Really impressed with Canon these days.

I don't think Canon have been any better or worse than any other manufacture out their,they all made their mistakes and come out with good stuff.

As always its best to pick the camera that suit you :)
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
If you're going from JPEG to TIFF it's a bit pointless. It's not lossless as you've already lost data using the JPEG as the master file? There is no logic to do this!
Click to expand...

There is if you don't want to lose anything in subsequent edits which is why I never edit my source JPEGs (as I call them).
 
petersmart said:
There is if you don't want to lose anything in subsequent edits which is why I never edit my source JPEGs (as I call them).
Click to expand...
But why not process from the raw? You've already lost 3/4 of the file data by converting to JPEG?
 
twist said:
… because somebody spending 1k+ on a camera wouldn't know the difference between the original 5D with even worst AF than the 6D and a 5D3. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
You just said 5d. Where did the money come into this? Actually, who cares?

Nothing wrong with the 6d AF, centre point is blistering.
 
QUOTE="odd jim, post: 6490278, member: 13557"]But why not process from the raw? You've already lost 3/4 of the file data by converting to JPEG?[/QUOTE]

Because I can get virtually the same results on JPEG plus a faster saving in the camera and more FPS if I need them, and JPEGs take up less space on backups and in the camera.

And as I already said if no one can tell the difference between JPEG and RAW in the finished photos then, as far as I am concerned anyway, it's a non argument.
.
 
Edit - My apologies, I thought you were shooting raw.

But still, shooting raw will give you far more options when processing.
 
Last edited:
It's not often I disagree with anything Phil V writes on the forum, but to call the EosM 'total rubbish' is outrageous, have you actually tried it?

Yes it's flawed, but which camera doesnt have flaws?
 
Last edited:
Swissy said:
It's not often I disagree with anything Phil V writes on the forum, but to call the EosM 'total rubbish' is outrageous, have you actually tried it?

Yes it's flawed, but which camera doesnt have flaws?
Click to expand...
Agree, it's original price of £700 was rediculous, had it been priced at half that they would have sold bucket loads, basically a 650D in a small package, hardly rubbish, very nice, solid and useful little camera.
 
pingu666 said:
naw you can raise the iso abit, can do 3200-6400 in black and white, that looks really good, and you can manualy prefocus, and its fine for small focus movements in af modes

sure its not the camera for tracking a redbulled toddler at 10pm :), but its fine for alot of stuff... and there so small and light and easy to use one handed, so tend to have one round my neck, then a77 with a ultrawide or telephoto lens on a sling.

and the picture quality is amazing. you need a a7r or d800/d810 to beat it, plus great lens... none of those are cheap...
Click to expand...
Is the image quality really that good from these things?
 
twist said:
Sure, only to you though.
Click to expand...
Maybe. Or it could be that I was the only one who queried it and anyone else thought it was covered.

It's a strange world.
 
odd jim said:
Maybe. Or it could be that I was the only one who queried it and anyone else thought it was covered.

It's a strange world.
Click to expand...

Especially when someone thinks of previous previous generation cameras when discussing current and future model specs. Because what the OP listed would surely have been specs of the original 5D.
 
Last edited:
twist said:
Especially when someone thinks of previous previous generation cameras when discussing current and future model specs. Because what the OP listed would surely have been specs of the original 5D.
Click to expand...
Unless he took you literally of course? I have a cousin who does that.
 
odd jim said:
Unless he took you literally of course? I have a cousin who does that.
Click to expand...

Then I would've clarified if he had asked but I think we can safely assume with what he mentioned I was referring to the mk3 and not the much poorer mk1, because that of course would mean we would be travelling back in time.
 
twist said:
Then I would've clarified if he had asked but I think we can safely assume with what he mentioned I was referring to the mk3 and not the much poorer mk1, because that of course would mean we would be travelling back in time.
Click to expand...
I can't believe you're still taking this seriously :d
 
It was nice wasnt it :)
 
odd jim said:
Edit - My apologies, I thought you were shooting raw.

But still, shooting raw will give you far more options when processing.
Click to expand...

Agreed but a beginner doesn't need more options only the smallest number of options which will give him good results until he (or she) gets some experience and can decide what works best for him.
 
scottduffy said:
Is the image quality really that good from these things?
Click to expand...

yep. pretty much the very very best shots you get from aps-c dslr, match the quality of a so so meh merrill shot, and if you shoot fur then they are *alot* better. you can view stuff 100% and its still pin sharp and packed with detail, bayer needs 2x the resolution and probably a sensor size jump to match it.
its a7r / d800 quality nearly, sometimes better..
 
...at base ISO. Mid to High ISO is abysmal.

Have we forgotten the importance of the photographer here?!? ;)
 
Last edited:
oh you can pick which channels in black and white, so you use mostly blue and it'll be same lerformance as a normal apsc
 
But what if you want full colour?

Anyway, If I do b&w conversions I always shoot colour raws anyway, as you can produce better b&w images when you have retained and can control all the colour channels.
 
i shoot raw with it and adjust black n white if needed, and the tones/"colour" of the black and white is really good out the box, the incamera bw jpg isnt as good

if you need high iso colour images then you would need another camera, but then you know that when you buy it
 
Swissy said:
It's not often I disagree with anything Phil V writes on the forum, but to call the EosM 'total rubbish' is outrageous, have you actually tried it?

Yes it's flawed, but which camera doesnt have flaws?
Click to expand...
I'm sorry you disagree, but I think it's ugly and lacks a viewfinder, compared to the best mirrorless systems it's an embarrassment.

I'm currently lusting after a FujiX100, even with a fixed lens it looks like it's pleasure to use, whereas the EOS M has performed poorly in the market place, because it has no 'kerb appeal'. Likewise, the user community for the Fuji is thriving and enthusiastic, and almost non-existent for the Canon. I'm a Canon fan, but I can't see any appeal for the EOS M apart from it's current price, at £250 from the Canon refurb shop it's about half it's launch price.

A makeover to add a vf, the 22mm f2.pancake and a 30mm pancake would be a nice package. But without a vf, it has no appeal to me at all, I hate cameras with only a rear screen.
 
Yeh. I've always believed that if something doesn't look cool or exactly fit my needs then regardless of how happy owners are or how good their results are it's a rubbish embarrassment.
 
I still think calling it an 'embarrassment' is harsh, the lack of viewfinder is a shame, but it handles and performs well enough for me, and with focus peaking added via Magic lantern i'm enjoying using it with legacy lenses.

I'm happy with it and that's what matters to me :)

And apparrantly the new M in the pipeline has a VF built in
 
Last edited:
I read a comment on a blog recently regarding lenses. The gist was that if a lens from a company that knows what it's doing is castigated on the net the blogger takes a good look at it as the reason is possibly character.

Although that comment related to lenses I think that at a modest stretch it could also be applied to bodies too. Two examples spring immediately to mind, Fuji and Sigma. Both companies products are capable of very good image quality and both have their... foibles... that may make them marmite choices.

I think that even the Canon M could be viewed in a similar light as it is undoubtedly capable of at least good image quality and allows (I think...) the user to mount existing Canon lenses (?) These abilities in themselves for many could outweigh the lack of a VF and somewhat pedestrian AF performance.

But, it's more fun to just slag stuff off on the net if you don't even remotely get it, eh Phil? ;) Maybe live and let live a little more? :D
 
Swissy said:
I still think calling it an 'embarrassment' is harsh, the lack of viewfinder is a shame, but it handles and performs well enough for me, and with focus peaking added via Magic lantern i'm enjoying using it with legacy lenses.

I'm happy with it and that's what matters to me :)

And apparrantly the new M in the pipeline has a VF built in
Click to expand...
Excellent - then it might be worth getting (for me). Though I wouldn't expect it to be everyone's cup of tea ;).
 
I think they are overpriced surely if your car halved its price after 12 months youd be very annoyed
 
woof woof said:
...

But, it's more fun to just slag stuff off on the net if you don't even remotely get it, eh Phil? ;) Maybe live and let live a little more? :D
Click to expand...
How comes I can't just have an opinion? I don't expect anyone to agree with me - what's up with this place today? So I don't like a camera - I don't expect that people who do like it should throw it away or stop enjoying it on my say-so. It's a forum, we voice our opinions, my opinion of that camera is worth whatever you decide it's worth (if that's sod all - I'm fine with that:)). But the world has fallen down a hole if I can't say I don't like something. How's that for a reading of live and let live? :banana:

I'll throw in I don't like Vauxhalls, I quite like Mac's but I can't justify the price. I hate the way the low end Nikon's disable features. I'm not a great fan of pastry, it gives me indigestion. No-one died here - it's just there's a camera I don't particularly like. :D
 
I'd hazard a guess that if the earlier comment had been something along the lines of "it's just there's a camera I don't particularly like" then I doubt anyone would have given a toss about it. When you get to labelling things as embarassing and rubbish then it moves from expressing an informed opinion onto slagging something off unnecessarilly. The nature of a forum then pretty much dictates that someone else is going to pass comment on your comment etc..

I'd guess you know all of that already though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top