July 29, 2014, 01:54:16 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 ... 31 32 [33] 34 35 ... 39
481
EOS Bodies / Re: Cinema EOS Development Opinion
« on: November 07, 2011, 02:00:09 AM »
Once you don't need a mirror to provide an OVF and PDAF, why compromise your lens designs (particularly wide angle) to accomodate it?

I'v often heard this but really where has mirrorless shown advantages in cost, performance or size so far? The NEX lenses really don't seem to offer any of them over a relgular crop sensor. Nothing I'v seen so far really hints to me that a mirrorless system that offered the same functionality(IQ, lens linup, controls etc) as current DSLR systems would be a signifcant advanatge.

My guess would be that the mirrorless market will end up running alongside DSLR's, smaller sensor bodies offering DSLR functionality but lesser IQ and AF as they do now and larger sensor ones focusing on pancake primes that offer a much smaller system.

I'd guess Canon's seeming lack of action could well be down to putting extra devolpment time into a system to get it right aswell. Nikon and Pentax's systems just seem like rushed jobs to me and I don't see either of them having much sucess, to do that I think Canon either needs to come up with a large sensor mirrorless with a good range of small primes at launch or a smaller sensor one thats much cheaper than Nikon's effort.

482
EOS Bodies / Re: Photo gear insurance?
« on: November 06, 2011, 01:46:13 PM »
Personally I found that my pre existing(UK) home insurance covered me for £2000 worth of photographic equipment.

483
Lenses / Re: Will it be a EF 14-24 2,8 L is from Canon
« on: November 04, 2011, 07:17:56 AM »
Agreed.  With a normal or tele zoom lens, f/2.8 is useful both for the additional light (compared to other zooms), and for the additional OOF blur for subject isolation.  With a UWA zoom, f/2.8 is really only useful for the additional light.  You're right about the museum shot, and if I'd had my tripod along for the walk, I'd have used it (and an ISO lower than 3200!).  But also for indoor shots with people, the extra stop compared to f/4 helps for subject motion, a problem that a tripod and a long exposure would not solve.   One other minor point is that all lenses benefit in IQ to some degree by stopping down, and the 'sweet spot' isn't usually a fixed aperture, but rather a given number of stops down from wide open.  So, a wider starting point means more light and possibly less diffraction effect when you hit the sweet spot.  For example, the 16-35/2.8 II hits its sweet spot at f/4-f/5.6, while the 17-40/4 hits its sweet spot (such as it is) at f/5.6-f/8 (and f/8 on 18 MP APS-C is pushing into diffraction territory.

The bulb UWA's don't seem to need to be stopped down as much as the regular ones though so I wouldnt say its pushing it to beleive Canon could produce good results wide open at F/4.

As I said the market as it stands just seems better suited to the 12-24 f/4 to me. f/2.8 is already catered for by two relatively recent lenses where as f/4 is only catered to by the cheaper and not as wide 17-40 which overlaps alot with the 24-105.

484
EOS Bodies / Re: Rumors roundup by Jarred Abrams concerning Nov 3rd
« on: November 03, 2011, 02:59:25 PM »
I think brand switching must be rare, so I don't think they take that into account. The cost of my lenses by far outweigh the cost of my camera bodies. Selling all lenses and buying the corresponding Nikon lenses would cost quite a lot. Those camera manufacturers are good at looking in people, evil as they are :-). It would require several years of radically poor camera bodies from Canon and very much better from Nikon to get me to switch.

I also look at lenses when choosing brand (I think body importance is somewhat overrated in relation to lenses, at least for us still life photographers), and for my interests Canon has a better lineup. The TS-E 24mm II and 70-200/2.8 II are two of my favourites, and Nikon's versions are fine but not quite as good. The quality of the version III teleconverters are also impressing. Canon has a 17mm TS-E, which Nikon does not have at all.

And by the way I just got a 5Dmk2 so for me personally the 5Dmk3 could come late 2012 :-).

I'd say it depends on the users, someone with several thousand pounds worth of Canon lenses is I agree unlikely to switch however someone with say just a 24-105 and a 50 1.4 isnt going to lose much having to sell them off.

485
Lenses / Re: New Lenses Imminent? [CR1]
« on: November 03, 2011, 02:00:50 PM »
28 1.4 usm or 30 1.4 usm below 500 euros would be nice.
for me it could be ef-s, I do not mind.

If either of those happened I'd guess they'd have to be EF-S to avoid killing the sales of the L lenses.

If Canon did make them EF-S though I doubt they'd stick with those focal lenghts, they'd probabley go with something like 22mm and 31mm to get the crop equivilents of 35mm and 50mm.

486
Lenses / Re: Will it be a EF 14-24 2,8 L is from Canon
« on: November 03, 2011, 05:27:58 AM »
I wouldnt say that 2.8 has no use in UWA just that its use seems much diminished to me compaired to a normal or tele zoom. Tha Muesum shot for example while useful to be able to take on the fly would IMHO have been better with a tripod and a long exposure.

As Jettatore says the relatively recently released 14mm 2.8 is there aswell and I could see Canon taking the view that those who really need the large appature will pay for it with that and the 16-35mm.

A smaller, cheaper(£800-900ish?) and wider 12-24 f/4 zoom just seems like it would have a much larger appeal without making anything in the current linup obsolete.

487
Lenses / Re: New Lenses Imminent? [CR1]
« on: November 03, 2011, 04:06:03 AM »
I wouldnt be supprized if the 35mm f/2 actually goes the same way as the 50mm 1.8, cheaper build and a cheaper price.

It does afterall make for a good normal lens on a crop and if Canon can knock say a third off the price then that offers them an easy way to compete with Nikon's 35mm 1.8 without having to go though a costly total redesign.

Another option could I spose be that these lenses are the rumoured ones with an amature dial on them designed for the video market.

488
Lenses / Re: Will it be a EF 14-24 2,8 L is from Canon
« on: November 02, 2011, 02:36:40 AM »
UWA's do seem more likely to run into weight problems to me if only because they tend to be used more for landscapes with the possibility of lenghty difficult walks.

I would ask aswell what exactually do people use 2.8 on an UWA for? isolating the subject doesnt really seem like something best suited to UWA and while DOF maybe deeper your also going to have alot of close foreground. Personally I find even with the extra DOF I tend to stop down more with UWA zooms than I do with normal zooms for that reason.

You look at the rest of Canon's range and I think what stands out over Nikon is that they offer quality f/4 zooms like the 24-105 and 70-200's.

489
EOS Bodies / Re: Rumors roundup by Jarred Abrams concerning Nov 3rd
« on: November 02, 2011, 02:16:05 AM »
I doubt we'll see the 5D Mark III tomorrow or up until February.  The focus is on the 1D X at the moment, they can't take that away.

Personally I don't think the 1DX needs "focus" all that much to be sucessful, its going to sell to pro's and highly advanced amatures who don't need hype to get them to buy something. Hype really only increases in importance when you start to get down to lower price/spec bodies IMHO where it can sway a more general consumer market.

That said I'm not sure I see the business sense of annoucing a 5D mk3 now unless it will ship within a week or two. The 1DX made sense for early annoucements to allow pro's/companies to budget for it but annoucing a 5D mk3 that doesnt ship until 2012 would surely hurt 5D mk2 christmas sales?

My guess is that alot of the uncertainy about the 5D mk3 is based on Canon reacting to Nikon's potentially D800. An early annoucement to keep 5D users from switching brands would make more sense then.

490
Lenses / Re: Will it be a EF 14-24 2,8 L is from Canon
« on: November 01, 2011, 01:40:15 AM »
But also, what I do know is that using a CPL on 15mm on APS-C (24mm on FF), you really can notice the blue banding in the sky. Using a CPL on 12mm on FF would make a very very uneven sky...

With an UWA I find the main use for a polarizer is taking reflections off of the foreground with little or no sky in the frame.

If they could come up with a drop in system I spose theres no reason they couldnt create grads aswell, they'd be fixed but still useful in many situations.

Really going into fantasy land perhaps some kind of built in shifting grad system you could shift up and down in the barrel? I'm actually supprized that no manifacturer has tried that in a compact body yet ala the built in ND's and marketed it as a "landscape master". ;)

491
Lenses / Re: Will it be a EF 14-24 2,8 L is from Canon
« on: October 31, 2011, 03:42:56 AM »
I love my 16-35 f2.8 II i almost never use it wide open though I typically shoot f8 to f11 with it anyway and it is razor sharp bright clear colours all over even on ff. awesome lens IMO

To me a 12-24 f/4 with better sharpness would have much more appeal than an 14-24 2.8. Yes 2.8 on an UWA does have its uses but they seem much more limated to me than on normal or tele lenses and not worth the extra cost, weight and potentially flare. An f/4 lens also seems like it would balance the market better for Canon, the 17-40 as the cheap UWA, the 16-35 2.8 and 14 2.8 as the fast ones and the 12-24 as the widest.

I wonder whethert we'll see Pentax's idea of drop in lens barrel filters from the 25mm 645 feature in any more "bulb" UWA's? obviously it won't give quite the versatility of a filter system but would cut down on the fuss greatly for shots where you only need an ND or a polarizer. Is a zoom lens just going to be too complex for something like that?

492
EOS Bodies / Re: what the 1Dx may tell us about the 5Diii
« on: October 29, 2011, 09:09:28 AM »
The full frame camera market is in an interesting state of flux at the moment.  As I see it, Canon have five options for the 5D MkII replacement:

1) Keep the major specifications the same as the 5D MkII and use the 18MP unit from the 1D X.
I’m not sure that you could sell such a camera on the basis of better high ISO performance alone; thus Canon would have to reduce the price.   This could work if:
a)   they can realise production synergies with the 1D X and other models to reduce the cost of making the camera (thus maintaining their profit margin)
Or
b)   they can realise a price point where they can sell enough extra units to compensate for the lower profit margin. 

2) Improve the major specifications over the 5D MkII and use the 18MP unit from the 1D X.  Differentiate from the 1D X based upon frame rate/buffer size, body size and viewfinder (+ probably a few other ‘pro’ orientated features such as Ethernet). 
i.e. the D700 strategy.  There are two dangers here:
i) Cannibalising 1D X sales in the same way that the D700 did to sales of the D3. 
ii) Alienating the section of the market of 5D MkII buyers who value resolution over build quality, AF and shooting speed. 

3) Take the 5D MkII and put a newly developed (for example) 36MP sensor in it. 
Problem: Nikon takes a D700 and puts a  36MP sensor in it; Sony builds a 36MP A9X based on their A77’s features: the 5D MkIII looks like the poor relation. 

4) Create a (for example) 36MP small body camera with improved AF, build quality and reasonable (4-6fps) shooting speed but keep the price near that of the 5D MkII. 
Problems:
a)   You’ve basically just built a 1D Xs and are only charging 5d MkII money for it!
b)   â€œI’ve just bought a 1D X and now I feel ripped off”


5) Create a 36-40MP body and improve some of the specifications over the 5D MkII, compromising others. 
Problems:
a)   It may be OK against the Sony, but might still look weak against the Nikon (so the price must be lower than the latter?). 
b)   People would always be speculating that the 1D Xs is on the way. 

If this looks like an awkward situation for Canon, bear in mind that Nikon are in the same boat.  In some ways it may be worse for them, as there would be uproar if they dropped any of the major specifications of the D700 for the D800. 

Sony’s strategy will only work if they can persuade full frame users of the benefits of the SLT concept and there’s not much evidence so far that they’ve persuaded the APS-C market yet.  Otherwise, they risk simply being the third choice brand all over again.

The real problem I see Canon having is that compaired to the 5D mk2 the market seems to have extended both upwards and downwards, with no 1Ds you have high end users after more megapixels and with the lower prices of the mk2 being so popular you now have a much larger cheaper market.

Balancing both of those with a single body seems like its going to be very difficult which makes me think there might be something to the rumours of a spilt in the 5D line. If they can produce a cost effective $2000ish FF body then the specs of the D800 become much less relivant at double the price. Then a high megapixel body could be targeted much more closely at its users likely needs, MP, Viewfinder and Buiid over FPS, high ISO and AF.

493
EOS Bodies / Re: 5Diii vs 7Dii (FF vs APS-C)
« on: October 29, 2011, 01:51:17 AM »
Partially agree. I too like the idea of keeping the next 7D at or about the same megapixels and focusing on improved image quality. In fact, I think that may be an excellent way to differentiate the 7D from the 60D and Rebels (they get the high density sensors and the 7D keeps the same megapixels, but with improved IQ -- very similar to what people expect with 1DX and 5DIII.

Interesting idea although as I said I'd say that for most xxxD and xxD users ISO is probabley more important than megapixels past 18. Few of these users are going to be making prints large enough to really see a difference in 21-24 MP and many of them arent going to be doing any post processing clearly up noise.

If theres a clear divergence between Canon and the rest of the field using Sony sensors then ISO performance could well become a larger issue for the more casual market.

Quote
I disagree though, that it would put the 7D in competition with the 1DX. Rather, I see them as being complementary. Buy the 1DX for full-on full-frame, tank-like durability and highest quality images, buy the 7D to add extra reach when you need it.

Instead, I wonder if it would cause the 7D to erode 5D sales, especially if the 5D goes up to 30+ megapixels. 

Don't know. Just speculating.

I doubt Canon would worry too much about the 7D eroading 5D sales though since both bodies are in a similar price bracket, personally I wouldnt be supprized if the 7D and xxD lines were pushed up market a little this time round aswell.

494
Lenses / Re: Realistic wish lens
« on: October 29, 2011, 01:29:07 AM »
A normal zoom that goes wider than 24mm would be useful as a walkaround landscale lens, something like say a 20-70 f/4 IS.  Personally I find that longer tele and more extreme UWA are things I stop and take my time with so a lens change is less of an incovenience but pushing into the upper end of UWA is something I do quite often when taking quick shots.

Maybe the start of a linked up system of landscape lenses? 12-20 f/4, 20-70 f/4 IS, 70-200 f/4 IS

495
EOS Bodies / Re: 5Diii vs 7Dii (FF vs APS-C)
« on: October 28, 2011, 08:00:41 AM »
Same for the 7DII - no one's talking much about that one, but it will probably not improve too much on the 7D.  My guess would be more MP (21-24), maybe the articulating display, same basic AF, Digic V (likely x2), new metering sensor (which will contribute to AF, so that will be the AF improvement), and that's likely it. 

Instead, let's compare real cameras - 5DII to 7D.  I think Fleetie summed up the main advantages and disadvantages.  For me, the 1.3-stop better ISO noise performance is the key - on the 7D, ISO 1600 is barely tolerable, on the 5DII, ISO 3200 is decent.

To me the move that would make the most sense is keeping the 7D mk2 at 18 megapixels and focusing on ISO while the 5D mk3 pushes megapixels.

Yes it would mean Canon would give ground to Sony and Nikon on MP in the crop market but ISO performance seems to the suit the 7D much better than pure resolution(indeed the crop market generally). It also sends a clear(and honiest) message "if you want high megapixels in good quality move to FF" thus potentially encouraging more crop users to upgrade.

Plus of course a high megapixel 5D mk3 will likely have inferior ISO and FPS performance compaired to the 1DX those cutting down the risk of losing sales on the latter. It would put the 7D somewhat into competision with the 1DX but I don't see that being as dangerous as having two FF bodies with specs that overlap.

Pages: 1 ... 31 32 [33] 34 35 ... 39