T3

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Jul 1, 2003

Comments

Total: 6377, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »
In reply to:

G Master: Sigma would be wise to release the 56mm in Canon EOS M mount, it’s the best selling mirrorless lens mount in Japan.

Sigma only offers mirrorless lenses in m4/3 and E-mount. What do these mounts have in common? They are both open standards. No need to reverse engineer, no need to pay a fee for their use. So it makes it easy to provide lenses for these mounts.

https://www.four-thirds.org/en/fourthirds/index.html

https://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press/201102/11-018E/

As for EOS M, there is the question of whether it will stay around. And there's also the cost and trouble of reverse engineering the mount. We don't even know if Sigma will even be offering their lenses for Canon RF and Nikon Z mount, since those are closed proprietary mounts too. And the other factor is that RF and Z still have hardly any usership. The other factor is that now Sigma is part of the competing L alliance (with Panasonic and Leica).

There may be other factors that keep Sigma from offering their lenses for EOS M. Sigma would definitely have more insight and knowledge to back up their decision than we have.

Link | Posted on Nov 3, 2018 at 04:46 UTC
In reply to:

bdbender4: Whoever put the slider bar on there doesn't have or use a smartphone. If they did, they would know that the whole screen is already a "slider bar" and a much better one if you have competent software. 2 billion people already are "sliding" on phone touchscreens, all the time, every day. (Senior Canon management is Just as out of touch (ha!) as Apple with their slider bar on laptop computers when they also have a touchscreen pad already under your fingers.) And, just for the record, I say this as a Canon user, a bit sadly.

@Camera Tribbing - That's his point. The screen is already a giant slide bar, so why have another one on the body?

Link | Posted on Nov 2, 2018 at 23:40 UTC
In reply to:

wcan: "...what do you think?..." I think Canon should have produced a camera with feature parity to the competition. Specifically, full frame oversampled 4K and IBIS with a new generation sensor.

@Barney Britton - "At an EOS 6D pricepoint?"

Are you talking about the current 6D price point? Because the 6D MKI's current price point is $999. The 6D MKII's price point is currently $1,599. The EOS R is obviously well above those two price points, and even above the price point of the Z6 and A7III, For the price, it should at least have faster fps and IBIS, which the Z6 and A7III obviously have. This camera is certainly not at the 6D price point.

Link | Posted on Nov 2, 2018 at 23:38 UTC
In reply to:

JackM: 1. proper tilt screen. None of this "articulating" for selfies crap.
2. IBIS
3. 10fps
4. full width 4K video
5. proper tilt screen.

I prefer tilt screens because I just like my screen to be closer to the lens axis than what a swivel screen offers. And the whole rig is more compact even when using a tilt screen. Using a swing-out swivel screen doubles the width of the camera. The best would be to have a camera that can do both swivel and tilt, but if I can only choose one I'd rather have tilt. I think swivel might be better for videography (especially vlogging), but for photography I prefer tilt.

Link | Posted on Nov 2, 2018 at 23:33 UTC
In reply to:

underxposed59: Nikon should have spent a little less time on build quality and more time on auto focus quality

@Thoughts R Us - The EOS R has the same degree of weather sealing. Both the Canon and Sony bodies will survive just fine. None are going to get a mass recall. You are being hysterical, trying to spread baseless fear. It's stupid. Grow up.

Link | Posted on Nov 2, 2018 at 00:06 UTC
In reply to:

camerosity: Nikon has a long reputation of building very tough camera bodies. This proves that the Z line carries on that tradition.

@Thoughts R Us - For all the weather sealing that even the best, most expensive pro bodies have, pros still put rain covers over their gear when the rain comes down. Just look at the sidelines of any sporting event when it rains. All the sideline shooters put rain covers on their gear. That's just reality. And when people buy camera bags, they typically look for rain-proofing and rain covers, even if they have weather-proof gear. No one is going to put their camera into a sopping wet bag no matter how weather sealed their camera is claimed to be. That's also reality. So all this "my camera has more weather sealing than your camera" arguing is just for bragging rights. I've always shot with non-weather sealed bodies in all kinds of nasty conditions, and they've all survived fine. I think there are other factors that are a lot more important.

Link | Posted on Nov 2, 2018 at 00:03 UTC
In reply to:

M Chambers: This is better built than the Sony A9? Or do they just pray at the altar of Nikon?

@Thoughts R Us - The same nonsense about build and reliability was said about Canon back in the 1990s because Canon used more plastic than Nikon. But Canon still overtook Nikon in the pro and consumer SLR markets, in spite of Nikon users constantly trying to use the BS argument that Canon build quality was inferior or their technology was unreliable. These fear-mongering tactics didn't work back then against Canon, and it's not going to work today against Sony. It was just a show of desperation from the anti-Canon crowd back then and the anti-Sony crowd today. Same foolish tune, same failed tactic. Consumers know better than to fall for that FUD.

I was a Nikon user who switched to EOS back in the 1990s. I heard all the lame chatter about how Canon gear was unreliable. It was nonsense. It's so ridiculous to be hearing it again, this time aimed at Sony. Ridiculous. I guess it's the go-to strategy when you can't compete on tech, specs, and performance.

Link | Posted on Nov 1, 2018 at 23:49 UTC
In reply to:

matthew saville: While I do strongly agree with all of these things, I think it is still selling short the potential show-stopping camera the EOS R could have been, if it'd also included the three big things that everybody was wanting, even if it meant the camera would cost a little more than its ~$2K competition.

Let's not sugar-coat this:

If Canon wanted to stop Sony-switching dead in its tracks, all they needed to do was include:

1.) IBIS
2.) Dual SD slots
3.) Full-width 4K video

Say what you want about "this" camera isn't meant to be "that" camera, but the bottom line is that the clock is ticking on putting a stop to the ship-jumping, and both Canon and Nikon could have gone just a bit further towards accomplishing that goal, even on their first go-round.

@Arun H - "but simply note that Canon continues to be the #1 camera manufacturer by a rather large margin."

...in the DSLR era. Canon isn't going quite as well with mirrorless. Look at Amazon best sellers for digital cameras and mirrorless cameras. Their latest cameras aren't doing as well as they used to:

https://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Electronics-Digital-Cameras/zgbs/electronics/281052/ref=zg_bs_unv_e_3_3109924011_1

https://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Electronics-Mirrorless-Cameras/zgbs/electronics/3109924011/ref=zg_bs_nav_e_3_281052

Also look at Google analytics data. After a spike in interest for EOS R, interest dropped off quite a bit (yellow line):

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=US&q=sony%20a7iii,nikon%20z6,canon%20eos%20r,nikon%20z7

In comparison, A7III has held steady interest even though it was released months ago. It's held steady at around 50 for months. EOS R is tracking around the mid 30's. My point is that things are different in mirrorless.

Link | Posted on Nov 1, 2018 at 23:42 UTC
In reply to:

lacikuss: I like these suggestions and most of them can probably be implemented in firmware updates.
Excellent article!

Right, because Canon is the king of improving their cameras with firmware updates! Not. Their firmware updates typically come with the purchase of new hardware, ie, a new camera.

Link | Posted on Nov 1, 2018 at 23:31 UTC
In reply to:

guido v: The most inventive and usefull tool I ever had on a Canon was the eye-controlled AF-function of my old Canon EOS 3 (an analog camera I had in 2000). Afterwards, I never got this system back, neither on my 5D M2 or 5D M3. When will Canon re-integrate this beautiful AF-tool back into the R system?

@Carey Rose - the upside (and downside) of Canon ECF was that you had to pause your eye on a focus point for it to be activated. Kind of like you had to stare a bit at a focus point for it to be activated. This allowed you to look around the viewfinder all you wanted without it activating focus points everywhere you looked. The obvious downside to that is that it created a lag before the focus point was activated. So it definitely wasn't good to use for tracking action with your eye.

I don't know if a modern ECF system would still require that stare-delay. If it didn't, there would definitely be pros and cons to that. On the plus side, it would mean faster AF point activation. On the negative side, it would mean a lot more accidental or unwanted focus point activations as you looked around the viewfinder. My guess is that they would have to implement some kind of "ECF-On" button where ECF only tracked your eye, or only activated focus points, when it was pressed.

Link | Posted on Nov 1, 2018 at 23:21 UTC
In reply to:

guido v: The most inventive and usefull tool I ever had on a Canon was the eye-controlled AF-function of my old Canon EOS 3 (an analog camera I had in 2000). Afterwards, I never got this system back, neither on my 5D M2 or 5D M3. When will Canon re-integrate this beautiful AF-tool back into the R system?

Technically, it should be easier than ever to implement Eye Control Focus. Back in the 1990's when ECF was first implemented, they used an array of infrared beams to detect your eye position in the viewfinder. It was a very primitive method and it took up more room in the viewfinder (which is why the EOS 3 had a very tall viewfinder hump). These days, they could stick a tiny camera inside the viewfinder to track your eye position. That means that any company could do it because it's not the same technology that Canon used back in the 1990's (assuming that technology was patented, and assuming the patent is still active). Digital cameras can obviously be made tiny these days. I wonder if some other camera company might do it?

Link | Posted on Nov 1, 2018 at 23:08 UTC
In reply to:

M Chambers: This is better built than the Sony A9? Or do they just pray at the altar of Nikon?

@Oskar P - BTW, Apple's iPhone only had 15.2% smartphone market share in 2017. Is Apple floundering? LOL. Apple took in the majority of the smartphone industry's profits!

Link | Posted on Nov 1, 2018 at 19:35 UTC
In reply to:

M Chambers: This is better built than the Sony A9? Or do they just pray at the altar of Nikon?

@Oskar P - I hate to disappoint you, but Sony is not floundering. For example, look at what's selling well on Amazon:

https://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Electronics-Digital-Cameras/zgbs/electronics/281052/ref=zg_bs_unv_e_3_3109924011_1

https://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Electronics-Mirrorless-Cameras/zgbs/electronics/3109924011/ref=zg_bs_nav_e_3_281052

At the time of this writing, the A7III is not only the best selling FF mirrorless camera on Amazon, it's also the best selling FF camera (DSLR or mirrorless). And it's been like that for months.

Also look at Google analytics data:

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=US&q=sony%20a7iii,nikon%20z6,canon%20eos%20r,Nikon%20Z7

After initial spikes in interest for the Nikon and Canon FF mirrorless bodies (red, yellow, and green lines), interest has fallen off considerably. But look at the sustained interest for the Sony A7III (the blue line). Sony floundering? No. You're just in denial.

Link | Posted on Nov 1, 2018 at 19:12 UTC
In reply to:

M Chambers: This is better built than the Sony A9? Or do they just pray at the altar of Nikon?

@Rainersen - LOL, back in the 1980's/1990's, Nikon users constantly referred to Canon as "the copier company." Nikon users said, "Maybe copiers but cameras? lenses? No way!" Then Canon ate Nikon's lunch in the camera market :) It just goes to show that as cameras and lenses became more technologically-dependent devices, technology companies such as Canon and Sony gained considerable advantage. And that's even more significant with mirrorless cameras, where so much depends on sensor technology. Sony clearly dominates with that technology.

Apparently, Nikon users haven't learned their lesson from the past. Don't underestimate the technologically superior competitor!

Link | Posted on Nov 1, 2018 at 17:59 UTC
In reply to:

M Chambers: This is better built than the Sony A9? Or do they just pray at the altar of Nikon?

@itguy08 - "Sony cameras are nothing special in build quality, optics, or images."

Nikon users used to say the same thing about Canon EOS back in the 1990s. But Canon had the technological edge, and thanks to that they were able to not only catch up to Nikon in the market place (starting from zero market share in 1987 when EOS was introduced), and ultimately overtaking Nikon. We've heard this dismissive attitude before. Back in the 1990's, it was directed towards Canon. Today it is being directed towards Sony. In both cases, it's directed towards the fast-moving, technologically advanced, highly ambitious "upstart" system. That attitude didn't work so well for Nikon the first time around. Times change, leads change, users change.

Link | Posted on Nov 1, 2018 at 17:28 UTC
In reply to:

Boissez: It's amusing to see the Sony fans get all defensive, but it's likely because Sony has reliability issues.

In my experience, after two out of two broken Sonys I'm done with the brand.

This is the same kind of non-sense that Nikon users tried to use against Canon back in the 1980's and 1990's. Nikon users constantly claimed that Canon bodies and lenses were cheaply built and unreliable. It was pure fear-mongering. And yet Canon EOS went on to overtake Nikon in both the consumer and pro SLR markets. Canon unseated king Nikon, in spite of attempts to paint Canon gear as being less reliable. Now, the same fear-mongering strategy is being applied to Sony. The strategy didn't work when Canon EOS was the new threat to the status quo (Nikon), and it's not going to work now that Sony is the new threat to the status quo (Nikon and Canon). But it's even less likely to work today because Sony's bodies are all magnesium (compared to Canon's heavy use of plastic back then). I sense the same desperation and foolish elitism that Nikon users had back when Canon EOS was the new threat. But fortunately consumers knew better. I was a Nikon user who switched to EOS in the 1990s.

Link | Posted on Nov 1, 2018 at 15:32 UTC
In reply to:

underxposed59: Nikon should have spent a little less time on build quality and more time on auto focus quality

It's a lot easier to add a few extra gaskets and seals to a body than to add better AF performance.

Link | Posted on Nov 1, 2018 at 15:25 UTC
In reply to:

worldaccordingtojim: As a Sony user I love seeing things like this, this will drive the market to a new standard. The EOS R on the other hand is a complete loss as most people expected. After the d850, if nothing else Nikon is putting 100% into their cameras. Full frame 4k, IBIS, great build quality, and decent AF. Bring on the competition, can't wait to see the next Sonys.

@SteB - Canon clearly doesn't believe in IBIS. They believe in faster lenses. That's great for them because they get to pass the cost on to the consumer with more expensive faster lenses, and sell more expensive gear. The problem is that faster lenses are only good if you're shooting at max aperture. A 50mm f/1.2 lens stopped down to f/2.8 becomes a 50/2.8. An f/1.2 aperture is great for bragging rights, but f/1.4 lenses are only slightly slower and a lot less expensive and lighter. Canon's f/1.2 fast-lens strategy might sound good for headlines, but in reality it's not really as appealing as many people seem to think. Faster lenses are bigger, heavier, more expensive. I think Sony's (and possibly Nikon's) strategy of offering slightly slower lenses with IBIS is far more appealing, especially for the average shooter who doesn't have unlimited financial resources and doesn't want to lug around a $3000 3.2lb 28-70/2L lens! This is a clash between bragging rights vs practicality.

Link | Posted on Nov 1, 2018 at 15:16 UTC
In reply to:

worldaccordingtojim: As a Sony user I love seeing things like this, this will drive the market to a new standard. The EOS R on the other hand is a complete loss as most people expected. After the d850, if nothing else Nikon is putting 100% into their cameras. Full frame 4k, IBIS, great build quality, and decent AF. Bring on the competition, can't wait to see the next Sonys.

@SteB - "few lenses Canon have released, outshine anything every produced by Sony, Nikon etc."

But these lenses are at very high weight and very high price. Consider Canon's lens strategy vs Sony's:

EOS R: $2300, no IBIS
A7III: $2000, with IBIS

Canon RF 50/1.2L: $2,299
Sony FE 50/1.4 GM: $1,498
(RF 50/1.2L is $950 more expensive than their EF 50/1.2L)

Canon is supposedly working on RF 24/1.2 and 85/1.2 lenses. Here's my guess on their prices, based on the price of their closest EF versions (ie, +$950), compared to Sony

EF 24/1.4L: $1,549
RF 24/1.2L: $2,499
FE 24/1.4 GM: $1,398

EF 85/1.2L: $1,899
RF 85/1.2L: $2,849
FE 85/1.4 GM: $1,798

EOS R plus these lenses = $9,947. And no IS! Sony option is $6,694 ($3,253 cheaper), all stabilized! Even if the RF 24 & 85 were "only" the same price as the RF 50, it would still be $9,200! No thanks, I would MUCH rather have Sony's excellent f/1.4 GM lens with IBIS over Canon's f/1.2's minus IBIS! Lighter, cheaper, more effective. Canon = $$$$

Link | Posted on Nov 1, 2018 at 15:00 UTC
In reply to:

Thoughts R Us: This issue of reliability and durability is one factor that really matters to consumers. If someone is going to spend thousands of dollars for a camera system then that system should be built to the highest standard.

It does no good to have the latest bells and whistles if the product is unreliable.

I rented a Sony a9 and while it is impressive technically in a number of ways, it did not feel like a reliable product. How Sony can put out a product that costs that much...that is their flagship of their product line, and not create a better built body to house all of that tech in baffles me.

The Nikon Z7 feels many times more substantial than any Sony, even the more expensive a9.

If Sony had the a9 internals in a camera body like the Z7 I probably would have bought one.

@millardmt - Whatever your "recall" might be about "wailing and teeth-gnashing", Canon overtook Nikon in the pro and consumer market. I was a Nikon user using my dad's Nikon manual gear. The stuff was built like a tank. But when it came time to get into autofocus, I switched to Canon EOS. I heard all the non-sense about Canon "plastic cameras." But ultimately, Canon's technological superiority won out, not only for me but also for the majority of the SLR market. And all the talk of Canon "plastic cameras constantly falling into junk" proved to be fear-mongering nonsense. We all know Canon became #1 in the SLR market. Clearly, the nonsense argument that Canon plastic cameras were unreliable and "constantly fall into junk" did not work. So I find it humorous that people are trying to use the failed, fear-mongering "issue of reliability and durability" argument yet again, but this time with Sony. And it's even more ridiculous this time because Sony bodies are magnesium metal, not plastic.

Link | Posted on Nov 1, 2018 at 06:36 UTC
Total: 6377, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »