January 26, 2015, 01:30:12 PM

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 - miah

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 11
1
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II USM Lens Review
« on: January 18, 2015, 06:43:40 PM »
It is a superb lens - pity it is so expensive.

AlanF, just curious, I know you own the 300 f/2.8. Since the new 400 DO II is only $300 more expensive, do you feel the 300mm is "so expensive," as well? In other words, how do you rate the relative value of these two lenses, given their fairly large differences in focal length, aperture and weight--but relatively small difference in cost?

I'm looking to step up from the 400L f/5.6 primarily because I want IS, and I'd certainly appreciate that extra stop. I could get the new 100-400L II, but since my lighter and more compact 70-300L is my go-to travel lens, I think the 100-400 would remain parked at 400. For these reasons, price aside, the new 400DO II is awfully appealing.

Finally, CR claimed the 400 DO's were going to start shipping on Dec 18th, but I've yet to see one show up anywhere online for sale. B&H shows two "user reviews," but Adorama and Amazon show none. LensRentals says you can pre-reserve one, so they don't have one yet, either. When Canon originally announced the lens, it was supposed to start shipping in Nov 2014, but thus far seems like vaporware. Has anyone heard anything about Canon's actual ship date?

Sorry, I missed this post and apologise for the delay in answering. The price for the 400 DO II at Wex in the UK is £6999, that for the 300mm/2.8 II is discounted to £4899. So, there is a huge price differential here.

Even if the price were the same, it would be a difficult choice. Firstly, the weights are pretty close, 2350g vs 2100g, and they are both amazingly sharp. Secondly, you have to balance how much you would like 300mm at f/2.8 vs 400mm at f/4. Thirdly, I would guess that my most used combination would be either the 400+1.4xTC or the 300+2xTC, with little too choose between them. However, I have been playing around with the 100-400 II plus 2xTC using live view at f/11 on the 7DII, and am very impressed with 800mm!

Having the 100-400 II does confuse the issue even more. I would dearly like to have the DO as well, but it would be difficult to justify for a second-rate amateur like me.

Thanks, AlanF. There's a lot of confusion when talking about the relative prices of these lenses in this thread, because forum members live in so many different countries and are offered these same lenses at disparate prices. Here in the USA, the 300 f/2.8 is $6599 and the 400 DO II is $6899. With only a $300 difference between the two of them, I had to ask if you feel they're both "so expensive." I appreciate your clarification.

I am really liking the looks of this new lens, and feel that it would be a better fit for me, given I'd typically use the 100-400 II racked out to 400 for wildlife. The extra stop is to die for when the light gets low. And the squat size and shape simply appear like it would be easier to hand-hold for longer periods of time. Now, if we can only get to see some in stock, somewhere!

2
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II USM Lens Review
« on: January 17, 2015, 11:39:19 AM »
Wow, the 400 f/2.8 seems to sell for a LOT less in Great Britain. The review's author states that the 400 f/2.8 is "slightly more expensive" than the 400 DO II, or $1164 US dollars more. But here in the US, the 400 f/2.8 is $3600 more than the 400 DO II, $10,499 vs $6899.

3
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II USM Lens Review
« on: January 17, 2015, 10:55:49 AM »
It is a superb lens - pity it is so expensive.

AlanF, just curious, I know you own the 300 f/2.8. Since the new 400 DO II is only $300 more expensive, do you feel the 300mm is "so expensive," as well? In other words, how do you rate the relative value of these two lenses, given their fairly large differences in focal length, aperture and weight--but relatively small difference in cost?

I'm looking to step up from the 400L f/5.6 primarily because I want IS, and I'd certainly appreciate that extra stop. I could get the new 100-400L II, but since my lighter and more compact 70-300L is my go-to travel lens, I think the 100-400 would remain parked at 400. For these reasons, price aside, the new 400DO II is awfully appealing.

Finally, CR claimed the 400 DO's were going to start shipping on Dec 18th, but I've yet to see one show up anywhere online for sale. B&H shows two "user reviews," but Adorama and Amazon show none. LensRentals says you can pre-reserve one, so they don't have one yet, either. When Canon originally announced the lens, it was supposed to start shipping in Nov 2014, but thus far seems like vaporware. Has anyone heard anything about Canon's actual ship date?

4
Canon EF Zoom Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM
« on: January 14, 2015, 11:14:11 AM »
Further, adding the TC to the 100-400 on the 7DII is a waste of time as the degradation of image and increase in noise nullifies any increase in resolution.

Thanks for your analysis, AlanF. Question: I find the 7D2 + 400 f/5.6 prime + 1.4x TC III to yield quite acceptable image quality. Have you experimented with this combo? I ask because I'm considering the 100-400 II and may trade my 400 prime as part of the deal. I could use my 5D3 + 100-400 + 1.4x, as you do, but would hate to lose the use of my 7D2 (higher FPS, better AF, etc.) when employing the TC. I'm shooting wildlife, including birds.

5
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Yongnuo 35mm f/2 Canon Clone on the Way
« on: January 06, 2015, 09:32:43 PM »
If it doesn't infringe or it merely "infringes" an expired patent,

You can't infringe an expired patent.


Obviously, dilbert, that's why I put "infringes" in quotes.

6
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Yongnuo 35mm f/2 Canon Clone on the Way
« on: January 05, 2015, 10:33:44 AM »
Design patents are valid for 20 years (in the US). I'm not saying it's right or wrong but any company can clone away if they choose.

Technically, Design Patents in the USA are only good for 14 years; it's 20 years for the stronger Utility Patent. And while a company can choose to "clone away" if it likes, doing so will open them up to a lawsuit for damages and lost sales from the patent holder.

This discussion is meandering a bit. First off, no one here, myself included, seems to know for sure if Yongnuo's 35mm lens actually infringes any of Canon's patents or whether or not Canon's applicable patents have expired. If it doesn't infringe or it merely "infringes" an expired patent, then Yongnuo has every legal right to offer their 35mm lens for sale on the open market and I'm glad they will.

Healthy competition gives rise to better products at more reasonable prices. My only argument is that the patent system--though seriously in need of a 21st century revamp--serves the very valuable purpose of incentivizing companies to push the envelope. Take away the profit motive--and progress will slow to a crawl.

7
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Yongnuo 35mm f/2 Canon Clone on the Way
« on: January 05, 2015, 10:02:37 AM »
Miah
  I understand and agree with your view; apart from the YN-E3-RT my gear is all Canon or Sigma.  But I was very frustrated to find that the Canon RT transmitter locked me out of a lot of the higher functionality of the device (and had less options), mainly because I only had a recent but not current camera body; so yes, in protest I voted with my £.  I only hope that the YN-E3-RT proves to be reliable, and that canon updates this product giving me a fist party option in the future.

And right you were to vote for the third-party option, 300D, when Canon refused to offer the product you desired! That's the free market operating as it should. And if we're lucky, and Canon is smart, they're listening to the ways in which we're "voting."

8
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Yongnuo 35mm f/2 Canon Clone on the Way
« on: January 05, 2015, 09:58:44 AM »

So basically you are saying that without competition Canon will produce innovating products at a good price.

How is that working out? Nobody is better then Canon in any areas?

Also, didn't Canon start by coping German camera manufactures products?

Patents don't preclude competition, far from it. They merely incite law-abiding competitors to find another way to skin the cat. And as far as price is concerned, if Canon or any other patent-holder doesn't offer their product at a price the market will bear, their patent isn't worth the paper it's printed on. Consumers--like ourselves--tell Canon everyday whether their prices are too high by voting with our dollars, as I said.

With regards to knowledge being cumulative, you're right. Just about everything we use today had some prequel or long series of prequels that led up to the device we own, just as there will be a long line of sequels that follow it into the future. Patents don't give anyone a monopoly; they give the innovator a deserved head start.

9
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Yongnuo 35mm f/2 Canon Clone on the Way
« on: January 05, 2015, 09:17:32 AM »
Students win!

This is short-sighted thinking. No one wins when primary design work is stolen (although in this case, as pointed out earlier, Canon's patents may have already expired). Without a company--Canon, Apple, [insert innovative company here]--being able to reap the rewards of their labor, investment and risk in R&D, they will have no incentive to develop better products. The patent system, though flawed, was created for a reason. It rewards innovation by giving the innovator a protected and relatively short period of time to establish their brand/product before everyone else is free to copy their design. If the design is good, and people are willing to buy it at the price offered, everyone benefits.

We vote with our dollars. I prefer mine to finance innovation and reward the risk takers.

10
EOS Bodies / Re: Ron Martinsen Blasts the 7DII in his review
« on: December 20, 2014, 09:15:25 AM »
Hello everyone.

First of all, let me give you my congratulations to everyone, it´s my first post, but i follow this forum for quite a while, and i really like to read your opinions either i agree, or not. I´m sorry for any mistake in writing, i speak better english than i write.

My name is Peter i am a wildlife photographer in Portugal and i really feel the need to write in this post, because i own the new 7D markII for a couple of days and i tested it in a very harsh environment with fog and in almost no light.

And the camera went in a superb response! Auto focus is incredible even in very dificult conditions, and ISO gave me very good photos at iso 2000. I am not a pixel peeper, i don´t make comparisons, i don´t study at the minimun detail pixels or IQ, first of all i need to get the picture!! And in that field the 7D markII is superb.

I also own a 5D markIII so i was kind of expecting this behavior, but it really pleasured me.

I think some people are being very infair reviewing this camera. First of all, let´s not forget, it´s a 1600$ camera! Expensive? I think it has a quite reasonable price for what it delivers. But i think people is demanding things to this camera tha you can achieve in a 6000$ camera...Not real! And most part of the people who criticizes want everything in a 1600$ camera. They want an aps-c with 40MP, with iso capability of 25000, they want the camera to fly, they want the camera to be perfect...and that´s not possible...at least at this price.

And then, there ar very people who´s talking bad of this camera because they didn´t understand what is the target of this camera! If i want a Wedding camera i take my 5D markIII! If I want a low light camera, or a landscape camera I take a Canon 6D, or a 5D markIII. 7D markII it´s NOT a walkaround camera. His purpose is to get the photo in fast action! It is made for wildlife and sports!!

I heard some talks about softness in image in this camera. So let me say again...if you are putting side by side canon 1D X or canon 5d markIII sharpness although it´s unfair, yes it may be not so sharp. But if i put you 2 photos side by side in good light conditions, of 5d markIII ad 7D markII without 100% zooms without all those tests you´ll never figure what the machine took the photo!! And that´s real world photo!

What concern´s me a little bit is it seems Canon is loosing something for Nikon and Sony in Image quality overall...that´s a real concern.

So this post is not scientific, nor trying to prove anything, it´s just my opinion that people are being unfair reviewing this camera. Yes, it´s not perfect, but for wildlife or sports? It´s awesome and if you don´t get the shot it´s your fault!

BTW - If you use ISO 2000 and you make a 50% crop, Of course you´ll get noise, but that´s not camera fault!!

"If you're pictures aren't good enough, you're not close enough" - Robert Capa


Thank you everyone and please continue, i really apreciate all off your posts!

Welcome to CR, Go Wild; your post hit the nail right on the head.

11
Software & Accessories / Re: i folded and bought CC :(
« on: December 18, 2014, 05:05:39 PM »
Thanks for the clarification on MathWorks' policy, wsheldon; that's really helpful to know.

So, given your stated needs, if Adobe were to come to you and ask how they could improve their policy to make you feel good about their subscription service--while still allowing them to make a reasonable profit from their labors--what would be your answer? There are obviously a number of ways to skin this cat, but I think the photo-hobbiest market has a legitimate beef with their current policy and if we can communicate that to Adobe they may be willing to listen.

Honestly, I think a hybrid approach would be ideal. Offer a CC subscription option with a higher start-up fee that gives you the right to keep using your latest version if you stop subscribing, but still offer the lower priced pay-as-you-go option with no start-up for the people that makes sense for. Basically an option for a perpetual license but within the existing CC infrastructure.

Offering hold-outs like me who are clinging to our full versions of CS6 and LR5 a discount for that perpetual license option would be even better (and smooth our ruffled feathers).

That sounds a whole lot like my exit-fee strategy, only mine would put the cost of a perpetual license on the tail-end instead of the front-end. This would lower the entry barrier and raise the exit barrier, something I think Adobe would be happier with.  ;)

So, if Adobe offered you a contract where the price of exit/perpetual license couldn't go up after you agree to subscribe, and your sole cost of entry is paying $9.99 to subscribe to the latest versions of both Ps and Lr with all the updates, technical support and behance thrown in, would you do it? Mind you, if they decided to jack the rate at some point, say to $14.99/month, you could always exercise your exit strategy, pay the agreed upon exit fee for your fixed-version, perpetual copy, and go on your way.

I'm just trying to get to the bottom of this argument, if that's possible. Like I said previously, I think the non-fulltime photographers have a legitimate concern; I'd just like to see if there's a formula that both those folks and Adobe can live with.

12
Software & Accessories / Re: i folded and bought CC :(
« on: December 18, 2014, 03:13:59 PM »
I just had another thought. Though the only thing I know about MathWorks' subscription model is what has been revealed in this thread, it just occurred to me that allowing someone to continue using software that they once subscribed to has major pitfalls for the publisher. For instance, it wouldn't take long for people to figure out that they could game the system by subscribing for a single month, paying their $9.99, then canceling. They could then go on using two versions (both Ps and Lr) that they had just rented until such time that they wanted to "upgrade." They'd then resubscribe, get the newer versions, then cancel again. This tactic would cost Adobe millions.

Technically Mathworks and similar companies don't offer a subscription model, but rather a software maintenance service (SMS) model. They sell you a perpetual license to use the software for a sizable fee (similar to buying a new copy of PS or LR) that includes 1 year of free software maintenance, then prompt you to pay a much reduced fee (e.g. 20%) each year after that to renew your SMS. So it's like buying a full update every 5th year, but giving you all the updates in between and giving them a steady revenue stream. Lots of technical software I use works this way.

As said up the thread, the big benefit for users is that they can keep current on all the releases as long as they want, but stop paying at any time and just keep using their last version as long as their hardware supports it. They can restart their SMS later, but they effectively have to pay a catch-up fee equivalent to the time they skipped (or just buy a new full license with 1 year SMS if that's cheaper). So there's no way for the publisher to get screwed by people churning their subscription as you postulated.

Also, I'm not saying there are not people who benefit from the Adobe subscription model. As others have said, if you're a media professional who always has to stay up to date on versions, or if you're just starting out and haven't already bought these professional-grade software packages, it's a huge bargain. No doubt about that. It's those of us in between who have already invested in these tools and want a way to upgrade only if and when we really need to and have the means to, but want to have perpetual access to our catalogs and editing tools REGARDLESS of what Adobe does in the future, that have a problem with the CC model.

Thanks for the clarification on MathWorks' policy, wsheldon; that's really helpful to know.

So, given your stated needs, if Adobe were to come to you and ask how they could improve their policy to make you feel good about their subscription service--while still allowing them to make a reasonable profit from their labors--what would be your answer? There are obviously a number of ways to skin this cat, but I think the photo-hobbiest market has a legitimate beef with their current policy and if we can communicate that to Adobe they may be willing to listen.

13
Software & Accessories / Re: i folded and bought CC :(
« on: December 18, 2014, 01:25:10 PM »
I just had another thought. Though the only thing I know about MathWorks' subscription model is what has been revealed in this thread, it just occurred to me that allowing someone to continue using software that they once subscribed to has major pitfalls for the publisher. For instance, it wouldn't take long for people to figure out that they could game the system by subscribing for a single month, paying their $9.99, then canceling. They could then go on using two versions (both Ps and Lr) that they had just rented until such time that they wanted to "upgrade." They'd then resubscribe, get the newer versions, then cancel again. This tactic would cost Adobe millions.

One possible way to allay the fears of subscription-resisters, who think that if they cannot or will not continue to pay Adobe a monthly fee they will lose their ability to access their edited files, or that a price increase above the current $9.99 is untenable, would be to set up some sort of fee-based exit strategy. For example, they could implement a $50 exit fee that would allow anyone who had already subscribed for a set amount of time, say one year (I'm just making up numbers), to keep using the version they're on--without additional updates--in perpetuity. This would disincentivize would-be subscription-ditchers by having them weigh the cost of 5-months-worth of rental fees along with no updates against staying the course. But, importantly, it would also give someone an out--when for financial or other reasons they just want to strike that monthly fee from their budget.

What do you all think of this strategy? It might be a viable win-win.

14
Software & Accessories / Re: i folded and bought CC :(
« on: December 18, 2014, 11:09:21 AM »
I wonder if anyone can answer a question about CC.

If in the future I decide to stop paying could I still use those files (let's say they are DNG for argument's sake) that are stored locally in an older version of LR? I don't really see that situation happening but was just curious as someone mentioned being stuck paying forever. The RAW files themselves stay on your hard drive, right? So you could do what you want with them. You just lose your edits and ability to edit. And if you start paying again you get them back, right?

So the issue is you can't play with your files without paying? That seems like a funny complaint since you have to pay anyway, even with perpetual license.

I pay for Netflix monthly. Stop paying - no movies. Seems unfair to say "Hey, Netflix gimme the movies I've watched already even though I'm not paying". Why should it be different for Adobe?

That said, you can still access some features such as the Slideshow, Web, Book or Print creations if you decide to quit according to the CC help pages. I wonder if you can export at all?

Your images reside on your hard drive in a folder that remains accessible, with or without Lightroom. Losing Lightroom means losing Lightroom's feature-set and edit libraries, but the original photos don't go anywhere. You'd be free to open them with any other viewing or editing software and do with them whatever you like.

I don't think your Netflix analogy is quite accurate, in this case. You're paying Netflix for a service: to watch a film you do not own. With Lightroom--provided you purchased the stand-alone product--you actually own a perpetual license to that version of the software for use in organizing and manipulating images that you also own (provided your hardware and OS still support the singular version of Lr that you purchased). Subscribing to Lightroom, however, is more like Netflix's service model, where you can use the software to do your work, but if you choose to end your subscription, the service is no longer available. Your original images remain, but their organizational structure and the work you already put into editing them would be inaccessible until you renew your subscription.

This is why some here have argued that it would be more reasonable for Adobe to adopt a subscription model more similar to MathWork's, where you're able to continue using the version of Lr you were last using when you canceled your subscription. I think this is a very reasonable request and I think it behooves all of us to lobby Adobe for just such a change. That said, I don't think I personally would cancel my subscription because I prefer to push Adobe to continue advancing Lightroom's features. Too, I won't always have the same computer or the same OS or the same camera or the same lenses, all of which will require updates from Adobe to fully utilize Lightroom.

15
Software & Accessories / Re: i folded and bought CC :(
« on: December 17, 2014, 02:08:59 PM »
I just wonder how soon will Adobe start to increase this rental, once they have their customer base hooked.  A tenner a month may not be objectionable to many customers, but what if when it goes up?

Miah, if you don't like reading discussions about Adobe, then there is not reason to be "sick and tired", simply choose not to read threads that discuss it.  You do not get to choose what can be discussed and what should be "put to rest".

Come on, Acutance, nobody's trying to play arbiter of what is and is not discussed, I just think that this "Damn Adobe!" sentiment is getting a little long in the tooth. Further, instead of just lurking, I tried to throw out why I feel their Photography Bundle for $10 a month is actually a better deal than buying and "owning" the software over the long haul. People are free to disagree with my analysis, but I'd love to hear on what grounds.

Regarding the possibility of a rate increase, Adobe has publicly stated that they have no plans to increase the rate within the foreseeable future. And if they do, we as customers, who vote with our greenbacks, hold the final say.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 11