| Moderated by: chrisbet, |
|
|
| New Canon mirrorless announced | Rate Topic |
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted by richw: Mon Jul 23rd, 2012 19:06 | 1st Post |
| http://view.bhphotovideo.com/v/59UWV6/FNIQE/67E6XTI/XFYG0/MAILACTION=1 Might give the Fuji's a run for the their money. Good price point too.
|
| Posted by Robert: Tue Jul 24th, 2012 02:15 | 2nd Post |
| Got a circular from Calumet about it, instantly deleted but have looked at your link Rich, without a viewfinder, to me it's just a big point and shoot. It needs to be full frame too to get the true effect I would like from that sort of camera.
____________________ Robert. |
| Posted by richw: Tue Jul 24th, 2012 04:26 | 3rd Post |
Robert wrote:Got a circular from Calumet about it, instantly deleted but have looked at your link Rich, without a viewfinder, to me it's just a big point and shoot. Well DX is as good as anything else out there at the moment.
|
| Posted by jk: Tue Jul 24th, 2012 04:27 | 4th Post |
| Yes I have been following the rumours about it. It has no viewfinder then NBG!! Cant abide these cameras where there are only TFTs on the back. However it will have a great range of lenses both legacy ones and new ones that Canon produce. Also the sensors is APS-C sized which is good. Straight away it is better than a 4/3 or Nikon J1. If they had provided a version of the camera that had the same sensor and a viewfinder like the Nikon V1 then it would have been so much better. I notice in the advertising blurb that it is targeted at the P'n'S to more serious camera converters.
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| Posted by donhyunkim: Wed Aug 10th, 2016 12:34 | 5th Post |
| Canon is lagging behind in the mirrorless category. I have been playing with the Canon M and wow is it ever slow. I hope they really revamp it soon.
|
| Posted by Robert: Wed Aug 10th, 2016 16:22 | 6th Post |
| Oh, my goodness, I don't even remember this??? But I stand by the FX-DX comment. I always considered DX as a temporary expedient until the manufactures devised ways to make a full frame sensor at an affordable price. Some people find DX (or even smaller) is fine but I have always felt that a larger format has got to be better. I still hanker after medium format, but the digital sensors in MF are tiny by comparison with the old 120 film frame sizes. 60x45, 60x60 and 60x75. There is far more to this than just image definition. Working in MF or large format is a totally different world as I am sure many of you know. I still miss my Bronica S2a 6x6 a lot, but not the costs of film of course!
____________________ Robert. |
| Posted by Eric: Thu Aug 11th, 2016 03:13 | 7th Post |
| Thanks Rich...good to see you post again. Hope things are going better for you now.
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by jk: Thu Aug 11th, 2016 07:48 | 8th Post |
| Eric, have you had a look at the new Fuji XT2 specification? I think that Fuji cameras are getting closer and closer to the AF speed of a D3. I need to check out the XT2 when I get one in my hands at end of Spetember. Review here from a trusted source. http://www.fujirumors.com/first-look-review-fujifilm-x-t2/
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| Posted by Robert: Thu Aug 11th, 2016 10:27 | 9th Post |
Eric wrote:Thanks Rich...good to see you post again. Hope things are going better for you now. Err, check the dates Eric...
____________________ Robert. |
| Posted by Eric: Thu Aug 11th, 2016 16:01 | 10th Post |
Robert wrote:Eric wrote: 
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by TomOC: Thu Aug 11th, 2016 23:35 | 11th Post |
| Hi Rich- Your link to BH would not work for me...interesting...but I think Fuji is the cat's meow since they have a really significant lead in the field. For all the talk about the xt1 and 2, I still think the x100T and Xp1 and 2 are the coolest thing they have produced. There is just no comparison to the hybrid ViewFinder in my mind...OVF for color, EVF with BW setting for visualizing BW!!! Just my increasingly biased opinion 
____________________ Tom O'Connell -Lots of people talk to animals.... Not very many listen, though.... That's the problem. Benjamin Hoff, The Tao of Pooh |
| Posted by Eric: Sat Aug 13th, 2016 15:40 | 12th Post |
jk wrote:Eric, have you had a look at the new Fuji XT2 specification? Ok Jonathan here's the big question........ Do you think the XT2 with the 100-400 lens matches the D500 with the 70-400 in terms of AF speed and general responsiveness? Starting from the XT1, I find it hard to believe the XT2 will be such a step change to match the Nikon pairing. And then there are the Fuji ergonomics and EVF issues to consider. I miss an OVF...even the hybrid version as on the other Fujis, might be acceptable. I am struggling to convince myself that the benefits of the lighter, more compact bodies and lenses counter the Fuji shortfalls when compared to a conventional DSLR. There is a compelling financial argument for Fuji. The body and lens pairings mentioned above would save £700 going the Fuji route. But cost isn't the key driving factor....performance wins. 
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by jk: Sun Aug 14th, 2016 01:56 | 13th Post |
| Dont have the XT2 yet, I have only just received my Fuji 100-400 and tested it on my XT1 to check it works OK. Look at the IQ then I see little difference between the Fuji and the Nikon. I do need to test the lens out much more to make definitive statements and the XT2 will shift balance of things towards Fuji. The D500 and 200-500 is very quick but in some conditions seems to have a degree of sluggishness at starting to focus. I havent identified what this is exactly I guess it is either low subject contrast or light quality. Unfortunately these things only really come out after extensive use so the age old tag of why didnt you hire it (which is only possible of you live in USA or London) doesnt wash.
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| Posted by highlander: Sun Aug 14th, 2016 03:59 | 14th Post |
| I am more tempted by the new mirror less hassleblad myself. In some ways I'm with Robert, but then I shoot DX rather than FX because I don't notice the difference between DX and FX until I get past A2 (prints) and then it's minor. I've had full frame and I don't miss it for what I am doing now, and I don't actually think I needed it then because my second body was DX and I actually preferred the results from the 10MP DX sensor to the larger higher pixel count of the FX (D700) I had. I think there is a lot to be said for less better quality photosites than cramming in more, and I think NIKON has realised this with the D500 and they concentrated elsewhere on performance, colour rendition et al. I wouldn't bother going to FX now, I would rather invest in good glass or jump straight to medium format. If I was offered £5k on a camera I wouldn't by a D5, I would buy a used Hasselblad. Although I wish they made waist level finders for them as I don't want to use medium format like a 35mm, at eye level
____________________ Blog https://blythestorm.com Website http://www.blythestormphotography.com |
| Posted by Eric: Sun Aug 14th, 2016 05:46 | 15th Post |
Robert wrote:Oh, my goodness, I don't even remember this??? Why stop at MF? Why not get a scanning back 'camera'? Not being flippant, Robert, but how big do we need to go? I doubt whether all but top end professional photographers will ever USE 50+mp . When asked about the value of the inferior quality SLRs, Ansel Adams said (something like) "the biggest obstacle to quality in SLRs, is the ease and speed of use". I know the reasoning on more pixels enable cropping and the larger the pixels the better, hence the bigger sensor the better. But look at how many people with even the D800 series struggle to extract the max quality. And how many people print beyond the visible limiitations of even 25mp? I know applying best technique will always deliver best quality...but are we always going to be so disciplined? As you will no doubt be experiencing, the D3 is an amazingly forgiving machine. For me, at least, I need a camera that copes with my worst technique. That way I know it will be better when I DO take my time and conditions are optimum. There is nothing worse than a machine constraining how you use it.
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by Robert: Mon Aug 15th, 2016 01:30 | 16th Post |
Eric wrote:Robert wrote: In part the D3 is more forgiving due to it's larger sensor and larger photosites. You misunderstand me, I am NOT advocating even larger pixels counts. Rather similar pixel counts in a larger format, the pixel counts relate to the output resolution and size, rather than the taking resolution. To illustrate a point sometimes it helps to go to the ridiculous extreme. Miniaturisation is great for some things but to create photographs sometimes the constraints of physical limits and the sheer impracticality of implementing them are the biggest barriers. A true full frame 60x60 digital back on a film Hasselblad with perhaps 20Mp would in my view be better than the scarcely bigger than FX backs they are offering on 'MF' cameras today. They would have huge photosites and gather light very well, have a tremendous dynamic range and very good low light sensitivity. I am thinking about making art here, not taking snapshots of activity. An artist would take their easel, pallet and paints into the field, why not a larger format camera and a tripod?
____________________ Robert. |
| Posted by jk: Mon Aug 15th, 2016 03:15 | 17th Post |
| I have to agree with Robert that I see little attraction for the current MF size (approx 44x33mm). If it was a 60x60 size then I would be more tempted. This current MF size represents a x2 approx gain in sensor size over FX. Using a FX semsor with 36 or 50 MP does change the dynamics of use of a camera as you need to take much more care and have top quality glass to get best results. When you do that you have essentially a camera that equates to MF film. There are 100MP backs from PhaseOne but as their sensor size is 44x33mm with 16bit RAW capture which produce great results with lovely dynamic range and tonality but the price is very high for the small quality gain.
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| Posted by Eric: Mon Aug 15th, 2016 13:39 | 18th Post |
Robert wrote:Eric wrote: Ok, understand you, now.  We are agreed on the photosite size point....but if its so sacrosanct, why are Nikon are continuing to develop smaller photosite DSLRs? Why are professionals buying them? If a 6x6 20mp sensor is the gold standard, why aren't manufacturers sticking with that? You are suggesting they are developing lower standards by upping the pixels on the same size sensor? On the subject of the artist lugging his gear into the field..sure, if you are a waterclolour artist you may well complete in the field. But many artist sketch or even photograph the scene and create the image in studio. I hear that photographers even do that...grabbing a photo in the field and using PS to create the image back home. Of course we could drag our digital plate cameras into the wilderness...I just don't see it happening. Snapshots rule. 
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by Robert: Tue Aug 16th, 2016 01:21 | 19th Post |
Eric wrote:
It isn't sacrosanct, I just think it would be a nice place to be, DSLR's are used like a rifle, with their sights aimed at the subject prior to shooting it. I would much prefer to compose my image, prior to making an exposure, with a waist level finder, a popup loupe and maybe the image moving the opposite way to the camera movement, just like a real MF camera would. Nikon produce cameras with ever increasing pixel densities for the simple reason that the public expect it. The fact that they almost never utilise any of the extreme resolution afforded by this technology is apparently irrelevant, they would need to have a screen (or print) 4 ft square or larger to use all the pixels. They buy the resolution, then throw it away. Nikon are in business to make money, NOT CAMERAS. Nikon sales would plummet to almost none if my suggestions were adopted. Note that the single digit D's are generally much lower pixel count than the amateur or 'enthusiast' cameras are. So the 'pro's' are actually following my idea in principle but they can only buy what Nikon sell. The Holy Grail perceived by the vast majority is higher pixel counts. In my opinion it's a total wast of money and resources to create a tool which goes beyond the needs of the task. I do see artists using painting/drawing classic scenes sat at their easel's on little folding seats in the more picturesque villages in the Lake District, not as common nowadays but it still happens! We once had an art club ask to use our garden at the pub in Cartmel because it provided a rather nice view of the Priory, The big advantage of painting/drawing is it's an additive process, they don't need to add the telephone wires or public toilets, etc. into the image, where as we need to remove them (if we choose). But then we are 'accused of Photoshopping', their omission is called 'artist's licence'! LOL
____________________ Robert. |
| Posted by Eric: Tue Aug 16th, 2016 03:33 | 20th Post |
Robert wrote:Eric wrote: It isn't sacrosanct, I just think it would be a nice place to be, DSLR's are used like a rifle, with their sights aimed at the subject prior to shooting it. I would much prefer to compose my image, prior to making an exposure, with a waist level finder, a popup loupe and maybe the image moving the opposite way to the camera movement, just like a real MF camera would. Nikon produce cameras with ever increasing pixel densities for the simple reason that the public expect it. The fact that they almost never utilise any of the extreme resolution afforded by this technology is apparently irrelevant, they would need to have a screen (or print) 4 ft square or larger to use all the pixels. They buy the resolution, then throw it away. Nikon are in business to make money, NOT CAMERAS. Nikon sales would plummet to almost none if my suggestions were adopted. Note that the single digit D's are generally much lower pixel count than the amateur or 'enthusiast' cameras are. So the 'pro's' are actually following my idea in principle but they can only buy what Nikon sell. The Holy Grail perceived by the vast majority is higher pixel counts. In my opinion it's a total wast of money and resources to create a tool which goes beyond the needs of the task. I do see artists using painting/drawing classic scenes sat at their easel's on little folding seats in the more picturesque villages in the Lake District, not as common nowadays but it still happens! We once had an art club ask to use our garden at the pub in Cartmel because it provided a rather nice view of the Priory, The big advantage of painting/drawing is it's an additive process, they don't need to add the telephone wires or public toilets, etc. into the image, where as we need to remove them (if we choose). But then we are 'accused of Photoshopping', their omission is called 'artist's licence'! LOL Of course you are right Robert...I am just being mischievous.  ......but next time I see someone using a tripod on a day out, I will take a snapshot of them.
____________________ Eric |
| This is topic ID = 279 | ||
| Nikon DSLR Forums > Camera and Lens Forums > Other Makes of Camera > New Canon mirrorless announced | Top | |
Users viewing this topic |
||
Current theme is Blue
| A small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondsl.uk Thank you. |
Hosted by Octarine Services
Copyright © 2008-2024 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.1846 seconds (68% database + 32% PHP). 144 queries executed.
Copyright © 2008-2024 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.1846 seconds (68% database + 32% PHP). 144 queries executed.