April 17, 2014, 02:46:43 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 ... 117
Canon General / Re: "MAP" pricing....How long will it last????
« on: April 16, 2014, 11:04:22 PM »
...I see the downside to massive internet retailers like Amazon, that have little to no investment in the community. They don't pay the taxes that support schools, roads, police, etc. etc.

On the other hand, like most consumers, I am interested in maximizing my purchasing power.

To the extent that sales taxes support community services, Amazon is now collecting them on behalf of many states (mine included).   Even without that, consumers in most states are obligated to pay use tax on items purchased from another state and intended for use in the home state.  I'm sure all law-abiding citizens declare such purchases on their state tax returns...  ::)

Amazon started collecting California sales tax last year.  I would think that states where Amazon has distribution centers are paying state and local taxes as well.

Actually, I wasn't referring to sales taxes, but to the whole investment in the community that brick and mortar stores have.

Even national retailers like Best Buy or Barnes and Noble contribute far more to local economies than Amazon. Through their network of local stores, they hire local workers, pay salaries, payroll taxes, workers' compensation, unemployment insurance, etc., Their stores pay local property taxes, which support local schools.

The local payroll circulates through the local economy, helping other local businesses, including photographers, stay in business.

Sales taxes are paid by the consumer and are only collected by the stores. The individual still owes the taxes, regardless of whether or not the retailer collected the, so those taxes aren't really relevant.

As I said, I'm conflicted because, like most consumers, I'm short-sighted enough to go for the best price whenever possible. But, that doesn't make me blind to the downsides of an internet-based economy.

EOS Bodies / Re: 1d IV vs. 7D II
« on: April 16, 2014, 10:52:12 PM »
Well, aren't we all being jerks today.


EOS Bodies / 1d IV vs. 7D II
« on: April 16, 2014, 06:19:55 PM »
Okay, I know one is discontinued and the other is non-existent, but this is mostly for fun and a bit of learning.

Do the experts here think that the overall image quality of the 7DII will match or at least come close to the APS-H 1D IV? Why or why not?

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Calumet Store Closing Sale
« on: April 16, 2014, 02:30:49 PM »
Given what I read here, I don't know that I'd be hurrying off to a store immediately:


If I'm reading this correctly Calumet Sale Motion the offer is for the Oak Brook (IL), Goose Island (Chicago), Philadelphia, San Francisco and Washington, D.C. stores. I notice none of those are on the sale ad.

Canon General / Re: "MAP" pricing....How long will it last????
« on: April 15, 2014, 05:36:35 PM »
I think I understand why they try to enforce MAP pricing. They are trying to protect their dealer network; not necessarily the large retailers, but the smaller shops that can't compete on volume and can't stay in business on the small margins that internet dealers accept.

Intellectually, I am sympathetic because I see the downside to massive internet retailers like Amazon, that have little to no investment in the community. They don't pay the taxes that support schools, roads, police, etc. etc.

On the other hand, like most consumers, I am interested in maximizing my purchasing power.

So, I am conflicted.

Two points though to keep in mind.

First, MAP pricing does not affect the manufacturer's price to the retailer. When Canon or Nikon or Sony enforce MAP pricing, they aren't earning any additional profit, the higher margin goes to the retailer. They continue to sell the product to the retailer at the price they've always sold it.

Second, MAP enforcement never works. Ultimately, the market sets the price regardless of  MAP.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: B&H or Adorama
« on: April 14, 2014, 10:28:39 PM »
Shows up in black on Internet Explorer. Doesn't show up in Firefox, Chrome, Opera or Safari.

EOS-M / Re: Canon EOS M3 in Q3 of 2014?
« on: April 14, 2014, 04:23:27 PM »
LEICA is always the ol' rusty nail that deflates the whole argument against the profitability of niche markets, aren't they?

Who's arguing that niche markets are unprofitable?  They can be quite profitable, if managed (aka exploited) properly.  The 1-series bodies are a niche market, the 1D C even more so – and they're priced for Canon to profit from them.

I was about to respond to this, but you said it better and more succinctly than I could.

One additional thought though: people shouldn't confuse niche market profitability with large company sustainability. The 1-series bodies may be very profitable for Canon (I really don't know if they are or if they are a marketing loss-leader), but they couldn't possibly sustain the entire company because there just aren't enough buyers.

The Rebels, on the other hand, may be a small profit item, but I suspect the t3i contributes more to the overall bottom line than all the 1-series put together.

Point being -- large companies must pick and choose which niche markets to enter and sustain. Canon and Nikon remain in the flagship DSLR market in part because it aligns well with their prosumer, enthusiast, consumer and entry-level marketing.

Neither Canon nor Nikon have ever shown much interest in medium format cameras. I suspect it is because the small dollars available won't allow sufficient return to justify the investment and they can put those dollars to better use in other niche markets that align better with their overall mission – cinema DSLRs for example.

You should care: mirrorless is the future of Canon's camera business; more to the point, it's the future profit of Canon's camera business.

It's amazing how people keep saying things like this even though the mirrorless market has failed to materialize in the U.S. and Europe, and is still a side market in Japan.

Additionally, the jury is still out on whether the Japanese and other Asian markets are the leading edge or the trailing edge. Just because mirrorless currently seems to be doing well in Asia, too many people assume that's the future.

But, the evidence can be read in just the opposite way – mirrorless might be just a temporary infatuation for a market that could ultimately end up following Europe and the Americas into the DSLR love affair.

Okay, I know it's very risky to combine the Japanese market with the rest of Asia. Japan is a mature market and mirrorless seems primarily focused on generational and gender-based preferences in Japan.

But, China is an emerging market and ultimately may be a much more important one at that. As the middle- and upper-classes expand in China, they may find DSLRs just as appealing as their European and American counterparts.

So my point remains -- we really don't know if mirrorless is the wave of the future or not, even in Asia.

Side Note: Looks like the HTML might be screwed up on this post. Can't find a way to get in to it to see what the problem might be. My apologies.

EOS-M / Re: Canon EOS M3 in Q3 of 2014?
« on: April 14, 2014, 10:42:58 AM »
...Yes, the reflex mirror will go away at some point, some time after the point where performance of EVFs meets or exceeds that of OVFs (that's a ways off), and image sensor AF performance meets or exceeds that of a dedicated phase AF sensor for both static and moving subjects (we're getting closer to that)...
...Cameras that are similar in size to today's dSLRs, but don't have a reflex mirror, will come along eventually.  We won't be able to call them dSLRs (technically), but they won't fit today's definition of "mirrorless" either...

I don't disagree with the essence of what you are saying. Although I do think the jury is still out on whether or not EVFs will ever outperform and replace OVFs.

It seems to me the Optical View Finder is a pretty elegant solution that's been around for a long time (over 100 years in some form or another and well over 50 as the dominant format for 35mm). It relies on physics, not electronics, and has lots of advantages.

When people complain about Optical View Finders, they generally focus on the mirror movement and size. The slapping of the mirror is one of those things like dynamic range, shadow detail, etc. that a few people fixate on, but which has little practical effect for most users.

It's true that a camera without a mirror should be smaller than one with. But, it's also true that size is only a factor in modest focal lengths. Get beyond the edges of the normal range and lens size quickly trumps camera size. Interchangeable lens mirrorless cameras are the height of irony -- small form factor but then, let's carry around multiple lenses. What sense does that make?

Canon has demonstrated with the SL1 that DSLRs can be small too, and still retain all the advantages of an optical mirror.

Not taking issue with you, Neuro, because you get it. Rather just with the mindset that electronic viewfinders will inevitably replace optical simply because they are the latest thing.

Which may be why I'm skeptical about the future of interchangeable lens mirrorless cameras.

EOS Bodies / Re: DP Review's 10 most popular camera list
« on: April 09, 2014, 12:59:53 PM »
No worries. Just go to Amazon's best seller's list to see what people are actually buying, not what they are reading about.


As of this a.m. 14 of the top 20 are Canon and Canon has three full frame configurations in the top 20 while Nikon has one.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS sensors, and technology
« on: April 08, 2014, 11:43:26 PM »
Unfocused...What does it mean "OK, here we go again" ?  Is it maybe that this voice is getting louder? Maybe?

No. It means exactly what I wrote in my post. Someone convinces themselves that there is some feature that they absolutely have to have and then they make the leap that if they don't get it, Canon is making a huge and costly mistake. So they start a thread on this forum to whine about it.

You are fixated on the AA filter.

This same thread gets repeated over and over again with the only difference being the obscure feature that the individual has fixated on -- dynamic range, shadow banding, sensor size, number of megapixels, the list goes on and on.

The only voices getting louder are the imaginary ones in people's heads.

Canon is a business. A very successful business. There isn't anything anyone on this forum can come with that Canon has not considered and researched in far greater detail.

If it comes to a point where a business case can be made for changing the AA filter, they will change it. But, starting a forum thread and shouting "Hurry up Canon" isn't going to change anything.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS sensors, and technology
« on: April 08, 2014, 06:20:00 PM »
CANON!!! Please come up with a 28+mp AA FREE CAMERA!!! How long do we have to wait? ...DO IT NOW!!(in my best Arnold voice).

Okay. Here we go again.

People get upset when told this, but the truth is, it all boils down to economics.

You believe there is a market for the product you want. But, is that market large enough and sufficiently competitive to justify Canon to take the action you request? The only one who knows for sure would be Canon and they are not talking.

No company can survive going after 100% of potential customers. There are always customers that have to be left on the table because it just isn't possible to serve them and make sufficient profit – the people who want to buy a 5DIII at $1,200; those who want a Medium Format body at half the price of current competitors; etc. etc.

Companies have limited resources and a responsibility to put those resources where they will offer the best return. Canon has emphasized cinema in recent years. They obviously have determined that the market justifies their investment. That may be why they haven't released a high megapixel camera yet...the market may not justify the investment.

The hard truth is this: What we as individuals want is irrelevant. What we in the aggregate, comprising tens of thousands or even millions of like-minded consumers want is all-important.

Killing off the AA filter just isn't important enough to enough consumers to justify it at this point, regardless of whether or not it might improve image quality.

Before this conversation veers too far off-topic, a general observation:

As annoying as many of the forum participants can be (and I don't exclude myself from that category) when discussing trivia like sensor size, dynamic range, ISO performance, etc. etc., I find it comforting that over eight pages of discussion the vast majority of comments reveal persons with reasonably strong moral compasses who know right from wrong regardless of legal technicalities.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Dissuade me to get a Rolleiflex
« on: April 06, 2014, 09:54:39 AM »
Personally I miss film like a hole in the head.

My sentiments exactly. I find that it's much easier to be nostalgic about an era if you didn't actually have to live through it.

First, let me say that I'm impressed by the forum community. About five pages of comments and only one person suggesting he take the money and run.

First of all I'm a portrait photographer and I've got experience...Second I didn't sign any contract with him and he told me that I could post the photos on my website.

Okay, let's take your second point first – you had an oral agreement with the photographer that you could post the photos on your website. So, that was your contract.

There was no agreement that you could sell the photos. Only an agreement that you could post your photos on your website. Anything beyond that, you are obligated to discuss and renegotiate with the photographer. It may not hold up in a court, but it is a contract and you should honor it.

Now, to your first point. Do you, as a portrait photographer, allow other photographers to accompany you when you shoot portraits? If you do, do you allow them to sell their photographs to the clients?

This is clear cut. There is no grey area here. I agree with virtually everyone else who has weighed in. Your first responsibility is to the other photographer. You are trying to rationalize unethical behavior because your ego has been flattered. Your first mistake was even talking to the bride without going through the photographer. That should have never happened.

If you had just told her that you were there with the other photographer and that all pictures would need to be ordered through him, that would have prevented a lot of grief for everyone involved. Now, the situation has been hopelessly confused and, frankly, there is probably little you can do at this point to make amends to the photographer who was kind enough to take you along. Still, you should try.

But it is equally important to keep perspective and not let rumour and incorrect conclusions unduly damage the core business, after all I am sure every company has such a list of papers...
But Canon should not be charging for faulty or failing design or manufacturing issues.

I applaud Private's effort to keep this in perspective. Without knowing what the information is that CR has, it's  hard to say "No." But honestly, only CR Guy knows what the information is and can decide if it is important enough to release.

Let's be realistic – if Canon has identified a tiny design flaw that impacts .0005% of one lens and then only when shooting a full moon on a cloudy night in April in odd numbered years and you post that online, then every internet forum will be lit up with people who are ABSOLUTELY SURE their lens has this problem and they'll be demanding that Canon immediately replace their five-year-old lens with a new model and provide free overnight shipping as well.

On the other hand, if there is a serious design flaw that impacts a sizable number of users and Canon is charging for repairs when they shouldn't, that's another case.

I'm just saying a certain amount of judgment should be exercised.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 117