September 02, 2014, 08:55:23 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 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 41
If the new Sigma is fantastic and priced well, it might put a dent in Canon's 50 f/1.4 sales and finally put pressure on them to update the lens.  If it comes in around $1,000 (and again, is fantastic), it will probably eat the 50L sales and then we'll likely see a new 50L while they keep churning out yet more 50 f/1.4s.

The size of the Sigma for me makes it seem likely it'll be aiming for a very different market to the 50mm 1.4/1.8's from Canon and Nikon which get alot of sale based on their size and extreme cheapness.

The 50mm 1.2 and the new Nikon 58mm 1.4 might suffer a bit more but only if the Sigma offers similar rendering rather than just more sharpness.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon's Medium Format
« on: March 17, 2014, 08:45:57 AM »
The big market for high end gear is not pro photographers, it is wealthy enthusiasts, just look at the "limited edition" Leica market.

Not that I think a Canon MF speculation has legs, I don't believe it does, whereas the Cinema range has an expanding market and they can have leveraged the EF lens tech very well , I was just pointing out the faulty logic of linking gear price to pro use.

Which would be an argument in favour of mirrorless I'd say, the problem Hassleblad have had and the reason for the Sony rebadging is I'd say that there cameras are simply too large to have much appeal to rich amateurs.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon's Medium Format
« on: March 12, 2014, 03:18:57 AM »
Honestly I think a mirrorless body makes more sense for MF than it does for 35mm.

You look at a modern 35mm sized SLR(either in the latter days or film or digital) and honestly does the mirror really make it much bigger than it needs to be? the need for controls and a good sized grip do IMHO mean that most users aren't going to want something tiny.You look at MF SLR's on the other hand and to me size seems to increase beyond the ideal as the mirror box starts to become much larger than the grip and theres more space than it really needed for controls. I don't think its a coincidence that in the days of film rangefinder designs were a larger part of the MF market than they were the 35mm market.

The user expectations likely differ as well if you ask me, your typical 35mm/FF user is going to want fast zooms and fast AF, your typical MF user is more likely to put up with slower zooms or primes and not demand as much from his AF.

EOS Bodies / Re: 100D/SL1 Discontinued already??
« on: March 12, 2014, 03:05:47 AM »
This is the second time in the last week or so that I've seen people point out that Digitalrev puts the "discontinued" label on things. As far as I'm concerned it's more likely to be a labelling or translation error than anything.

Its more a case of digitalrev being unable/willing to stock items I'd guess and wanting to give the impression nobody else will stock them either rather than losing business.

EOS Bodies / Re: UPDATE: EOS M2 Not Coming to North America
« on: March 04, 2014, 07:23:59 AM »
Yes Canon is very sucessfull and know what they are doing. Thats why they dominate. Why would they come out with a really good mirrorless and I know they have the technology already. It will canabilize their sales on the DSLR market specially the Rebels.

Why? Because otherwise Sony, Fujifilm, Panasonic, Olympus and all others will cannibalize their Rebels and all of their other DSLRs with the possible exception of action-oiented models (1D-X)?  ;D

They haven't so far and growth in mirrorless in at least two major markets has reversed.

That's not to say that there's no future for mirrorless, nor that mirrorless isn't the future, just that it doesn't seem to be the present. Why would Canon and Nikon risk undermining their supremacy by bringing out 'pro' mirrorless cameras? Isn't that effectively endorsing their competitors' efforts? If Canon and Nikon dump their legacy mounts, what competitive advantage do they have over the likes of Sony or Fujifilm?

I think that's the crux of Canon's current dilemma. They didn't want to rock the boat by developing mirrorless, but evidently elements in their hierarchy felt the need to enter what was a growing market (hence EOS-M and Nikon 1). Now that the growth has died, so has Canon and Nikon's enthusiasm for their mirrorless systems.

Who knows how this will end up, maybe EOS-M will develop into a fully fledged system (especially if there is room for a full frame sensor in the specification), or the EF mount may start to evolve towards going mirrorless. I suspect that this isn't fully decided at Canon and will depend on what happens in the market this year.

Personally my feeling is that reduced flange distance on FF is simply much less of an advantage than on ASPC since your having to deal both with larger lenses for a larger image circle and long lenses to avoid more extreme light angles.

I think its notable that both Canon and Nikon have put most of their focus on FF devolpment over the last couple of years, more levels of body on offer and a lot of new lenses on offer whilst EF-S/DX lenses have been limted mostly to kit updates.

To me it looks like theres a real divide in the mirrorless market between east and west, in the former ultra small view finderless bodies make up most of the sales, in the latter theres a much smaller market focused on higher end bodies with viewfinders. My guess is if Canon come up with a higher end ASPC body then it will be released in the west.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: New Pentax 645d ii is coming next week
« on: February 06, 2014, 09:30:21 AM »
The Phase One was pretty dam expensive($35K wasn't it?) so it'll be interesting to see what this Pentax comes in at.

* angle of incident light (short flange distanze, lage sensor) - yes it is a problem. Yes, it can be solved, as Leica has demonstrated. Can it be solved for 10mm less flange distance, at far lower cost (than Leica) and still giving excellent image quality - I believe(!) yes, and I believe (!) it will be proven soon enough

Ultimately Leica solved the problem by redesigning lenses, this generally ment making them larger, I'd guess either having a less recessed rear element or a more telecentric design. Bare in mind of course that your not just talking expensive lenses with Leica(the cheaper Zeiss M lenses are generally larger) but also lenses that do not have to deal with AF and in camera aperture control. Just look at the difference between the Nikon 50mm 1.2 and the Canon 50mm 1.2 to see the difference just AF can make.

* Once Mirrorless cameras will finally be "really right", i.e. "solid state" with no moving parts whatsoever inside [=no mechanical, but global electronic shutter] will have a LOT of advantages over (D)SLRs beyond bulk and weight. Here are the ones I am interested in:

  • 100% vibration-free operation = benefits to image quality, especially "when it counts" = in challenging capture situations
  • 100% silent operation possible = ability to get any images or the images you really want in many capture situations e.g. concerts, churches, theaters, candids
  • flash X-sync down to 1/8000s ... or whatever shortest exposure time will be = images possible, that are currently totally unthinkable
  • higher image quality - no misalignment of optical axis and sensor/focus plane possible - provided lens mount is solid and precise
  • lmore bang for the buck - significantly fewer parts, no moving parts = significantly lower cost to makers, due to easier assembly, precision-alignment, quality control = lower prices for cameras possible (!)
  • higher reliability = no more mechanical defects possible, only electronic issues = significantly less failure in use, significantly shorter repair-turnarounds ... just swap out a circuit board, finished. No re-alignment of components required
  • much faster cameras possible ... fps as high as we want them possible - only limited by procssing power and bandwidth - and those follow Moore's law, so we'll have plenty, very soon :-)
  • better information at time of image capture - thanks to EVFs - which will continue to fast-evolve from "just acceptable in early 2014" to "absolutely mind-boggling" in the near future

And I am sure, we are still missing a few. :-)

You seem to be doing exactly what I said in my post, listing many possible advantages of mirrorless in the future and then putting that towards the idea that everyone wants a very small body.

* Relative lens size
does NOT scale 1:1 linear with sensor format! Not on SLRs. Not on MILCs.
Yes, 1" < mFT < APS-C < FF lenses. But with "really right" designs, the difference is rather small (ceteris paribus).
And beyond approx. 135mm physical focal length there is NO difference, since only the size of the entry pupil dictates size of the lens at the the end of the day. As evidenced by existing tele-lenses (mFT, FT, APS-C) and by the fact, that longer tele-lenses are not made for smaller than 135 ("FF") image circle.

My guess is that lens size saving will be harder to achieve in FF not only because light angles become more of a factor but because more effort has already been put into downsizing FF designs. You look at a lot of the recent L updates and shaving size/weight has been part of it because your talking about lenses large enough to unbalance even FF bodies. ASPC and 43 DSLR's didn't ever really have this pressure, the higher end models are generally not far off FF bodies in size so balance was likely far less of an issue with their design.

Looking specifically at m43 and 43 I view the switch from DSLR to mirror less as actually less important than the switch in emphasis of lens design. Oly's 43 DSLR's really weren't designed at all to be size savers and instead looked to pack more performance into lenses a similar size to larger formats in order to equal them.

That's why I expect some APS-C mirrorless systems to be around for a few more years, until everything gives way to FF. Anybody "really into" photography - whether professionally or as an enthusist/amateur - will get FF MILCs [sized very compact or as large and heavy as a current pro-DSLR for those who prefer "large and heavy"], everybody else only interested in "snapping a few" will use their mobile devices ... which will get better and better IQ in extremely small form factors [think Google glass :-)]. The middle-ground will disappear. But again, thats only my expectation, no fact (yet). :-)

Not sure I see that happening anytime soon, I think FF will become a larger part of companies profits as the lower end of the market is squeezed harder for price but ASPC will likely remain the larger market. The difference in sensor price becoming insignificant still seems along way away and you'd still be left with the difference in lens size/price.

You look at Reinz vacation setup for example, just a 50mm and 85mm lens is not something I see most people who are "really into" photography being happy with. Personally I'd want coverage at least from 16mm-200mm and possible longer depending on where I was visiting, likely some of it fast.

With the setup I look to La Palma a few weeks ago for example my D800 was only a small part of the weight, Nikon 16-35mm VR, Tamron 24-70mm VC, Nikon 80-200mm, Nikon 50mm 1.8. That's roughly 2.5 kg in lenses(not to mention the tripod and filters) that I wouldn't expect to be any smaller with a mirrorless system which most of them wouldn't balance on well anyway.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: FUJIFILM'S latest, X-T1 ?
« on: February 05, 2014, 01:03:58 PM »
The problem with the X-T1 for me is that  ... unlike the Nikon theres no meter readout from above for starters so no way to keep an eye on your shutter speed unless you give up control of ISO and/or aperture. From the sound of it you can't shift shutter speed to a standard control wheel and I'm guessing a top dial won't be nearly as easy to use at eye level. Also ISO dial being on the top left is far from ideal for action given the longer lenses and Fuji's aperture control being on the lens. With the Df I can at least imagine having my left hand on the left had side of the body to operate the ISO/EC dials, with the Fuji your hand needs to be on the lens.

Although I understand your gripe, I cannot see the point. In my experience, when you're manually manipulating all three point of the triangle (ISO, Av & Tv) at the same time, you're also intentionally by-passing the in-camera lightmetering and either winging it or using a more sophisticated handheld meter. Either and whatever, because when this happens, you're also setting up the camera in-hand and not adjusting everything through the viewfinder.

I wouldn't say so, its perfectly possible to use the in camera lightmeter when shooting in manual and I think its a fault in both of these camera's that you can't see its readout from above when doing so. At least with the Df though you can see its readout when your shooting in Av mode via the shutter speed in the LCD.

When adjusting setting with the camera at eye level though the X-T1 just seems like it would be less ergonomic for me, especially given its intended use. You need to reach up to the top plate to set shutter speed then use the front wheel to fine tune, you need to use your left hand to change ISO ontop of the camera but also to change aperture on the lens thus shifting back and forth.

So shooting fully manual or Tv the Df would be easier to handle at eye level, shooting Av it would be easier to handle both at eye level and offer meter readout from above.

Again for me what I really think Nikon need to do is improve the Df auto ISO mode so the settings can be inputted with the top dials.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: FUJIFILM'S latest, X-T1 ?
« on: February 05, 2014, 10:17:43 AM »
Hey, Nikon, look ... both the shutter and the ISO dials have "A" points.

Seriously, this camera might be my point of exit regarding Canon ... all the X system still needs is a weather-sealed, internal focusing 50-200mm f/4 lens (OIS optional).

To me the really missed opportunity with both of these cameras is to allow the top dials to be used for auto ISO. I thought on release that the most obvious firmware update for the Df would be a mode where the ISO and shutter speed dials would be used to set auto ISO parameters(max ISO and minimum shutter speed), that would offer a genuine advantage over the current setup. On the Fuji though even that wouldn't be an option as you have the auto mode setting on the ISO dial and no alternative shutter speed readout.

The problem with the X-T1 for me is that it seems to be pulling in two directions. It seems to be viewed as Fuji's "action" camera but to me the controls seem even less suited for that than the Df which is obviously not aimed at sports/wildlife etc use. Unlike the Nikon theres no meter readout from above for starters so no way to keep an eye on your shutter speed unless you give up control of ISO and/or aperture. From the sound of it you can't shift shutter speed to a standard control wheel and I'm guessing a top dial won't be nearly as easy to use at eye level. Also ISO dial being on the top left is far from ideal for action given the longer lenses and Fuji's aperture control being on the lens. With the Df I can at least imagine having my left hand on the left had side of the body to operate the ISO/EC dials, with the Fuji your hand needs to be on the lens.

How about we take the sensor from the Sony A7R and slap it into an SLR body?

At the end of the day, its all about ending up with the best picture possible but many of us are so comfortable with the SLR form factor that any other form, makes us uncomfortable. We also "look" less than professional if we show up with a "smallish" camera that looks like the same camera everyone else has  :)

isn't that the d610 and d800????---

I firmly believe that once this whole, make it smaller thing is dropped then canon and nikon can do what i bet they actually want to do ---make a mirrorless option that fits with their current ecosystems of lenses ---. 

It's funny that many say slr's are dying, but what i see is a mirrorless market that has no identity.  Oh we want to be smaller, but not really small, we want to be user friendly for all, but not really, we want to be as good as an slr but need 10 more years to make appropriate lenses, but dang it to do that we're making something the size of an A7, which isn't all that much smaller than an slr, snor does it really weigh significantly less than an slr, and once you toss the adaptor on there and use standard lenses, it's the same size and barely and less weight.

Even for travel, if i still have to have a camera bag and multiple lenses and batteries then how does that size factor really help?   Eventually the market will figure this out and either drop the whole idea of mirrorless or, integrate into the existing ecosystem.

The logical fallacy at the centre of a lot of this argument from the mirrorless size tends to be....

Mirrorless performance may one day equal DSLR performance = Everyone wants a small camera

The idea that mirrorless tech could be used for anything but size saving seems to have passed many people by.

What I think you need to consider as well is which format sizes are actually going to benefit more from a smaller flange distance. In this reguard ASPC seems much more obvious than FF to me, the overall smaller size of the lenses is the most obvious point but your also dealing with a format where DSLR's use a legacy flange distance that's longer than needed for ASPC mirrors and a smaller sensor that causes fewer problems with light angles.

I look at the Sony FE system relative to say the Fuji X system and specs wise it looks like Sony have had to trade away low light/dof performance in order to get lens size down and even then your generally looking at larger lenses. The 35mm F/2.8 is the only lens that makes the A7 really small and your actually losing performance relative to the Fuji 23mm 1.4 there.

Besides larger format lenses generally being larger I think the other problem for Sony is that digital has been shown to be far less forgiving than film when it comes to smaller flange distances on larger formats. Extreme light angles hitting digital sensors cause problems and the larger the sensor the more extreme the light angles become. Leica already had this problem with many lens designs and their flange distance is 10mm longer than Sony's. I look at the FE lens lineup and to me its notable how long they look relative to similar DSLR designs, I'm guessing the product of having to correct light angles. In seems to me that you could effectively just be trading shorter flange distance for longer lenses.

I wish Canon made a A7R equivalent. I wish they made an affordable 36+mp camera... But look at the numbers and the current economic climate and one will perhaps have a better understanding  why they do what they do. Just look at Amazons top seller list and one will see what sells. Canon is not a small niche seller, because  they just cant or wont, it doesn't really matter what the reason is, its just a fact...but the world is changing. I can now buy a Sony that will fit all my Canon lenses, I can buy a Sigma lens that is better and cheaper than a whats there to complain about?

 I just got a 6D last year and no matter what anyone says its a superb camera that gives fantastic image quality, handles well, and is relative small and affordable with tried and trusted ergonomics, image quality etc etc...just the camera I like using on paid assignments, with a wide variety very high quality lenses and accessories. It might not be as cute and daring as a A7R but I know it will bring home the bacon, just like the 5d2 did and my other ones before that...if we buy enough A7R's maybe they will change but in the meantime its not like I don't have choices right now...

This is a much more realistic debate rather than the typical gearhead hipster self delusion that his latest niche gadget purchase will make or break the photography industry.

Nikon and Canon do seem to have clearly diverged here over the last year. You could argue the G1X is a bit of a niche camera I spose but besides that Canon have as you say stuck to the big sellers were as Nikon have released the likes of the Df, the Coolpix A and the AW1.

These cameras are all definitely niche but I'd say there is an argument that niche sales are becoming more important in a saturated market. The issue is IMHO making sure that you don't invest too much in a niche product, when your building an entire camera system with multiple lenses and bodies it needs to be more than a niche seller to make a profit.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Best Nikon DF Review! By Fstoppers.
« on: February 04, 2014, 02:01:12 AM »
I think this really sums up the reason why the Df got as much hate as it did, it fell into a sweet spot where several groups of insecure people were likely to take a pop at it...

1.Mirrorless users - Up until now digital camera's sold on looks and reduction in size have been almost entirely mirrorless, a DSLR looking to do the same will obviously draw the ire of insecure users. Strange how the likes of F-stoppers didn't seem to care much about hipsters buying camera's for looking before the Df.

2.DSLR users - Insecure users on the DSLR side of the debate have long argued their preference for the handling modern DSLR's give, large grips and an interface via control wheels with shift buttons and a top plate LCD.

3.Canon users - Any Nikon release will get some criticism from insecure Canon users, the same being true of any Canon release from insecure Nikon users. That the camera in question is very different from any existing Canon product makes this more extreme.

A few comments I'd make on the review would be that I'd disagree that the Df offers no size saving compared to the D600. Its more of less the same in terms of height and width but depth wise your talking a significantly smaller profile, without the large grip your potentially talking space for an extra lens in a kit bag while traveling. Being a DSLR as well its actually a camera I'd consider taking traveling without needing to worry about constant battery changes/charging.

In terms of controls obviously the dials wouldn't be to everyone's taste but personally I think Nikon took the correct route in making them possible to override. If you want to stick to using the shutter speed dial that's perfectly possible, as is shooting only in shutter priority or full manual or using a pre G lens for aperture control. Indeed my main criticism of the Df is that it doesn't seem like you get do this with ISO. The X-T1 not offering the ability to at least shift shutter speed via a front control wheel to me makes it far less effective at doing double duty as a more action focused camera. Equally you can't get any kind of meter readout on the X-T1 from above because it lacks an LCD.

Talking of the X-t1 I think the Df makes a lot more sense in marketing terms when viewed in relation to it. Unlike the rest of the mirrorless market that has IMHO focused mostly on upgrading compact users or DSLR users shifting there entire system across to a smaller alternative I think Fuji has really targeted the second camera market, that is DSLR users buying a smaller retro style body to use along side it. The Df is IMHO Nikon's attempt to get in on some of these second camera business, it doesn't offer as much size saving but is still clearly smaller than something like a D800/D700 or a D3/D4. The massive advantage it does offer though is not having to invest in a second system of lenses, you look at the cost of say the X-T1 with the 23mm 1.4 and 56mm 1.2 and your talking several hundred dollars more than the Df which you can use your existing F-mount lenses on.

You can add another group to hate the Df there as well, Nikon users who've already bought into the Fuji system.

I think the article raises some good points.

Sometimes Nikon and Canon remind me of that 50-year-old guy with a pony-tail and an earring cruising the bars trying to pick up 21-year-olds.

The trouble for Kai is though that the 50 year old guy is successful and loaded so gets all the girls whilst the 21 year old hipster goes home alone.  ;D

To be honest the article and Kai's Df review to me are the point where I really lost interest in hearing him preach the mirrorless gospel, so much hypocrisy given his own comments about camera's like the Fuji's in the past. The reality is that outside of comedy video's he's pushing the same kind of agenda I could read from fan boys on any number of forums, "mirror bad" "mirrorless good".

I'd actually say the problem Sony have is that they seem to pay rather too much attension to the Kai's of this world who might be very vocal on the net but make up a very small part of the market. This viewpoint seems to fit far better into Sony's corporate focus as a whole to me, they've always pushed the boat technically but have also always been very "gadget" focused. The camera business is very different from a lot of other area's though as your dealing with users who expect products without serious flaws as well as continued support of systems.

The latest photography gadget might get more attention in the short term but it'll soon be forgotten when the next one is released whilst the 5D mark 3 will carry on selling.

EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon 11-24mm f/4 Lens
« on: January 26, 2014, 08:19:45 AM »
I'd tend to agree with the choice of F/4, Nikon IMHO did not expect the 14-24mm to become the heavly used landscape lens it has. Personally I went with the 16-35mm VR when I got my D800 as I often like to shoot light(a lot of my landscape shooting is also dog walking), not just the weight of the lens but the larger filters and more need for a tripod on the 14-24mm went against that, not great at 35mm but I shoot in the 28mm range quite a lot where it is still excellent.

One thing I really think Canon should look into it making filters easier to use. Lens/camera manufacturers seem to have a need to try and play down the need for them but you look at the Nikon 14-24mm and this has clearly been a massive issue that's put many off. With an 11mm lens I'd imagine the problem would become even worse if Canon goes with the same fixed lens hood design.

The alternative to me seems to me seem to be to make the lens hood removable, not clip on like your standard hood but screw on like the 50mm 1.8. The bulb front element would I'd guess mean you'd also need another screw on attachment(that became larger) to offer a thread that cleared it but if they could make that 105mm it would make things a lot easier.

EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon Answer the D4s? [CR2]
« on: January 24, 2014, 03:57:18 AM »
Yepp. I think the Nikon D4s is no catch for the 1Dx, it's just closing the gap. It's just newer, so what? The D3s beats the "newer" D4 in a lot of situations...

For Canon I don't think its nearly as important to have the latest greatest camera in this section of the market, even if the new Nikon were slightly better I think they would be happy to leave it another year or two until the more natural end of the 1DX lifecycle to update.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 41