.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Announces the Cinema EOS C100 Mark II
« on: October 22, 2014, 03:55:43 AM »
There's a segment of the market that will slowly migrate to 4K TVs and next-gen disc systems. It's true that Canon doesn't need to rush to reach these people. But again, these people are only a part of the market-- and they're not necessarily the most important (e.g. trend-setting and profitable) parts.

A lot of 4K content will be streamed rather than viewed via hard media, such as discs. Likewise, a lot of 4K content will be consumed via computers and tablets, not just TVs. I see a lot of studies on different trends in device usage, and I spend a lot of time talking to the people making the next generation of devices. Canon doesn't need 4K today, right this moment-- that's true. And for some customers, Canon might never need 4K. But within a year, if Canon doesn't offer 4K at a relatively accessible price point (e.g. $3-5k), it will do so at its own peril. 4K will be too relevant, and Canon's restrained video implementations will be look too soft compared to the competition.

It's also worth pointing out that 4K is useful even if your final output will only be 1080p, as others have mentioned. Canon was happy to talk about how great the 5D Mark III was for media pros who need both stills and videos. Well, I work in that world-- and 4K would be nice. Re-framing the image, getting sharper 1080p, having options as screen density increases-- these are all legitimate uses.

Again I see the market for 4K on a 5D body being potentially greater than 4K on a camera like the C100. The latter still isn't cheap and I would image that the TV and film markets that care about 4K use are going to be using the C300/C500.

The kind of use video on a 5D body gets on the other hand seems more likely to benefit from 4K. I would imagine for example that couples getting married may well care about "future proofing" video there wedding shooter may take plus as has been mentioned 4K makes editing shots you don't have much time/room to setup easier. With amateurs your likely dealing with people more likely to buy into 4K earlier than the general population plus again more likely to desire the extra editing latitude.

Not being a video shooter I would imagine that the functionality of the C100 is far beyond the 5D so the former could probably still find a market even if the latter offered 4K.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Announces the Cinema EOS C100 Mark II
« on: October 22, 2014, 02:51:12 AM »
Don't underestimate 4k. While I don't expect to be mastering out to 4k for a year or two, you will very soon be needing it. Any new camera without it for video will have a shorter shelf life and lower resale value.
Plus, shooting 4k and mastering to 1080p has revolutionized how I film weddings. We can't always set up our shots beforehand and being able to crop/zoom, recompose,stabilize, and even pan in post is amazing!

For this reason I would imagine 4K might make sense on a 5D4, wedding photographers who also film and amature filmers of family events are I would guess more likely to want 4K than lower end TV/film productions the C100 seems to be aimed at. Canon will I would guess look to sell the C300/C500 or just the latter as the professional video camera with 4K video for awhile then filter it down to the cheaper C100 afterwards.

My guess is still that the high megapixel camera won't be the standard 5D but rather a new lineup.

Landscape / Re: Fall colours
« on: October 21, 2014, 03:04:05 AM »

Landscape / Re: Within Forests
« on: October 20, 2014, 07:14:56 AM »
Hawkscombe Valley, Exmoor, UK

Black & White / Re: Black and White Landscapes!
« on: October 06, 2014, 04:14:15 AM »

EOS Bodies / Re: Next Rebel Going EVF? [CR1]
« on: October 04, 2014, 01:33:33 PM »
Canon released a new EF-s lens this year - the 10-18IS STM.  They released two new EF-s lenses in 2013, the 18-55IS STM and the 55-250IS STM.

So, from March 21st, 2013 to now, they've released three lenses that cover a 16mm to 400mm equivalent zoom range for the EF-s mount.

You forgot the EF-S 24 / 2.8 pancake.
On the other hand i would not count iterations of the kit zoom or the 55-250 as "new lenses".

If were talking about keeping the EF-S mount for entry level bodies then I would say the 18-55mm especially is actually a very important lens, no advance in specs but in terms of performance and build its a clear upgrade.

EOS Bodies / Re: Next Rebel Going EVF? [CR1]
« on: October 03, 2014, 06:49:08 AM »
Right and because of color gamut issues (amongst others), you'll never see on your monitor at home or on paper what it is that you saw through the viewfinder that was glass and mirrors. In which case, what value does the optical view finder have if the colors that you see will not be the colors that are captured and displayed later?

To be fair though a monitor or a printer at home do have the potential to be much better calibrated than an EVF in a camera. The biggie for me though would be getting maximum dynamic range so I can compose for areas of a picture I intend to lift in post.

I can definitely see an EOS mount camera with some form of EVF(either replacing the OVF or a hybrid viewfinder) in the not too distant future if only to cater to the video market, not sure I see a Rebel next year though.

For one thing the Rebel line will likely be getting the 70D/7D2 sensor, I don't think theres a problem with that as the 7D2 is being sold on AF, FPS and handling not the sensor plus even the 70D now has the old 7D AF unit. You add in wifi as well and that's already a bigger shift in the Rebel likeup than we've had since the T2i/550D years ago.

My opinion would be as well that the EOS mount isn't really that well suited for very small mirrorless bodies. Of course any DSLR mount will have a long flange distance BUT the EOS mount is also pretty large compared to say the F-mount meaning more empty space. I spose you could argue that space could be used for recessed lens designs but I'm not sure Canon or Nikon want to get into the position of producing lenses that can't just not be used on certain other bodies but will damage them.

The EF-M lens lineup might not be very deep but honestly I think it covers a lot of the needs of the average entry level users anyway, maybe add in a normal macro lens(say a 50mm F/2.8 2:1) and I think you've covered 95% of the market. Canon have a real advantage in terms of lens performance/value at the moment I would say plus I suspect a lot of the reason for the EF-M project is simply to devalue the market as a whole. If theres an EF-M body with EVF and decent controls with that lens lineup I think some of the current high end mirrorless prices will not be sustainable.

EOS Bodies / Re: Poll: Would you buy a high MP Canon EOS 5DIV?
« on: September 27, 2014, 04:52:34 PM »
The interesting question for me would be if Canon came up with a new camera line for high resolution should it be priced above or below the 5D line? most of what I'v heard tends to suggest people think it would be above but really I would argue that high resolution may actually be more price sensitive. I think your talking a lot of amateur landscape shooters there and even when your talking pro its often people without massive incomes.

My shot in the dark quess would be that the 5D4 will have a lot of video functionality stuff like 4K,  dual pixel AF, tilt/flip screen, hybrid OVF/EVF, etc.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 VC Gets First Test
« on: September 25, 2014, 01:17:38 AM »
Am I the only person who was not impressed by the foreground bokeh on that page of text image? The back bokeh looked better.

Probably not a big issue on many shots for a lens like this though as the subject will need to be pretty close to push parts of the image out of focus.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 VC Gets First Test
« on: September 24, 2014, 11:29:25 AM »
Certainly an interesting lens, I ended up going with the 16-35mm VR for my D800 rather than the 14-24mm due to the stabilisation, range and easier filter systems with the former. If this Tamron really does perform well it would certainly be tempting although the filter issue would still be there, a bit less range but the 16-35mm isn't great above 30mm anyway and for me its the 28mmish range that's more important.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 46