September 02, 2014, 08:20:38 AM

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 6 ... 41
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS
« on: April 21, 2014, 07:36:49 AM »
One thing to consider I spose is that the high res body is still rumoured to be on the horizon.

If we do ever see a 50ish MP FF camera then that's likely going to mean theres a market for some very high performance lenses, even the current 24-70mm might I'd guess fall short of the needs of some.

So perhaps the current 24-70mm 2.8 looking to target users who want the lower weight and perhaps a 24-70mm f/2.8 IS looking to target those who want performance for studio/landscape shooting even if it means a larger lens. If your shooting primes for stopped down sharpness rather than ultra large apertures then even a 24-70mm that weighs well over 1kg saves you a significant amount of weight.

With more and more info on the new Sigma 50 Art available, I´d say that Canon, Nikon and Zeiss really need to check up on their lens strategies. If Sigma delivers the same optical quality on more lenses and fix their bad (and deserved) AF reputation ...  ::)

I'd say Zeiss is likely hurting the most from the new Sigma 50mm, they've just released a very similar lens targeting wide open sharpness where as Canon and Nikon's lenses are either a lot smaller/cheaper or target other kinds of performance.

I'm not sure I see a massive market for a Zeiss 85mm 1.4 otus either personally given than Canon and Nikon's existing cast 85mm's both perform very well optically, far better than their 50mm lenses.

If theres a gap in the market right now I'd say its more for something like a 24mm 1.4 with excellent boarder performance for example.

EOS-M / Re: Canon EOS M3 in Q3 of 2014?
« on: April 18, 2014, 12:36:41 PM »
Looks like Canon is pasting feathers on a turkey hoping it will fly.  They ought to lay off the whole group that
worked on this - and then fire the management team that approved it.

I guess you missed the point that the EOS M was the second best-selling MILC in Japan (which alone accounts for >25% of the MILC market) last year, beating out all models by Fuji, Olympus, and Panasonic, and behind Sony's best-selling model by only a narrow margin.

But you didn't like it, so it was a failure.  ::)

..and I'd argue it was the Japanese(and Asian) market than the M system so far was really designed for. That market seems more akin to DSLR sales in the west with lower end bodies(accept these lower end bodies lack viewfinders) making up most of the sales. The smaller mirrorless markets in the west seem based more around high end bodies with viewfinders.

To me the real strength of the Canon M system so far looks to be its focus on getting core lenses "right". Even moreso than with ASPC DSLR's I think its a core of maybe half a dozen lenses that a system really depends on for 95% of its sales. The kit lens especially becomes important since for many more advanced zooms aren't just too expensive but too large yet Sony seems to have delibaretly underdesigned there kit lenses to force upgrades whilst Canon's is far superior optically. Add in the cheap and excellent 22mm f/2 and a reasonabley cheap(cheaper than any alternative) 11-22mm IS that's also optically excellent and I think you already have a strong core, add in a slow tele zoom and a macro and I think you have most users needs covered.

Get the 70D sensor/AF will obviously help the system a lot but I think that if they do release a viewfinder body they shouldn't aim too high. Something a bit larger with a viewfinder and a few more controls but that can when the launch price cools down play into the good value of the lens system.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Pentax 645z
« on: April 17, 2014, 08:07:26 AM »
I take your point, a bit, but the cost of re-engineering everything would have moved this well out if the $8,500 realm. The Canon 1Ds back in 2002 cost $8,000, a new 1DX is over $6,000.

Anyway here are few numbers for the number crunchers.

Pentax 645Z - 6.1 x 4.6 x 4.8" / 15.5 x 11.7 x 12.2 cm  $8,500
Hasselblad H5D - 6.02 x 5.16 x 8.07" (15.3 x 13.1 x 20.5 cm) $13-44,000
Leica S - 6.3 x 3.1 x 4.7" / (16.0 x 8.0 x 12.0 cm) $22,000
Mamiya RZ22/33 - 6.5 x 6.1 x 5.2" (16.5 x 15.5 x 13.2 cm) $11-18,000

The issue is I'd guess not the cost of the camera as I can't see why using a smaller flange distance that better matched the smaller mirror needed for a 44x33mm sensor would increase costs greatly but rather lens cost/support.

You can see that not only aren't there many new lens options(25mm, 55mm, 90mm macro) the cost of them is more inline with other modern high end lenses, Its only the only cheaper film 645 lenses that would allow the Pentax 645 system to be a budget option.

Still I think a better route could have been to go with a smaller flange distance and just offer a converter for the larger lenses. For the rich amature market especially I think the Pentax's massive block form factor doesn't really sell itself well.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Pentax 645z
« on: April 16, 2014, 01:29:35 AM »
It's unfortunate that the sensor size isn't even twice that of full frame, I have to wonder what it is that makes the body so much bigger when the sensor is only 10mm taller?
What's the buffer depth in RAW?

I guess it's a nice product for what it is, but I still don't see it being 3x better than a 5D3/D800.

You clearly don't have the faintest idea what you are talking about.,152,312

As has been mentioned look at the overhead view, a massive difference in terms of depth between the cameras.

The reason the 645D is so much deeper than FF dispite the sensor not being THAT much larger is I'd say because its having to deal with the legacy flange distance of the old "full frame" 645 system than a whoping 70mm.

Compare the 645D's depth to the Leica S2...,391

The formers sensor might be a little taller but that's a pretty massive difference which I'd guess is down to Leica having a purpose made mount with a much smaller flange distance.

EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: EF-M 22-46mm f/3.5-5.6
« on: April 14, 2014, 06:59:34 AM »
Canon is making a big mistake since they seem to think that mirrorless systems are of far less importance.  IMO they clearly are the future, well the present actually, and they will shortly sell more than DSLRs.  That's already true in Korea in fact.  I find that position surprising from Canon.

I think the big issue is gauging in what areas mirrorless is a threat to there existing business.

Personally I don't see FF mirrorless as a threat to EF mount in the short to mid term and maybe not even the long term. Besides the issues of lens balance, battery life and the level of manual controls FF users tend to want I think were also seeing with the Sony FE system that ultra small flange distances aren't a good idea for larger sensors.

ASPC is IMHO going to be the key battleground as I think the size saving potential is greater and the demand for smaller bodies is higher. Even there though I would say that I think part of the reason why higher end m43 and Fuji products have found a market is because Canon and Nikon haven't really gone after that market. I'm guessing they've booth been trying to funnel higher end sales to FF(or ASPC users shooting FF tele's) but I don't see any reason we couldn't see a smaller ASPC body with better build and more advanced controls(Nikon have fitted a high level AF sensor into there D5xxx bodies now) plus release some EF-S primes.

I suspect the really key areas will be firstly in the far east the really small ASPC/m43 mirrorless bodies that compact/phone upgraders might buy and in the west more the mid level ASPC/m43 mirrorless that might target the same market as entry level ASPC DSLR's. Again for me I think you could argue that Canon have started to lay a good framework for ASPC mirrorless with its lens lineup, its tiny compared to there rivals but it seems to be targeted more to your standard users.

Sony's Achilles heel for me has always been the way they treat users, under designing kit lenses to push people to buy overpriced upgrades is not the way to get long term customer confidence.

EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: EF-M 22-46mm f/3.5-5.6
« on: April 14, 2014, 03:29:59 AM »
Almost certainly some kind of collapsible pancake but those specs seem pretty limited even for that, perhaps an ultra small lens or maybe just a test of the tech?

Not really sure why this would point towards a US release as it seems well suited for the existing very small bodies that sell better in the far east. Ultimately the US mirrorless market is pretty tiny compared to Japan and elsewhere so I'm not seeing that any money spent on it means Canon will return.

My guess would be when/if Canon relaunch the M system it the US it'll be with a higher end body with a viewfinder. I think its pretty clear that what profit there is to be made from mirrorless in the US mainly comes from higher end bodies, look at the amazon mirrorless sales charts and there right up the top.

Personally I think Canon would be well served by a good but not too premium mirrorless body, use the 70D sensor, add an EVF, a small grip and a few more controls without it costing the earth and I think there lens lineup with put them in a strong position. Other systems might have more depth but for core lenses that are optically strong but still affordable the EOS M system seems to have an advantage to me, add in a short macro and a tele zoom of a similar standard and I think you'd got it covered for many people.

EOS Bodies / Re: DP Review's 10 most popular camera list
« on: April 11, 2014, 08:12:05 AM »
Ultimately chasing the techno/gadget geek dollar is IMHO not a very profitable market, generally new features are demanded and your product will only have a short lifespan when its "hot" before the next release steals its thunder.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS sensors, and technology
« on: April 10, 2014, 03:57:28 PM »
Whilst removing an AA filter(depending obviously on how strong that filter was) can aid sharpness a little(with certain trade offs) I think the lack of one became a bit of an easy way for people to explain the superior performance of MF digital.

Just pointing to a lack of an AA filter as some kind of magic bullet(especially when all mainstream 35mm and smaller sensors had one) was a lot easier than going into the indepth reasons of why a larger format will generally offer better performance even if the number of MP's on the sensor are similar, most obviously that lenses won't be pushed anywhere near as hard.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Fuji Full Frame X-PRO2 coming 2015
« on: April 09, 2014, 02:14:48 PM »
Wont happen. Fuji barely built up its X lens lineup, so they wont start a new one that soon. I was told by a Fuji rep. that they barely break even with the Xpro line right now, and that FF Xtrans sensors cost nearly the same as the whole rest of the camera. An X200 with larger sensor is much more possible.

That why I sold my x100s and went with A7r, FF sensor. Fuji came out great crop body size, about same size as 4/3 sensor . And now, Sony came out A7 series. The camera body size is about same as Fuji x1.6 crop & OM-D E-M5 4/3. To survice, Fuji needs to respond ASAP. Mirrorless market is not that big - at least not yet.   

To me, the #1 reason people going for mirrorless is size and weight. Mirrorless system doesn't need a complete lens system as DSLR - UWA, 35 to 85mm and macro - done. No need 24-70 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8, 300mm, 400mm etc...

That becomes a question of how large a market there actually is for such a system I'd say, FF is already a minority market but I think high performance zooms make up much more of that market than on ASPC, plus of course even primes can get pretty large.

The potential weakness I see with the Sony FE system is that  there looking to create the kind of system that likely needs DSLR like sales to turn a profit yet performance wise in many respects its clearly behind FF. The FF market generally is much less forgiving of weaknesses IMHO, generally people need a reason to move beyond ASPC and to get them to do so you need to exploit the advantages of the larger format well.

If Fuji do release a FF sensor camera I do think it would make sense to target it even more tightly than the ASPC X-series. A FF X200 still seems the most likely to be as that would cost a good deal less than a whole system, plus having a fixed lens on FF seems to help with size saving a lot(just look at the RX1 lens size/performace vs the 35mm 2.8 FE lens). Other than that I do think a handful of high quality primes would be the way to go, something like a 50mm f/1.4, 35mm f/2, 24mm f/2, 85mm f/1.8

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art Gets Reviewed
« on: April 07, 2014, 01:00:58 PM »
The problem with a long Samyang macro would I'd say be that your getting into inspect shooting range there where many people use AF for rapid respose rather than MF for your standard flow/fungi macro.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art Gets Reviewed
« on: April 07, 2014, 12:47:57 PM »
Love how Sigma is pushing it. Next up must be a 85mm and then maybe a 24-70 2.8?

Rumor has it that it is a  24-70 f2 in the pipeline.

That would be a rather different market to the art line up so far I'd say, they might not be small but they are small/cheap enough for the average user where as a 24-70mm f/2 would be a beast of a lens. If they do release an F/2 zoom maybe it'll follow the 18-35mm F/1.8 and have a more limited range, something like 35-70mm or 28-55mm f/2.

I don't see as much need for an 85mm Art in the short term personally as not only is Sigma's existing 85mm 1.4 an excellent lens but so are Canon and Nijkon's various 85mm's, especially the Nikon 85mm 1.8 G for the price.

My guess would be a 24mm 1.4 maybe next for Sigma, again theres a lot of room there to undercut Canon and Nikon significantly plus there own 24mm 1.8 isn't a great performer besides its closeup ability.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: New Curved Sensor Tech by Sony
« on: April 04, 2014, 11:51:38 AM »
Time for a digital widelux? ;)

EOS Bodies / Re: New Full Frame Camera in 2014? [CR1]
« on: March 26, 2014, 09:13:21 PM »
I think the A7r really shows again that resolution sells best when its relatively cheap, the same with the D800 and the 5D2 before it. The biggest part of the market here is I'd say amateur landscape shooters but even pro's potentially moving from MF are often doing so due to price.

In Sony's case I think you can argue that the price for the whole system isn't actually that low given that the lenses seem rather overpriced(especially the 35mm F/2.8 which seems like it should be a £200 lens not a £750 one) but if your adapting Canon that's obviously not an issue.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 41