February 01, 2015, 03:15:13 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 - Lurker

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
Trying to sell digital editions which cost much less to distribute but asking the same or even a higher price is a sure way to go out of business.  IMHO, they should have a plan to convert the public to digital media by offering it at low prices, while phasing out the print side.  The accountant types who run many such industries just can't seem to understand or cope with what's happening.

May cost less to distribute but that's a small part of the cost of creating the content.  You still need writers, executives, editors, accountants, project managers, computer programmers, computer administration, computer operations, computer security specialists, admin assistants, facilities managers, janitors, maintenance people, security guards, HR people, WEB developers, graphic designers, and more. 

Running office buildings and computer centers is not cheap either, security efforts and costs are constantly on the rise.  All the employees want to be kept safe at work which means keeping offices secure 24x7.  Protecting online content so those consuming it actually pay for it and other suppliers aren't redistributing it without compensation or credit.  Most people would not drive into a gas station fill up and drive off without paying.  But for some reason downloading content or sharing online accounts isn't a problem for many.

Investors have come to expect 20% returns from their investments.  For some reason they don't expect the same from the likes of Amazon.  If they ever start, what's going to happen to Amazon?

Consumers want everything for free or cheap(er).  Who do they think is going to keep producing the stuff they consume?  If you don't pay for what you use eventually no one will be left producing it.  Push the deflationary cycle far enough and there will be too few people willing/able to pay for your product/service and you end up out of a job too.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II USM Lens Review
« on: January 19, 2015, 09:37:59 AM »
In retrospect, it seems odd that the 400mm focal length has been the test bed, as working on the longer lenses would be a better value proposition. Price cannibalization doesn't seem like the concern, as - it being Canon - they could just charge $18k for a 800 DO and make even more of a margin with it.

The number of people looking for a 400 vs 800 is huge.  400 users have tons of options each with advantages but huge disadvantages too.  We've long been asking for a mash-up of these to get an affordable, lighter, faster, IS 400mm.  The 400 DO II seems to be the Canon reply.

Riker, kind of all over the place in your comparison.   The 300 II did get .5m (~1.5 ft) better mfd but the 400 DO II got better too ~ 1 foot better.  The 300 was already about 1 meter better so it has a 4.2 ft advantage.  For some this is a real advantage for others not so much.   

If you need the 300mm that is an advantage but if you want 800mm sorry, the 400mm wins on that end.  Personally, if other options were available, I would not buy a lens with the intention to always use it with the 1.4x or 2x attached.  I prefer to use a lens at it's native focal length.

You compare the 400 to the 300+1.4x but when comparing weight you didn't add the 225g of the 1.4x. 

The 400 DO II sounds like a really nice combination of IQ on par with the other supertele-primes, IS, light weight, faster than the 5.6, and lower price.   Certainly not cheap, I hope the price will drop some, but it is better than the 10,000-12,000 of the STPs.

Again, to me this sounds like a great reply to what people like me have been asking for.  If you already have the 300mm+1.4x you have a great rig and, if you're happy, no reason to think about the 400 DO II.  I'll take the 400 DO II because I feel focal length challenged and the odds of my wife saying ok to a $7000 lens are much greater than a 10,000-12,000 lens.

Lenses / Re: Any ideas on getting good focus when shooting thru glass pane?
« on: December 23, 2014, 07:00:55 PM »
Live view.

Stand close to the glass or, if the feeder is far enough away, set focus limiter to not allow close focus.  The goal is to keep the glass outside of the focus zone. 

Set focus manually so that it's close and then let auto focus take care of the detail.  Focus is less likely to get confused by reflections if you start with focus set beyond the glass.

Keep square to the glass.

I believe these are to attach flash brackets.

About mid-page:

Lenses / Re: How Accurate are Canon MTF Charts?
« on: December 16, 2014, 04:47:50 PM »
What's your reference?  400 5.6 is sharper than most of the 400 options unless you want to pay for, and lug around, the 2.8.  Sure, it's not as sharp as the Canon "A" listers but it's a lot older.  It's also cheaper and lighter which make it doable for many people.  The new 100-400 is probably sharper too but more $.

Also keep in mind when comments are made.  400 f5.6 has been around a long time and is in a lot of kits.  Same can't be said for the newer tech with higher price tags.  In a few years you won't hear as much about the 400 5.6 but then again we may be talking about the 400 5.6 II which will once again best the 100-400.

I think most expect the 400 DO II to be sharp but maybe lacking in contrast or other qualities.  A lot of people just have a wait-and-see attitude right now on new technology that is going to set them back several thousand dollars.

EOS Bodies / Re: Sony Sensors Coming to Canon DSLRs? [CR1]
« on: December 15, 2014, 05:46:57 PM »
I think it would be a mistake for them to surrender chip design--both for Canon and for the users.  There needs to be MORE sensor competition--not less.

Competition is good for the consumer and will exist as long as consumers choose to support the competition.

EOS Bodies / Re: A new high end camera
« on: December 09, 2014, 12:48:01 PM »
There's a 100% chance that the 1DX or 5D3 will be updated next year.

And, there's a 100% chance that the 1DX or 5D3 will NOT be updated next year.

Canon General / Re: Canon U.S.A. Prices going down?
« on: November 26, 2014, 12:54:33 PM »
Yes, it will be good news for prices.  A bonanza?  I wouldn't expect a 40% price drop but prices will come down.  We've already seen price drops and these may have been in reaction to the declining yen or in anticipation of the future declines.  How much more we'll see depends on how long their recession lasts and how strongly the US economy grows and what happens in the other parts of the world.  Canon may prefer to sell in Europe and not give us bigger discounts.

Lenses / Re: Lens as a gift. Non Photographer buying... :)
« on: November 25, 2014, 09:29:58 AM »
Is it just me or did we lose the mid-zoom aspect of the lens?
Since she has a "fast" mid-zoom already I'm not sure that fast means aperture.  Maybe focus speed?

Camera stuff is expensive and you hate to get it wrong.  Lens and camera choices can be very personal things for someone who has been involved in the hobby for a while.  I would recommend making a creative card with a "gift certificate" for a photography shopping trip.  Take a day and take her to a couple of camera stores, a nice lunch.  Stop on the way home a pick up something for super and a nice bottle of wine.  She'll get the lens of her dreams, not ours, and the memories of the day every time she uses the new equipment.

Such a camera cannot exist for me, "truly ultimate" and $10k are mutually exclusive.

I think everyone would benefit greatly from starting with the cheapest DSLR and a nifty fifty.

Maybe for your type of photography but not EVERYONE does your type of photography.
A 50 won't accomplish a lot with birds and wildlife.  Cheapest DSLR?  Try catching the iridescent greens in the blackish head of common merganser (mostly white bird) while it passes you at 80mph in early morning light with the cheapest DSLR you can find.

You need to match the equipment to your skill and your needs.  It needs to be usable now and give you room for growth.  How much growth?  That depends on the individual and how much they want to grow.

I pitty the newbee that tries to figure out how to get started in photography.  They'll have the cheapest DSLR kit they can find and a $2000 tripod/head to put it on.

Lenses / Re: Which prime lens for nature fotography?
« on: October 11, 2014, 10:45:10 PM »
I hope to face a similar dilemma soon.

I know you said prime but might I suggest considering the Canon 200-400, it seems very versatile.  200-560 on its own and I believe it can be used with an external 1.4 for 400-800.  IQ is very good too.

If you can wait a little longer the new 400 DO looks to be very impressive.  Need to see some reviews when it's finally out but the MTF charts sure look good.  If you're happy with a 400 range then the new DO should be on your short list.

The answer I wanted to check is not there. My answer is no effing way. My early work would have been better if I had more knowledge/experience.

The camera doesn't do the composition, you do! :)

The camera doesn't do the lighting, you do! :)

A better camera WILL NOT make you a better photographer :(

Sorry, I have to disagree.

I've always thought if equipment didn't matter every professional photographer would be shooting with the cheapest equipment they could get their hands on.  Cheaper equipment means higher profit margins.  The equipment doesn't matter, right, you make the photo not the camera.  Anyone interested in my old 110 film pocket camera for $5?

Fact is better equipment makes better images possible, period.

If your AF is slow or picking the wrong focus point a better AF system will help.
If lots of your photos are bullseyes due to getting the best focus with the center point a better AF will help.
If you suffer motion blur a lot an f/2.8 lens will help get faster shutter speeds.
If you have problems getting exposure right a better metering system can help.
If you have issues with noise a better sensor will help.
If you shoot black and white subjects and can't get detail on both ends a sensor with higher DR will help.
Better flashes produce more light and can put it out there further.
Equipment doesn't make great photographs, photographers do (have to wonder what Ansel would do with modern equipment), but equipment does help make photos better.  Equipment can only help if you know how to use it effectively.  If the equipment is too complex it can overwhelm the photographer but if it is too simple it can also limit the photographer.

What is important is matching your equipment to your knowledge and the desired job.

So, yes.  If I could have afforded better equipment it would have allowed me to get the photos I was trying to get.

Canon General / Re: seeimpossible.usa.canon.com?
« on: October 06, 2014, 12:22:18 PM »
My 3 guesses:
1) A new flash system.  Looking at the image on the site it looks like multiple flash zones.  Logo also looks like a box being busted open to reveal a light.

2) Some new IR or UV capability.  See the impossible - converts something we can't see to something we can.  (Besides shadow detail even though ETTR applied  :()

3) A subscription service for hardware firmware.  You buy the hardware and then keep paying to keep it running.  Pay up or we shut you down.  Seems to be working for others (MS and Adobe) so why not Canon?  ;)

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Brief Hands on with the 7Dii
« on: October 05, 2014, 11:59:04 AM »
Art Morris at Birds as Art will be getting a Beta version of the camera Monday, on loan from Outdoor Photographer.  Watch his blog for his opinions.

This was copied from his blog:
I asked George [Lepp]about the quality of the 7D II image files. He said, “You will love the camera and the image quality. The images are quite similar to those from the 5D Mark III.” Then I asked with some trepidation, “What about noise?” George replied, “The same as the 5D III.”

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5