September 02, 2014, 03:18:43 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 - unfocused

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 136
1
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: September 01, 2014, 11:12:49 PM »
I've printed (well, had professionally printed, not at home) images at much larger than 13x19", without 'mushy red blotchy shadows' (although they weren't from a 5DIII).

The largest prints I happen to have on hand right now are 16 x 24 from a 7D. I had some from a 5DIII, but they are no longer in my possession. Shadows look good from a viewing distance of about 6 inches (which of course is closer than anyone will ever look at a printed picture of that size). My eyes won't focus much closer than that. Maybe people should try MPix. That's where I print.

2

What's striking to me is why anyone would buy a product (and in another thread one of the most vocal complainers said he spent $25,000 on Canon gear) they don't like. And, if they bought something they didn't like, why would they choose to take their dissatisfaction to a forum, which is about the most ineffective way imaginable to complain. Just return the product, or sell it and chalk up any loss to experience.


That's called vendor lock in.
For a company it has the advantage of making the cost of changing prohibitive...until the wheel turns and you have to fight an uphill battle.

Nobody put a gun to anybody's head and forced them to buy a particular brand. How about people take responsibility for their own decisions for a change?

3
Lenses / Re: Recent L Price Reductions: Thoughts?
« on: September 01, 2014, 12:59:50 PM »
Oops, I posted this under a parallel thread and should have done it here:

Keep in mind that the "price drops" largely match rebate pricing. I don't think we should assume too much until we see if rebates return with even lower prices.

For the past few years, Canon (and others) have pretty much had a constant cycle of never-ending rebates. Perhaps their marketing research has show that rebates are no longer effective and permanent price drops are a better approach. (With the price "drop" actually being about the same as rebate pricing in most cases)

I also wonder about the impact on the MAP system. Rebate periods were used to enforce MAP. Yet, MAP has proven to be virtually unenforceable no matter what manufacturers try. If Canon permanently lowers prices and then no longer uses rebates to enforce MAP, they may be throwing in the towel and effectively giving retailers more flexibility on pricing. From Canon's perspective, MAP was done as a favor to retailers and had no impact on the company's profits. Perhaps they just decided that it's not worth the hassle to try to swim against the current and try to enforce prices that retailers refuse to charge anyway.

4
Lenses / Re: Canon Price Drops on L Lenses
« on: September 01, 2014, 12:51:05 PM »
Just a little reality check here. Keep in mind the "price drops" are more like price matching to the same prices during rebate periods.

Since rebates have been pretty much constant for the past few years, it's entirely possible that Canon's marketing research has shown that the rebate system is no longer an effective marketing tool and it would be better to just institute the rebate prices permanently.

I guess we'll know if, in a couple of months or weeks Canon offers rebates on top of the new prices. But, in the meantime, I'm not sure we should assume these prices mean anything at all.

One thought – if Canon abandons the rebates for permanent price reductions, this could also be a sign they are throwing in the towel on MAP enforcement. It's no secret manufacturers have been completely unable to actually enforce MAP prices in the internet world. Rebate periods have been used to enforce MAP. Perhaps Canon has decided they will reduce the list prices and then accept that dealers will offer lower prices.

5
A related question:  how many non-Nikon shooters go to Nikon forums to complain about Nikon?...

From what I've seen, many of the most vocal complainers on CR don't use Canon gear.  Some of them used to shoot Canon.  So why are they here?...CR is a great community resource, and like nearly all successful Internet forums, it attracts a few incessant complainers.   Look on the bright side – they provide some entertainment on slow rumor days...

I've never figured this out.  It happens with almost any product.  I'll see an article about a new iphone and most of the posts are from people criticizing it.  If I see an article, post, forum, etc. related to a product I don't want, use, or have an interest in, I don't read it, let alone leave negative comments.  What's up with these people?

Agree...But, a fair number of the complainers seem to also be Canon users who are disgruntled for any number of reasons.

What's striking to me is why anyone would buy a product (and in another thread one of the most vocal complainers said he spent $25,000 on Canon gear) they don't like. And, if they bought something they didn't like, why would they choose to take their dissatisfaction to a forum, which is about the most ineffective way imaginable to complain. Just return the product, or sell it and chalk up any loss to experience.

I once knew a very wealthy land developer. He said that whatever he bought became more valuable once he bought it. It might not have been totally true, but it was a mindset. "If I own this, it's because it is valuable to me."

That's always seemed to me to be a very good way to approach buying things. If I buy something, it's usually because I want it. And, once I've bought it, I don't beat myself up over alternatives. I wanted it. I bought it. Now I get to enjoy it.

Call me a fan boy, I really don't care. I'd much rather be happy with my purchases than complaining because I think somewhere, somehow, someplace, someone else might own something better. You know what? There will always be someone who owns something better.

Finally, let's for once all be honest about something. There isn't a nickel's worth of difference between Nikon and Canon anyway.

6
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 30, 2014, 03:56:50 PM »

I am one of those people who thought " I want a little more reach - I'll use my (daughter's) APS camera. As you can see there is no difference in this scenario, even when (unfairly) I up sampled the 8.5 mp of the 5D.

What puzzles me is that I could see the difference between an 8 mp camera and a 12 mp of the same format.

I'll borrow a 7D off a pal and see what happens with 18 mp.

I admire your patience and willingness to experiment. As you can tell, I tend to believe there is a difference, but only in cases of extreme cropping, when you reach the point where there simply aren't enough pixels to get a sharp image.

That's one reason why, now that I own a 5DIII, I'm still interested in a 7DII but don't feel the urgency I once did. I see it being useful for bird and wildlife photography, when I simply can't get close enough with existing lenses and need to crop significantly.

But, as I don't have the time to do as much of that type of photography as I would like, I'm inclined to wait until the reviews are in and the price settles down before considering it.

7
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 30, 2014, 03:22:11 PM »
OK, well here is 100%. The fact is there is just no difference.

Sporgon, I'm a little confused by what you are trying to show here. If you are saying that you can crop a full frame sensor image to the same effective focal length of an uncropped APS-C camera and not lose any significant detail, I don't think most people disagree with that.

When you have to do extensive cropping, sooner or later, the full frame image taken from the same spot with a sensor of equal megapixels is going to deteriorate, simply because the final image has less resolution.

I think this is the point of contention.

Yeah, sure if you don't have to crop severely, the "reach" advantage of a crop sensor may not be significant. But, if you must do some significant cropping of the image, the greater pixel density of the APS-C sensor will hold up longer.

Your experiment is a little unfair, because you are using a 12 mp APS-C sensor. A more fair comparison would be to take a 70 D and a 6 D, which are fairly close in the number of megapixels. Shoot the same scene with both from the same spot. Crop the 6D image to match the framing of the 70 D and then keep cropping away until one image deteriorates to the point where it becomes unusable.

Logic would suggest that the 6D image will fall apart sooner, because you are starting with less resolution. But, it would be interesting to see if that is really the case.

Of course, it if turns out the the fall apart equally, despite the difference in resolution, then all those people clamoring for a high-resolution Canon full frame camera would have to rethink their demands.

Frankly, I'm okay with either result. I would just suggest a more fair comparison.

8
EOS Bodies / Re: The Perfect Sensor
« on: August 29, 2014, 04:53:35 PM »
What I am convinced will happen (although it may take more than a decade to perfect) is the "light field" focusing-after-the-shot technology.

Frankly, I've got really mixed emotions about this. After all, wouldn't we all want to be able to know that that Eagle that we shot catching a fish would be perfectly in focus every time? On the other hand, will this suck all the fun out of photography if EVERY shot you take is perfectly focused and you can change the focus to anything in the picture?

What if anyone in the stands can shoot a picture of the winning touchdown pass and get it perfectly in focus, every single time?

And what about wedding photographers? Imagine all the classic shots (exchanging rings, throwing the bouquet, feeding each other cake, etc.) able to refocus and shift the focus at will.

Page after page of people anguishing over sensors and dynamic range when the biggest, baddest industry disrupting technology is sneaking up behind us.

9
EOS Bodies / Re: Do Sensors Make the Camera?
« on: August 29, 2014, 02:22:40 PM »
Clearly this guy was hopeless. Never make it as a photographer. Shadows need to be lifted big time. This hardly even looks like a pepper.

10
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 29, 2014, 12:45:53 PM »
Well, I'm sure it's time for you all to tear me a new arse as you are duty bound to do, but before you do, how many have used all these lenses and cameras for paying work?

Let me be the first.

Actually, not really. First, I give extra points to anyone who actually has to earn a living in photography who participates on this forum. I'm not sure why they bother, but I appreciate that.

As for me, I never have and never will criticize Nikon. It is a great system and I frankly don't see a lot of point in dwelling on the small differences. Some people prefer Nikon, some people prefer Canon. Everyone has their reasons and that's fine with me.

Sony is also fine, but I do believe that people take a bigger risk investing in Sony lenses. I am willing to bet thousands of dollars that Canon will be around for the rest of my life. (In fact, that is what I have done by buying a lot of their lenses). I'd be willing to take that same bet with Nikon. But, I'm old enough to have seen most of the other camera manufacturers come and go to not feel comfortable investing in Sony lenses. That's just me.

I like Canon. That's why I buy Canon. I don't understand people who would buy equipment they don't like. Yet this forum (not you, whomever you are) is filled with people who have bought Canon equipment (or so they claim) and seem so caught up in having the newest technology that they are incapable of enjoying what they have out of fear that the next release by some competitor might be marginally superior in some way.

I think anyone with half a brain and a bit of honesty must admit that for 99% of photographers under 99% of shooting conditions, the cheapest Nikon or Canon DSLR will product results indistinguishable from the flagship full frame model of either manufacturer. Perhaps you are in the 1% and shoot in the 1% of conditions where that is not true. Congratulations to you.

I won't speak for Neuro. But, I think a lot of the people on this forum grow frustrated with commentary that dwells on insignificant differences. In the past several days we've had pages and pages of commentary about how terrible Canon is because you can't shoot straight into a setting sun and have leaves that are in shadow come out properly exposed. Well...boo...hoo.

This particular topic was clearly started with the sole intent of generating anger and frustration from forum participants. And, unfortunately the original poster has gotten exactly what he wanted.

The ongoing commentary on this forum has become particularly ridiculous of late and for me that was underscored because I happened to attend a Scott Kelby seminar earlier in the week. I am sure there will be those who rush to criticize Kelby, but the fact is, the guy is a damn good photographer.

A sizable portion of his commentary was spent on making the point time and time again that equipment is the least important part of photography. He not only says that, but demonstrates it time and time again. He showed incredible images shot with lenses that no one on this forum would dare admit to using out of fear of being massacred because "that lens is a piece of crap."

So, from my perspective, if you find Nikon better for your purposes, that is great. I honestly don't care.

11
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 29, 2014, 10:39:25 AM »
You are a sad person - is Canon paying you?

Nope. That's why I'm sad. I can only get Pentax to pay me.

Say...have you seen their new SLR with all the LED lights?  ;D

I've seen their video. Makes me want LED lights.
http://youtu.be/zva6-s8jza8

12
Lenses / Re: New Lens Information for Photokina
« on: August 29, 2014, 10:33:39 AM »
Who the heck would want a FF lens that only goes to f/5.6 at 105mm? 
Not me, but people that want a light, cheap lens for landscape, travel, & studio use where shallow DOF is never used.  6D shooters would likely be the target for this lens.

Your logic makes about as much sense as saying who would want a crop sensor, or would want a camera any less tough than the 1D X.

There's this little thing called market segmentation.  It's how big companies make money.  Reference Canon's profits on the Rebel line vs. the 1D line.

Mac, I generally agree with your viewpoint, but I do wonder how Canon would slot this lens. Since the 24-105 "L" already sells for around $600 in white box form, it seems like it would be hard to make this lens competitive in price, unless it is really, really cheap.

Maybe they are looking to stop selling the 24-105 "L" as a kit lens, wait for the supply to dry up in the market and then in a few years introduce a 24-105 "L" II at a significantly increased price? If that happens, we'll all be patting ourselves on the back for getting the 24-105 "L" when it was cheap.

13
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 29, 2014, 10:09:13 AM »
Who gives a rat's hindquarters?

14
So... it's all over the community web, and it puts yet again focus on the manufacturing ethics surrounding cameras and what potential they really hold.
"Ethics" has nothing whatsoever to do with this!

Any manufacturer - any - is utterly within its rights to sell whatever it wants to sell, and as long as it delivers whatever its product description promises, that's the manufacturer's "ethical" responsibility here satisfied in full.

Canon isn't a charity, and it doesn't owe us a thing: if we don't like what they do, we don't buy from them.

It's that simple.

My thoughts exactly. Whether its Sony, Nikon, Canon or any other company – if they deliver the product they promised to deliver at the price they promised to charge, then what's your complaint?

15
Canon General / Re: Some wait for 7d2 other do great without it.
« on: August 29, 2014, 09:53:59 AM »
Wonderful reality check. Thanks for sharing.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 136