March 03, 2015, 10:25:34 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 - moreorless

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 47
16
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS Rebel 750D Spec List [CR1]
« on: January 21, 2015, 09:35:57 AM »
Keep in mind, it's still a rebel with rebel size and ergonomics. To me, a lot of the reasons to shoot with a pro camera or even a prosumer is just the better feel in the hand, buttons, controls... aka ergonomics. Things that you can't list on a spec sheet. Mounting any real glass on a rebel feels incredibly unbalanced to the system as a whole.

Total shot in the dark here, but could the different between the two be a traditional DSLR and a mirrorless? One of them removes the mirror and adds an EVF? With how conservative Canon is, this could be their way of hedging a bit and seeing how the market responds. Give the consumer the choice in basically identical bodies and see which one is popular? A little experiment, test the waters, and let it help drive their future market decisions.

I think its certainly possible to have a camera of a similar kind of size to the current standard rebels and also offer improved handling and build though, maybe not to quite the degree of the 70D but still an improvement.

When it comes to mirrorless I think its notable that recently we've actually seen bodies starting to grow in size(T-X1, E-M1, GH3/4, NX1). With those cameras your really no longer talking about something significantly smaller/lighter than a rebel, what your talking about is a camera with superior handling/build, that's a market that an upgraded Rebel sized body could also aimed for.

17
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS Rebel 750D Spec List [CR1]
« on: January 21, 2015, 09:22:54 AM »
Is it possible for Canon to use other brand 24.2 megapixel sensor? For instance Sony.

What about the upper screen seen in the images? any word about it?

Thanks
That would be interesting.   If it is Sony will it be a slightly bigger APC sensor with 1.5x crop factor?  Or would they disable the outside pixels.

The greater crop factor does mean this can't be an existing sensor, except perhaps if it were a version of the new 28 MP Samsung?

These specs do seem pretty unlikely to me but if were talking about a spilt in the Rebel line that's already happened as you have the T5i, T5 and the SL1 all marketed under the Rebel name in the US. I definitely think theres room for the Txi camera to move up market due to both the other two lines and the presense of many rival mirrorless cameras offering higher level performance/handling in a smaller body.

If that's the case then price wise you could be looking at something that's not a great deal cheaper than the 70D thus doesn't need to worry much about undercutting it.

18
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7Dii vs Samsung NX-1 Epic Shootout
« on: January 20, 2015, 04:31:36 AM »
When it comes to AF I would suggest that subjects being "large in the frame" is really the most important aspect of performance. If you were shooting with a prime then it would be the shots when the subject was at that kind of distance you would be likely interested in.

19
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: CN-E 35-260mm f/2.8 Soft Focus Lens
« on: January 19, 2015, 05:54:47 AM »
Thanks.

I can see I'll have to try it to judge it properly. Maybe the SONY implementation has some advantages in real life use.

To explain it a little better using the DC effects focus in two ways, if you focus on a subject then switch the DC setting the focus point will shift so you need to refocused or make sure DC is set first. Also though when you have DC enguaged it effects the cameras ability to AF so you need to change the micro focus adjustment. The amount it effects it by seems to relate to the DC setting relative to the aperture, so for example if your shooting the same DC setting as your aperture(weather that's F/2 for both of F5.6 for both) you'll be ok with the same Microfocus adjustment(I generally find about +5 or -5 in this case), obviously it changes from front to rear as well.

A lot of the reason why people view the DC as making the lens too soft is that they don't take the latter into account so end up with out of focus images. I also find that a lot of the examples people give of DC in use aren't really that helpful as its not so much that it shifts the out of focus areas further out of focus as that it smooths them out more so an already smooth background won't change that much but a busy one say full of tree branches will.

20
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sony closing down?
« on: January 19, 2015, 12:26:46 AM »
Sony won't close down though. Their sensors are in the vast majority of cameras people are using today, so they can spin that off as a profitable business on its own. Especially since their major competitors rely on them. I'd actually argue their failure to produce a consistent lens line is a function of them not trying to overextend their camera division. Instead they let 3rd parties handle that and focus on making cameras people want. And ones that adapt to legacy lenses that are used in the industry (PL, etc)

I would argue the opposite, I think a lot of the reason for Sony moving into mirrorless was exactly to cut out competition from 3rd party lens makers allowing them to have a sales tactic of drawing in customers with cheap cameras and then ultimately charging them more with expensive lenses. That's the kind of business tactic that's always held them back in photography if you ask me, you'll get some gadget freaks buying into it and some very casual users but there simply not trusted(rightly so IMHO) by much of the market.

The sensor division is a separate part of Sony to the camera division as well so its perfectly possible that the former stays and the latter is shut down or downsized greatly.

21
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: CN-E 35-260mm f/2.8 Soft Focus Lens
« on: January 17, 2015, 04:25:19 PM »
Setting the DC control to the same number as the aperture is the maximum effect, as I understand it.

Setting the control to 0 results in no change, rather the lens performs as if the DC control was not used.

Lens aperture at 2 and DC control at 5.6 is a minimum effect, for example.

The DC control as neutral is the minimum effect, larger the number either direction from that the greater the effect is.

Generally the guideline is that if you set the DC to the same as your working aperture the effect will mostly be confined to the out of focus areas of the image making either the front or rear smoother and the opposite harsher. If you choose a setting beyond your working aperture(so for example shooting at F/2 but with DC set to rear F/5.6) then the effect becomes stronger also having a significant impact on the in focus areas of the image more akin to a typical soft focus lens.

This image was shot at F/2 and rear F/5.6 for example...



The other thing to consider as well is that when you mess around with the DC it also alters the focus, both in terms of shifting the focus point and in the cameras own focus reading. The latter is really the main weakness of the feature I would say as if your using AF(even just to confirm manual focus) you need to constantly change your micro focus adjustment. The easiest way to work is to just use a magnified view on the rear screen.

22
EOS Bodies / Re: NEW CAMERA - EOS 80D?
« on: January 17, 2015, 11:49:00 AM »
Personally I think its been clear for awhile now that the big hole in both Canon and Nikons lineup has been a DSLR the size of there entry level bodies but with the control layout/display of upper end bodies.

Having two dials is a big thing from a usability standpoint, but having to pick up an xxD or better to get it on Canon is a bit silly. That's one change I definitely welcome.

As I said I think its one area where I think they have played into the hands of rivals, especially mirrorless. The talk is always about size saving but really if you look at the cameras I mentioned theres not much size/weight difference compared to a small DSLR, the difference is I would say more that the mirrorless bodies offer higher end controls and build.

From the Nikon side I would love to pickup a smaller DSLR to go with my D800 but I just don't like the handling of the D5xxx/D3xxx series.

23
EOS Bodies / Re: NEW CAMERA - EOS 80D?
« on: January 16, 2015, 01:14:21 PM »
Personally I think its been clear for awhile now that the big hole in both Canon and Nikons lineup has been a DSLR the size of there entry level bodies but with the control layout/display of upper end bodies.

My feeling is that a lot of the demand for mirrorless cameras like the E-M1, X-T1 and GH3 has been driven not just by the size saving of droping the mirror but simply because Canon and Nikon weren't targeting higher end users with smaller bodies, everything below Canon xxD and Nikons D7xxx lineups had fairly basic interfaces and build.

24
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.

25
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.


26
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.

27
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.

28
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.

29
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.

30
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.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 47