Re: Canon to Leave the Entry Level Point & Shoot Market?

Bumping this. I think the final move to erase the market for budget P&S has been made: http://samsungcamera.com/samsung-introduces-the-galaxy-k-zoom/

Even if such a thing were available, I would not be interested.

Haydn1971 said:

crashpc said:

Lol Canon 18Mpx sensor made it to most rubbish bottom model 1200D. Why do you expect they repeat this and put the same sensor into 750D and M3?

Click to expand...

Rolls eyes, how many times... Repeat after me, "there's more to a camera performance than just the megapixel count !" Now say it over 500 times

Click to expand...

As dgatwood wrote - there is demand. One should make his product better, and it is not done trough already 6 or 7 years old sensor. sorry, doesn´t gonna work. There are not only megapixels to it. They can make 18Mpx full color non bayer sensor, they can add in DR,SNR and many other parameters. Af and metering method means nothing to ordinary customer of cheap XXXD line, and also to me, because I rely on manual hugely.

It's perhaps worth pointing out that the review Kai did was with a Nikon body - I don't know if they are supposed to have the same sort of autofocus issues as the Canon bodies with the Sigma lens...

mackguyver said:

I've been hoping for a 180 II, but was hoping for f/2.8, 9 bladed diaphragm, and the like, not DO. Let's hope this is just a defensive patent.

Click to expand...

Happy with F4, 9 bladed diaphragm and Tilt functionality to increase DOF a bit

If weight and size is something you can cope with then I'd recommend the 70-200 2.8L IS II.

entlassen said:

IMG_0001 said:

2^F = (GN2/GN1)^2

Then from 24mm to 70mm, F=1.67 stops (+1 2/3)
70mm to 200mm, F=0.52 stop (+1/2)
So of course 24mm to 200mm, F=2.19 stops.

Click to expand...

OK, so you're taking the log base 2 of both sides of that formula to solve for F.
But can you tell me where that formula comes from? All I know is the GN = f * d formula and the Inverse Square Law formula (Intensity = 1 / distance^2). Would like to know how you derived it.

Click to expand...

First, to clear things off, I advise to just stick to the basic GN = F*d which gives the right results and is much more tractable on the field.

As for my formula, I just went on from basic physics.

Intensity I is Power over Area --> P/A

A, the area lit, increases to the square of the distance from the source -->A proportional to d^2

Therefore, I is proportional to P/d^2 (not equal to)

Then, given that power remains the same --> P1 = P2 entails that I1*d1^2 = I2*d2^2 or, I1/I2 = (d2/d1)^2

Now, that is for the flash in a fixed zoom setting.

Now considering that the subject distance is fixed and posing that Case1 is for 24mm and GN28m and Case2 is for 70mm and GN50m. Zooming from 24mm to 70mm is like moving the subject from a distance of 50m to a distance of 28m. Then d2/d1 = GN2/GN1 and :

I1/I2 = (GN2/GN1)^2

Finally, in photography the aperture F goes up one stop every time the light intensity doubles so I is proportional to 2^F. It ensues that:

2^F = (GN2/GN1)^2

I hope this helps.

So I just bought a brand new 6D + 24.70 2.8 II and after doing some quick tests I'm not sure if this is it or I was expecting too much. I definitely haven't seen the WOW factor from the 24-70 II that I was expecting after reading several reviews and observing others pictures.

I have purchased Reikan Focal to test and set the lens and it suggested +3 AFMA on both wide and tele. I am attaching my results here and can someone comment if this is good enough or not ? I saw others posting over 2,000 quality of focus results with this lens but I'm not sure what exactly this means?


http://s18.postimg.org/7ljmkrf6x/24_bef.jpg


http://s23.postimg.org/qby7k22cb/24_aft.jpg


http://s7.postimg.org/5ay8x16yj/70_bef.jpg


http://s15.postimg.org/uleu445p7/70_aft.jpg

I definitely haven't tested this lens enough to come to any conclusions but I did notice it seems a bit too soft at 2.8 and 24mm - 35mm. Will post some real life images as soon as possible.

after read billions of users around the world, complaining about the same thing, i'm 100% sure that is a hardware fault and i have no hope of a salvation firmware. I've been testing with 50mm 1.8 and 17-55 2.8 since a got the first soft shot and i notice that even from liveview, if you using quick mode you got even worse results than from the viewfinder. I'm about to sell the body and the 17-55 and buy a 6D with 24-105. Some rumors says, that 7D MK II was delayed to fix this issue!

You mean Canon's year of the lens. (And fwiw, many here will state Canon never said it was TYOTL yet it was a CR thing)

No one has missed Sigma's, it's still going!

+1 for the Epson 3880.

If you print larger numbers of A3 it will help you saving money because of the bigger cartridges.

powershot2012 said:

I find it helpful to get feedback from reviews for those that review camera regularly and can compare them among others in their class instead of biased comments from those that don't even own the camera.

privatebydesign said:

As I said, I am not looking to get either.

I was merely pointing out that comments like "it has stunning low-light-capabilities" and "The G1X II would be a no brainer had Canon given the G1X II a modern sensor, as it stands the RX100 III still out performs it" are either bullshit, or don't actually stand up to image comparisons.

But why should we let actual images sway us when we have internet printed reviews that support our preconceived ideas? Enjoy your RX100III.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I find it helpful to compare the images they create, it puts their words into perspective and gives a strong indication as to who is paying the piper, and who is not.

I am not biased for or against either an RX100III or a G1X, I am against unqualified and inaccurate comments like "it has stunning low-light-capabilities" and "The G1X II would be a no brainer had Canon given the G1X II a modern sensor, as it stands the RX100 III still out performs it" . It's funny, you don't even try to walk that utter nonsense back, you just change the direction of your vitriol to me.

Dude, just buy an RX100III and be happy.

Bill said:

I just purchased this Canon 50mm 1.2 lens and just one little thing I'm not too sure on. The lens hood has just a little play in it after i've locked it on the lens. My other Canon lenses lock in with no play whatsoever. Is this normal for this lens hood to have play? If so, I wonder why. :-\

Click to expand...

Mine has no play.

neuroanatomist said:

You've demonstrated that Nikon's 85/1.4, which is among Nikon's very best performing lenses even wide open, is sharper than Canon's 50/1.4, which is not a particularly sharp lens, particularly wide open. You make no mention of performing an AF microadjustment/fine tune, which can be critical for sharpness with fast primes shot wide open.

You've demonstrated that Canon's AWB is poor...something most of us know already (although it's better on the 1D X than any other Canon camera I've used).

I'm not convinced you've learned anything beyond the obvious...

Click to expand...

+1

Hi Philshoz.
I guess you know which camera you prefer the images from, or the handling of, if you don't have a preference, then I would suggest that you use each alongside the 7D and see if you prefer the similar controls of the 40D or the flip out display and other differences of the 600D. If you can manage without the 600D it will net you more than the 40D to put towards more gear, and you will probably not use the second camera that much anyway.

Cheers Graham.

Philshoz said:

Thanks for the replies.

I have the 40D up for sale, maybe I should sell the 600D instead ???

Thanks again guys...

Click to expand...

Thanks for the comparison!

I took my 16-35 F4 IS and 70-200 2.8 IS to Beijing last week and although I got those nice wide angle and telephoto shots of the Summer Palace I wanted, I found myself constantly missing the all-in-one reach of my 24-105.

I'm a video guy, so I prefer to have one lens that does it all. Still, good to know that I have a sharp 16-35 when I need it.

I also find that the IS on the 16-35 F4 is not as powerful as it is on the 24-105 when doing video. Anyone know why that is?

By the way, these are what they call "Uptown problems"

StudentOfLight said:

Hi Steve, is the issue sorted?

Click to expand...

Hi StudentOfLight,

Definitely a lot better now, I did some testing in good light today and am pretty happy with the performance vs live view. I'm probably spoiled by some of the other lenses in my arsenal - just updated my profile with the full list. The fuji lenses at f1.2 to 1.4 are really sharp wide open so I'm probably setting the bar high for the 24 which is known to be a bit soft at f1.4

Mt Spokane Photography said:

The time between new models seems to be increasing. There is typically little difference other than a few features.

Canon has said that their high end point and shoot models are doing very well, particularly the super zooms. I expect to see more in the $500-$800 range.

Click to expand...

Are you referring to the G1X line or the SX line?

With tripod use and a measured approach 17 TS-E without question. Shift is a very valuable interior technique and the 17 TS-E is unmatched in this field in the 135 format.

If you want AF, IS etc I wouldn't know.

P.S. Interior spaces that are "square", that is the four walls are at 90º to each other, you miss a huge amount of wall space on the two closest walls where the camera has to be a few inches off the corner. More than 94º is important for record type images.

Could be. If they make a weather-sealed version that is shorter when closed (even if it's just a nonfunctional, heavily vignetted mess below 120mm with a pushbutton stop to prevent you from accidentally zooming it that wide), I'd be interested.

Now there's something I don't get. My 70–300L is 5.6" long, and that's barely practical to carry in a normal camera bag. How do people deal with carrying lenses that are half again longer than that when retracted? And why do manufacturers build lenses that are so impractical when it would be trivial to make them retract to a shorter length?

privatebydesign said:

RustyTheGeek said:

CR should come up with some kind of way to host photographers of this caliber from time to time.

Video, Blog, or whatever. I think it would be cool and really set CR apart from (and above) other rumor sites.

Click to expand...

Absolutely agree with that idea.

Click to expand...

Maybe the CR "Powers That Be" could impose on our new member, Captain Explorer to contact a few of his favorites and offer them some kind of incentive. 8)

Alrik89 said:

candyman said:

dgatwood said:

.................
Look at the lenses that Canon has updated in the past ten years and the age of the predecessor:

24–70 L II: 10 years
16–35 L II: 6 years
70–200 L II: 9 years
70–300 (L as an alternative to non-L): 5 years
300mm IS II: 11 years
400mm IS II: 12 years
500mm IS II: 12 years
600mm IS I: 12 years
24mm IS: 24 years
35mm IS: 22 years


Only those last two replaced lenses that were more than a decade old, and both of those were IS upgrades to previously non-IS lenses.

Click to expand...

I am not sure the 16-35 II has been updated .....Is the 16-35 f/4 IS really the update?....

Click to expand...

The 16-35mm II is the update of version I.
Whats wrong with you?

Click to expand...

O yeah, mondaymorning dip
you're right

rpt said:

wickidwombat said:

stick some black tape across each side of the VF?

yay another use for canons black tape!

Click to expand...

;D

What would we ever engineer without black tape (or duct tape)?

Click to expand...

+1 for DIY black tape masking.

Yup, exactly my point. What I've also read about MR-14EX I and II is that they tend to give flat light with no shades, which macro people don't really like (since it doesn't give them a nice 3D image). In contrast, it's very useful for medical/dental/pathological specialties, where people don't really want to have shades.

scottkinfw said:

Another thing to consider, and right off, I have no knowledge of any of the flashes discussed, however, I have a lot of clinical experience, and especially, medical photography experience. For what you do, you don't want a system that is difficult and that will require a lot of time and repeat shooting to get the right exposure. Your patients are not there for modeling purposes, and may not want to get their pics taken anyway. You want to get the shot ASAP and then get on with your work. Therefore, get the flash system that will get the job done efficiently.

Also, patients want you to pay attention to them, not the technology.

Just my 2 cents.

sek

Click to expand...

wsmith96 said:

Skywise said:

up-up-down-down-left-right-left-right-menu-play.

Click to expand...

F A T A L I T Y

lol

Click to expand...

I'm not sure why... but that reminds me... I want to play Milon's Secret Castle.