November 23, 2014, 03:59:09 AM

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 - Hannes

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 16
I'm surprised that no one has asked but did you not speak to them? They quite obviously were amateurs but they might listen to reason. Otherwise fill flash for every single shot works well to break the ice

It also annoys me he is stood there in a pair or jeans and a stupid hat.

If they aren't being helpful ask to speak to the manager. If he or she is still being difficult you politely remind them of their duties regarding the consumer rights and that they will repair. If they still at this point are being difficult I'd get on their official twitter and facebook pages as well as sending a letter to the consumer rights advocates. Very rarely will they be difficult if you are spreading the word publicly that they aren't honouring warranties as required by law. If all this fails you take them to whatever equivalence you have to a small claims court. Obviously make sure you are documenting everything at every stage. Don't call people but email them so you have it in writing.

It is probably worth sending an email to CPS as well explaining the situation because few service centres would be difficult if CPS are putting weight on them.

EOS Bodies / Re: AA Filter: Still Relevant, Marketing Ploy, or Obsolete?
« on: October 15, 2014, 04:08:00 PM »
A better solution in my opinion would be to drop the optical filter, and handle it in post. Any re-shuffling of light that the filter does should be as easily handled by reshuffling bits in a computer program.

Afaik it doesn't work this way, just as you cannot add real optical bokeh in postprocessing - moiré is very painful to remove in post, sometimes it's even near impossible w/o too much iq loss.

If anti-aliasing is so hard to do, then how do computer games have 16x AA filters running at video game frame rates?

16x AA in a computer game is what is generally known as supersampling. It blows the image up far more and then makes it smaller again.

In the dawn of AA (2003 or so) applying 2x AA would leave you with a 50% hit to frame rates, 4x AA 75% and so on. It is only in the newer drivers and architectures that they've been able to let it be a far smaller hit on frame rates. Also bear in mind a single high end graphics card have many thousand more times processing power than a camera has available to it. In fact they are as powerful as supercomputers were not all that long ago.

As for an AA filter in the camera, yes it is still valid. Especially with the ever better lenses we are getting. Sorting out a minor hit in sharpness is far easier than a horrible moire pattern. The only time I'd want a camera without AA filter was if I was shooting strictly landscapes and nothing else which would include cityscapes etc. Maybe when cameras have found their megapixel count north of 50mpix it may be less necessary but at the moment I wouldn't want to be without it. If there was an option for software solution it would be a different matter though.

Photography Technique / Re: Shooting in a Dark Skating Arena Advice
« on: October 15, 2014, 02:46:08 AM »
I think managing expectations will need to be key. Be honest and tell them your gear won't really cope that well with the light setting but that you will give it your best shot. If you're up for renting gear get a 6D with the 135 f2 as suggested, tripod would be a good idea for the times when you can drop your ISO on more stationary subjects and still get a sharp shot (maybe with the rebel and 70-200), be prepared to move around though. I can't imagine it'll be too dark as otherwise the kids won't be able to see what they are doing.

If you have a chance, ask them and get them to show you beforehand just how dark they were planning on having it. It will give you an idea of what to expect and how far your body and lens will manage.

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 6D Mark II to Move Upmarket? [CR1]
« on: October 14, 2014, 01:28:31 PM »
I still believe there is a space in canon's line up for a small and light full format DSLR. Imagine a rebel but with the 6D sensor.

Why they didn't plonk the old 1Ds III AF system into the 6D from the start is beyond me though. Even if they removed all the assist points it would have been a whole lot better.

Canon General / Re: Funny things I read on ebay about lens
« on: October 09, 2014, 03:27:33 PM »
I've also have had good success on ebay with camera gear. If you look hard enough you will be able to find a good deal. I usually go ebay hunting when I have a day off in the middle of the week as then I can keep an eye on the auctions that end mid morning when very few people are around to to bid for the gear.

In the UK we have gumtree which is essentially the same as craigs list with some gear being hilariously over priced and some pretty reasonable. I picked up a canon 70-200 2.8 IS from there for about £2-300 less than it would be on ebay. I'm very tempted to sell it and get a tamron new grey market for less than I'd get for selling the canon on.

EOS Bodies / Re: Multilayer Sensors are Coming From Canon [CR2]
« on: October 08, 2014, 03:27:27 PM »
It would certainly go some way to explain the lack of fundamental updates in the canon sensors other than DPAF obviously. Very interesting though.

Canon General / Re:
« on: October 06, 2014, 02:50:09 PM »
There was even an ad on ITV (British TV channel) just now pointing to this site

Canon General / Re:
« on: October 05, 2014, 06:21:22 PM »
Canon Eos 1V Mk II clearly

(I know the market would be tiny but I'd love to see this updated to modern specs in terms of ergonomics and AF)

Canon General / Re: Financial Times - "Digital cameras: out of focus"
« on: October 05, 2014, 06:19:31 PM »
Last weekend I went to Bruges in Belgium. It is a tourist destination for the reasonably well off. Of the cameras maybe half were proper cameras, the rest smartphones. From my estimations 2/3rds of the proper cameras were DSLRs, the remaining third an even split between mirrorless, bridge and compact cameras. Of the DSLRs 80-90% were entry level canon or nikons with the rest being other brands or the middle of the road cameras. A single pro body camera was spotted apart from my own 1D.

Now you may wonder where I'm going with this. The people who buy entry level DSLRs rarely know what ISO is and I can almost guarantee they have never even heard of the concept of dynamic range. Yet these are the people who are making canon and nikon float as companies. This is why I think canon are coming out top. They have been offering incremental upgrades along the way for the entry level bodies. At first it was ever rising pixel counts until they hit the ubiquitous 18mpix sensor. From there on they then introduced things like the flippy screen, basically things people have wanted in cameras. Nikon doesn't seem to end their splurging of new cameras with all the features yet they can't seem to grasp the simple thing of getting the ergonomics right which is far more important to the target group than some small gains in image quality.

People have also started seeing the appeal of a better camera when they come home. Also let's face it that it is more convenient to plug the camera in to the computer than it is to download the photos from the phone. What cameras need are wifi and instant facebook sharing and when we get that I think another batch of people will buy DSLRs. Mirrorless are struggling because they aren't small enough or are too small. Did you ever see that samsung commercial where they had dressed up their own camera as a pro bodied camera and asked people to say which picture was better technically? People's expectation is that a bigger camera will produce better photos. Combine this with the fact that a mirrorless won't fit in your pocket with anything other than a prime pancake lens which in itself is often undesirable since it doesn't zoom.

Combine this and I think canon are doing really well considering the situation of the market. Nikon are in a scary situation given their reliance on Sony and the state of Sony's finances. I think we realistically need to expect progress to slow down somewhat compared to what has happened over the last ten years where the rate of development has been astronomical.

Business of Photography/Videography / Re: Why Photography
« on: September 25, 2014, 04:24:05 PM »
The way I see it our lives and history are just memories. Having those in the shape of an image lets me remember it more easily. That and that it something creative which is nice given my utter lack of being able to draw

Technical Support / Re: Lens hood no longer sung
« on: September 25, 2014, 10:26:22 AM »
The way it is constructed it does go lose with time. My canon 70-200 2.8 IS also was very lose by the time I bought it and I ended up getting a new hood for it straight away as the old one wouldn't stay on. In that case I think it is because the lens is metal instead of plastic.

My experience with even the high end small solar panels is that isn't worth it unless you go for something the size of a goal zero sherpa 100. The smaller solar panels charge so little that they are great for charging things like ipods but that is about it. If you get something like a solar monkey it can charge a smartphone but not much more, especially now that the batteries are getting bigger with higher capacity. Even at more than 4000m altitude in extremely bright sunshine the power output wasn't great.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 VC Gets First Test
« on: September 22, 2014, 12:02:00 PM »
Very interesting, it sounds like the perfect travel lens to be honest. It looks sharp enough and that makes for some crazy hand holding shutter speeds.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Which Canon L Lens for 7D Mark II?
« on: September 21, 2014, 02:08:22 AM »
Your question is difficult to answer as I can't see why a wedding photographer would want to pick up a 7DII. If you are trying to make it as a pro you will need a body with good low light capabilities matched with good glass. A 6D will be a far better choice, better yet two of them even if this means combining them with the 24-70 2.8 I and 70-200 2.8 IS I. You are going to need high iso far more than the very sharpest photos imaginable and besides, a 24-70 I is probably sharper on FF than a 24-70 II on crop in real world shooting.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 16