April 23, 2014, 07:19:46 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 - thedman

Pages: [1] 2
1
Lenses / Re: More Mentions of 2014 Being the Year of the Lens [CR1]
« on: April 02, 2014, 11:27:25 AM »
It's April 1st in the Year Of The Lens. Can't decide which one to buy! Too many new ones!

Just remember.... it's the year of the LENS, not the year of the LENSES...


Aah, good point!

2
Lenses / Re: More Mentions of 2014 Being the Year of the Lens [CR1]
« on: April 01, 2014, 04:21:44 PM »
It's April 1st in the Year Of The Lens. Can't decide which one to buy! Too many new ones!

3
EOS Bodies / Re: What Happened to the Photography Industry in 2013?
« on: March 07, 2014, 12:55:55 PM »
There wouldn't be such a drop in lens shipments if some of they lenses didn't cost as much as a car.   Sorry, but $12k for the 200-400 is way out of my budget at this time.   Same with Canon "adjusting their prices to match the market"   So the 400 just became history unless I pick one up used.


Exactly. Can we get something that's more than $300 but less than $10,000?

I am waiting on a couple too (a better UWA, a new 400 5.6 with IS, a better 50 1.4) but  there are lots of good options available now: 24 2.8 IS, 28 2.8 IS, 35 f/2 IS, 100 2.8 macro IS, the 24-70 lenses, 70 - 200 2.8 IS, the Tamron 150 - 600 , etc etc

I have the range I want now, I just want better. I've been way patient waiting for long-overdue updates to the not quite spectacular 17-40 and 100-400 lenses. A solid 14-24 would be fantastic.

4
EOS Bodies / Re: What Happened to the Photography Industry in 2013?
« on: March 06, 2014, 05:44:52 PM »
There wouldn't be such a drop in lens shipments if some of they lenses didn't cost as much as a car.   Sorry, but $12k for the 200-400 is way out of my budget at this time.   Same with Canon "adjusting their prices to match the market"   So the 400 just became history unless I pick one up used.


Exactly. Can we get something that's more than $300 but less than $10,000?

5
EOS Bodies / Re: What Happened to the Photography Industry in 2013?
« on: March 06, 2014, 02:32:22 PM »
"lenses are still a safer bet for a return", yet I've been waiting for Canon to kick out some high end lenses (100-400 replacement, high-end wide angle, etc) and have gotten nothing. And here we are already in March of what this site dubbed "the year of the lens"... has Canon released a lens yet? Something besides a new kit-level consumer zoom?

6
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon DSLR Announcement in March? [CR1]
« on: February 20, 2014, 11:42:33 AM »
Really hope some of these upcoming announcements are of interest to professionals. Seems like their last 10 announcements have been a new Powershot, or new cheap kit lens.

7
Lenses / Re: IS Versions of the 50mm, 85mm & 135mm Coming? [CR1]
« on: December 02, 2013, 12:10:29 PM »
The 20mm f2.8 really needs an update. And while they're at it a 17 or 18 mm prime would be nice too. The 17 TSE is great, but it's bulky, doesn't take filters, lacks AF, and is very expensive. Canon needs something better than second rate zooms in that range.

Dead-on. I'm patiently waiting for a top of the line wide-angle (zoom or prime, I'll consider everything) from Canon, not some "hey this is pretty good for the price" lens. I care not about IS, because I'm 90% on a tripod. Just make it sharp. Sharp enough to make me forget my Zeiss. I grit my teeth every time I haul out the 17-40.

8
Lenses / Re: IS Versions of the 50mm, 85mm & 135mm Coming? [CR1]
« on: November 27, 2013, 11:52:42 AM »
If the "Year of the Lens" turns out to be just slapping IS on some existing lenses, I will be highly disappointed.

9
My biggest pet peeve though are people who, once they see that I'm a 'serious' photographer, offer their advice on what I should shoot. It always begins with "Hey, you wanna take a good picture...", after which they proceed to drag me to a subject that would be a terrible or at best average shot.

10
My personal favorite is "wow, your camera takes great pictures," or, while looking at my images, "you have a great camera."

Just had one of these recently on a Facebook share of one of my shots.  "Wish my camera was this good!"  ::)

11
Landscape / Re: Sunset landscape
« on: October 04, 2013, 03:33:50 PM »
One from the Isle of Skye earlier this year.


12
Lenses / Re: Why are Zeiss lenses manual?
« on: September 17, 2013, 11:48:24 AM »
It would change the way they provide such high mechanical quality. Dare I say that for me it's really the other way round: why doesn't Canon provide any digital full frame body that works reliably as a full time manual focus camera only? Answer: very few people would be buying something like this in this day and age. But I'd still prefer it.

You don't use live view for manual focus?

No. Never. I can't stand it. If live view was gone I wouldn't know it.

+1

As a landscape shooter I use live view/MF almost exclusively. I even set my autofocus lenses to manual and use them just as I use my Zeiss. I want absolute precision. Can't just hear a beep and hope it's correct.

13
Landscape / Re: Panoramas
« on: August 02, 2013, 10:24:51 AM »
San Francisco skyline with Bay bridge.


14
Canon General / Re: What's so bad about HDR?
« on: July 31, 2013, 06:57:31 PM »
I haven't seen any HDR picture that looks anywhere near natural.

Really? You probably just haven't noticed them then.

Exactly. Everybody hates HDR because the only time they realize HDR has been used is when it's done poorly. Nobody looks at a perfectly natural image and says "What a great HDR!", because they don't even know it's HDR.

15
Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« on: May 09, 2013, 04:29:39 PM »
Those who are capable of making awesome changes/modifications will continue to do so while those who are incapable will continue to crib that it is unethical.


Bingo.

Blanket statements like "compositing is not photography" don't hold up in all cases. HDR photos are composites of several shots. Are they not photography, simply because they were combined after the fact? You could have achieved the same thing if you used a grad-ND filter, so does using a filter mean the photo is 'not photography'? What difference does it make if you did the composite before the click or after?

Also, compositing doesn't always mean introducing something that wasn't there. The photo below is 3 different exposures, composited together in Photoshop. Point to the element that wasn't actually there.


Pages: [1] 2