August 29, 2014, 04:29:52 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 ... 41
What mirrorless may become and what it is today are two very different propositions, today I think its clear that most users who want multiple speicalist lenses still preffer DSLR's. As I said my feeling is that alot of its sucess is based on the lack of larger sensor fixed lens alternatives.

You could argue that Canon would be better served by "getting on the horse" but equally I think you could argue that by holding off there giving themselves more flexibility. Much of the tech for an interchangeble lens system can be tested and perfected on a fixed lens system afterall and it means Canon isnt tied to a certain sensor size/lens mount long term in what is still a fast changing market.

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III Sooner Than Later [CR2]
« on: December 27, 2011, 09:07:41 PM »
A similar problem happened to the 1Ds3.  When the 5D2 came out the extras provided by the 1Ds3 weren't really worth it for many photographers.

The problem the 1Ds mk3 had though is that alot of its potential market was studio/landscape users and to them its advanatges in AF and FPS over the 5D mk2 werent really very relivant. The 1DX on the other hand  seems that dispite the hype its marketed much more towards the 1D userbase so while a say 1DX sensor, 7D level AF, 6 FPS 5D mk3 might be an alternative it would be one with alot more disadvanatges.

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III Sooner Than Later [CR2]
« on: December 27, 2011, 02:22:37 PM »
Any other major events due to happen some time after May next year?

Euro 2012

To me that says that the real drive in the growth of the mirrorless market isnt so much based on users who want speicalists lenses but rather those who want superior IQ to that offer on compacts.
... as well as those who don't need the OVF, mirror, PDAF and extra price for these things they never use.
Not making it an interchangeable lens camera would be a big mistake.

My point is that I think the hype and the reality of the mirrorless market maybe very different. The hype is that mirrorless is replacing the DSLR but I suspect the reality is more than its created a market of its own between DSLR's and compacts. Users who don't nesserally want speicalists lenses but do want the extra image quality/ISO performance of a larger sensor.

A "super G series" could potentially offer those users the image quality they want and the single lens they want with greater range/appature than an interchangeble system in a smaller package.

Canon should find ways to get FAST AF (like Nikon V1 ) build an APS-C sensor compact mirrorless with just 2 or 3 small basic lenses and a EF/EF-S adapter. This will get Canon on the map of mirrorless.

They could but its a very crowded market where as like I said I see larger sensor fixed lens mirrorless as a fertile and as yet largely untapped market.

Personally I'm supprized it took so long for any of the big guns to move beyond the typical 1/1.7″ sensor thats been in high end compacts/bridges for years considering how intense conmpetision has been. Not only does it potentially offer what I believe the majority of users are after in a smaller/cheaper package but ties the manifacturer down far less than an interchangeble lens system does.

One observation I'd make for the fixed/interchangble lens arguement for mirrorless is the relative body and lens sales of these system. The various m43 systems, The NEX's etc bodies are selling pretty well, not aswell as DSLR's but there  in the same ballpark but the same isnt true for lenses at all where Canon, Nikon and to a lesser degree Sony's conventional SLR lenses still dominate.

To me that says that the real drive in the growth of the mirrorless market isnt so much based on users who want speicalists lenses but rather those who want superior IQ to that offer on compacts.

EOS Bodies / Re: What if - interchengeable sensors
« on: December 20, 2011, 03:18:53 PM »
Except that Ricoh has introduced a Leica M-mount module that does not include a lens.

The difference though is that the GXR is a mirrorless system so the OVF/mirror does not need to be replicated in each module. With a DSLR the tradisional MF modular backs seem to make alot more sense although I think the form factor could definately be improved.

If Canon did come out with some kind of high end mirrorless system the GXR M mount route(that is a modular sensor and lens mount rather than M mount specifically) could make sense I spose since I'd guess replicating the lens mount is cheaper than replicating the rear controls and LCD although it does mean you loose the ability to change either.

EOS Bodies / Re: Hoping for a Entry level FF
« on: December 12, 2011, 08:15:03 AM »
The continued sucess of the 5D mk2 at a lower price point does certainly seem to hint that there a significant market for an entry level FF body, Indeed I could see this being the most important battleground of this generation considering that the D3s and 5D mk2 have hilighted the direction both companies are likely to go with similar models this time around.

As far as the 7D goes I wouldnt be supprized to see it move up in the market this time round giving it more distance from the 70D aswell as appealing more to ASPH users.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS Rebel T4i [CR2]
« on: December 09, 2011, 06:24:20 AM »
To be fair the Sony sensor is just one example and represented a larger jump in resolution over a shorter time period than Canon moving to 24 MP would.

EOS Bodies / Re: A Bit About the 5D Mark III? [CR1]
« on: December 07, 2011, 01:43:58 AM »
One thing to consider is that the 7D mk2 could potentially move up in the market, if its AF and FPS are advanced further then that leaves room for a 5D mk3 to improve those areas without stepping on its toes.

Really though the market for me seems to be more suited to 2 5D sized cameras than one...

Cheaper body - $2500 - 1DX sensor, 6 FPS, slightly improved AF.

More expensive Body - $4000 - 30+ MP sensor, 3 FPS, slightly improved AF, 100% viewfinder, pro level build.

Lenses / Re: Extention tube ?'s
« on: December 05, 2011, 02:02:31 PM »
One more expensive alternative I'd heard mention is using the Canon lifesize converter for the old 50mm 2.5 macro. While it was marketed exclusively for use with that lens I'v seen comments that it will work with any EF(not EF-S) lens such as the 100mm IS L macro. Seems like its a mix of extension tube and teleconverter optimised for macro.

EOS Bodies / Re: An approach towards Medium Format (MF).
« on: December 04, 2011, 01:27:58 AM »
One thing to keep in mind is the cost of producing larger sensors.  FF costs about 20X the cost of APS C (According to Canon).  Creating a larger sensor may multiply that figure yet again, depending on how many you can get on a wafer, the yield (larger sensors have lower yields), and the number of passes and masking necessary for the lithography equipment.

This means higher cost sensors, most likely new lenses required, it can really snowball.  The number of people willing to lay out big bucks for a MF camera is limited, and low production only raises the cost.

Canon has made their mark by mass producing cameras that may not be the very best, but are less costly to manufacture and can sell in large volumes for a lower price than say Nikon.

I'd say that Canon's recent sucess could be characterised more by clearly differentiating the comsumer and pro markets. They have afterall had alot of sucess with sports/jurno/wildlife users and tele lenses who'se price is in the same ballpark as medium format and are now trying the same approach in the video market.

If it was possible to greatly undercut the existing MF market I could see them doing so but I'd say there current business model would point towards offering superior performance and functionally then charging a prenium for it.

EOS Bodies / Re: Noise: shrinking High-MP vs Native Low-MP
« on: December 04, 2011, 12:27:21 AM »
That seems to suggest Native > Downrezed to me, the NEX 7 is clearly inferior at ISO 800 and above.
Why would it suggest that?  As the article states, when you downsample (in this case, I think you would call it "normalizing") a larger image it tends to help average out noise.  I think it's just the case that the the higher MP camera came with a much larger tradeoff in the amount of noise in the signal, evidenced by the failure of downsampling to even it out.  Some evidence for the "high MP cameras are too noisy" crowd, maybe.

One example isnt everything I agree but its one of the clearest I'v seen and thats with the NEX 7 sensor being 18 months newer than the NEX 5. You could argue its a case of Sony pushing too far too fast but then again 36-40 MP on FF would be pushing along way on from 21-24 we have now aswell.

EOS Bodies / Re: An approach towards Medium Format (MF).
« on: December 04, 2011, 12:17:10 AM »
I mentioned this on the LL forum recently and was told that many EF lenses don't actually project a circle, not sure if thats true but if would obviously hinder such a system.

Another way to use the same system might be to accomodate TS-E lenses though, I remember reading an article on a russsian MF system that used the 17mm and 24mm TS-E's with good results while retaining some shift functionally. Those lenses might be rarer than normal EF's but I'd guess there pretty common with seriously Canon FF landscape/architecture users(and likely represent there largest lens investment) who would be an obvious market for MF.

With the mentions of a Mamiya takeover one option that springs to mind for me would be a mirrorless(maybe allowing for Mamiya 7 lenses which seem like a good potential MF match with there sharpness?), thats afterall been a popular format in film MF for awhile and as far as I'm aware nobody has tried it on digital yet. Many of the same advanatges would hold true for digital afterall, lots of space saved by removing a much larger mirrorbox while most users would be using wide/normal lenses that offer more space saving.

EOS Bodies / Re: Noise: shrinking High-MP vs Native Low-MP
« on: December 03, 2011, 12:44:29 PM »
Try this comparison between the NEX-5 and NEX-7 downsampled:

Probably a more meaningful test of a same-generation high resolution sensor downsampled versus a lower resolution sensor.  That's not to criticise you dr croubie, I understand that you were trying to do your best with limited resources available.

That seems to suggest Native > Downrezed to me, the NEX 7 is clearly inferior at ISO 800 and above.

Pages: 1 ... 31 32 [33] 34 35 ... 41