September 01, 2014, 02:39:22 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - neuroanatomist

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 925
1
Lenses / Re: Canon Price Drops on L Lenses
« on: Today at 02:22:12 PM »
How does this affect the black Friday weekend/month? The Canon 70-200 F2.8L IS II normally drops to $1799.

My question is, will this lens drop even more, possibly to $1599 on black Friday weekend/month?

Ask us on the following Saturday...   ;)

2
...while the apologists were arguing, pros were switching en masse to Canon.
Nikon, of course, took notice and started offering FF cameras.

Today, we have Canon apologists arguing that you don't need more DR (and resolution) than what Canon is already offering.
The situation is definitely not as bad as the DX vs FF scenario of the past but bears many similarities.

The difference – which completely obviates any similarities – is that neither pros nor consumers are switching en masse to Nikon.

3
Lenses / Re: Recent L Price Reductions: Thoughts?
« on: Today at 11:53:23 AM »
I hadn't been aware of the changes in the value of the yen. If the yen was stronger before, then wouldn't that make the dollar relatively less valuable and lead to less profit per lens sold in the US at that time once repatriated back to Japan?

Exactly, and that's why there were a couple of significant price hikes on lenses starting about 3 years ago.  For example, take the MkII supertele lenses that just dropped $1K.  When they were announced, the suggested retail pricing was actually around the prices today, after yesterday's drop.  Between announcement and launch (which was a long delay, close to 18 months), the yen increased in value, and Canon raised the supertele prices by $500-1000.

4
Lenses / Re: Recent L Price Reductions: Thoughts?
« on: Today at 10:10:46 AM »
Business reasons, most likely having nothing to do with Sigma or other third-party lens makers.  Prices have gone up over the last few years, as the value of the yen increased.  The yen fell a while back, they've extracted a fair bit of profit from that, and now need to boost sales to maintain further profit.  Choice of which lenses get price drops is likely driven by inventory levels.  If you have a significant quantity of a certain lens on hand, those are sunk costs...dropping the price can help recover them,

5
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: Today at 09:51:35 AM »
Well the thing is he didn't know the direction of Canon developments.

How would that even had been possible to know?

After all, it is for sure at some point "even" Canon extends DR - and that is not because of "whiners" but because it is part of sensor IQ. Would be utterly absurd to think Canon itself don't know this - they optimize the way they think it is most profitable for shareholders and they haven't been wrong this far.

You're correct.  Thus far, Canon has chosen not to substantially increased low ISO DR.  Their market share has seemingly not suffered for it.  Nikon did choose to increase DR, and their market share has not increased.  What does that say about the importance of DR to the majority of buyers?

As for jrista spending $25K on his kit not knowing the direction of Canon's developments, consider that he spent half of that total amount less than a year ago, buying a 600 II.  After 4-5 years of Canon not increasing low ISO DR, it would be somewhat foolish to assume they would do the opposite the next year...and Jon isn't foolish.  In fact, since the 5DIII had been out for a long time, the assumption was easily testable in the case of that camera before committing to a purchase. 

6
A related question:  how many non-Nikon shooters go to Nikon forums to complain about Nikon?

From what I've seen, many of the most vocal complainers on CR don't use Canon gear.  Some of them used to shoot Canon.  So why are they here?

Have they 'found religion' and are here to 'convert' the great unwashed masses?

Do they have inner doubts about their choices, and coming here to complain about Canon helps them continue to justify their decisions?

Do they think they're being altruistic, devoting their time and energy to show us poor, deluded fools how bad we have it, and how good it could be if only we make the same choices they made?

Do they honestly want Canon to deliver products that would meet their own needs, however niche those needs are, and somehow believe that complaining here will help accomplish that?

Or...do they merely want to sow discord?

Frankly, the vast majority of CR forum members are here to request and provide information, share techniques and images, etc.  CR is a great community resource, and like nearly all successful Internet forums, it attracts a few incessant complainers.   Look on the bright side – they provide some entertainment on slow rumor days...

7
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 31, 2014, 09:48:32 PM »
That's my honest opinion. ... I think we, collectively, are shooting ourselves in our collective feet if we don't at least admit that Canon should do something about their sensor technology

Fair enough. 

I do think there's near-universal agreement that some aspects of Sony/Nikon sensor performance are ahead of Canon. 

I also think we, collectively (meaning CR forum members) could shoot ourselves in the foot, and Canon wouldn't even offer us a bandaid to cover the bullet hole.  Sad, but true. 

8
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 31, 2014, 09:24:30 PM »
More often there is a thread specifically about sensors or DR or banding and the same set of Canon defenders always comes in and jumps all over

Sorry, but no.  More often it's a thread about anything but DR and one of the DRones comes in and makes it about DR, and others chime in to counter that.  Mikael/ankorwatt hijacked countless threads.  Earlier today jakeymate posted his diet coke box noise images (from this thread) in a thread started by someone wondering about changing the color profile of their Canon on-board LCD.  Nothing to do with sensors or DR, at all...until Dean the DRone showed up, that is.  ::)

9
Lenses / Re: Canon Price Drops on L Lenses
« on: August 31, 2014, 09:07:53 PM »
Hmm...I'm no mathematician... but I'm pretty sure there's a mistake for the Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5 L II.  $1,999.00 minus $250 should be less than $1,999.00, right?  ;)

MSRP was $2199, with the $200 price drop it's now $1999.

I was just pointing out that for that lens, the front page lists Old Price=$1,999.00 Drop=$250.00 New Price=$1,999.00.  It's a typo I assume.

Ahhh, sorry – didn't pay much attention to the CR post since it was posted on CPW yesterday. 

10
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 31, 2014, 08:41:43 PM »
Would someone explain to me what is wrong with pointing out the weaknesses of your brand and hoping that future models improve on those weaknesses?

Not a damned thing.

+1

Honestly and fairly pointing out weaknesses is something consumers should do, assuming their products matter to them. 

Many people, myself included, discussed the lack of a sharp-to-the-corners UWA from Canon.  Now, we have the 16-35/4L IS. 

I bitched loud and long about the 5DII's AF system, which was pretty similar to that in the 20D...which was the same system used in the entry level xxxD bodies at the time.  Now, we have 1-series AF in the 5DIII.

For those two examples, a sizable portion of Canon's customer base felt there was an issue to be addressed.  I think the difference in this case is that there is only a very small minority complaining about Canon's lesser low ISO DR.  The other difference is the way in which some members of that small minority seem to exaggerate the issue out of all reasonable proportion.

11
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 31, 2014, 08:41:24 PM »
Canon data gets scratchier and muddier starting in the lower midtones, and gets ever more nasty the deeper you go. I like contrasty landscapes, and when downsampled to ~8x10 size or smaller for viewing on the web they look perfectly fine. But printed? The shadows are muddy, red-blotchy mush, even despite the contrast.

Apparently, some of us feel Canon bodies are suitable for amateurs who want to post pictures on Facebook, the web, or print no larger than 8x10".

You know, why do you have to TWIST things like that? Where the hell did I EVER say that a Canon camera was only suitable for amateurs? That is some twisted notion you are implying, and your implications are flat out wrong. If the day ever comes that I actually believe Canon cameras are only suitable for amateurs, you better believe that I WILL SAY SO. STRAIT UP. FLAT OUT. I've never been one to hide my opinions.

I'm not one to beat around the bush, obfuscate, twist the facts, or anything like that. I've been on these forums for years, and I am speaking MY honest opinion about what I see as the state of Canon equipment based on my own first-hand experiences.

I would have thought I'd get at least a little bit more respect and just a bit of the benefit of the doubt due to my history here. I'd have thought I'd earned the right for my words to be taken at face value, instead of chopped up and reassembled with a completely different meaning...I'd have thought I'd have earned the right to be listened to for what I say, and not have everyone assume I'm saying something else, or have anyone listen to someone like Neuro's twisted interpretation of my words and assume that's what I mean. I SAY what I mean, you don't have to interpret any kind of hidden meaning into it.

However, it seems that all you need to do around here to become "just another idiot drone who needs to be run out of town", just another guy out to lie to the world and twist facts and hide evidence to prove an invalid point, is claim that Canon needs to do something about their sensor IQ. Is that really the case? Is that all it takes around here for you guys to start twisting the words of an otherwise honest guy who STILL PREFERS CANON, and just wants them to solve their noise problems?

Admittedly, I conflated your comments with those of Tony Northrup, and for that I apologize.  I had assumed it would be clear from context, since I included quotes from both of you (even though you did not, in quoting me, which confuses the issue).  I expected the deconvolution to be easy...evidently it was not easy enough.  Sorry.

However, in your words:

Canon data gets scratchier and muddier starting in the lower midtones, and gets ever more nasty the deeper you go. I like contrasty landscapes, and when downsampled to ~8x10 size or smaller for viewing on the web they look perfectly fine. But printed? The shadows are muddy, red-blotchy mush, even despite the contrast.

Is it truly your honest opinion and do you stand by your statement that Canon images are suitable only for web display or prints no larger than 8x10"?

As I stated before, that's completely ridiculous...it's a statement that's proven false by many images, including high-contrast landscapes, taken with Canon cameras hanging as large prints in prestigious galleries around the world. 

As for your reputation and history here, you're probably familiar with the saying about reputations – it takes years to build them, but only seconds to destroy them. 

12
EOS-M / Re: Recommendations for lens to supplement EF-M 22mm?
« on: August 31, 2014, 07:19:41 PM »
If you search on eBay, you can likely find a grey market EF-M 18-55 for $110 or less, often with a warranty from the seller.

eBay?  I got my white-box 18-55M for $109 from B&H, with free shipping.  Canon USA honors the warranty if you buy gray market.

13
Photography Technique / Re: Back-button focus?
« on: August 31, 2014, 07:13:24 PM »
What do you prefer as to AF point selection for moving objects? Auto zone, 61 pt AF or??

Depends on the subject.  For birds, I usually use 1+8 expansion.  For people, I do use 61-pt auto. 

14
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 31, 2014, 06:50:35 PM »
I think we all can agree on 3 basic things:

1) You can take great pictures on any camera

I'd have thought we could agree on that, at least.  Well, most of us...exceptions like people who'll say whatever to make a buck notwithstanding.  For example:

Quote from: Tony Northrup
The D810 is vastly superior, but: "If you have a Mark III and you're not a pro, it's probably not worth switching," and, "If you're putting photos on Facebook...it probably won't make much difference."

But apparently I was wrong...

Canon data gets scratchier and muddier starting in the lower midtones, and gets ever more nasty the deeper you go. I like contrasty landscapes, and when downsampled to ~8x10 size or smaller for viewing on the web they look perfectly fine. But printed? The shadows are muddy, red-blotchy mush, even despite the contrast.

Apparently, some of us feel Canon bodies are suitable for amateurs who want to post pictures on Facebook, the web, or print no larger than 8x10".   

15
EOS-M / Re: Recommendations for lens to supplement EF-M 22mm?
« on: August 31, 2014, 05:51:02 PM »
40/2.8 and 18-55M have better IQ.  I'd go with the zoom, the combo of prime and zoom offers great flexibility, IMO.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 925