Nikon is Feeding Canon its lunch....and them some

Well, there you go. I read alot of comics as a kid in the 70s, and don't even remember that at all. So again, no creativity, just dig through the archives and remake what is there.

I am expecting remakes of He Man and Isis/Shazaam next. Perhaps some new generation of Manimal or Automan to round out the corners.

I wonder when the superhero craze is going to flame out. Just like westerns in the 50s there is a saturation point followed by a collapse, like the IQ of nikon users

TeamSpeed wrote in post #17867305
The Supergirl series isn't all bad though. I just can't take all the Spiderman, Superman, Batman, and Fantastic 4 remakes that are happening. I guess there is no creativity left, nobody can come up with new superheroes, other than Antman.

Yes, there is little creativity left...they grew up with manufactured battery-powered toys and as a result they failed to develop imaginations and inventiveness since they didn't have to pick up sticks and pretend they were rifles or swords...they had things that looked just like AK-47s and sounded like them, and things that lit up and made Lightsword noises.

We get remakes of movies like (King Kong, in its 3rd release: 1933, 1976, 2005), TV shows, “Star Trek”, "Hawaii Five-0", is back to the small screen. “Twin Peaks”, “Gilmore Girl”s, coming up. “X-Files”, back in January. After “The Muppets” and “The Odd Couple” and “Hawaii Five-O” and “24”, "X Files", and on and on, at least they are an alternative to the endless list of reality TV programs.

Well, I don't see it all being doom and gloom. Take a look at the stuff HBO and Showtime puts out. You had Lost, Grey's Anatomy (for those that like these types of dramas), High School Musical, and even SyFy has something decent in Expanse (Based upon the recent books).

In terms of movies, you just have to stop watching the big blockbusters and you'll find good stuff - The Martian and Interstellar are great sci-fi. There is stuff like Life of Pi, Nightcrawler, Imitation Game for good drama... the endless supply of animation for kids... If you like horror... wait... they're all pretty piss-poor.

I wish they would film more New epidodes of Conspiracy Theory and the likes....


P.

Wilt wrote in post #17867525
Yes, there is little creativity left...they grew up with manufactured battery-powered toys and as a result they failed to develop imaginations and inventiveness since they didn't have to pick up sticks and pretend they were rifles or swords...they had things that looked just like AK-47s and sounded like them, and things that lit up and made Lightsword noises.

We get remakes of movies like (King Kong, in its 3rd release: 1933, 1976, 2005), TV shows, “Star Trek”, Hawaii 5-0, is coming back to the small screen. In 2017, on TV and then streaming online, somewhere in the future, up against who-knows-what, the crew of some Starship will have drama. That’s all we know. It’s the latest announced move in a string of revivals and reboots that brought back shows old and older. “Twin Peaks”, “Gilmore Girl”s, coming up. “X-Files”, back in January. After “The Muppets” and “The Odd Couple” and “Hawaii Five-O” and “24”, "X Files", and on and on, at least they are an alternative to the endless list of reality TV programs.

reinventing old stuff works well, and it's easy money. Same thing about fight rematches and camera body/lenses

still plenty of good new stuff, like game of thrones, walking dead, heroes season 1 , breaking bad, 24 (original series), ect. There are also endless supply of anime, that are considerably better than stuff you see on network television ect. Attack on titan.... wow.... many many more I can list, with deep stories, and complex characters. Even then, anime is susceptible to version ii, even with so much good content available.

they remake them because they're guaranteed money makers...has nothing to do with creativity...has to do with people wanting to make money...

LincsRP wrote in post #17867185
But if you're tracking something and shooting say 5 fps the focus assist beam wouldn't come on between frames.

Sorry to take the thread back to photography, after that little detour, but I wanted to respond to this. Given that the camera is swinging the mirror up and down between frames, and doing an AF check while the mirror is down, there is also ample time to switch the AF Assist beam on or off at the same time. The rise/fall time for the output of most LEDs in measured in the 100's of microseconds or less which is plenty of time and certainly less time than it takes the mirror to rise or fall. I would think the whole mirror cycle between shots is around 150 milliseconds, you could probably pulse the light on and off 750 times in that 150ms. Electronic systems are usually able to work around a thousand times faster than the mechanical systems in a camera. I have a Sigma 500 DG Super flash and the red AF assist comes on until the AF locks and then goes out. All it would need is to keep it on, and then pulse it on and off with the mirrors up/down movement. The only drawback would be that it would use a fair bit of power to keep the light on, but a lot of pro's use a large external battery anyway. I'm sure that the reduction in the number of possible flashes would be more than made up for with better AF results.

As for the question about distance, there would certainly be no reason why an AF assist unit could not be fitted with optics that allowed use over a much longer distance. You can get beaming systems for the main flash output now, so why not the AF assist?

Alan

Alan - Well put. I'd also like to add that even if it wouldn't come on between frames at 5 FPS it certainly wouldn't negate the usefulness when shooting at a slower frame rate.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #17866938
To me it seems like yesterday that I was shooting a 1D2 and 20D, and would not go past 1600 on the 20D, and HATED to push the 1D2 to 3200. and frankly both were huge compromises at those ISO settings.

This. I never wanted to use more than ISO800 on my 30D, even for websize the files were quite rough...

My 7D I dislike going beyond 3200, 6400 isnt "unusable" but its rougher than I'd like and tends to add a funky color cast. My 7D was an immense upgrade I felt over the 30D in every way, even at low ISOs the files are nice and "meaty"

To think when i started shooting my fastest film was ISO200 Ektachrome, I mainly shot ISO50 Velvia and ISO100 Provia...

Wilt wrote in post #17867525
Yes, there is little creativity left...they grew up with manufactured battery-powered toys and as a result they failed to develop imaginations and inventiveness since they didn't have to pick up sticks and pretend they were rifles or swords...they had things that looked just like AK-47s and sounded like them, and things that lit up and made Lightsword noises.

We get remakes of movies like (King Kong, in its 3rd release: 1933, 1976, 2005), TV shows, “Star Trek”, "Hawaii Five-0", is back to the small screen. “Twin Peaks”, “Gilmore Girl”s, coming up. “X-Files”, back in January. After “The Muppets” and “The Odd Couple” and “Hawaii Five-O” and “24”, "X Files", and on and on, at least they are an alternative to the endless list of reality TV programs.

To be honest remakes are nothing new, a lot of movies are based off novels, biblical stories, myths, etc... I wouldnt blame it on the toys, even with the noises and the appearance, you still could craft a story and enemies to fight. You could still create a game around the toys.

As for a lot of movies "feeling" similar, theres a reason, Movies these days are incredibly expensive endeavors, Not just to MAKE a movie but to market it and secure rights and etc. Even a comedy film like "the Hangover" has a budget that would be closer to a Blockbuster in the past. The reason plotlines, "darker and edgier" and etc are because they "sell" well. its sad but humans are stupid creatures sometimes, if we have to choose between something that has giant robots and explosions everywhere and something that looks risky but intelligent.. we'll probubly go with the explosions, Simply because we know exactly what we are getting for our money and we all have very little time and money to go to a theater anymore.

Basically anything "new" or "inventive" is probubly not going to sell unless you have some proven track record of making new and inventive sell or an executive takes a heck of a risk or has some very strong gut feeling of how to sell it.

In the case of TV keep in mind that the tons of reality TV are because essentially most TV networks are owned by a handful of companies now, and those companies are owned by the cable TV providers. Reality TV is cheap as chips to make and essentially the networks figure you'll give up and watch whatever slop is placed in front of you.

In the case of Fantastic 4 by the way, Fox has to "do something" with the rights every few years to keep the rights to making the movies, Basically they push out something and dont care if it does well because holding on to the property makes it maybe more valuable potentially in the future. Because otherwise Disney would get the rights to the X-Men, Deadpool, F4 and etc...

Spider-Man is because Disney bought Marvel, now they finally got Spider-Man back from Sony and need to introduce him into the MCU canon.

Anyways kind of offtopic. Back on topic now

gjl711 wrote in post #17858137
Your making the assumption that if it's working for you, it must be working for everyone. That simply isn't true. There are those that do require the advantages the Sony sensor provides but they are too heavily invested in the Canon system to switch easily. They keep waiting for Canon to answer the challenge and body after body, Canon fails. That's why many are disappointed.

I'm not assuming anything. I'm saying that I can't see a scenario in which I would be disappointed by a company not keeping up with another. If whatever the other company is doing is important enough to me, I'll change. If someone "requires" what Nikon is doing, then the investment already made in Canon is a secondary consideration for the simple fact that it's not getting the job done. If someone requires what another company offers, why did they invest so heavily in a system which doesn't do what they need it to do?

For a moment, take Nikon and/or the Sony sensor out of the equation. If there was nothing to compare the Canon to, what would the title of this thread be?

"Why hasn't Canon made any great strides in shadow noise and DR over the past several years?" if I had to guess based on the replies.

Your whole concept is flawed because it isn't free to change systems. People are perfectly rational when they are frustrated with one OEM, because the systems are not interchangeable.

Saying "Oh, just switch then if it's important to you or stay put and quit complaining." Ignores the thousands of dollars and time lost in changing gear.

If one invests in a system and wants to stay up to date with the best technology, one needs the manufacturer to stay current.

Eventually some will switch, but given the cost to do so I guess some **** first is to be expected.

I used to have a Canon 30D and I'd be super frustrated if they still had sensors like that. But Canon has made strides and I've updated cameras as they have come along. Now I want Canon to release sensors that are as good as what their competitors have. Why is that an unreasonable request, and why should I be happy to have to sell a ton of stuff and change brands instead?

At some point, Canon will surpass Nikon in some important "requirement" that some people have.

That might happen after all of those folks have switched to Nikon. In that case, we'll see the thread "Canon is feeding Nikon its lunch" and complaints about how Nikon isn't keeping up with Canon. What then? Will those people switch back to Canon?

Seems silly to me.

Product advancements are cyclical, and that should be kept in mind...