July 30, 2014, 06:42:34 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 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 39
61
Not commenting directly on this article, but it's a sad fact that as long as money is involved, people will fake wildlife photos.  Whether it's shooting in zoos, using animal models, roadkills, reeling in a dead mouse to attract owls, etc. it will be done.  If your livelihood depends on it, you really can't blame people for doing it.  I just wish people would label it as such, as the North America Nature Photography Association (NANPA) advocates: http://nanpa.org/positions_overview.php.

For me, wildlife photography is all about the challenge of finding wild animals, which is often about luck, and the skill of getting the shot when the opportunity presents itself.  If it were easy, I don't think I would enjoy it.  Then again, my income doesn't depend on getting these shots.


Bare in mind that the nature programs involved generally involve the best wildlife video footage the world has ever seen.

For Americans the Daily Mail is basically Fox News in print form and is opposed to the BBC as an independent public broadcaster. The grandfather of the current owner was a fascist sympathiser pre WW2 yet he ran a highly dishoniest story on the current center left leaders dead father "hating britan".

62
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sony FF NEX - competition is good. Canon?
« on: October 05, 2013, 01:44:15 AM »
Canon is so far behind in technology that it just isn't funny anymore. I've said it before and I'll say it again ... the EOS 100D should have been a mirrorless camera (comparable to the Panasonic G3 and G5), the EOS 70D should have been a mirrorless camera (comparable to the Panasonic G6 and GH3, and the Olympus E-M5 and E-M1), and the EOS 6D Mark II must be a full-frame mirrorless camera. Add to this that Canon is trying to sell the current crop of DSLR's, especially the 70D, to amateur videographers, but has absolutely nothing comparable to Olympus' (and now Sony's) 5-axis IBIS.

As an aside, what current mirrorless systems lack in terms of native lenses, they make good in support for the plethora of old, yet excellent, manual focus lenses.

...and yet the Canon DSLR's are vastly outselling these mirrorless options. Personally I think Canon should look at something like Fuji's viewfinder, have an OVF that can convert to an EVF for video use.

With the RX1 I think its a mistake to relate the amount of talk on the net to actual sales success, look at the Amazon sales rankings right now and its at #1804 where as the 6D is at #199.

To me the FF market just seems like it might be a tougher nut for mirrorless systems to crack for a number of reasons. I think your likely dealing with a much more demanding userbase in terms of both performance/handling and the expected lens lineup while also having to deal with more larger lenses. Would a 28-70mm F/4 lens and a 35mm F/2.8 prime get people excited on a FF DSLR system?

Dispite the hype that there mostly stealing DSLR sales I think the truth of smaller sensor mirrorless systems is that a lot of(maybe most of) there sales are being driven by compact upgraders, that's IMHO the reason growth is slowing as this new market reaches saturation. I think its going to be a tougher sell getting these kinds of users to buy FF, with ASPC/43 systems your looking at a much greater jump in sensor performance relatively to compacts without as much a jump in price.

63
Lenses / Re: We want more EF-S lens
« on: August 25, 2013, 07:21:22 AM »
Personally I'd say the most obvious gap is a wider prime, either something like a 30mm 1.4 ala Sigma or a 20-25mmish pancake to go with the SL-1/100D.

I have my doubts as to whether theres a market for a 50-150mm f/2.8, I think crop users tend to want the extra reach so will go for a FF 70-200mm f/2.8 instead, as I understand it going EF-S isn't going to effect the size/price of tele's much.

One zoom that I think might be interesting is something between your typical normal and UWA ranges. Tokina seem to be targeting this with there new 12-28mm, I think something like a 14-35mm could be very popular if the price wasn't too high.

64
EOS Bodies / Re: More Medium Format Talk
« on: August 22, 2013, 05:00:18 AM »
A digital MF camera is never going to be "cheap" but just look at MF prices today, a new IQ 180 + camera will set you back what $35K? I very much doubt that the production costs make up much of that price, rather Phase One have choosen a business model that targets limated high end sales to offset R&D.

The main argument against it seems to be Canon devolping a high resolution FF sensor, if they were considering MF it would seem to make more sense to leave the high resolution market to it.

Canon may have the expertise in image processing. It seems more likely to me that they might partner with an existing MF company to provide large sensors and the digic 6 to them. That would be a revenue stream for them that wouldn't cannibalize any of their existing market. It also wouldn't commit them to building a new line of of LargeEF lenses to run on it, which would likely have a very long ROI.

Just because it wouldn't have a Canon brand on it doesn't mean it wouldn't be in competision with them. I very much doubt they'd take that route anyway as a lot of the reason for investing in MF would IMHO be the glamour it would bring to the brand, the idea that Canon plays second fiddle to nobody when it comes to the best in photography.

Quote
I already worry that Canon's lineup is such a mess it'll be unsustainable without some sizeable cutbacks. They've currently got 3 lines of full frame EOS, 3 lines of crop sensor EOS, Mirrorless stuff in the works, Cinema EOS and probably some others. Adding another imaging sensor and then trying to support a whole new line of lenses seems like madness.

I don't see a "mess" so much as products that are targeted at specific markets. The larger and more profitable Canon become the more they obviously have to invest in R&D(including buying on existing companies) as well so its not an "either or" situation.

My guess would be if Canon take someone over it'll be Mamiya, they have the knowhow with medium format but the brand itself isn't as valuable as something like Hassleblad so rebranding it Canon would be less of a loss.

65
EOS Bodies / Re: More Medium Format Talk
« on: August 21, 2013, 06:02:32 AM »
"Maybe Canons intention is to produce an 'affordable' MF system for those that really do need that amount of pixel power. "

That is a funny statement. Prices for any medium format lenses or bodies will be obsene. Just look at what happens when they update a lens like the EF 24mm f2.8 IS, prices double at the very least.

Not a good example there, the 24mm 2.8 is Canon replacing one of its own(25 year old) products with a new one, compare it to say a Leica M mount 24mm 2.8 lens and the price is obviously a lot lower.

A digital MF camera is never going to be "cheap" but just look at MF prices today, a new IQ 180 + camera will set you back what $35K? I very much doubt that the production costs make up much of that price, rather Phase One have choosen a business model that targets limated high end sales to offset R&D.

The main argument against it seems to be Canon devolping a high resolution FF sensor, if they were considering MF it would seem to make more sense to leave the high resolution market to it.

66
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon is going to add mid format
« on: August 13, 2013, 09:07:31 AM »
I was discussing this a few months ago on this forum and was basically shot down...

It would be great to have a medium format canon series. Yes it would probably just be for professionals and no you don't need the extra pixels for weddings/sports/birds in flight. I know I need them for larger billboards in airports or down the sides of buildings. A price point around the £8,000 to £12,000 mark would be great as it'll be lower than the hasselblads. an all in 1 system would be great rather than the phase 1/mamiya separates system. I want a massive mirror with a huge loud flop and I want to have the old school look down view finder.

Yes they'd make/design new lenses. But that's what a company does, builds stuff and we buy it if it fits out needs. MF is the new FF and I welcome it's possible return to affordableness.

I think it would take a monumental effort to start from scratch.... Not saying they couldn't, but it would be hard. That's why I see some kind of deal with Hasselbad as a likely sign.

Look at micro four thirds....  Several second tier companies got together, cooperated, and they are now the dominant player in mirror less cameras.... The lenses can go anywhere....  Why not the same for FF?

Think about it.... Canon makes a deal with Hasselbad to share the mount.... Canon makes a medium format body and starts selling it. MF sales jump, Hasselbad bodies might take a drop in sales, but the lens sales would skyrocket.... Both companies make out like bandits....

P.S.... If you carried around a 4X5 camera and a stack of film holders, medium format is tiny.

I see medium format being a little different though, m43 is aimed at a very broad audience and offers a wide range of bodies/lenses to try and maximise this audience, a Canon MF system would likely be aimed much more specifically, you look at Hassleblad, Phase One and Leica and they don't offer anything like the same size of system.

I don't see Canon looking to work directly with any other brand, I'd guess a lot of the reason for producing a MF system in the first place would be linking the brand to ultra high end cameras, If a takeover happened I'd guess we'd see either a total rebranding or staff and facilties put to work creating a new Canon system.

One interesting direction for me would be to take digital medium format mirrorless. In the days of film rangefinders afterall made up a lot more of the MF market than they did the serious 35mm market, I'd guess due to the greater size saving.  Besides the price difference I think size is really whats hurting MF today compared to FF DSLR's, my second cousin is a travel photographer just sold off a Hassleblad system in favour of FF DSLR's and size was the main issue for him. Added to that I think the MF market has clearly been targeting rich amateurs for whome size is likely to be an even larger issue.

67
EOS Bodies / Re: Crop sensors need cropped lenes
« on: August 10, 2013, 11:55:39 AM »
The discussion really seems to be focused on two different things...

1.Making a smaller/cheaper lens for ASPC with the same focal length.

2.Making a smaller/cheaper lens for ASPC with the same field of view.

The second clearly being possible while the first probably isn't.

My guess is that with crop cameras the market for a lens with 70-200mm FOV isn't that great, that range seems to be well suited for things like event photography and I'm guessing most pro's are going to be using  FF. On ASPC I think the demand is much more long longer fast lenses for wildlife/sports use.

68
Lenses / Re: Canon 14mm II for "Yangshuo, China"
« on: August 08, 2013, 03:52:16 AM »
I'd guess the hiking spot that's being mentioned is Moon Hill that had a natural arch at the top, certainly worth visiting and not hard to access.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_Hill

As far as lenses go the 14mm would obviously have some uses but really I think you might find that a bit too wide to emphasize the hills, the 16-35mm seems a much better bet for me and would be the first lens I'd pack for landscapes in that location.

As for what else to take I'd say that depends on what you like to shoot, if you want to take shots from the river cruise for example picking out locals then the 70-200mm would be the better bet, might be useful for some landscapes as well although as has been said mist and smog can often be issues.

The 24-70mm would cover you in the mid range and if you were visiting smaller villages might be a good bet.



69
Lenses / Re: Wide Angle Pancake?
« on: August 07, 2013, 10:40:23 AM »
The Voigtlander 20mm shows that it clearly can be done, as has been mentioned I'd guess its more of a question of at what costs.

70
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Information [CR2]
« on: August 05, 2013, 09:01:34 AM »
Prototypes for a 7D Mark II now exist over a year, but if I look at the 70D and 6D price I think that there is no space for an 7D Mark II between the mentioned cameras.

It seen so, that the 70D IS the new 7D Mark II. But without CF cards the camera has no change to go in the bag of pros.

I wouldn't say that the 7D2 needs to be "between" the 70D and the 6D, indeed I think it could potentially be above the 6D if its given 5D3 level build, pro AF and 10 FPS.

71
Lenses / Re: Sigma 24-70 f/2 OS HSM Coming? [CR1]
« on: July 31, 2013, 06:33:53 AM »
A 24-50mm, in my opinion, wouldn't be much popular, unless it is very fast and has an outstanding IQ. I once had a Pentax 24-50/4, but I always preferred to carry around three primes, which were much faster and had a much better IQ, since I had anyway to switch lens quite often, with such a small focal range zoom.

To be fair that's pretty much what they've come up with for ASPC users, a 28-55mm lens with excellent image quality wide open.

What I would question though is whether the appeal on FF would be as great, for one thing I'd say this range is better catered for with primes already and for another f/2 on FF is going to be a shallower DOF than f/1.8 on ASPC for the equivalent angle of view. Personally speaking I'd be interested in such a lens as I like to take landscape shots with shallow DOF but I think something like a 35-70mm f/2 might have a wider audience.

72
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS M Stock & Shipping Update
« on: July 18, 2013, 05:20:50 AM »
Lets face it, no matter how good the camera is it was not priced competitively with the competition. Well, not until the recent "fire sale" deals anyway. It sounds like they are clearing stock for the M2, something which might justify the price tag that canon wants pinned to it. It is not dead, but I think they realise the M did not match people expectations and are probably moving the line along quicker than anticipated in order to grab a slice of the mirrorless pie!

Just my thoughts...  :) ;D

My guess is that they may have rushed the release of the M a bit in order to get a presence in the mirrorless market earlier. Its not been very successful in the US but last time I checked they already had 10% of the Japanese mirrorless market.

To be honest I think that on the net they were always going to be fighting a "fanboy" reaction, generally mirrorless discussion on the net tends to go in that direction a lot and for several years Canon has been the clear "enemy".

73
EOS Bodies / Re: Why a high MP camera?
« on: July 06, 2013, 12:51:41 PM »
I would hope for starters that those who think they want a high mp dslr are planning on printing big.

Lets define big for a second. 16x20 no ... 60x40 upwards yes. The level of clarity at large format print size will do it justice. Just for clarification I mean inches. Upwards of 60x40 usually mean the use of larger format cameras. Bigger megapixel dslr cameras in 135 format (that's 35mm in lay terms) might mean some users may not need to spend quite large to huge sums of money on medium format digital.

However, the larger sensor in those cameras give you more than just ability to print large. Hence why they won't wipe out the likes of phase one or hasselblad. They also give more colour clarity, contrast and things hard to describe unless I write an essay here.

I'm sure some will get my point.

You'll start to see the benefit of higher resolution well before 60x40 inches, I can start to see a noticble resolution difference between my old 550D and a D800 as small as 18 x 12 inches, by A2 its become clearer and by 30 x 20 its pretty obvious.

74
Sure - but there are excellent m43 primes that are relatively inexpensive (the best and most expensive is probably the Olympus 75mm f/1.8, which costs c. $900 - but the marvelous 45mm 1.8 and 60mm macro are half that).

Considering the sensor size I'v always felt m43 primes were rather expensive as well, I'm guessing because as with Leica building that much smaller costs more.

Quote
I look forward to the disappearance of mirrors, for various reasons.  Whatever else one might say about the relative performance of my Canon 5DII and 6D vs my Olympus OM-D, the latter invariably nails focus precisely (and it's nice to buy a new lens and not worry about front/back focusing, let alone trying to fix it).  I don't much care whether the resulting cameras are smaller (the top of the line Panasonic m43 body isn't much smaller than a 6D); in fact, as long as I'm going to be using my Canon lenses, I would prefer the body to be bigger for the reasons given by others. 

 do want a viewfinder, though.  In some ways electronic viewfinders are already superior to optical viewfinders.  I realize it's nice to see what you're photographing as you're photographing it, and what you see through an optical viewfinder is certainly nicer (though that will doubtless change as technology improves), but optical viewfinders are misleading - it's surely more useful to see through the viewfinder roughly how the image will look as you're taking that photo that waiting until you've taken it and checking on the monitor.  One of the OM-D's dials adjusts exposure, and it's nice to be able to do that while you're taking the photo, looking through the viewfinder and seeing what happens as you turn the dial.

The ideal situation would I'd say be a system like Fuji's recent cameras were you have an OVF and EVF in one finder, just have the mirror flip up at the touch of a button.

I do think we'll see a few compact FF mirrorless cameras in the coming years going after a market similar to Leica(but with AF) but I have my doubts there going to make up as much of the market as on ASPC/43 sensor sizes.

I actually think the more obvious size advantage would be when you push up to MF if theres a long term market for sensors that size. When you get to that size I think the mirrorbox clearly starts increasing the size of the camera beyond that which could be argued to be ergonomically ideal.

75
I wonder how good they can make pancake primes.


Have a look, how small, light, fast and good primes can be made: http://en.leica-camera.com/photography/m_system/lenses/

And contrary to urban legend, adding Ring-USM-AF to those lesnes would not cause additional bulk, but actually make them even smaller and lighter, once the utterly unneccessary manual focusing gear and focus ring will be finally exterminated. :-)


Look at what it'll cost you. ;)

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 39