« on: Today at 06:51:10 AM »
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.
I now rarely make the dreadful errors you see in this picture I took 54 years ago...
It's a really great photo that tells a story of its period. The gross American car just peeking through on the left, the single-storey house behind a metal fence with a bored canine looking sideways, and the very clever touch of showing the photographer in a military helmet via the shadow. That was 1960 - a real classic of which you should be proud.
ps, the composition is great - the massive, triangular shadow leading in to the scene, culminating in the helmeted head about 1/3rd up and 1/3rd in, then moving centre to the dog and swinging into the tailfins of the car about 1/3rd down.
Love the way you describe the photo! I makes me now love this picture…. Appreciate that.
Yes absolutely. Seen it happen in the past.
So what was it for you? One year people can't get enough of photographs about elephants and the next year you have to give them away with each photograph of meerkats, which people can't enough of.
Shocking. Just simply shocking. Plus unbelievable.Care to elaborate?
I'm not 100% satisfied, and rather than send the body in for fruitless repairs I'm just wondering if I have anything to worry about...
With current technology, for the 7DII to exhibit any form of AF problems is in my opinion totally unacceptable. This is a professional-grade camera and to expect any professional (where time equals money) to first calibrate the lens and camera combination is just plain wrong. What will happen if such a professional photographer rents (or borrows) a lens at the last moment, but must now spend an hour first to calibrate the combination? That is if he actually has his calibration tools with him!
Any professional-grade equipment must work 100% perfectly straight out of the box.
Well it rather depends what you're shooting. Sport, birds in flight - you need good AF, high shutter speed. For landscapes, most macro, a lot of portraiture and even street work, AF is much less important, and image quality (which the full frame will trump the crop in many circumstances) comes to the fore.
sarcasm = a taunt, a bitter or wounding remark, especially one ironically worded.
irony = expression of one's meaning by language of opposite or different tendency, especially mock adoption of another's view or tone.The moral of the story (regarding typewriters) is that one year you are on top of the world, selling thousands upon thousands of units, and the next year you sell nothing, and the year after that you file for bankruptcy. Good sales today doesn't necessarily mean good sales tomorrow.
I think the analogy is flawed. Sure, wordprocessors (and then computers) replaces typewriters for most purposes. That doesn't mean your predictions about future camera technologies are proven. You're just saying what feels right to you, without providing evidence.
I made no predictions about future camera technology. I merely proved that "[g]ood sales today doesn't necessarily mean good sales tomorrow".
The trend in high end mirrorless cameras is that they are getting larger not smaller. The NX1, which I've used, isn't any smaller or lighter than a DSLR. I'd expect the A9 when it arrives to be similar. Although the small chassis MLC's generate a lot of "gee how'd they do that" buzz, the "lens with a camera attached" ergo's are off-putting for a lot of serious shooters. You may not agree, but that's what many think.
edit .. Interestingly, the only bundle that's available for the NX1 includes a battery grip. Doesn't sound to me like smaller and lighter is what they are going for.
Indeed! The small factor is fine for a street photographer's tool, which is why most mirroress cameras went with rangefinder style designs. Not an issue with a 25-50mm prime. But, when you start slapping on large glass the small factor advantage erodes an actually becomes a detriment. So, one of the commonly touted advantages of a MILC (small size and light weight) either becomes a detriment or you make your MILC the same size as a DSLR to improve large telephoto handling. Although you still have the other principal MILC advantage of seeing the exposure changes you make reflected in the EVF, the disadvantages of lag (especially under low light), lower quality view and higher battery consumption. MILC's are interesting cameras---but it's a huge mistake to assume they've rendered the classic DSLR obsolete. This is especially true for action/wildlife/sports shooting!!!
I think Canon does deserve some blame. Personally, I have grown to hate the stratification of their cameras, missing features and incremental updates.
I am not tied to a body. Bodies come and go. I don't care about if the camera is mirrorless or DSLR, I just want the best image quality, at a reasonable price. I would wait for Canon and the 5DIV but I think I will probably buy a A7S or A9 with an adapter when they arrive. If Canon releases a good product by the time I buy a new body, I will go back. Easy. For pro studio shoots, I don't see much an A7 series isn't great at.
Panasonic apparently just filed a patent in Japan for a new flash/accessory-shoe hybrid optical/electronic viewfinder.
The idea that Canon can build the 1Dx but can't build a quality mirror-less defies reason.
As long as it is recognized that there is a huge difference between Canon can't build and Canon choosing not to build. I have not read anything that would indicate that Canon can't build a quality mirrorless system.
I agree. It's a matter of finding what the marketplace wants. I believe there is a certain segment of the market that wants ever smaller and ever lighter....but I do not think that segment is indicative of the broader market that might be interested in mirrorless.
Personally, I won't give up the ergonomics of standard-sized DSLRs. I also don't really like EVFs, but over time, maybe they will reach a level where I'm satisfied with them. I don't want ultra small, I don't want ultra cramped, I don't want to have my configurable button options limited, I don't want my LCD screen to shrink, I don't want the vast majority of what "mirrorless" offers.
However...stuff an EVF or maybe a Hybrid VF that can operate optically or electronically in a DSLR body where the mirror can be locked up for electronic operation...and WOW. You've got me! (Why the hell hasn't any camera manufacturer figured that out yet?! [size=78%] I think Samsung is closeish with the NX1...but they still don't have the optical option...it's 100% purely electronic, albeit in a much better body design IMHO.) [/size]
Start always friendly: It is OPV v/s EVF. DSLR v/s ML. Both are super in their own ways, IMHO. End always friendly.
May I then add: Prime vs Zoom?
May the best technology win!
[friendly]I do not believe the objective is for any "technology" to actually win, as there really isn't the competition as some people perceive, e.g. FF vs crop and DSLR vs mirrorless. For me it is more there having been a fork in the road and each "technology" moving in different directions, each with its own goals, objectives and customer base. The big question for companies like Canon and Nikon are therefore more how they can keep dominating the market by offering a diverse range of products so to have the largest possible customer base. On the other hand, if they cannot spread their resources so wide, then the logical solution would be to rather concentrate on that which is sustainable in the long run and concede the (lower revenue) "niche" markets to smaller companies.[/friendly]
Someone keeps thinking that in the future all cameras will be full frame?I think crop cameras are safe, too. If anything, the comments above about "pro" users makes me think the days of FF cameras might be numbered.
Crop sensors have improved significantly over the last few years. And, if Canon was to implement the latest improvements in manufacturing techniques and sensor design, we'd struggle to see much IQ advantage of a FF sensor over an APS-C sensor (in fact, with other brands, you struggle to see the difference now). DOF differences and shooting at very high ISOs and more MPs will still be attractive incentives for crop camera users to change to a FF camera. But I suspect a growing number of people will decide that crop cameras are good enough.
To differentiate themselves in a competitive market, I see more studio-based and wedding photographers moving to medium format and abandoning 1DX/D3X/D4S style cameras. (And in the next two years, there will be at least another two new, smaller, medium format systems introduced in the 1DX price range to attract these photographers.) Many wildlife and sports shooters will prefer the extra "reach" of a 7D3. Current 5D3 users will continue to transition to Sony and Fuji mirrorless systems. I don't know if there will many people left to buy Canon FF cameras.
How does this all tie into this topic? Canon have only made muted sounds about medium format and that doesn't give people looking for a medium format option the confidence to stay around for a bit longer. They will move to other brands. A very high percentage of mirrorless buyers are DSLR owners, yet they are also leaking away to other brands. We can tell from the rumors posted here and the details of patents that Canon has the ability to make class leading crop sensors, but we haven't seen much evidence of Canon investing any $$$ in manufacturing plant and instead we have Canon polishing up the same sensor they've had for how many generations of cameras? This leads to website stories about how Canon is falling behind, which might lead people doing research on their first camera to choose another brand. Added to this, there hasn't been a noticeable drive to develop EF-S lenses anyway. And with the Eos-M, a quick look at the B&H site suggests you can't even buy an Eos-M and if you already had one and were after another lens, I hope it is the 22/2 that you seek as it is the only one available.