October 31, 2014, 01:44:05 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 - CarlMillerPhoto

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9
1
EOS Bodies / Re: 4K Products Coming From Canon [CR2]
« on: October 24, 2014, 01:51:56 AM »
Just like this was the year of the lens? I'm no conspiracy theorist, but maybe spreading rumors is official Canon policy right now for trying to stop video guys from jumping ship.

2
T8.9 is too slow for the brightest stadium in the world. Why buy a lens that's limited to day-time shooting lol.

3
United States / Re: Is this the norm or outrageous?
« on: October 19, 2014, 09:13:43 PM »
It's depressing how much good framing costs :(  So much of my photography is confined to my computer screen because of it.

4
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Announces CN20x50 Cine-Servo Ultra Zoom Lens
« on: October 16, 2014, 08:37:10 PM »
And the aperture?!?!?! How do you leave this info out of a lens announcement.

5
EOS Bodies / Re: The Next Cinema EOS Camera Will Be..... [CR2]
« on: October 09, 2014, 06:43:22 PM »
To be competitive I think a C100 4k replacement needs to come at or under $4,500 (cheaper than what the current C100 list price is). I'm not sure if that's something Canon is willing to do.

6
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Woe and Pathos in the Sigma 50 Art?
« on: October 06, 2014, 12:44:53 PM »
I think is the perfect example of why the Sigma AF issues are so bloated and exaggerated. Those shots are absolutely fine and usable. It's posts like these (though usually without sample photos) that infect others with paranoia, causing them to be hypersensitive to their Sigma AF. Then they go out and do all these repeated, silly tests looking and looking to find that issue and what do you know - they find one. Hmm, think their drive and determination to find a problem might have resulted in a false-positive? Every lens has AF that varies a bit, but the problem is most don't scrutinize their other glass to the same degree, leading them to the erroneous conclusion that it's a uniquely Sigma or third-party lens issue, when in reality most of their glass would perform similarly under the same inspection. While of course there are very valid issues with the occasional lens, the Sigma "AF epidemic" is hardly what online camera communities make it out to be.

Did I mention those sample shots are fine and usable? Maybe a lil AFMA and you're good. Seriously.

7
EOS Bodies / Re: Next Rebel Going EVF? [CR1]
« on: October 03, 2014, 12:17:37 PM »
...
The idea that an EVF is better is laughable. Even the most precisely calibrated monitor won't retain the color gamut, resolution, and contrast of real light. If you find yourself preferring EVFs, either learn to shoot or consult your eye doctor. :)
...

Right and because of color gamut issues (amongst others), you'll never see on your monitor at home or on paper what it is that you saw through the viewfinder that was glass and mirrors. In which case, what value does the optical view finder have if the colors that you see will not be the colors that are captured and displayed later?

+1

8
EOS Bodies / Re: Next Rebel Going EVF? [CR1]
« on: October 03, 2014, 12:10:16 PM »
I just don't see Canon dumping EF-S any time soon...

But they're probably not advancing it further, either. Look at the last lens releases, esp. at the 16-35L/4 with IS with is just made to be a sturdy "standard" zoom on a 20mp crop camera...

Huh?! The latest lens releases include EF-S glass...I think they're advancing it.

And the 16-35 f/4 as evidence that EF-S is on its way out?! Sorry, but that's the craziest thing I've heard. There are much better standard crop lenses (17-55mm f/2.8 ), and there's no way Canon intended, even for a second, that the 16-35 f/4 IS would replace any of them, officially or in practice by customers. Least we mention Sigma's "standard" crop zoom....with just about the same focal range at a constant f/1.8 AND yet more affordable.

9
EOS Bodies / Re: Poll: Would you buy a high MP Canon EOS 5DIV?
« on: September 29, 2014, 12:37:14 PM »
I am guessing that Canon will not abandon that audience but rather try to develop features that continues to give wedding and event photographers using canon a competitive advantage. It seems to me the biggest problem these photographers have today is that brides want pictures up on Facebook immediately (as in before the ceremony ends) and their friends can do it with their cellphones more quickly than the person they are paying to shoot the wedding can do it. The first manufacturer who can help pro photographers get images posted to social media as quickly and seamlessly as the wedding guest using an iPhone will have a winner in the marketplace. That's the sort of thing that will sell cameras, not megapixels, dynamic range, etc.

At first glance, I was onboard with that idea, but after thinking about it I have completely changed my mind. Everyone knows camera phone pictures are quickly digested. They are visual fast food. I wouldn't want to associate my photography with that, nevermind the fact that directly uploaded images won't be properly edited. I think it's good that couples are waiting to see their professional pictures. It's an implicit demonstration that a lot of work goes into creating them. Additionally, I rarely see a bride on her phone during her wedding, so at best her friends will see it. And anyone who still has a Facebook page for their business knows what a profit hungry platform it is now, forcing you to "boost" page posts to get them seem. So, even if you do get them uploaded quickly it'll only be to a limited audience. Long story short, pro photogs shouldn't be worried about competing with camera phones. If a bride really wants to see her pictures right away, she can pay extra for a reception slideshow.

All that being said, the 5D IV sure as heck better have wifi/NFC built in. They can do some good ol' fashioned engineering and move around the supposed obstacles.

10
I assume that what Sigma does with their wonky copies is the same that Canon does with their wonky copies which is pretty close to what Nikon does with their wonky copies....

+1

Perhaps the percentage of returned lenses is much less than what one would guess from reading online reviews and blogs?

+2

The vast, vast majority of those with a Sigma Art lens don't have issues. There's another common variable that might be to blame for those who go through three of four copies.... ::)

11
Lenses / Re: Which L prime will be the first Canon upgrade?
« on: September 25, 2014, 06:42:28 PM »
I'm going to say 35mm f/1.4, because it was the first to be challenged by Sigma's Art line.

12
Is it standard operating procedure now for companies to put out a press release that their products are simply being used?

My guess is that the producers of the film shopped around for a company willing to partner with them. Canon is probably giving them the C500's and 1Dc's at either reduced cost or at zero cost in an attempt to beef up the Cinema Line's reputation.

 

13
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 VC Gets First Test
« on: September 22, 2014, 06:44:57 PM »
I love what Tamron has been doing with their zoom lenses.

I wonder why Canon seems incapable of making a standard and UWA f/2.8 zoom with IS.

14
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Looking Into a New Mount System
« on: September 22, 2014, 01:24:54 PM »
This is good news if it is indeed in reference to a FF mirrorless mount. Canon really can't shrink camera and lens size down if they're forced to maintain the EF flange distance. They'd be smart to follow Sony's lead in regard to the A and E mount, as the lack of a good mirrorless system is holding Canon back IMO. 

And it won't be hard at all for Canon to offer an EF adapter for this new mount. 

15
EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon answer Sony's new cinema cameras
« on: September 20, 2014, 03:14:35 AM »
I think they'll "answer" Sony on a tech/feature level, but not on a price-point level. I think Canon is okay letting go of the budget/indie filmmaker. I don't know the revenue that market brings in for them, but perhaps it's irrelevant. Maybe it's purely a branding decision (i.e. Canon doesn't want to be associated with the low-end video market). Maybe they're okay letting every student filmmaker, wedding videographer, and individual that's getting started in video go to other brands. Perhaps the same person in charge of video strategy also heads Canon's mirrorless strategy  ::)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9