October 24, 2014, 11:32:04 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 - takesome1

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 24
1
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: clown* photographer
« on: October 23, 2014, 01:34:58 PM »
What a clown, and I am not referring to a guy taking vacation photos with an iPad.


2
Photography Technique / Re: Austin,Texas
« on: October 23, 2014, 08:47:54 AM »

The Texas Capitol.
The Tower.


But the best view would be in the rear view mirror as you head down to San Antonio.
Just my opinion.

3
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7D Mk II Availability Question
« on: October 23, 2014, 08:40:33 AM »
I pre-ordered the day of the release.
I would count myself lucky if mine goes out in the first shipment.

Do you think Adorama or B&H will let you cut in line?


4
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 23, 2014, 08:36:43 AM »
Crop vs. Full frame.

As a 6d owner - my first full frame- im very unimpressed at its low iso quality. There is no 3d-ish POP that i have seen in so many 5d2/5d3 images over the years - image quality that i could easily see was not reproducible on my crop cameras.

To these ultra pixel peeping eyes, the 6d is only slightly better at dynamic range than my t2i.  High Iso handling is generally FANTASTIC, which is why i figure the low iso takes an image quality hit. Low light photography is a whole other ball game compared to my crop bodies.

So while i enjoy my 6d, its nowhere close to the full frame experience i thought it would be. Still dreaming of a 5d3 and non-ancient AF.  :(

Really? From what I've seen, 5D2-3 and 6D images side by side look almost identical :).

If one has seen and admired a '3D-ish POP' in 5DII/III images taken by others over the years, but doesn't see that quality in one's own 6D images, I suppose "it's the camera" is one possible explanation.  It's certainly a more palatable one than the far more likely and rational reason for the discrepancy.

I would blame the camera. I would recommend selling the 6D and buying a 1D X since its pictures are $5000 better. At least the pictures taken with the wife's t4i of me with the 1D X instead of a 6D hanging from my shoulder would be better.

5
.... but the reality is that there is very little of the picture where this extended range would have made a difference and in the end, you probably could not notice the difference.

Here's an example of this from today, the sky was clipped, but after some brushing around in LR it doesn't matter since it was all grey anyway (well, bluish grey).  I call the shot "Thinking of DR discussions" :->

Other end of the horse would have been more appropriate.


6
Don, the problem seems to me to be that people give an opinion that is personal or state a spurious "fact", and then get defensive when that opinion is questioned, they take it personally so the cycle begins.

I'd say 'and' instead of 'or'.  The crux of the 'problem' is when people give an opinion that is personal and state that opinion as a spurious fact.  Consider the following sets of examples:

  • "Canon sells more dSLRs than any other manufacturer."
  • "A Canon dSLR best meets my needs."
  • "Canon dSLRs are the best."

  • "Current Canon sensors have less low ISO DR that their competitors."
  • "The IQ of current Canon sensors doesn't meet my needs."
  • "Canon sensors have poor IQ."


In each case, statement (1) is simple fact, generally not disputed.  Statement (2) is a personal opinion, and completely valid whether or not others share that opinion.  Statement (3) is that personal opinion stated as a spurious fact.  Statements like #3 are generally untenable, yet people who make statements like that tend to get defensive when their statements are rightfully questioned. 

Stating your opinion as opinion is fine...stating your opinion as fact will draw a challenge. Defending that opinion as fact just makes you look foolish.  Restating that spurious fact over and over in thread after thread will not only draw a challenge, it will piss people off.

Well done, you described the basics of newbie trolling.
You throw in a few #2's and get interest in what you are saying, then you drop in a #3 to explode the topic.
A thread will really get moving when you have a troll on each side.

People who post #3's are not required to provide back-up or proof to establish a statement. I think that bothers many in this forum as they are well educated and are in a profession that they have to provide proof to back up their work.

In this forum I can say "Lenses made by Nikon are not as good as those made by Canon". It is my choice whether I give hard proof, no proof or even respond at all to whoever questions the comment. Many find it frustrating when someone chooses not to offer proof.

7
I'd say for every 2 out of three drones, the photos they actually produce are garbage. Now I'm speaking about the drones that come here to complain so fiercely that when we actually scrutinize the photos the produce, they fall flat on their face.

Careful. I get flamed every time I make a similar observation. According to some of the most vocal DR "advocates," most people seeking more DR do indeed produce stunning images.......it's just that they keep those images top secret, and no one is allowed to see them.
I think you mistake that I want to be correct on that statement. I really hope that I'm wrong and a Droner can prove me wrong. IE: dilbert.

I'm probably just like everyone else where probably less than 3% of my images are what I'd call "postcard" quality.
That sounds like you have a lot of work on and DR would be the least of those things.

Twelve significant photographs in any one year is a good crop.
And I'm sure DR is only a miniscule part of making those photos.

No but it helps.
Not as much as a proper ball head. ;)

You know that if one person says it does not matter at all and the next says it is all important they become opposites.
In this case both are wrong.

One says that you make poor pictures because you do not have a body with more DR.
The other says you focus to much on DR and your pics are crap.

I read the arguments and think both of those individual's pics are probably lacking because neither concedes any ground and say that it is the combination of all things that make great pics.

There are work arounds for not having a good ball head, there are work arounds for DR.

8
The latter group far and away outnumbers the former.

This has left me confused - how would you know that? Or are you just talking of the number of posters in this thread?

There were close to 14 million dSLRs sold last year.  How many of those people do you think know what low ISO DR is, much less care about it?

I did forget to mention an intermediate (but still minority) group...those who know what it is, care about it, but do not think it's the most important factor in camera performance or even in image quality.  Based on posts from members of this forum, I suspect even that group outnumbers those for whom DR means everything about IQ and camera performance.

Thinking of the percentage of DSLR owners I know personally (not on forums), I am going to go with about 5%, 700K. I would also guess that there are 12 million of them that never get past the point of using the running man, head or mountain settings.

It isn't surprising that most DSLRs sold are Rebel-style entry-level DSLRs. It also isn't surprising that the very vast majority of those DSLR buyers probably don't know about nor care about DR.

Btu why does that matter? Those are your average consumers looking for a better camera than their smartphone has. They have never been part of the group that cares about IQ. The group that cares about IQ is your avid enthusiast/hardcore hobbyist, semi-pro and pro users...high end users. Out of the 14 million DSLRs sold last year, how many do you think were Rebels and Dxxxx's and and the like? And how many do you think were high end models sold to people who fall into the group I just described? It's a SIGNIFICANTLY smaller number of people who buy higher end DSLRs, such as the 7D, 5D, 1D lines, or the Dx and Dxxx lines or the A7 line. Of those people, how many do you think know what RAW is, what dynamic range is and how it impacts IQ? Your percentages will change significantly.

The issue of DR shouldn't be applied to the grand total number of DSLRs sold. It should be applied to the sub group of photographers who fall into the "likely to buy high end" category. Canon could completely lose the high end market, and they would probably still have a profitable photography segment...because Rebels (and the remainder of P&S sales, and certainly EOS-M sales in Asia) make up a GIANT slice of their revenue pie. However...such a Canon would have lost the race as far as people like us, on this forum, go. IMHO they are already losing that race. For all the "sales numbers" and "majority numbers" being thrown around, there are a LOT of people who fall into the high end and cares about IQ category that are sick and tired of Canon's IQ. Certainly not on this forum...but the response to Canon's recent ad campaign on other sites is very telling. I don't think I've seen one positive comment about it outside of these forums. Nikon's ILC sales the year the D800 was released skyrocketed. The growth was attributed to some growth in mirrorless, and the D800/E. That camera helped spur 50% growth for Nikon's unit sales in one year.

What happens if Canon loses their place in the high end market? Do they even care? Or would they just be happy selling Rebels and EOS-Ms to the masses, because, well, you know...that's what makes the bottom line big and fat and black. It's what makes Canon the top DSLR seller in the world. Even if they lost a few hundred thousand high end DSLR sales, they would still be selling GOBS of the other stuff. The alternatives are not perfect...yet. However that is rapidly changing...Nikon's high end DSLRs, while they lack certain things I really like about Canon equipment, are still way up there. The A7 series has it's flaws, however Sony has been making progress on all fronts, not just the sensor front. Their new AF system has all the same capabilities, including tracking capabilities, as a Nikon or Canon AF system. Canon's older sensor technology, and history of providing the bare minimum features possible in any given device for as long as possible, are affecting them on other fronts as well. Video, an area where Canon exploded into only a couple years ago, is also an area where the competition is packing in the IQ and the features, in cheaper products, and gaining massive headway against not only Canon but some of the ancient established players. Red and Sony being two of those key competitors (with Red having raced past Canon now to challenge Arri.)

Maybe what you think the "High End Market" is and what Canon thinks the "High End Market" is are two different things. I have a feeling what you think the "High End Market" is, is different than what I believe it to be. IMO the high end market is the big whites.

Where DR matters on landscape photos I can sell all my gear and replace it with Nikon. I could completely retool for under $7K. Multiply that x4 for retooling my white lenses.

I might buy that Canon is loosing some of the higher end model camera sales because of this. But the margin isn't as big as some would like to claim. It is likely a small margin.

9
The latter group far and away outnumbers the former.

This has left me confused - how would you know that? Or are you just talking of the number of posters in this thread?

There were close to 14 million dSLRs sold last year.  How many of those people do you think know what low ISO DR is, much less care about it?

I did forget to mention an intermediate (but still minority) group...those who know what it is, care about it, but do not think it's the most important factor in camera performance or even in image quality.  Based on posts from members of this forum, I suspect even that group outnumbers those for whom DR means everything about IQ and camera performance.

Thinking of the percentage of DSLR owners I know personally (not on forums), I am going to go with about 5%, 700K. I would also guess that there are 12 million of them that never get past the point of using the running man, head or mountain settings.

10
I'd say for every 2 out of three drones, the photos they actually produce are garbage. Now I'm speaking about the drones that come here to complain so fiercely that when we actually scrutinize the photos the produce, they fall flat on their face.

Careful. I get flamed every time I make a similar observation. According to some of the most vocal DR "advocates," most people seeking more DR do indeed produce stunning images.......it's just that they keep those images top secret, and no one is allowed to see them.
I think you mistake that I want to be correct on that statement. I really hope that I'm wrong and a Droner can prove me wrong. IE: dilbert.

I'm probably just like everyone else where probably less than 3% of my images are what I'd call "postcard" quality.
That sounds like you have a lot of work on and DR would be the least of those things.

Twelve significant photographs in any one year is a good crop.

11
Canon General / Re: seeimpossible.usa.canon.com?
« on: October 05, 2014, 08:25:48 PM »
Simple;

It is the replacement to Ron Howards Imaginat10n project.


12
EOS Bodies / Re: Can the new 7d mark ii challenge the 1d mark iv?
« on: October 01, 2014, 03:03:48 PM »
The questions is not "Can the new 7d mark ii  challenge the 1d mark iv?"
Of course it can.

The question is "What will be the results when new 7d mark ii challenges the 1d mark iv."

For me I will do the challenge in November.
I could speculate, but at this point once it arrives I will know the old fashion way. Hands On.(if Canon delivers)

13
Since wildlife is my thing, of course my pics improved with the 500L since it is better than my 100-400mm. The 100-400mm is better than 75-300mm I started with. Then going from the 50D --5D II / 7D to a 1D IV my keeper rate went up.

A few years back I was skill and equipment limited. As far as gear goes now I am just skill limited.

14
EOS Bodies / Re: Just for Jrista: 2014 Market Data
« on: September 27, 2014, 09:07:41 AM »
I for one would be interested in seeing comparisons of pics taken in real situations that photographers face.
The shooter draws a conclusion, provides the RAW files and anyone can see if they draw the same conclusion.

This would be much better than the pointless technical banter that never proves anything or goes anywhere.

This is a very fair, valid request. A little difficult to do, but very worthwhile. What makes it hard is that it's actually very difficult to find sunsets/sunrises that do bottom out a, say D810. So it's hard to show the real difference, i.e. 'what's possible'. And if you do find the right high dynamic range scene, you're probably a landscape photographer who woke up at 2:30 am to shoot a sunrise at a beautiful location, not do a head-to-head test which is fairly challenging to do with the quickly changing light of a good sunrise/sunset. You also have to bracket both cameras all over the place so that you can go back home and then find the one where the highlights are just short of clipping, or where ACR can recover detail/color to taste.

I'm not saying it's impossible, it's usually just hard to do well. Hopefully someone will do it (well). I'll try at some point, maybe, before I sell off my 5D3.


I think it would be very easy. You are making the assumption that it would only be good in that type of situation. You are also still proving the technical function of the camera and not the in situation usable function of the camera. DR can improve pictures in many situations, your example is only one.

DR goes both ways, up and down. All day long you can take pictures and find situations where you loose detail and shadows and blow highlights. Whether it is a man in a shaded area or an picture that blows out the clouds all could use the help. Will an extra stop of DR help me? Will the extra stop be usable or will it have to much noise? I go through my pictures and pull down the highlights to get the sky, draw up the shadows to see a bit more detail. To my eye I would want to know which does it best.

It doesn't need to be a controlled scientific test. You gather a random sampling of pictures through the day identical in both bodies. At the end you PP and you have injected your style and your skill level in to the test. The results are yours and you have an answer. I am sure you will find along the way that both body has advantages and disadvantages. You will find one lens is probably better than the other.

But in the end the final result wins for you. Although on a given day the photographer at 2:30 on the mountain may have a different winner.

Side note is that when the D800 was first released I investigated this for myself to see what the benefit might be. That was over 2 years ago and the debates were few at first. It is interesting that it has blown up in to such a huge topic.

15
EOS Bodies / Re: Just for Jrista: 2014 Market Data
« on: September 26, 2014, 10:36:30 PM »
I fully plan to create some "optimal" exposures, that was actually the entire point of renting the A7r in the first place. It also so happens that this weekend is the last weekend for fall colors in the mountains. It might be raining, not sure yet, but I'm going to try to get some landscape photos, every scene with both cameras, bracketed, etc. I don't have a lot of time to go hunting for awesome landscape scenes, so don't expect any kind of impressive artwork, but I always planned to do a more rigorous comparison between the two.

I've seen lengthy geometric proofs for the fact that a square is the largest rectangle that can be inscribed in a circle, and even lengthier algebraic proofs that 1 + 1 = 2.  At the end of your testing, I'd be quite surprised if don't conclude that the a7R has more DR than the 5DIII and you can push the shadows harder. 

Still, there's value in demonstrating to ourselves that which we expect to be true.  Enjoy!

I think he will have that conclusion as we'll, that is the easy part.
The hard part of the question is there enough difference to matter.

I for one would be interested in seeing comparisons of pics taken in real situations that photographers face.
The shooter draws a conclusion, provides the RAW files and anyone can see if they draw the same conclusion.

This would be much better than the pointless technical banter that never proves anything or goes anywhere.

Also, the circle square exercise sounds like military funded peg research.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 24