October 21, 2014, 03:18:08 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 - expatinasia

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 63
1
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: So what makes a camera a "pro" camera?
« on: October 16, 2014, 06:46:11 AM »
What I was trying to say is that a pro will use the appropriate level of gear for the job at hand. I don't think that anyone would dispute that as you move towards higher end gear that image quality improves or that cameras like a 1DX increase the odds of capturing that shot under difficult conditions.....and in general captureing the shot is the highest priority for a pro, but it is the task that determines gear and priorities, not some "pro" designation on the gear.

A good example of this is inspection photography. The goal is to determine if there is visible wear and to determine if there is adequate grease on the gears, look for signs of rust, etc.. The access port is 1.5 inches by 6 inches, so the camera must fit through the slot. The camera used takes crappy pictures, but it fits into the gear and the pictures are good enough for the task at hand. I have a so called "pro" camera and L glass in a pelican case on a shelf behind me, but it is the wrong tool for the job, despite being a vastly superior camera. On the other hand, when things are spread out on the bench I love that 100L macro lens.....

I think you are perfectly right, and I agree with you 100%.

I think that no matter what the job, the person/company doing it will have different choices as to the level of quality of the tools they decide to use/purchase for the job at hand.

As you say a 1D X, while ideal for sports, will not work for the inspection camera example you used. And, I would presume that there are different quality cameras on the market that are specifically designed for that job, and it depends on the person/company to decide which best fits their needs/budget.

I should just clarify what I meant by a manufacturer designating a product as pro-grade. What I meant is that they will often (depending on product) have consumer lines and then possibly pro-sumer and then pro. These labels do not need to be on the product, it is just what the manufacturer is aiming the product to be. Canon designed the 1D X to be used by professional photographers all over the world, especially sports photographers, and it designed it, and built it as such. But Canon also fully knows that consumers whether they be enthusiasts or something else will also buy the top of the line as well. It does not fulfil the demands of every job, nor every professional photographers' demands but it is a pro-grade camera.




2
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: So what makes a camera a "pro" camera?
« on: October 16, 2014, 12:25:09 AM »
In general, doctors use very low end microscopes... if at all.  Now lab technicians.... they have decent gear... but if you really want to see the good stuff go to a physics lab for a scanning tunneling electron microscope so you can see those individual atoms...

A real "pro" goes for the gear that get's the job done, not the very best. A doctor in a fertility clinic is not going to get the very best.... they want to watch how the sperm moves, not kill it and check to see if all the atoms are in the right place :)

So are you saying that there is no such thing as "pro grade gear"?

My point is that there is, and it is up to the manufacturer to label it as such.

The 1D X is obviously a pro camera, especially for sports shooters. The 400 f/2.8 ii is also a pro lens. Is it only bought by individual pros? No, agencies, publishing houses, enthusiasts and those that want the best purchase it too.

Does it fit every pros needs? No, but that does not make it any less pro-grade.

If a pro sport shooter sits on the sidelines and shoots pictures with his Samsung Galaxy Note 3 are you seriously suggesting that that phone is a pro piece of photographic kit?

You may say that is a bad example, but would you say that if the guy was using a 5D Mark III because he could not afford the 1D X? But if so, what if you can't afford the 5D Mark III or even II, but you can afford the Samsung Galaxy Note III which double up as a phone when you are not shooting.........

To say that it is the operator which makes his or her tool a pro grade piece of kit is ludicrous in my mind. But it is not a big deal, it is just my humble opinion.



3
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: So what makes a camera a "pro" camera?
« on: October 15, 2014, 09:52:05 PM »
Generally speaking, a manufacturers top of the range product is aimed at pros. Take knives, pans, laptops (the business lines), and I presume microscopes etc.

My Calphalon Commercial cookware was bought at Macy's, and my Wusthof pro knives came from Williams-Sonoma...not a restaurant supplier.  I've never seen a 'pro' microscope.  General Motors ran a marketing campaign for their Professional Grade trucks...I know a few people who use them to commute to their professional office jobs.

The top end is aimed at people who are willing and able to pay the higher price.  "Pro" is purely a marketing distinction.

I do not see why you think where you bought something has to do whether it is pro-grade or not.

You are right to say "The top end is aimed at people who are willing and able to pay the higher price".

But is also true to say those products tend to be of a better build, quality and lifetime expectation which are things that pros look for!

I know nothing about microscopes, but I would doubt that a consumer grade microscope is the same as those used at multi-million dollar R&D departments or in hospitals that demand the best.

Are you saying that if a trained doctor is using a consumer-grade microscope then it automatically becomes a pro-grade microscope?!

No of course it does not.

Same as if a pro photographer uses a 10D or a point and shoot or a phone to capture his shots. It does not make those cameras pro grade, and as such they are not pro cameras.

4
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: So what makes a camera a "pro" camera?
« on: October 15, 2014, 08:04:11 AM »
Just look at cars. All Mercedes-Benz will get you from a to b, but the S series may do it in a lot more comfort and style than the lowly C series.

So the S series is for professional drivers?  Why are so many taxi cabs Toyotas and Fords, and so many limos Lincolns and Chryslers? 

However, Mercedes does make vehicles for professional drivers.  Here's one:   ;)



Haha! I knew the car example was a bad example when I wrote it, and I think you know that. But a professional taxi driver will drive what he is allowed or given. This varies all over the world, and the company or individual that does that as a profession will try to choose a car that is economical, easy/cheap to repair with lots of spare parts around and likely to run for a long time. A professional racing driver will need a different car. But if you swap the two around and give the taxi driver the racing car and the racing driver the taxi, that does not suddenly make the taxi car a professional racing car simply because it is being driven by the racing driver.

Generally speaking, a manufacturers top of the range product is aimed at pros. Take knives, pans, laptops (the business lines), and I presume microscopes etc. Even washing machines, professional grade washing machines are different from a consumer washing machine, it has nothing to do with the operator.

My point being that a 50D in the hands of a pro is still not a pro camera, just that pro's camera. In the same way that a 1D X in the hands of an amateur does not make that amateur a pro.

There is the romantic notion that the best camera is the one in your hands at that moment, and that is true. But it is not true that a camera suddenly becomes pro grade just because it is being used by a pro.



5
Lenses / Re: Travel gear thoughts...
« on: October 15, 2014, 03:55:05 AM »
I would recommend taking just one body to help keep your weight down.

If I was making the trip, and had the same gear as you, I would take the 16-35 f/4 and the 70-200 f/2.8 ii with just one body.

I would probably also take along an extender (small and light, so easy to travel with) to give you that little extra reach when needed.

6
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: So what makes a camera a "pro" camera?
« on: October 15, 2014, 01:26:35 AM »
I think manufacturers decide which are the pro models, whether it be a set of knives, a camera or laptop (though in the latter they are called business models rather than pro).

But what criteria do they use to make that determination?  For any pro criterion you choose I can probably find a counter-example.  About the only criteria I can think of that might have no exceptions would be profit margin and level of support from the manufacturer.  Here are some proposed criteria and why each doesn't hold.

Image quality: 6D arguably has equal/better IQ compared to 1DX

Physical toughness: Pro studio photographers don't need this (e.g. MFD)

Speed: Pro landscape or studio photographers don't need this (e.g. MFD)

You get the idea.

The manufacturer sets the pro level, and I do not know what that is. But generally speaking it is the best overall performance and life of product etc. Whether it be kitchen knives or cameras, the manufacturer will more often than not say that this model is aimed more at pros over an inferior product etc. That's just the way it is. If a new set of knives comes out and has one benefit, or even two over the pro set then I would imagine that most manufacturers would consider putting those benefits into their new pro line when the time comes to do so.

Same applies for everything, pans, ovens, laptops, cars. etc.

I think manufacturers decide which are the pro models, whether it be a set of knives, a camera or laptop (though in the latter they are called business models rather than pro).
Errm, being pedantic for just a moment...I have a Macbook Pro laptop. Must make me a pro! Whoo-hoo!
This is an entertaining thread!  8)   I hope the OP has got something out of it.

-pw

Haha! But now you are confusing a name for a product line. Manufacturers like Dell and Lenovo have business lines (the pro equivalent of a camera) which are made to last longer and more often than not have much higher quality build and components than their consumer lines. Even though those consumer lines may have some advantages (lighter, more stylish etc).

But for some to say it is the people behind the camera that makes the camera a pro camera makes no sense to me. Like I said before a 50D does not become a pro camera because it is used by a pro, it is just a pro's camera.

7
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: So what makes a camera a "pro" camera?
« on: October 15, 2014, 12:53:42 AM »
I do not think a pro camera has anything to do with the person holding it.

A pro will choose the best he can use (buy/borrow/etc) for the job in front of him/her. If that person can only get his hands on a Samsung Galaxy Note 3 to take pics, that does not make that phone a pro camera.

I think manufacturers decide which are the pro models, whether it be a set of knives, a camera or laptop (though in the latter they are called business models rather than pro).

Just look at cars. All Mercedes-Benz will get you from a to b, but the S series may do it in a lot more comfort and style than the lowly C series.

If you shoot sports, then it would be the top of the range Nikon or Canon combined with the best glass you can get. If you shoot landscape or architecture, you may be more tempted by the 5D Mark III then the 1D X for example.

If a pro shoots with a 50D that does not make the 50D a pro model, it does however make it that pro's model.

8
Lenses / Re: Shootout: EF 16-35 f/4L IS vs EF 17-40 f/4L
« on: September 28, 2014, 09:54:14 PM »
Stopped watching after a few seconds. A photographer that uses a white background while wearing a white and blue t-shirt, and is himself very pale white. Weird. All far too bright, I would need sunglasses to watch that.

And not even a few seconds of intro to ease you into the video.

I will stick to TDP for my reviews as Bryan knows what he is doing.

Wasn't focusing on the t-shirt this time around, rather the lens

My comment had nothing to do with your choice of t-shirt. Seriously?! That's what you took from my comment. lol.

Choosing a bright white background like that is not wise. Plus you need a 2 or 3 second intro of something.

Very poor video, and I personally would not take any camera advice from someone that produces someone like that about a camera product.

Oh no... I'm heartbroken  ;D

Graham

You seem to have a problem taking constructive criticism.

9
Lenses / Re: Shootout: EF 16-35 f/4L IS vs EF 17-40 f/4L
« on: September 28, 2014, 07:34:40 AM »
WOW...after your first comment, I didn't think that you could be any ruder....but guess what, you proved me wrong!

Rude?! Pray tell, how have I been rude?


10
Lenses / Re: Shootout: EF 16-35 f/4L IS vs EF 17-40 f/4L
« on: September 28, 2014, 07:07:47 AM »
Stopped watching after a few seconds. A photographer that uses a white background while wearing a white and blue t-shirt, and is himself very pale white. Weird. All far too bright, I would need sunglasses to watch that.

And not even a few seconds of intro to ease you into the video.

I will stick to TDP for my reviews as Bryan knows what he is doing.

Wasn't focusing on the t-shirt this time around, rather the lens

My comment had nothing to do with your choice of t-shirt. Seriously?! That's what you took from my comment. lol.

Choosing a bright white background like that is not wise. Plus you need a 2 or 3 second intro of something.

Very poor video, and I personally would not take any camera advice from someone that produces someone like that about a camera product.


11
Lenses / Re: Shootout: EF 16-35 f/4L IS vs EF 17-40 f/4L
« on: September 27, 2014, 08:19:09 PM »
Stopped watching after a few seconds. A photographer that uses a white background while wearing a white and blue t-shirt, and is himself very pale white. Weird. All far too bright, I would need sunglasses to watch that.

And not even a few seconds of intro to ease you into the video.

I will stick to TDP for my reviews as Bryan knows what he is doing.

12
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Why haven't you left canon?
« on: September 27, 2014, 04:08:22 AM »
This is a very bizarre question.

I enjoy using the Canon products I have, and to be very honest they help me look good. I know and understand the menu systems, have plenty of expensive glass, and plan to stick with their products unless there is a very serious long term reason I shouldn't.

13
Videography Technique / Re: Tascam DR-60D ON TOP of Camera
« on: September 27, 2014, 03:56:59 AM »
I promised I would report back on how this cheap solution has been.

I have now used the newly bought hot shoe adapter and mounted the Tascam DR-60D on top of the camera during quite a lot of recordings and I am very, very pleased.

To test everything, I used it mounted to the camera with the body attached to the tripod, and mounted to the camera using the lens (70-200 f/2.8 ii) attached to the tripod.

Both work well but I prefer the lens to be attached to the tripod (I can tighten the plate in better) with the Tascam attached on top of the camera.

No problems with wires, or anything thus far so I am very pleased with my US$ 12.5 investment.

Hope this helps. Thanks.


14
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Can Canon Cinema EOS Keep Up?
« on: September 25, 2014, 02:25:03 PM »
Definitely agree with you there, but I also remember very clearly when people were saying similar things about 1080p. Things like why bother, shoot in 720p, nobody can tell the difference etc.

Of course, you can see the difference, but its how far you are sitting to see this difference. Not to mention screen size. Apple's retina display, the ratio - screen resolution : screen size is variable to suit minimum viewing distance.

I agree 100%, I was just quoting things I heard when video on the web started becoming just a little popular, which is why I said "when people were saying", as they are the things I heard.

I have always shot video in 1080p as it is always better to future proof whatever you are making. When I have a camera than can shoot 4K I will do the same, as it is better to downsize that to 1080p if necessary or just keep at 4k if the file sizes etc permit.

I think the advancement of technology is great, and while 4K will be around for a long time, I think it will not remain the top res for as long as 1080p has, which is why I would not be surprised to hear about cameras which shoot at even higher than 4k in the not so distant future.

If Windows 9 is going to support 8K resolution then my thinking is that some companies will just jump to that. I, and many others will not buy a 4K TV as my relatively new 1080p TV is fine for now. 4 or 5 years then I may change.

Like I said I am not good at the physics and maths behind all this, I just have a feeling that 4K will not be the "top" res for as long as some think it may be.

15
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Can Canon Cinema EOS Keep Up?
« on: September 24, 2014, 05:44:20 AM »
8K is more or less ridiculous I doubt delivery of motion will exceed 4K at least to consumers.

Definitely agree with you there, but I also remember very clearly when people were saying similar things about 1080p. Things like why bother, shoot in 720p, nobody can tell the difference etc.

I think if Windows 9 is going to support 8k resolution displays, then I am sure that the GPU cards needed will eventually be made, as will the displays themselves, then the cameras and memory cards and all the marketing that goes with this enormous wheel of industry and commerce to tell us how much we need 8k.

We may not need any of this, but it is coming, and probably sooner than we think.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 63