August 30, 2014, 06:48:24 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 ... 135
1
EOS Bodies / Re: The Perfect Sensor
« on: August 29, 2014, 04:53:35 PM »
What I am convinced will happen (although it may take more than a decade to perfect) is the "light field" focusing-after-the-shot technology.

Frankly, I've got really mixed emotions about this. After all, wouldn't we all want to be able to know that that Eagle that we shot catching a fish would be perfectly in focus every time? On the other hand, will this suck all the fun out of photography if EVERY shot you take is perfectly focused and you can change the focus to anything in the picture?

What if anyone in the stands can shoot a picture of the winning touchdown pass and get it perfectly in focus, every single time?

And what about wedding photographers? Imagine all the classic shots (exchanging rings, throwing the bouquet, feeding each other cake, etc.) able to refocus and shift the focus at will.

Page after page of people anguishing over sensors and dynamic range when the biggest, baddest industry disrupting technology is sneaking up behind us.

2
EOS Bodies / Re: Do Sensors Make the Camera?
« on: August 29, 2014, 02:22:40 PM »
Clearly this guy was hopeless. Never make it as a photographer. Shadows need to be lifted big time. This hardly even looks like a pepper.

3
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 29, 2014, 12:45:53 PM »
Well, I'm sure it's time for you all to tear me a new arse as you are duty bound to do, but before you do, how many have used all these lenses and cameras for paying work?

Let me be the first.

Actually, not really. First, I give extra points to anyone who actually has to earn a living in photography who participates on this forum. I'm not sure why they bother, but I appreciate that.

As for me, I never have and never will criticize Nikon. It is a great system and I frankly don't see a lot of point in dwelling on the small differences. Some people prefer Nikon, some people prefer Canon. Everyone has their reasons and that's fine with me.

Sony is also fine, but I do believe that people take a bigger risk investing in Sony lenses. I am willing to bet thousands of dollars that Canon will be around for the rest of my life. (In fact, that is what I have done by buying a lot of their lenses). I'd be willing to take that same bet with Nikon. But, I'm old enough to have seen most of the other camera manufacturers come and go to not feel comfortable investing in Sony lenses. That's just me.

I like Canon. That's why I buy Canon. I don't understand people who would buy equipment they don't like. Yet this forum (not you, whomever you are) is filled with people who have bought Canon equipment (or so they claim) and seem so caught up in having the newest technology that they are incapable of enjoying what they have out of fear that the next release by some competitor might be marginally superior in some way.

I think anyone with half a brain and a bit of honesty must admit that for 99% of photographers under 99% of shooting conditions, the cheapest Nikon or Canon DSLR will product results indistinguishable from the flagship full frame model of either manufacturer. Perhaps you are in the 1% and shoot in the 1% of conditions where that is not true. Congratulations to you.

I won't speak for Neuro. But, I think a lot of the people on this forum grow frustrated with commentary that dwells on insignificant differences. In the past several days we've had pages and pages of commentary about how terrible Canon is because you can't shoot straight into a setting sun and have leaves that are in shadow come out properly exposed. Well...boo...hoo.

This particular topic was clearly started with the sole intent of generating anger and frustration from forum participants. And, unfortunately the original poster has gotten exactly what he wanted.

The ongoing commentary on this forum has become particularly ridiculous of late and for me that was underscored because I happened to attend a Scott Kelby seminar earlier in the week. I am sure there will be those who rush to criticize Kelby, but the fact is, the guy is a damn good photographer.

A sizable portion of his commentary was spent on making the point time and time again that equipment is the least important part of photography. He not only says that, but demonstrates it time and time again. He showed incredible images shot with lenses that no one on this forum would dare admit to using out of fear of being massacred because "that lens is a piece of crap."

So, from my perspective, if you find Nikon better for your purposes, that is great. I honestly don't care.

4
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 29, 2014, 10:39:25 AM »
You are a sad person - is Canon paying you?

Nope. That's why I'm sad. I can only get Pentax to pay me.

Say...have you seen their new SLR with all the LED lights?  ;D

I've seen their video. Makes me want LED lights.
http://youtu.be/zva6-s8jza8

5
Lenses / Re: New Lens Information for Photokina
« on: August 29, 2014, 10:33:39 AM »
Who the heck would want a FF lens that only goes to f/5.6 at 105mm? 
Not me, but people that want a light, cheap lens for landscape, travel, & studio use where shallow DOF is never used.  6D shooters would likely be the target for this lens.

Your logic makes about as much sense as saying who would want a crop sensor, or would want a camera any less tough than the 1D X.

There's this little thing called market segmentation.  It's how big companies make money.  Reference Canon's profits on the Rebel line vs. the 1D line.

Mac, I generally agree with your viewpoint, but I do wonder how Canon would slot this lens. Since the 24-105 "L" already sells for around $600 in white box form, it seems like it would be hard to make this lens competitive in price, unless it is really, really cheap.

Maybe they are looking to stop selling the 24-105 "L" as a kit lens, wait for the supply to dry up in the market and then in a few years introduce a 24-105 "L" II at a significantly increased price? If that happens, we'll all be patting ourselves on the back for getting the 24-105 "L" when it was cheap.

6
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 29, 2014, 10:09:13 AM »
Who gives a rat's hindquarters?

7
So... it's all over the community web, and it puts yet again focus on the manufacturing ethics surrounding cameras and what potential they really hold.
"Ethics" has nothing whatsoever to do with this!

Any manufacturer - any - is utterly within its rights to sell whatever it wants to sell, and as long as it delivers whatever its product description promises, that's the manufacturer's "ethical" responsibility here satisfied in full.

Canon isn't a charity, and it doesn't owe us a thing: if we don't like what they do, we don't buy from them.

It's that simple.

My thoughts exactly. Whether its Sony, Nikon, Canon or any other company – if they deliver the product they promised to deliver at the price they promised to charge, then what's your complaint?

8
Canon General / Re: Some wait for 7d2 other do great without it.
« on: August 29, 2014, 09:53:59 AM »
Wonderful reality check. Thanks for sharing.

9
EOS Bodies / Re: Grey Market 5DIII vs. USA Model
« on: August 29, 2014, 12:01:40 AM »
Totally agree with Mt. Spokane. I would not buy from a gray market dealer that is not listed by canon pricewatch. And the difference in price between reputable gray market and their street price deal is negligible.

10
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II & Photokina
« on: August 28, 2014, 12:52:23 PM »
If this is what LED lights gets you, I think I'd rather have the LED lights after all.

http://youtu.be/zva6-s8jza8


11
EOS Bodies / Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?
« on: August 28, 2014, 12:46:03 PM »
I'm feeling lucky to be in the Salt Lake Valley -- mountain ranges to my east and west.  ;D

Whether the sun is rising or setting, I've got options for whether or not so shoot into the sun.  :P

This time of year in Illinois it's impossible to see over the corn to find out if there are any mountain ranges lurking about.

12
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II & Photokina
« on: August 28, 2014, 10:07:02 AM »

13
EOS Bodies / Re: Do Sensors Make the Camera?
« on: August 27, 2014, 08:13:54 PM »
For me, the sensor is probably the least important part of the camera.

It's been that way ever since I bought a 7D and it continues to be the case with my 5DIII. I have never, ever felt limited by the sensor.

Lenses? Yes. I have owned lenses that I felt were limiting what I could do. When I felt that way, I got new or different lenses. Don't feel that way any more.

Before I had radio control strobes I felt a little limited (largely by my lack of technical skill though). Now I have 600RTs and any limitations I feel now reflect my own need to work on my skills, not on any limits of the speed-lights.

If I had to choose five or 10 things to upgrade on a camera body, the sensor wouldn't make the cut.

Why? Because all sensors from all brands and all formats are so good today that the differences are just plain insignificant. If there were truly a camera out there with a "crappy" sensor, it would be a different story. But even new cell phones have pretty damn good sensors in them.

I guess I don't have much sympathy for people who write encyclopedia-long posts obsessing over how disappointed they are because they pointed their cameras directly into the sun and didn't get perfectly exposed shadows in the foreground. That's pretty much the epitome of first-world problems as far as I'm concerned and I'm kind of embarrassed for them.

14
EOS Bodies / Re: Are you planning to purchase a 7D2
« on: August 27, 2014, 02:27:09 PM »
Of course, with only 63 people voting (so far) one shouldn't generalize. But I at least find it interesting that after several days and intense 7DII bashing on other threads, most people seem interested in this body.

I discount those who say the own a 1D series or 5D series, as that's not really the target audience for this body. (And, I admit I now fall into that 5D category).

Still, I'm a definite maybe. If I start getting the time to shoot more wildlife and birds I will definitely consider it, especially if it auto focuses at f8 and a new 100-400 actually surfaces at some point with a reasonable price tag. (Or alternatively, I decided to go for the Tamron 150-600).

My current 7D doesn't get much use these days, so I probably shouldn't even consider this. But, I have been in a few distance-limited situations where having the 7D would make a difference, so yeah, eventually this could be in my camera bag.

15
Post Processing / Re: Noise, shadows, etc.
« on: August 27, 2014, 02:10:32 PM »
So, for those who use a RAW converter other than ACR or Lightroom, how do you get it into Photoshop after you've made your adjustments in, say, Capture One? I assume you save it as a new file format?

Sorry, but I'm not familiar with other programs and have only used Adobe.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 135