September 22, 2014, 12:47:16 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 - jrista

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 305
1
But given that Canon's 1DX doesn't have more than 12 stops of DR and that stops of DR are bits then it even seems pointless for Canon to have 14bits of raw, don't you agree?
It's quite a lot of colour-information in those 2 bits, not just DR.

Would you like to demonstrate how the bottom 2 bits add "a lot of color-information"?

They affect the entire tonal range. The bottom two bits add dynamic range, and they also increase the total number of recordable brightness levels. Shadows are inherently sparse, so while adding two bits can have a significant effect on DR, it has a minimal effect on the darkest tones because they are inherently low SNR. Moving from 12-bit to 14-bit means you go from 4096 levels to 16394 levels. A shadow pixel that used 2 bits worth of levels in the 12-bit image is still going to use 2 bits in the 14-bit image. However a highlight pixel that used 12 bits worth of levels in the 12-bit image is going to use 14 bits worth of levels in the 14-bit image. An 18% gray pixel that used 6 bits worth of levels in the 12-bit image is going to use 7 bits in the 14-bit image.

To put that in terms of actual useful levels of information, an image that fades from black to 18% gray is going to have 8192 tonal levels of gradation in a 14-bit image, while only a mere 2048 tonal levels of gradation in 12-bit image. The gradient is smoother with 14 bits, even in a camera that has so much read noise it cannot realize the full dynamic range potential those bits may allow.

At higher ISO, this isn't as important. Drop one stop from ISO 100 to ISO 200, and you lose half your tonality right there. You still benefit from 14 bits at ISO 200, but not as much. Drop to ISO 400, and having 14 bits is really no different than having 12 bits, it's 4096 "real" levels regardless (amplification ultimately just wastes levels with duplicate information when you have more bits than you need, unless some kind of dithering is applied...I honestly don't know if the ACD units or any other component in modern cameras dither or not.) Beyond ISO 400, there isn't any useful benefit to having more bits.

2
Lenses / Re: how to get 300 2.8
« on: Today at 12:33:05 AM »
Are we sure this isn't just a term simply used to describe an effect, rather than some assumed real-world quirky behavior of lenses?

I believe the proper term is "background compression", not "lens compression." PBD is right in that lenses do not "compress", Souless described it aptly by stating that lenses do not magnify objects at different distances differently.

Background compression, the term I am familiar with, simply refers to the way background objects appear to get closer and larger as perspective changes:



You have to keep in mind, both the subject distance and focal length have to change for this effect to occur. If you only change focal length, this effect is not going to present.

3
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: POLL: What's more important, gps or wifi?
« on: September 21, 2014, 11:38:10 PM »
I think both are equally important. If I had both, I'd find a way to use both. GPS isn't always important to me, especially when I'm close to home, say in my backyard doing astrophotography. On the other hand, the WiFi interface would be invaluable there...allowing me to drop an extra cable from my setup.

Out in the wilderness, taking photos of wildlife and landscapes and the like, GPS would be more useful.

I'd prefer to see both features in all future cameras. Especially since there really isn't any reason not to include both...antennas can be routed outside of the metal bodies, and neither require expensive parts.

4
EOS Bodies / Re: Official: Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 21, 2014, 11:34:24 PM »
It's not that people disagree...it's how they disagree...well, how a few specific people disagree. I've been compared to Mikael a few times, in thinly veiled contempt...a guy who came here for no other reason than to spew anti-Canon hate about everything Canon. Yeah, that's a bit insulting, and I took offense to it. I've never spewed anti-Canon hate...just a distaste for their sensor IQ.

Whatever. You guys are sick and tired of hearing it, I'm sick and tired of debating it. I won't be bothering anyone anymore with my opinions. That should make a few of you ecstatic.  :-X


5
Lenses / Re: Do you keep all your boxes?
« on: September 21, 2014, 10:52:57 PM »
I always keep all my boxes, and everything that comes in them. You never know when you might want to sell something. Especially if it's still in excellent condition, being able to sell it in the original box is a bonus. :)

6
The Samsung does 420MP/Sec.

The Samsung is also saving 12-bit files during continuous shooting vs. the full 14-bits in single shot mode.

So what?

You keep telling us that DR (and by extension 12bits vs 14bits) isn't important except to a small number of people so therefore this difference that you've highlighted is also relatively unimportant. Or do you wish to become one of your own DRones and insist that the extra bit-depth and thus DR is all of a sudden important?
Hi,
   IMHO, when I buy a camera that have 14-bits RAW, I expect to have 14-bits RAW also when shooting at 15fps, so I'll be very mad if I buy this camera and found this to be true especially the Samsung specification didn't even specified that it's 12-bits RAW when shooting at 15fps...

  So now the question is: Does the Samsung NX1 really shoot 15fps only at 12-bits RAW?? If yes and they didn't mentioned it, I think Samsung going to be in big problem when buyer find out because shooting at 15fps was the "WOW" feature and one of the selling point that Samsung keep mention it!

  Have a nice day.

I'm curious, though. When you shoot at high FPS, are you also at higher ISO, like 800, 1600, 3200? You aren't going to get the same tonal range at those ISOs, meaning the use of 14 bits isn't much of a benefit, if any at all.  Not just on the DR front, but on the tonal range front...you don't have the tones or the color fidelity at high ISO to justify 14-bit data anyway. The use of 12-bit files is a bummer for lower ISO settings, but if your most likely to be shooting at higher ISO anyway, it really isn't that big of a deal. It's more efficient...smaller data files, meaning you can fit more on a memory card. At 15fps, that could be a real bonus.

7
The Samsung does 420MP/Sec.

The Samsung is also saving 12-bit files during continuous shooting vs. the full 14-bits in single shot mode.

Which probably isn't as big an issue as people think it is. First, Canon doesn't get the full benefit of 14-bit RAW. They lose at least two bits to noise at low ISO. The main thing they gain is finer tonality.

At high ISO, it's a wash. The lower saturation point implicitly reduced tonality. If you figure that your more likely to be using a higher ISO than a lower ISO at 15fps, your not going to be gathering enough data to take advantage of 14 bits anyway.

The only time the use of 12-bit is going to be a real issue is when shooting at a high frame rate at ISO 100 and maybe 200.

I think it would be interesting to see Canon offer a lower bit depth option if it meant we could get a higher frame rate in the 7D II. If you shoot at higher ISO when using higher framerate, it's more efficient.

8
Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: September 20, 2014, 04:40:30 PM »
Normalized difference is 11.7 vs 14.8 for the D810...

And that's where any knowledgeable person stops reading. >14 stops...from a linear 14-bit ADC...kind of impossible  ;)
Nope, that's where an unknowledgeable person stops reading, one who doesn't understand the math behind resampling.

Or a person who thinks he understands. How could you get more then 14stops out of a 14bit ADC? No math can solve this. Yes you might interpolate, expect what the value might be, but that is not correct. 14 bits means really only 14 bits max theoretical, and practical it will be lower. There is no logic and no math to find the REAL values outside the sampled values.

It's purely a noise thing. This is in a normalized context. I prefer to know the literal dynamic range of the hardware itself myself as well. That would be DXO's Screen DR measurement, which tells you the per-pixel dynamic range of a given sensor. For cameras with 14-bit ADC units, none of them have a Screen DR above 14 stops.

A normalized context is used to create a comparable basis. Comparing the noise levels of an image with smaller pixels to the noise levels of an image with larger pixels is ignoring the frame size. This is basic equivalence. Sensor size and quantum efficiency are by far the primary factors that affect noise levels in an image. Since a D810 has more total smaller pixels than say a 5D III with fewer total larger pixels, you have to resample the larger image to the same dimensions as the smaller image. By resampling, noise is averaged out, which reduces the per-pixel noise levels. For COMPARISON purposes, this is the only fair way of determining how one camera compares to another. Otherwise your comparing noise produced at a higher frequency with noise produced at a lower frequency...which is basically comparing apples to apples.

Downsampled comparisons have their limitations. For one, they can be misleading as to how much dynamic range on a sensor is actually usable on-scene. If your standing in front of a landscape, and you meter 14.8 stops of DR from the deepest shadows to the brightest highlights, you won't be able to capture that scene with a D810. Even though it's 8x12 "normalized" DR is 14.8, the hardware DR is 13.8. Your a full stop short with the D810, and you would either need to use a 1-stop GND to balance the scene DR, or use HDR, to capture the entire thing. Additionally, you won't be able to lift the single shot with the GND by seven stops in post (as would be indicated by a 14.8 stop Print DR number). You would be able to lift it by at most 5.8 stops, however trying to lift even a D810 shot that much is going to encounter read noise. Realistically, you probably have 4-5 stops of shadow lifting ability without unsightly read noise (which in the case of Exmor-based cameras, is pretty much just random color noise, still no banding.)

Sarangiman is talking about the normalized DR values from DXO. Those values are only valid if you assume an 8x12" 300ppi downsamplng target. When a 5D III and D810 are downsampled to that image size, the 5D III has  11.7 stops of DR and the D810 has 14.8 stops of DR (engineering DR...the raw measure from the RMS of noise to the saturation point...whether all of that DR is fully usable depends on too many factors, which completely reduces any comparison to mush. The actual usable range is dependent upon the tools you use to process, the precision of those tools algorithms, your capability at maximizing the effectiveness of those tools, your personal tolerances for noise, etc....so there is no real objective measure of "usable dynamic range.")

9
EOS Bodies / Re: Just for Jrista: 2014 Market Data
« on: September 20, 2014, 04:27:54 PM »
These threads pop up occasionally and often sales volume, market share and profits are quoted to try and prove one sensor or camera company is better than the other.

This information is good if you are considering buying Canon stock CAJ but absolutely worthless in determining who has the best camera or sensor.

Possibly right.

However, I was never trying to use market statistics to prove Nikon was selling more, or that their cameras were better period. All I was trying to demonstrate before was that Nikon has closed the gap on Canon's market lead. A gap that used to be very significant, has now shrunk to ~5%.

I think it is just as simplistic to look at past market performance where market shares fluctuated, and assume there weren't very specific reasons for why those market shares fluctuated. What happened in 2006, 2007, 2008, that caused changes in Canon, Nikon, and Sony market share?

I'm looking at data since the end of 2011 (the last year Canon had a huge market share lead). Since then, the 1D X, D4, 5D III, 6D, D800/810, D600/610, A7, A7r, and A7s have all been released. In 2012, the year several very key camera models were released (the year covered by the 2013 financial report I found), Nikon ILC unit sales skyrocketed from a little over 4 million to a little over 6 million. That is 50% growth, in a single year. (I thought it was last year, but it was the year before...which honestly makes more sense given all the camera releases that year.) In the last two years (2013 and 2014), markets have contracted, particularly in the P&S submarkets. Nikon was utterly pummeled there, with over 50% losses to Canon's 30% losses, but they fared much better on the ILC front. Nikon lost a little over 20%, Canon lost a little under 20%.

Today, instead of a 15% differential in market share between Canon and Nikon, according to Hogan's report, there is about a 5% differential. I cannot say for certain why the market changed like that. However I can speculate. I think a reasonable, educated guess at why the market dynamic has shifted is that Nikon has produced some great cameras. They took advantage of better technology, and it seems to have helped their market position. One should expect so. It's quite clear that not everyone cares about getting the best image quality out of their cameras, however I think it's entirely baseless to assume that no one cares about getting the best image quality out of their cameras.

I claimed the market difference between Nikon and Canon had shrunk from the last concrete reports that demonstrated a large differential between the companies. Tom Hogan's report backs up that claim. Maybe it's simply a "restoration of an old market status." Perhaps. I don't think that matters, as I don't think that any market shift, old or recent, happens without cause. I see a strong correlation between the 2012 camera releases and a rapid change in market share for one particular company.

If all that is proof that I'm just dead wrong to some of you, so be it. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. My opinion is, Canon is severely lagging behind in the one piece of technology that the photographer themselves cannot control to improve IQ: The sensor. When it comes to focusing, or metering or choosing the right exposure, or camera shake and the use of IQ, or any other factor that affects IQ, the photographer has control. If the photographer knows how to control those things, then they can maximize IQ...but only up to the limitations of the hardware. Canon's hardware has a lot more limitations than their competitors. I believe that is a FACT, backed up by multiple sources of data (so pick whichever one you don't hate). I believe Canon has the technology to improve their sensor IQ, but they don't. I think their, lethargy, in that department DID allow some sales to move to Nikon and Sony models. (I know for a fact that there are a number of people on these forums who have already added other brands or switched entirely.) I think that in the long term, market share dynamics could continue to shift.

That's what I wanted to say when I posted the previous financial thread. It's nothing complicated...it's rather simple. Since 2012, a major release year for high end DSLRs, market shares have changed. Canon's share has shrunk from around 45% to 40% or less. Nikon's share has grown from less than 30% to as much as 35%. Sony has also gained a few percent. My point, the only real point I wanted to make, is that Canon no longer has a landslide market share position, and I think there is a reason for that. If Nikon doesn't continue to make manufacturing blunders, if Sony can strengthen their A7 series offerings, and if they continue to improve on all fronts (sensor, AF, metering, ergonomics, video features, etc.), then Canon's ultra conservative stance of minimally evolving one or two features at a time on products that have 3-5 year lifespans could result in a dramatic market share shift in the future.

10
EOS Bodies / Re: Official: Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 20, 2014, 04:02:42 PM »
The "norm" I was referring to wasn't that people buy DSLRs for landscape photography in Colorado. The "norm" I was referring to was that people normally buy equipment and use it for a decade without upgrading, and that Lee Jay's patterns of buying and holding equipment don't jive with what I see in the people I know. Either people buy and forget and buy again, or buy and sell and upgrade, or are always chasing the next best thing, or whathaveyou. I know people who have gone from Canon to Nikon to Pentax trying to find the right camera fit for them. I "norm" I was referring to was that the DSLR (well, rather, ILC) market has plenty of room for product churn, as people do and will continue to buy DSLRs, and that it isn't just "pros and enthusiasts" who buy new cameras every few years (unless you simply consider anyone who does buy more than one camera, or buy and sell and upgrade on a regular basis, an enthusiast. In which case, I think there are a whole lot more enthusiasts out there).

Landscape photography was just an example of how commonly I've seen your "average Joe" using a DSLR, instead of a smartphone or P&S, to do a kind of photography that I believe many consider more than just the average snapshoot.

I also do believe it is a fact that Canon sensors are at the back of the pack these days. I believe their noise quality sucks, and that they should do something about it. Not once have I ever said that I believe people should jump ship entirely to Exmor (or even that Exmor alone has better sensor technology...I've  mentioned Toshiba on many occasions, and now Samsung has the first BSI APS-C sensor in their NX1...I'd offer that pretty much ANY other sensor out there is going to produce superior IQ to Canon sensors these days). On the contrary, I have very explicitly stated that I want CANON to produce a high quality sensor that meets the IQ bar of 2014 (and, preferably, beyond, given Canon's long product cycles.)

You guys are so vehemently against anyone saying anything negative about Canon that you readily stoop to twisting peoples words, or handily assuming they said something other than they did, then repeating those assumptions as though they are fact. I'm a Canon fan myself, I'm just sick and tired of their nasty crappy read noise. I literally cannot wait for Canon to produce a better sensor (something I believe they are more than capable of doing)...I really want them to improve their sensor IQ, but I'm done waiting.

I think anyone else who wants better sensor IQ, better shadow quality and shadow falloff, etc. should stop waiting as well. The best way to get Canon to actually do something is to be vocal about your wants, and vote with your pocket book. But you guys? That's just unacceptable to you. Your not going to let some wackjob voice his dissenting opinon on Canon Rumors forums. So, your just going to twist the facts, rewrite words, change the context, and do everything in your power to quash any voice of opposition to Canon's current status-quo regarding their sensor technology.

Fielder does great work. I like it. I also believe that there are other people who do even better work. Fielder recommends only Canon. Many others recommend only Nikon. Some use both. Opinions change as well. Marc Adamus once said Canon made the best landscape camera on the planet when talking about the 5D Mark II. Today, he uses a D800. Andy Rouse? He used to be a big fan of Nikon's D3 cameras. He switched to the 1D X. People change their minds, sometimes as often as product cycles leapfrog the competition. If Canon stays the course, and competitors continue to improve to the point where they have as much a five, maybe even ten stops more dynamic range than Canon...you think Fielder is going to stay put? (I'd bet no...but, who knows, maybe he's as die-hard a lifetime fan as the people on these forums.)

I believe Canon has fallen behind, and I believe IF (apparently I need to stress that word, IF) they don't do something to compete ON ALL FRONTS (that means everything, AF system, metering and things like iTR, as well as sensor), I believe they run a very high risk of becoming another company like Nokia or Kodak. Companies that sat on lucrative technology patents, did not employ them, kept researching and developing newer and better technology, then suddenly the world shifted. In a matter of years, they went from being the top companies in the world for their respective markets to being barely an afterthought. That's my opinion. It's based on observing companies I liked over the years squander their advantage. I don't like seeing companies do that. I don't like seeing a company like Nokia literally lose a billion dollar industry (and before it happened, people would have argued that Nokia KNEW their industry like the back of their hand...because they did...until it changed. Same could be said of Kodak, or RIM, etc.) I see Canon doing the same thing. Sure, they could know things I don't, and the market is bigger than what I'm familiar with here in the US. But I see trends, I see patterns. Canon develops amazing technology...then sits on it. For years and years sometimes. Why in the world don't we have a 120mp 9fps sensor yet? Computing power has doubled a couple times since the prototype was released. Even if processing power was a problem, Canon has had mRAW and sRAW for some time, which with such a high pixel count could offer a very high quality lossless data format for storing the information in a more manageable size.) Or a kick-ass astrophotography sensor capable of detecting light in 0.1 lux? Where is the really amazing technology Canon HAS developed...did it get sucked into a black hole?

THIS IS MY OPINION. It's not going to change because a bunch of guys on a forum try to bully it out of me. You guys are a pretty sad bunch, stooping to any low level possible to either disprove, debase, emberass or run out of town anyone who has a dissenting opinion. I didn't like Dean's attitude, but he had something different to say, and had some good, concrete evidence to back up his claims (something Mikael never did...all Mikael did was spout anti-Canon hate, something I'm personally not doing, and something a lot of other members of these forums who don't like crummy banded read noise don't generally do even though they also are sick and tired of Canon's crappy sensor IQ. I know now that it isn't about fundamental anti-Canon hate, you guys simply don't like to hear anything about how any other brand might be better at something, or how Canon might not be best, or even not far behind best.)

So what is the deal? You guys cannot tolerate any dissenting opinion, so your just going to do everything in your power to run anyone who has a dissenting opinion out of town? By belittling them, insulting them, or otherwise debasing them? Regardless of how you have to ignore context or twist or ignore words or make unverified assumptions about what someone is saying, and then reformulate peoples claims in your own words? Really disgusting display, guys. Really. I misinterpreted the timeframe for a financial report. Oops. Instead of last year, two years ago, Nikon realized significant growth. That growth had a major impact on the market dynamic...Nikon went from trailing Canon by 15% to a mere 5%. I see that as a significant change in market distribution, which is all I was ever saying when I brought up the financial stuff in the first place. That the difference between Nikon and Canon isn't some gigantic chasm anymore. That the years where Canon lead by a whopping 48% to Nikon's 22% are over. That inroads have been made. That's an opinion, one that I believe is based on concrete information, regardless of whether the shift happened last year or two years ago, it still happened. Is no one entitled to an opinion that doesn't paint Canon in the purest, most beautiful light possible? If there was ever a truer community of unrelenting die-hard posterboy fanboys, I honestly don't know of it.

11
EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon answer Sony's new cinema cameras
« on: September 20, 2014, 01:30:24 PM »
To OP: I think you've got it wrong.

From http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr5-definitely-a-new-e-mount-4k-video-camera-to-be-announced-at-photokina/:

"Sony will be taking design cues from the success of the Canon Cinema series. Will replace FS100. E-mount. 4k. Competitively priced. These will be C100 and C300 killers!!"

Looks like it's Sony that is chasing after Canon, not the other way round.  ;D

Let the war continue ... we get better cameras from both companies!  With the PXW-FS7 on the way (the camera referenced in the link), it's now Canon's turn to step it up.

That's the big question, though. Will Canon step it up? I think with video it's more likely than stills, Canon seems to like video more...but they still have that massive lethargic inertia to overcome to get on the ball with anything...their sensors used in video cameras still suffer the same handicaps vs. Sony video sensors as they do in still cameras.

I thought Canon would have stepped it up by now for still photography sensors. I saw some major improvements in the K-5 and D7000 so many years ago, kind of like how the FS7 has so many improvements over the C100/300. It's been years now, and Canon hasn't done anything about it. They've made some improvements to a couple key features of their cameras, but their sensors, the things ultimately responsible for IQ, haven't changed. Same old sensors they are using now in their Cinema cameras.

I'd love to see Canon step it up...still rather skeptical that they will until it really, REALLY hurts them in the pocketbook.

12
Eta Carinae is indeed a star in that nebula. The nebula is also often called "The Eta Carinae Nebula" (which so happens to be it's original name), one of a few alternate names to the Carina Nebula officially offered by Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carina_Nebula. I've always called it Eta Carinae nebula myself, and I know other astrophotographers who also call the whole nebula, NGC 3372, "Eta Carinae" or "Eta Carinae Nebula".

Homonculous Nebula is just the planetary nebula of ejected material from the hypergiant star Eta Carinae itself. That's quite small in comparison to the Carina/Eta Carinae Nebula, which is rather vast. It's one of my favorite regions of the sky...I'm rather bummed I cannot see it from were I live (along with the magellanic clouds.)

13
Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: September 20, 2014, 07:04:52 AM »
I guess I am a bit of a purist as well. I don't like to massively modify my images. I like to take photos that represent reality. I prefer less saturated colors (not dull and overly muted, but not ultra vibrant or saturated either), and I prefer things to appear as they were to my own eyes as much as I can. To that end, getting things done in-camera as best as possible is important to me.

Banded read noise makes it tough to achieve that goal. Shadows don't have banded noise, and shadows are rarely as dark in real life as they appear on screen. So, better data is of particular importance to me.

I agree. But when you expose for the shadows (maybe a little overexpose and then pull back in PP) and you filter the highlights (LEE has even 1.2 GNDs, I'm really considering the purchase of both hard and soft, but since one of them would cost me around ~225USD, I'm not very eager about it) or bracket and then use luminance masking or whatever, then you won't have this problem. I agree that not all compositions can be solved this way (although soft GNDs are amazing), but many of them can.

I just did a quick dirty check on rather badly exposed file (6D, ISO 800) and overexposed it +2 EV and even added +50 in shadows sliders. Yes, there is noise, but no pattern, no banding. Is 5D3 really worse? Then I'm glad I don't need the AF of the 5D3 and be happy with my 6D :)

Yeah, 5D III is pretty bad. It's minimally improved over the 5D II at best. The banding might not be quite as bad, but it is still present in a significant way. The frustrating thing about it is that, unlike my 7D, Topaz DeNoise 5's debanding doesn't handle the 5D III banding well at all. With the 7D, set the vertical band separation to 8 pixels, and bam, gone. With the 5D III, it can't seem to find and remove all the bands. Sometimes it actually enhances some and removes others. The random read noise levels are also quite high. While banding is unsightly, it can be cleaned up with effort. The random read noise, however, is what actually eats away at the shadow detail. Your 6D has this too, although a bit less than the 5D III. The random read noise is where things differ hugely between an Exmor and a Canon sensor...Exmor just has FAR less. The 5D III has around 33-35e- worth of read noise, where an Exmor has around 3e-. That's a factor of 10-11.67x difference...at least a full order of magnitude. In terms of actual dynamic range, it's closer to two orders of magnitude. The reduction in read noise means that the vast majority of shadows in an Exmor are just random photon shot noise, which is very, very easy to manage.

14
Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: September 20, 2014, 05:20:32 AM »
I guess I am a bit of a purist as well. I don't like to massively modify my images. I like to take photos that represent reality. I prefer less saturated colors (not dull and overly muted, but not ultra vibrant or saturated either), and I prefer things to appear as they were to my own eyes as much as I can. To that end, getting things done in-camera as best as possible is important to me.

Banded read noise makes it tough to achieve that goal. Shadows don't have banded noise, and shadows are rarely as dark in real life as they appear on screen. So, better data is of particular importance to me.

15
EOS Bodies / Re: Official: Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 20, 2014, 05:07:58 AM »
Lee Jay I can't imagine having a cellphone for 7 years!  :o  so curious, what kind is it??

All of them I've ever had, several brands.  I'm only 2 years into my Galaxy S3 at the moment.  Haven't considered upgrading.

I live in Colorado too, the "big landscape state".  I think I've taken about 5 landscapes in my life, and only one of them in Colorado.  That was a big panorama taken with a state of the art camera, a Nikon Coolpix 950!

Different circles then. There are many well known landscape photographers who live in this state. One in particular is exceptionally well known, John Fielder. This IS a big landscape state, and people DO spend a lot of time taking landscape photos here. Go hiking up in the highlands above the Maroon Bells, or in the Uncomphagre wilderness, or San Juan range, and you'll see a ton of people with DSLRs.

I think your less a representative of "the norm" than you might think. ;)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 305