December 20, 2014, 09:00:55 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 ... 147
1
Lenses / Re: Review: Sensor Performance of the 7D Mark II
« on: December 01, 2014, 11:40:38 PM »
Great review. The 7D Mark II is exactly the camera I'd hoped it would be.

LOL at the thread immediately being high-jacked by the "it's no good if it's not mirrorless and Sony" crowd, which seems to happen every time anyone writes something positive about the 7D Mark II (or any Canon camera for that matter).  Eminently predictable!  ::)

Yes. I just laugh at these trolls. Not worth responding to them. No matter how many positive reviews there are, they will always find something to complain about. Meanwhile, Canon just keeps selling cameras.

2
Lenses / Re: I *HATE* UPS.
« on: November 28, 2014, 11:23:45 PM »
If the lens is damaged you can return it. I doubt it is though. If you ordered it from a reputable dealer (like Adorama or B&H) they package these things very well. It will get more banging about in your camera bag than it did during delivery.

Most delivery services have an option to pick it up at their location. Fed-Ex allows you to pick it up at the nearest Kinkos/Fed Ex, which is the option I usually choose because it's far more convenient than waiting for the delivery. I can do the pickup on my schedule, not theirs.

Surely there are more important things in life to complain about.

3
I'm not sure what the arguments here have to do with the story.

Sony's projections mirror those of Nikon and Canon – the combination of a maturing market and maturing technology means a slowdown in sales of all higher end digital cameras. The rise of the smart phone has led to the collapse of the point and shoot market. Mirrorless is an immature technology and its too early to know what the trend lines there will mean over the long haul.

Move along. Nothing new here. 

4
Canon General / Re: Canon U.S.A. Prices going down?
« on: November 26, 2014, 11:21:25 AM »
Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. For a multinational company like Canon, a drop in the value of the yen means an increase in costs in other regions in relation to the yen. Materials, labor, transportation cost, etc. Must all  be paid in the local currency. It all tends to balance out and seldom has a major impact on prices to the consumer.

And, as wtlloyd pointed out, the fluctuation does nothing to help with embedded costs.

5
EOS Bodies / Re: Another 50mp FF DSLR Mention [CR2]
« on: November 24, 2014, 10:11:33 AM »
I could see Canon doing something similar to what Sony does: use the same basic body and substitute in different sensors. This could be a 5D HD (High Definition) that uses a scaled-up version of the 7DII sensor.

Then wait until 2016 to release a 5D IV.

Still wondering though, who is going to buy the 50mp version. As the D800 demonstrated, the market for high megapixel bodies isn't that large. That's why I see Canon trying to save some R&D and manufacturing costs by putting it into a 5D body. If they can reduce the manufacturing costs it might be economically feasible. But if they need an entirely new design and production line, I'm not sure the market can sustain that.

6
Canon General / Re: Does Canon really deserve this?
« on: November 22, 2014, 11:54:38 AM »
I have a little different viewpoint.

Many website and forums (such as this one) came about during the first decade of the 2000s, when digital cameras were an emerging technology and the pace of change was very rapid. Companies were releasing new products that tended to leapfrog one another and there was a lot to write and talk about.

As with any technology, digital cameras have matured and the pace of change has slowed. The truth is: 99% of digital cameras made today are perfectly fine for 99% of the photographs being taken of 99% of the subjects under 99% of conditions.

That leaves only those 1% issues to deal with. No company can afford to go after 100% of the customer base. It's just too expensive and offers too little return.

But, with less to talk about on forums, people fixate on tiny differences that are irrelevant to the majority of users. As with any topic, the more obscure it becomes the more intense the feelings are and we see more than our share of that.

7
It has the potential to be the most revolutionary and disruptive technological development on the horizon.

Camera companies invest millions in autofocus systems, but that investment would mean nothing if the photographer could refine focus after the shot has been taken.

No need for AFMA, no real need for sophisticated autofocus. Aim the camera at the subject, get the picture generally in focus and shoot. Then, later (or in-camera) pick the exact point of focus you want.

No more portraits where the nose, rather than the eye is in focus, no more bird-in-flight pictures where a wing or tail feather is in focus but the eye isn't, no more sport's photos with the focus just slightly off, no more wedding photos with a slightly missed focus when the bride is throwing the bouquet.

Autofocus systems are one of the main differentiators between various models in the manufacturer's line-up. But, if this is perfected, you won't need 60 cross-type autofocus points. A single point that gets you in the ballpark is all that is necessary. From there, you adjust it in post.

Not to mention the impact on lenses – imagine being able to infinitely vary the depth of field of any lens. Take a picture with your f4 lens and then adjust in post to have the same Bokeh as a f1.2 lens or the depth of field as though you'd shot it at f64.

How soon and how well it gets implemented is the major question, but no other development has a similar potential to revolutionize photography.

8
Photography Technique / Re: Game Ranches for photography
« on: November 19, 2014, 11:46:15 AM »
I'm not out to piddle in anyones pond, but I prefer to shoot in Mother nature. No additional costs, and availability is second to none - it's there when I'm ready.

I suppose. But, I'm increasingly wondering about the real differences. Really, if you spend $8,000 a person to take a "safari" in Africa, where the guides know exactly where the animals are likely to be and can pretty much guarantee that you'll get shots of the "big four" is that so much different than going to a ranch where they keep herds of bison, antelope, etc.?

Or, for that matter, what about traveling to Alaska to a known site where eagles and grizzlies gather to gorge on Salmon during the spawning season?  Or spending several thousand dollars to take a snowcrawler out among the polar bears in Canada?

Yes, for me, I really enjoy seeing a red tail hawk circling overhead or a great blue heron fishing in the local lake, and I enjoy the challenge of capturing these animals on film. But, I also know that if I really want to get close up shots of herons or red tails, I'm better off traveling somewhere where there are a lot of them and they are more predictable.

I'm not out to piddle in anyone's pond either – but I don't hold it against those who can't afford the more exotic locales and have to rely on what they have at hand and can afford in order to pursue their passion.

It seems as though in many cases, we are talking about small degrees of difference.

9
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Is this normal, or an issue? 7D mkii
« on: November 12, 2014, 10:33:01 AM »
Don't care to prolong the debate. But the source is obvious. Perhaps using the term "flare" is confusing to some. Essentially, there is a gigantic white light right behind the keyboard player pointing straight at the camera. It's plainly visible as I said at about the 3 second mark. It's so intense that it wraps around his head and almost completely obscures it.

10
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Is this normal, or an issue? 7D mkii
« on: November 12, 2014, 08:32:36 AM »
I've watched this about a dozen times. It's not condensation; it's flare.

At the 3 Second mark you can clearly see a huge white light right behind the keyboardist's head pointed directly at the camera. When you pan down to his feet, the flare disappears. When you pan over to the other musician, it's not as blinding, but it is there.

It goes away when they switch to colored lights that are in a different position. Nothing wrong with the camera, just the stage lighting and camera position causing problems.

11
EOS Bodies / Re: Interesting Article on DXO Mark Ratings
« on: November 10, 2014, 01:18:39 PM »
I think Thom Hogan is one of the best columnists out there. He understands the technology and puts it into real world perspective. Not as easy to do as some people think.

His columns often confirm what I've been thinking, but didn't know how to articulate.

12
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Is the 7D MK II Really Selling Well?
« on: November 04, 2014, 02:56:05 PM »
Currently number one on Amazon best sellers list. number eight with kit lens. People dispute the Amazon list but never cite any better list or have any valid reason for challenging it. So yes, it is selling very well now. The fact that dealers have it in stock simply means canon accurately projected demand and they have the infrastructure in place to meet the demand, unlike smaller companies like Tamron.

13
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon to Continue Using Canon Sensors in DSLRs
« on: November 03, 2014, 07:00:59 PM »
Sony's sensor division is one of the few divisions on the company that is actually turning a profit. I don't see Sony unloading that any time soon, as it, along side their insurance division, is their cash cow...

It is very common for companies that are having financial problems to sell off profitable divisions. If they need to raise cash, it's a lot easier if you sell something that is making money, rather than something that is losing money.

Not saying that will happen with Sony, but I would never presume that just because a division is profitable it is safe from acquisition.

14
Top end gear will be entirely an in-house affair for Canon until they start losing pros in large enough numbers *expressly for sensor reasons* (DR, resolution, etc.).

Most pros could not care less about the slight dynamic range differences between sensors.

...But the fact that the 5D3 is still sitting near its original asking price some 2.5 years later says that it's still a very desirable camera (or Canon is losing its shirt to make a point about protecting price).

Which shows that high end enthusiasts and pros aren't concerned about this small issue. Obviously Canon is not losing its shirt. The 5DIII continues to do very well because it remains equal to or better than it's competitors in overall quality, regardless of how it may score on one minor data point that comes into play rarely if ever.

But there must come a point where everything else that Canon does well -- that epic stable of glass, CPS, the ergonomics, reliability, access to massive third-party ecosystem of products, etc. -- could eventually be overpowered by a concern over Canon's sensors.

If the concern were significant that would be true. But, keep in mind we are talking about tiny, tiny differences that have little to no impact in 99.9% of cases. Plus, it isn't even an overall weakness. It is again, just one small data point in sensor attributes.

Most reviewers are declaring the 7DII the best APS-C camera made and noting that no one else has a camera that can compete against it. Overall, the new sensor is as good or better than other APS-C sensors.

I personally hope Canon does not expend too many resources on making tiny improvements to sensors. There are much bigger threats out there (light field cameras, for example, represent a much bigger threat because they are truly disruptive technology).

15
Post Processing / Re: Portrait-specific post processing software
« on: October 31, 2014, 10:49:52 PM »
I use a combination of Photoshop and OnOne Perfect Portrait. OnOne is good for some light reduction in blemishes and skin problems and does a good job of improving eyes and teeth.

But for teen and young adult skin I find the best system are the tried and true healing brushes in Photoshop. Make a second duplicate layer, and then go to work on that layer with the healing brush. If its too much, you can reduce the opacity a little, so it looks more natural and then duplicate and merge the duplicated layers in Photoshop.

Then use OnOne to soften the skin a bit and improve the eyes and mouth.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 147