January 27, 2015, 11:49:57 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 - Orangutan

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 55
1
EOS Bodies / Re: 50mp Cameras Coming in March [CR1]
« on: January 24, 2015, 11:05:45 AM »
Dilbert says:
bad sensor bad quality bad iq
We don't know anything about the new sensor yet other than it's rumored to be 50mp.

2
EOS Bodies / Re: 50mp Cameras Coming in March [CR1]
« on: January 24, 2015, 10:58:09 AM »
I gave up waiting and bought a 645z

Don't hate me.

I think a lot of us would do that if we could afford to commit that much money, and still keep our DSLR kits for more general purpose work.

3
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Deal: Canon EOS 6D Bundles from Adorama
« on: January 23, 2015, 10:09:10 AM »
But is this site reliable? I seen plenty of negative reviews online and i'm skeptical on ordering.

I've bought from Adorama a number of times, and it's been fine.  I've never bought something like this, with a huge rebate "at risk."

I just googled the expression "adorama" "6d" "rebate" legitimate

and hit this thread http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/55042641


4
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Deal: Canon EOS 6D Bundles from Adorama
« on: January 23, 2015, 09:25:44 AM »
Has anyone ordered from Adorama? There are plenty of horrible reviews on their company all over the web. I'm skeptical about ordering from them, but this deal is too good.

I also checked the mail in rebate, it's actually wrong. You only get back $350 instead of the $650 listed on their site. I provided a picture to the mail in rebate offer that is eligible for this camera/bundle.

You can check multiple boxes on the rebate form, for a total of $650.  I looked into it when the deal was on in December, and that's what I was told.

Also be aware: if this is the same deal as December, you don't get a rebate check, you get American Express Gift Cards.  I guess that's fine, but they're not readily convertible to cash, you have to make actual purchases.

5
EOS Bodies / Re: Global Shutter Coming to Canon DSLRs? [CR1]
« on: January 22, 2015, 07:00:17 PM »
This rumor seems farfetched, though.  If Canon could create a self contained camera that could continuously record RAW and compressed images at 30fps on a global shutter, it would have a huge impact on both the video and photography markets.  Nothing comes close right now.  The 1DC is a pale imitation since it can only record non-continuous 12fps RAW and 24fps compressed at APS-H crop on a non-global shutter.

The Dragon...Global shutter included

Near as I can tell, the Motion Mount add-on is what gives the Dragon its global shutter via a liquid crystal shutter.  It costs an extra $4k and eats a stop of light as an ND filter.  That's only useful in bright natural light or controlled light.  How is that comparable to GS on a stand-alone 1DX successor?

6
EOS Bodies / Re: Global Shutter Coming to Canon DSLRs? [CR1]
« on: January 22, 2015, 01:12:51 PM »
.
You have to wonder what it means when technology being used by other photographic equipment manufacturers is a "rumor" for Canon.

Yes, there are sensors with global shutters; however, I believe they're only common in specialty devices, not in general-purpose, high-end DSLRs.  Do you have an example of a camera with a global shutter which ALSO competes with the 1DX in sports/action/BIF/etc?

7
EOS Bodies / Re: High Megapixel Camera Coming in 2015 [CR3]
« on: January 22, 2015, 09:42:43 AM »
IQ is a property of the sensor.

Maximum IQ is (in a colloquial sense) a property of the sensor.  Specifics of the maximum IQ of the sensor can be further quantified (I'll leave that explanation to those who know more about the tech than I).   But the other components of the system also have their (colloquially speaking) maximum IQ as well.

IQ, i.e. "image quality" is...er...a quality of each individual image.  An image that's unintentionally out of focus has low image quality to most people.

You must also remember that each sensor has different (colloquial) maximum IQ at each ISO setting.  In effect, it can be considered a different sensor at each ISO.  So even if you want to talk about the IQ of the sensor (as though it were an inherent quality) you must be specific about which ISO setting.

8
EOS Bodies / Re: Camera ownership on Flickr: 2013-2014
« on: January 18, 2015, 11:35:51 AM »
Original blog link:

http://blog.flickr.net/en/2015/01/13/camera-ownership-on-flickr-2013-2014

Note that it is "Camera ownership" that they're reporting, not a % based on photo count.

Although where it doesn't make sense is:
2014 Top 10 Cameras (Canon): 600D -> 5D2 -> 7D -> 60D -> 5D3
2014 Top 10 DSLRs (Canon): 600D -> 7D -> 60D -> 5D3

Those two lists should align!

Why? There are all kinds of possibilities to explain the data in other ways.  While your explanation is plausible (i.e., could be true), there's nothing to distinguish it from other plausible explanations as the more likely option.

9
EOS Bodies / Re: Camera ownership on Flickr: 2013-2014
« on: January 18, 2015, 11:28:46 AM »
More importantly, though, there's no reason to believe they wouldn't.

Oh come on and quit with the conspiracy garbage will you?


I can tell you're sincere, Dilbert, but apparently you've never taken a class in statistics, even a basic one.  The word "bias" in this case is not an accusation against Flickr, it's a potential flaw in the data.  I'm not saying at all that Flickr may be biased, I'm saying the data may be biased in a way that prevents us from drawing certain conclusions.  Again, this is not a conspiratorial assertion, it's a statistical assertion.   I'll let you read the Wikipedia article on it.
...
In summary, Dilbert, Flickr's data can lead to a valid conclusion summarized as: "among all Flickr account holders who keep metadata in their images, the prevalence of cameras is given in the chart below..."

What they did NOT say, and which would NOT be true, is that they can extrapolate that to the entire camera-buying community to infer what kinds of cameras people would like to buy.

Sure, you're concerned that there could be bias in the source of the data (for example, people expunging EXIF data.)

My assertion is that the expunging of EXIF data is not specific to a particular manufacturer and that any inaccuracies in data equally effects all vendors thus the percentages and changes in them are representative of the actual market.
Which is an entirely unwarranted assertion.  Personally, I'd hazard a guess that the average smartphone photographer doesn't even know what EXIF data is, let alone how to strip it from their photographs.

I have to agree with lintoni: it certainly might be true; however, there are too many "but what if" situations to be confident that it's likely to be so.  Dilbert, we'll just have to disagree on this point.

10
EOS Bodies / Re: Camera ownership on Flickr: 2013-2014
« on: January 17, 2015, 09:20:46 AM »
More importantly, though, there's no reason to believe they wouldn't.

Oh come on and quit with the conspiracy garbage will you?


I can tell you're sincere, Dilbert, but apparently you've never taken a class in statistics, even a basic one.  The word "bias" in this case is not an accusation against Flickr, it's a potential flaw in the data.  I'm not saying at all that Flickr may be biased, I'm saying the data may be biased in a way that prevents us from drawing certain conclusions.  Again, this is not a conspiratorial assertion, it's a statistical assertion.   I'll let you read the Wikipedia article on it.


Quote
And let me pose some questions for you...
- how would flickr introduce bias?  I'm not saying they're introducing it, I'm saying they don't have enough data to eliminate pre-existing bias in their data.
- what does flickr have to benefit from bias? Again, I'm not saying it's intentional, I'm saying it's unavoidable due to the data they have.
- what outcome would flickr see as a result of it being biased?  Actually, I don't think they were trying to be biased: they were very clear about what they were trying to do and how they did it.  I simply believe there is insufficient data to go beyond what they've done to draw any conclusions about what future cameras purchases people are likely to make.

Answers to the above are in-line in blue.

In summary, Dilbert, Flickr's data can lead to a valid conclusion summarized as: "among all Flickr account holders who keep metadata in their images, the prevalence of cameras is given in the chart below..."

What they did NOT say, and which would NOT be true, is that they can extrapolate that to the entire camera-buying community to infer what kinds of cameras people would like to buy.

11
EOS Bodies / Re: Camera ownership on Flickr: 2013-2014
« on: January 15, 2015, 10:11:44 PM »
but if the sample set size from flickr is large enough (for example their entire userbase)
I think this is the problem: for the sample to have any validity at all it needs to be a representative sample.  The point I'm making is that, regardless of size, there's insufficient information in Flickr's data collection to infer beyond the Flickr user base.

Quote
So whilst all of the above issues you mention may be in flickr numbers, there is no way to account for them specifically and similarly there is no reason to expect that they would favour or disadvantage
More importantly, though, there's no reason to believe they wouldn't.  In order for a statistical sample to be valid, you have to be demonstrably confident that it isn't skewed.  While the Flickr survey is interesting for what it is, it simply doesn't contain enough data, and there are too many confounding factors to allow me to exclude the risk of bias to use it to infer camera ownership and/or recent purchase.

12
EOS Bodies / Re: Camera ownership on Flickr: 2013-2014
« on: January 15, 2015, 09:46:03 AM »
Wow!

So much wrong on the survey! No idea what the methodology is.... Is it counting by pictures or by owners, what about multiples, why is only 42.1 % of the cameras in the " big 5 ", how many were undetermined, what is the margin of error, what  is the sample size, what is the accuracy? 

You can't say anything significant from the results, so why bother reading conclusions from it?

Agreed. Any conclusions are made on some rather large assumptions.

When people post Amazon listings showing Canon camera sales rankings, does anyone question that? No, everyone just cares about what the ranking numbers are when in fact the same questions could easily be asked of Amazon's reporting.

Dilbert, since you seem to be sincere on this point I'll try to explain why the data from Flickr are not definitive.

First, the good: they're careful to explain what they counted: "We estimate camera ownership per-week by only counting a camera once per-account, per-week, to compensate for community members uploading different quantities of photos."  OK, that much is good

Because they use metadata from images, the method has some problems:

  • They may have more than one camera, e.g. DSLR plus iPhone.  We have no idea in what order their cameras were purchased, so we can't infer their "upgrade path."
  • The photos posted to Flickr may be different from the photos posted on their portfolio site; e.g. SmugMug or Zenfolio, e.g. casual vs. serious photography.
  • We don't know how may of the counted Flickr accounts are paid vs. free,which would likely correlate the kind of camera used.
  • We know nothing of how well Flickr users represent the broader "market" of serious photographers: are they the serious ones, or is Flickr just a step up from FaceBook?  Certainly there are some great photos on Flickr, but are they the rule or the exception?
In short, the data are "accurate" for Flickr users, but we have almost zero correlation to the greater market due to the confounding factors.  I.e., we can't use these data to tell what kinds of cameras people want.



Regarding Amazon: Amazon's sales rankings are hourly (that's a problem); however, when multiple snapshots are taken over time, it can provide a reasonable pictures of Amazon's overall sales, though not perfect.

  • Though Amazon is not the only online retailer, they're huge.
  • Amazon's market tends to be the general online-shopping community: there's no reason to believe they're a niche camera retailer, so their sales numbers are likely a good approximation of the purchase habits of the online-purchasing market.
  • There are probably a good number of people who like to buy local rather than online; I have no idea what  fraction they comprise, but I know that a lot of local camera stores have closed over the last decade.
  • Amazon is not a true global seller, so is best a representative of the U.S., and other markets only to a lesser extent.
  • Amazon's rankings represents sales of cameras, period.  No inference of camera from image.

In short, Flickr can't be used at all to infer what cameras people want and will pay for.  Amazon data, though far from perfect, goes some distance to that conclusion.
I hope this helps.

13
EOS Bodies / Re: Camera ownership on Flickr: 2013-2014
« on: January 14, 2015, 12:05:31 AM »
.
Flickr is a graveyard -- has been for some good time now.

I have no interest in the shovels they are using to dig the graves.

The woman running Yahoo kills everything she touches.

Got some real examples, or just feeling a bit misogynistic?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2015-01-07/google-loses-most-u-s-search-share-since-2009-while-yahoo-gains.html

14
Sports / Re: Critique My "Running" Photos?
« on: January 12, 2015, 12:05:49 PM »
My sports photography experience is very limited, so take this for what it's worth.  With any photo you need to decide what you intend communicate with the image.  In sports there are typically a small number of ideas to be communicated:

  • the competition itself -- so you would show two runners in proximity, or one runner crossing the finish line, and attempt to convey the feeling of active competition.  Frame this large enough to show the competition, tight enough to avoid distractions
  • the emotion of the athlete -- tight crop on the face or body (parts?) showing the physical and emotional exertion
  • a specific incident that's an important part of the narrative: e.g. when two runners accidentally step on each other, causing a stumble, or the moment a sprinter clips a hurdle, etc.   Crop just wide enough to get the context, without over-cropping that hides the specific incident
  • coach/fan/bystander reaction
Good luck, and keep shooting and critiquing your own work.  Also study other photographs you like and try to figure out what you like about them.

15
Animal Kingdom / Re: BIRD IN FLIGHT ONLY -- share your BIF photos here
« on: January 10, 2015, 10:04:29 PM »
shot one handed as the chickadee swooped past...

That f***ing COOL!

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 55