January 31, 2015, 11:20:57 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 5 ... 46
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Looking Into a New Mount System
« on: September 23, 2014, 07:21:50 AM »
Maybe FF mirrorless size saving would be greater with a larger mount that can allow such big rear elements to avoid issues with light dropoff and boarder softness?

no MAYBE there. The BIGGER the freakin' hole in the body compared to sensor inside is, the EASIER it is to design
  • optically better and/or
  • smaller and lighter and/or
  • less pricey

Sony/Zeiss FE lenses are so ridiculously expensive and huge, because that mount hole is simply too small relative to the FF sensor inside.  Sony made a huge mistake using the APS-C sized E-mount hole as basis for their new FF mirrorless line. It is a totally unnecessary weak spot built-in from the very start and this achilles heel will hurt them ever more year after year, as competitors will come to market with better, cheaper and more compact lens ranges for FF sensored MILCs.

Canon EF-M lenses are so damn small, damn good and downright cheap, because the EF-M mount - like all current Canon mounts EF7EF-S/EF-M - has a really generous clearance and is very well-sized relative to the sensor inside [and to the chosen flange distance]. And no, EF-M cannot possibly handle an FF sensor in an uncompromised, meaningful and quality fashion. Luckily Canon has repeatedly also stated this and will not compromise on that one. 8)

I wouldn't be surprised, to me the whole FE system looked like it was thrown together in a bit of a mad rush to be first to market and could potentially highlight why that isn't always a good idea. You look back to the AF revolution and the EF mount was actually quite late to the party but ended up dominating by providing better performance.

On other difference I could see with a Canon FF mirrorless system would be that unlike Sony it likely wouldn't be trying to replace FF DSLR's but rather aiming for specifically at the small camera market. Sony are IMHO clearly trying to use this system to makeup for their failure to build more market share with the FF A-mount, Canon aren't in that situation. I could see the end result being rather similar to the EOS M system, for the kind of market who buys a camera like that(generally in Japan) the lenses are very well targeted, especially in terms of not crippling kit options the way Sony tend to, I could see a similar kind of lineup for a FF system, half a dozen or so lenses would probably give most users what there after(normal/UWA zooms, f/2 primes plus maybe a short  f/2.8 macro) anything else could be adapted from EF.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Looking Into a New Mount System
« on: September 23, 2014, 02:14:26 AM »
<p>According to an interview with Mr Makoto Sakaeta Masaya, the managing director of Canon Image Communication Business Division. Canon is exploring the possibility of a new lens mount. I suspect its application would be for a full frame mirrorless system of some kind.</p>

in no place in this interview was full frame mentioned - just the reverse - the intent of the interview was that things should be made smaller - such as 1" sensor / m43's as the quality of those sensors improve.

not to mention the current EF-M throat dimension once you remove the baffling can already support a full frame sensor.

full frame doesn't do anything for the miniturization of the "system" which is what Masaya was talking about.

everyone's running amok on this thread - and there's no indication whatsoever that canon's making a bigger than APS-C MILC.

(the only thing that would make sense for bigger than APS-C would be medium format)

One possibility would be as I mentioned that Sony by shoehorning FF lenses into a mount ment for ASPC lenses has actually compromised its FE system.

Again look at the RX1 one lens design with the massive rear element...

Maybe FF mirrorless size saving would be greater with a larger mount that can allow such big rear elements to avoid issues with light dropoff and boarder softness?

I'd agree people have run riot with any idea of FF mirrorless but I wouldn't say its impossible, beyond the above point remember of course that the EF-M system is quite limited anyway so linking it to a FF mirrorless one wouldn't really matter that much. Personally I see relatively little benefit of linking even the larger E-mount system, all the FE lenses are large an expensive and don't see like something an ASPC user would buy unlike the EF mount that offers quite a few lenses attractive to ASPC users,

Besides that and MF another possibility I spose is a system more like the Nikon 1 and targeting it with lenses like the new 70-300mm Nikon have just released as a small action/wildlife camera.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma Opens Up About Their Roadmap
« on: September 22, 2014, 03:56:35 PM »
Sigma's 24-70 & 70-200 are mediocre at best and need an update and  that'll come in 2.8 i believe. Although I'd be all over a 24-70/2 it doesnt make market sense and it'll probably be a niche piece. I think a 24-50/2 or 28-50/2 seems more plausible.

That would be my guess, a 24-70mm F/2 would likely be too large/expensive to get a significant market, as you say I think any F/2 zoom would likely be shorter range.

As far as DSLR's go I think Sigma should try and get there sensors into something more the size of a rebel at a much lower price than the SD1. Right now it just seems a waste of a sensor that punches above its size at base ISO IQ to have it in a FF size and price body.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Looking Into a New Mount System
« on: September 22, 2014, 10:16:03 AM »
The M-mount, with a 58mm throat diameter, is unfortunately not that much smaller than the EF mount. The MFT mount, on the other hand, has a 38mm throat diameter and the NX system a 42mm throat diameter. If Canon wants to imitate these systems then, yes, they might introduce a smaller lens mount.

I wonder actually whether the reverse might be true for a FF mirrorless system. Look at this shot of the internals of the RX1 lens...

That's one heck of a big rear element(looks too large to fit in a regular E-mount), I'm no optics expert but I wonder whether its there to help deal with the issue of extreme light angles hitting the sensor? certainly the RX1 lens seems to be more compact for its specs than any of the FE lenses(the 35mm f/2.8 is about the same size but a stop slower with worse macro ability, the new 35mm 1.4 far larger).

So perhaps whilst it may technically be possible to fit FF coverage into an EF-M lens its actually a better option to go with something that has a larger mount diameter to allow for a big correcting rear element and so smaller lenses?

m43 might have a smaller mount size but relative to the sensor size its actually a lot larger than the the Sony FE system.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Looking Into a New Mount System
« on: September 22, 2014, 08:10:37 AM »
Good step forward. The M system is a total flop.

2nd best selling mirrorless camera in Japan last year if I remember correctly, significant seller in the west at its lower price.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Looking Into a New Mount System
« on: September 22, 2014, 07:06:38 AM »
Hopefully it's going to be a -Medium format / Full frame mount.

That was the first thing that came to mind for me, that Sony CMOS MF sensor does seem to make it more likely that another big player(Sony, Nikon, Fuji, etc) might give MF a try which could well have Canon looking to respond.

If it were a FF mirrorless mount(can the EF-M mount take FF? I remember seeing some analysis that it could) my guess would be that Canon would come up with something similar to the EF-M setup at the moment. Maybe a body that offers a bit more control but generally a system aimed a keeping things small with a handful of compact lenses rather than a full system which would be kept for DSLR's.

One thing I'm starting to wonder as well is whether the cheap EOS M stock in the west isn't just as was first suspected a case of Canon selling unwanted product but rather a direct plan to devalue the mirrorless market? how long has it been since the big EOS M price drops? almost a year? I can see the logic to doing this as it avoids pushing DSLR prices too low whilst Canon don't have to recoup a relatively small investement(by the standard of other companies) in mirrorless. Could they try something similar with FF? introduce a basic beyond below the 6D.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Most exciting thing at Photokina?
« on: September 21, 2014, 12:07:36 PM »
Without a doubt, the Panasonic CM1 phone, with a one inch sensor. This is the ice-breaker, there will be many more high-end camera phones soon.

This kind of phone/camera will kill-off what's left of the P&S market. And it should convert a lot of photo-phone h8ters ;)

I've been saying, for several years, that sometime soon, a Vogue cover would be shot with a smart phone. The time may finally have arrived :)

Whilst that might well be possible lets be realistic it would still be a gimmick rather than using the best tool for the job. What this does show I'd say though is that the 1 inch sensor is likely going to become the minimum standard for any decent compact besides very long superzooms.

In that respect though I do think it makes high end compacts a bit safer since whilst phones with 1 inch sensors and wide primes may still be possible to keep the size manageble your not likely to do so for anything with a significant zoom.

Sometimes I wonder why Canon and Nikon refuse to make something in the same league as the Otus?

Is it because:

  • They Don't know how to / they lack the expertise
  • They want to milk as much profit from cheap and fast moving (sales-wise) lenses

I'm certain there are pro-users in the market (especially in the FF line-up) who can understand, appreciate and differentiate really good optical quality.

Anyway thank you guys for sharing about Schneider Kreuznach. I'm in my 20s and i really have no clue about the company's presence

Correct me / educate me if i am mistaken. But the 70~200 f2.8L IS II is the only lens that is decently sharp edge to edge wide open etc.

I'm quite certain, they could fabricate lens at Otus performance. The problem lies in the smallness of potential market. Why waste R&D funds for some niche product. The would also need to incorporate AF, since majority of their customers would dislike omission of it.

There are plenty lenses in Canon lineup "decently sharp" (as you put it yourself) edge to edge. As you mentioned 70-200/2.8 II, there is also 24-70/2.8 II, 100L macro, 135L, TS 17 and TS 24 as well (the latter is actually supersharp).

I'd say another significant issue is how this would reflect on their standard lens lineups, if your introducing an "ultra performance" line of lenses then suddenly L series lenses lose a bit of their luster.

As it is Canon and Nikon's ultra performance lenses tend to be long/fast tele primes that they don't make cheaper versions of anyway.

EOS Bodies / Re: Just for Jrista: 2014 Market Data
« on: September 20, 2014, 10:46:47 AM »
as I was pre-ordering my 7d2 today, (uh-hmmm...  cough..) my LCS guy said pre-orders for the 7d2 vs the d750 were running about 15-to-1.
Holy cow!  much more pent up demand hoping for a large improvement over the old 7d than any craving for a new FF Nik body is my interpretation, especially when there's already 2 good options in the 800 and 600 series that many are likely already satisfied with. 
You could spin that as too many FF nik bodies available.. or, quite possibly, a lot of people wanting a better Canon crop body that they will finally get.

I'm not surprised. If I was a Canon user, I'd be getting the D810, no question. The D750 doesn't come of as bad to me, but I think it's kind of difficult to differentiate it from either the D810 or D610. For what I do and what I'd want a full-frame camera for, the D810 is the much better option. If cost was the bigger concern for me, the D750 kind of seems overpriced, where as the D610 seems very nicely priced.

Also, no question there was pent up demand, after five long years. The 7D was WAY long in the tooth, and ironically there still isn't a D400 to really compete with it or the 7D II. :P

The difference I'd say is that the 7D2 is very much targeting pent up demand, along time has past since the 7D was released and compared to most of the recent high end updates(5D3, D800, etc) its given pretty much exactly what most people seemed to be expecting. Ontop of that you could also argue that the 7D2 is also targeting former 1D users who didn't want to move up to FF, a market that won't have bought a camera for several years.

The D750 is I spose somewhat targeting the D700 market but both the D800/810 and the D600 had already targeted a similar market(the D810 arguably better in some respects) and likely drawn out a lot of potential upgraders. When you consider that the lower priced FF DSLR market has also been heavily targeted in recent years I'm not supprized demand isn't that strong out of the gate but I suspect it will prove to be a good seller long term.

EOS Bodies / Re: 6D Mark-II in response to the D750
« on: September 19, 2014, 01:54:03 PM »
Consider that you can get a 6D from a authorized Dealer for $1440, while a D750 costs $2300, almost $860 more.  I would not want to pay $2300 for a 6D MK II.  I can buy a 5D MK III for near $2300 if I wanted another one.

They are not competitors.  The Nikon D6XX series is the competition.
Unfortunately not everyone lives in the US so that pricing structure does not apply to me.

The launch price in South Africa for a D750 is R30,000 ($2,700 equiv), whereas the 5D-III is R37,000 ($3,360 equiv) and the 6D is R21,000 ($1,850 equiv). The 5D-III is almost 2x more than the 6D so there is a gaping hole  that the D750 fills. There is room for a reasonable Canon offer to undercut the D750 on price or a differently-abled Canon body (better low-light / DPAF) to compete at the same price point.

I am interested in the D750 form factor but hopefully at a lower price.

They don't even reflect the reality of mainstream US pricing, looking at B&H and Adorama the D750 is $2300 at both and the 5D3 is between $3200 and $3400.

PowerShot Cameras / Re: Powershot G7X or E-PL7 + 14-42 Pancake
« on: September 17, 2014, 07:40:56 AM »
I am in need of a new smaller camera. I will only use it with the kit lens.

I wonder, will the image quality of the Olympus E-PL7 be much better than the G7X?

When the G7X has the Sony sensor and size is not a main concern what would you buy?

Or maybe the Sony A5100. But i read the kit lens is very bad.

Please help i donĀ“t know....  :-[

The E-PL7 would likely be better in good light due to the larger sensor, the G7X's faster lens would in theory actually make it the superior low light camera(E-PL7's sensor is just under a stop better but g7X's lens is closer to 2 stops faster) although how the lens performs wide open is of course unknown.

Personally I'd buy a Canon EOS M + 22mm and 18-55mm as by far the best value at the moment.

EOS Bodies / Re: How can we improve on 5D3 to 5D4?
« on: September 16, 2014, 08:34:49 AM »
The fps and AF and most basic body specs of the 7D2 are awesome. So it should be awesome at that core stuff.

But the lack of 4k and a new sensor process is worrisome for the future which is bad since I was always looking more towards the 5D4.

I'm no longer sure if the 5D4 will even be able to match Exmor or have 4k video. Everyone who has spoken with Canon reps is sounding super negative all of a sudden about the chances for even the 5D4 to get 4k video. I find that shocking and hard to believe. But I'm getting told that if I expect 4k on the 5D4 that I'm most likely setting myself up for disappointment as Canon still feels 4k is a super premium feature only fit for the $8000+ class buyer for the foreseeable future. And they don't even see them giving it basic low end features like focusing aids or zebras and such since those are 'ultra premium' features in Canon's mind still, apparently.

Sounds dumb to me, since a 5D3+ML would be better for video than the 5D4 then. The 5D4 would have DPAF and 60fps and that is it. It would take ML some time, if ever, to get RAW out of it and until then it would have worse video  quality and video usability than the hacked 5D3.

And some feel that they may not even have an Exmor like sensor ready even for the 5D4 either.

I've purchased 6 different and 7 total Canon DSLR, but I'm getting a bad feeling it may be time to quit. :(
For the first time I'm really stating giving all sorts of other items from other brands really serious looks.
I can't believe how negative the impressions of where Canon may be going I'm hearing from people who went to the trade shows. They are all saying Canon seems to have lost the plot and afraid they will total drop the ball on the 5D4 (no real sensor improvements other than some more MP and no 4k or anything really interesting for video at all beyond DPAF :( ). Some said Canon told them forget 4k or any video usability features unless the market and users literally force them into it with extreme demand made clear. They insist all that stuff it for high-end people owner and far beyond DSLRs. I hope it was just reps trying to push current stuff and some misinterpreting going on. But even the guy who works for a different Canon division who met some DSLR guys said that was his impression too.

Canon might I spose be keeping 4K for the 1DX update but really I'm not sure I see the logic to that. I'm guessing the 1Dc may have been forced on Canon purely because the 1DX was the only camera able to cope with 4k(cooling?) but I'm not sure I see that body as being an classic all rounder.

They might also have been some way down the line with 5D4 developed by the time 4K started to crop up on lower end bodies but it does also seem to me that Canon reps seemed geared to be negative. Not sure what the logic would be there, perhaps not wanting to build up expectations to give more positivity around release?

Lenses / Re: EF11-24mm F4L listed on a Japanese site
« on: September 16, 2014, 08:24:31 AM »
Good news if true.  I wonder why f/4 if there's no IS?  Just to make it lighter I suppose?

I'm guessing IS may become difficult to add with very wide lenses were aliment becomes very exact, plus I'd argue that with no filter thread it naturally becomes a bit more of a "tripod" lens as landscape users will probably either be merging exposers or using very large filters for more dynamic range.

Admittedly, I'm a little dissapointed about it being only f/4.  DOF isn't an issue at this focal length, but for astrophotography and low-light photos, if it had been the rumored f/2.8, the extra light would have been quite welcome.

Of course, I'm assuming this is real and not a prank.

There have been rumours about such a zoom for awhile but looking at it the front element does look quite close to the Canon 14mm 2.8 so it could be a photoshop merger of that and say the 16-35mm IS.

I wouldn't be supprized if we saw such a lens as an F/4 though and instead an update of the 16-35mm F/2.8, the latter just seems like a more natural range from an F/2.8 lens as well as likely being easier to create.

Lenses / Re: EF11-24mm F4L listed on a Japanese site
« on: September 16, 2014, 07:43:46 AM »
Good news if true.  I wonder why f/4 if there's no IS?  Just to make it lighter I suppose?

I'm guessing IS may become difficult to add with very wide lenses were aliment becomes very exact, plus I'd argue that with no filter thread it naturally becomes a bit more of a "tripod" lens as landscape users will probably either be merging exposers or using very large filters for more dynamic range.

Lenses / Re: EF11-24mm F4L listed on a Japanese site
« on: September 16, 2014, 07:41:24 AM »
The front element is large but the rest of the lens is surprisingly small although I spose it is an F/4 lens, Sigma's 12-24mm isn't that large either but I'd image such a Canon lens would be aiming to beat it optically.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 46