March 05, 2015, 07:28:35 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 ... 47
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.

EOS Bodies / Re: 7DII vs Samsung NX1
« on: September 16, 2014, 06:01:09 AM »
I think if you consider the target market for the NX1, which is clearly the enthusiast stills/video hybrid market, the 7D2 is not even in the game, so making a comparison between the two cameras is pointless.

The real competition for the NX1 is Panasonic's GH4 and Sony's a7s. Canon and Nikon currently have no competitive products in this market segment at all.

That would be my feeling, whilst the FPS might sound impressive but unless the tracking performances and the lens lineup appears I don't see it taking much market from the 7D mk2 in terms of action shooting.

As you say the video size seems the real appeal with a larger sensor than the GH4 and better handling(and arguebley lens specs) than the FE system.

PowerShot Cameras / Re: Canon Powershot G7 X Specs and Image Leaked
« on: September 16, 2014, 04:51:05 AM »
Apparently $700 which is $200 less than RX100 III. I have an RX100 and I just recently tried out a MkIII. I found the finder ok but not something that I'd probably use a ton on a point and shoot anyway (hate EVF's in general). But what is most interesting on this Canon cam with the 20mp Sony sensor (would be super surprised if it's a Canon sensor) is the wide range and fast lens. Wow, it's half the range of the RX10 and less than half the size. If image quality stacks up, which I would expect it will, then it's more appealing to me than any of the Sony's.

Which rather highights my point, rather than as Quest for Light claimed Canon being many years behind Sony it seems like they have a competitive product pretty dam quickly to me.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Most exciting thing at Photokina?
« on: September 16, 2014, 03:49:24 AM »
That I might actually buy probably the Nikon 20mm 1.8, the LX100 maybe as well although probably more something I'd go after cheaper a year from now.

I think it would be hard to say that Samsung is aiming for anything but the hardcore enthusiasts with this camera. Those specs are unparalleled and I don't see any shortcomings, they even have an f2 zoom lens (at the wide end).

Now, if Sigma put out an NX mount for their upcoming 150-600 Sport lens, there would be no question that the NX1 is the best body on the market.

The big issue I'd say will likely to AF performance, if the tracking can't keep up with the FPS then any advantage there is limited, if its no good in low light that some of the advantage of there fast glass is gone.

EOS Bodies / Re: How can we improve on 5D3 to 5D4?
« on: September 16, 2014, 03:37:40 AM »
The big issue I'd guess will be whether any high resolution Canon body is a 5D4 or something new. If its using multi layer sensor tech my guess would be it'll be a new line(3D?) and the 5D line will remain more of an all rounder.

Obvious changes for that 5D4 would seem to be 4K video, a slight resolution/FPS bump and a slightly improved AF system.

If Canon wanted a headline feature to really catch the eye(besides ultra high resolution) my guess would be a hybrid viewfinder that can switch between an OVF and an EVF.

PowerShot Cameras / Re: Canon Powershot G7 X Specs and Image Leaked
« on: September 14, 2014, 08:36:36 AM »
This is what happens when a high tech company stops innovating: it becomes an also ran, a follower, trailing the market instead of leading it. After two years and three generations of RX100s out, is this the best you can come out with as a response? Where is the Canon Corp. that brought to market the AE-1, the EOS system and the eye tracking AF system? And even worse, where is Nikon hiding while all this is happening? They are even worse than Canon here, Nikon's doesn't want to trail, it's not acknowledging the existence of the path at all! Sony is making huge profits out of each silly RX100 they can churn out, while CaNikon have to resort to losing money selling $40 "refurbished" (why don't they call them for what they really are: NOS "New Old Stock") point and shots that costs them $100 a piece to manufacture and market. It's not like they can't innovate any more: witness the huge leaps in sharpness Canon is making with each new lens it's bringing to market and all the tech Nikon is pouring onto the 1 system and the tremendous advances they are making in how they manufacture each camera. All this is well, but why not do some more on the actual cameras' features, which is the actual product that draws people to the brand? CaNikon, please don't sleep this one out. Sony and Samsung have humungus budgets (well at least Samsung) and I'm sure that their ultimate quest, just like Apple's, is for a cell phone that can churn out as good pictures and videos as a FF DSLR. Just give them time and they will completely kill the DSLR. You guys should really start making the best picture taking cell phones and innovate on the cameras, or else Apple, Samsung and Sony will have you for lunch, literally!

I think this is placing far too much importance on being first to market, Canon has only rarely been first to market with fundamentally new tech. EOS was actually a very late entry into the AF market(almost a decade after the first AF compacts and 5+ years after other SLR's) but succeeded by offering a more refined and complete system. Early DSLR devolpment was spearheaded more by Kodak and Fuji than Canon and Nikon.

The idea of a 1 inch sensor compact is probably the most significant innovation over the last 2-3 years in the camera market and this release seems like it will offer specs very similar to Sony's releases. I'm guessing Nikon will have there own version out within a few months as well.

I would actually argue that besides competition from phones a lot of the reason why the compact market was in trouble was because competition had driven prices for basic compacts so low that profit margins were limited even if sales were high. You look back 15 years and pretty basic compacts by todays standards were selling for $400+.

The big mistake that I think was made in the compact market that left it open to phones was IMHO sticking to relatively small sensors for too long, even high end compacts were stuck with 1/1.7' sensors for god knows how many years. Sticking with smaller sensors did mean that zoom ranges could increase but I'd argue that for the majority a 24-100mmish range is really all they need. Increasing sensor size sooner would have gotten more people used to higher quality phones would struggle to equal.

The future is I'd guess a move towards larger sensored more expensive compacts but I think its now much more of an uphill struggle as your having to user users back.

I don't really think so. Everyone carries a phone with them at all times. So, the convenience of having a phone that takes pictures was just too great for camera manufacturers to compete with.

The small sensors of compacts are frankly quite impressive, so I don't think most people using a phone as a camera would have changed their habits for a larger sensor (and a larger body) camera.

Finally, the nail in the coffin has been social media and wifi. Camera manufacturers were slow to adapt to the realities of wireless posting and still don't have the most intuitive designs. The slow adoption of touchscreen and the difficulty of typing on a camera haven't helped either.

Neuro might make fun of the Facebook button on the Canon, but frankly that's what a lot of people want and expect -- the ability to upload an image to their Facebook page with a single button.

All manufacturers, including Canon, have been embarrassingly slow in adapting to the new realities. People whine about esoteric issues like dynamic range, but here we are in 2014 and it sounds like the 7DII won't even have an integrated touch screen and wifi, much less an interface that allows users to access Photoshop's new Ipad app from their cameras, do some quick edits and post pictures straight from the camera.

I'd agree that a lot of the market loss to phones was inevitable but I think that loss was made worse by sticking to smaller sensors for so long. Greater connectivity maybe a plus but is still always going to be playing catchup to phones, larger sensors earlier could have gotten people used to greater quality.

Your talking vastly different markets between than powershot at the 7D mk2, I don't think connectivity is a massive issue with the latter.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 47