September 23, 2014, 10:25:37 AM

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
91
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Looking Into a New Mount System
« Last post by dilbert on Today at 06:03:47 AM »
From the Google translate into english:
Quote
- I think and say the new mount system, and in some cases it would be regarded as next to the EF mount, but, from the story of now "in addition to the EF mount, the new mount system to provide in the area that can not be covered by the EF mount" How would that?

It is a "place where it has continued to seek" at the moment, but while assuming "What happens in the future" all in terms communication interface of the camera body and lens, optical design, such as sensor design, and we are considering the platform of the next generation You.


My attempt to translate that is that it is EOS that is now starting to show its age and thus EF/EF-S/EF-M lenses (EOS is the communications protocol between camera and lens) are slated for replacement.

Quote

The reason for doing the research and development like this is because there is downsizing to one of the needs with respect to the camera. The EOS system with a focus on EF lenses, and strive to try to provide the best image quality at all times, but there are calls for downsizing separately with such direction it is also fact.


Which says that Canon is working on (or sees the need to work on) something like the A7 or m4/3s cameras. For Canon, the EF-M lens format might be their experiment with a newer and more solid product in the future.
92
Technical Support / Re: Scratch 7D focusing screen???
« Last post by sama on Today at 05:46:51 AM »
Relaxed.

See if you have confident doing this simple DIY project. I saw one selling a claimed to be genuine part, $8.99 (plus shipping) on the Ebay from a USA seller.

Instruction link : http://www.focusingscreen.com/work/7den.htm

I have done easier replacement of focusing screen on my older 40D and 600D and have not done the finder focus adjustment as indicated in the 5D  maintenance manual. Nothing went wrong with focusing and metering or may be I'm just lucky. For very precision adjustment, Canon Service may be the way to go. But for $10 to $15, the risk seems very low.

Disclaimer : I have absolutely no connection with the parts provider as advertised in the link I posted above. If you considered to DIY, you may buy from Canon or the other online sources.
93
EOS Bodies / Re: 7D2 and EF 24 - 105 F4 L IS USM
« Last post by ThomasN on Today at 05:22:40 AM »
Thx for all your answers. :)
I think I'll go for a EF-S lens of some kind.

Have a nice day.   :D
94
Lenses / Re: The New Canon EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM Pancake
« Last post by AvTvM on Today at 05:14:04 AM »
it really should have been a EF-22/2.0 STM pancake. Not EF-S. Not 24mm. Not f/2.8.
95
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: POLL: What's more important, gps or wifi?
« Last post by stefsan on Today at 05:13:16 AM »
I shoot mostly landscapes and some wildlife. For my shooting purposes, I prefer to have GPS data in the EXIF. Taking out the CF card and putting it into a card reader to download my pics to my computer is no problem for me, therefore I don't miss Wifi.
96
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 7D MK2 RAW Files
« Last post by stefsan on Today at 05:09:13 AM »
I might be naive, but would it not be better to wait for the codecs to appear in EOS Utility and Adobe programs before making judgments based on work-arounds?

Of course it would be better – but who is that patient nowadays?  :P
97
Lenses / Re: The New Canon EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM Pancake
« Last post by Sella174 on Today at 05:01:18 AM »
Now, although Canon may not have listened to me personally, it's nice to know that they are finally starting to do what I've been saying for years ... EF-S primes! Really makes you wonder what other great recommendations I have to offer them. :D
98
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Looking Into a New Mount System
« Last post by AvTvM on Today at 04:55:53 AM »
Maybe FF mirrorless size saving would be greater with a larger mount that can allow such big rear elements to avoid issues with light dropoff and boarder softness?

no MAYBE there. The BIGGER the freakin' hole in the body compared to sensor inside is, the EASIER it is to design
  • optically better and/or
  • smaller and lighter and/or
  • less pricey
lenses.

Sony/Zeiss FE lenses are so ridiculously expensive and huge, because that mount hole is simply too small relative to the FF sensor inside.  Sony made a huge mistake using the APS-C sized E-mount hole as basis for their new FF mirrorless line. It is a totally unnecessary weak spot built-in from the very start and this achilles heel will hurt them ever more year after year, as competitors will come to market with better, cheaper and more compact lens ranges for FF sensored MILCs.

Canon EF-M lenses are so damn small, damn good and downright cheap, because the EF-M mount - like all current Canon mounts EF7EF-S/EF-M - has a really generous clearance and is very well-sized relative to the sensor inside [and to the chosen flange distance]. And no, EF-M cannot possibly handle an FF sensor in an uncompromised, meaningful and quality fashion. Luckily Canon has repeatedly also stated this and will not compromise on that one. 8)
99
Canon General / Re: Gets the Job Done....Every Time
« Last post by Policar on Today at 04:45:06 AM »
My Canon kit - It works. It does what I need it to do. It never fails me. Gets the job done....every....single....time.

Having now owned and played with multiple systems from different companies, I am truly learning the value of the Canon ecosystem.

With as much chatter going on as there is about all of Canon's deficiencies and shortcomings, I felt as though it would be refreshing to bring a different view and experience to the table. Sorry if this has already been stated elsewhere, but this is my two cents that I've come to realize as of late.

Without fail, I have never gotten frustrated with the functionality of my kit to the point where I felt that something else could serve me better in every facet of my shooting.

Having now owned an A7r rig, multiple modern Fuji rigs, and played with a Nikon rig, I have come to the conclusion that nothing really beats the overall functionality, completeness, and usability of my Canon kit.

Yes yes, I know. Canon Fanboy, right? Wrong. If that were the case, I wouldn't have spent my last 6-8k on trying out other company's offerings. To a fanboy, that is blasphemy.

Anyhow, I have found that comparing IQ between all of the rigs, I am generally splitting hairs. There are a finite number of instances where I actually look at an image and say "wow, I am so glad I own ABCD rig because the images are so much better than the rest."

The differences for me at least, are in functionality and feature set....not IQ. Sure, IQ on some levels can be slightly improved with my Canon rig. But assuming I properly expose (or get close) and properly compose (or get close), there is nothing IQ-wise that my Canon rig cannot accomplish.

The only reasons left when I really think about why it is I enjoy using other rigs are due to feature sets. For instance, A7r, allows me to use my TSE lenses with a very good manual focusing aid feature set. A smaller plus would be the increase in resolution and slight bump in DR (not as important to me). The xt-1 is super compact for what it brings to the table and has an even better manual focusing aid feature set (prefer it for all my old lenses that do not require electronic communication with the body). However, that's where the positives end for me when comparing them to my Canon DSLR.

For me, the autofocus is still way too unreliable and slow on every mirrorless camera I have owned or used. Battery life has been consistently atrocious across the board. Ergonomics are almost acceptable at best. And the worst part? The ecosystems range from barely starting to develop, or mildly developed and still lacking significantly. All of these things taken together make for systems that involve a lot of compromise. It makes them very niche/specific use tools.

This brings me back to my original point, the Canon rig that never fails. Slight shortcomings, I will admit, are present. However, as a general rule in my experience, it has always gotten the job done and I have never felt it lacking to the point where I looked to another system and felt that I could do better.

The one truth I have found, the grass is almost never greener....

100%. Truth is the real highly paid pros I know all shoot Canon and think even Sigma lenses would be insane (though they appreciate Nikon, if no other manufacturers, too).

Why?

Job done well enough is a pay check.

Canon is conservative.

Canon shooters are conservative.

Pros are conservative: good enough is still a paycheck.

I use a 5D Mark III and a C100 and love them both, but if I cared for pure specs over reliability and ease of use I'd have long since abandoned them.

But I don't.
100
EOS Bodies / Re: Just for Jrista: 2014 Market Data
« Last post by sarangiman on Today at 04:42:11 AM »
I'm talking about normalized Raw performance, which has seen very, very small gains. Save for at the highest ISOs (e.g. 25.6k and above), where lowering sensor-level (upstream) read noise actually affects image quality, since you're amplifying the raw signal off the sensor so much (b/c the signal is so, so small).

Otherwise, ISO performance is largely dictated by sensor size these days.
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]