April 16, 2014, 03:20:16 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 - Hillsilly

Pages: 1 ... 33 34 [35] 36 37 ... 46
EOS Bodies / Re: (1) EOS Boday + (3) New Lenses = New System?
« on: February 03, 2012, 12:47:44 AM »
Sure.  Why not?  Most medium format lines only have a handful of lenses, anyway.

BTW, no need for "expensive ultra high quality lenses".  A bigger, better sensor would be enough. Reasonably priced lenses would be more than sufficient.  And let's make it with an EF mount.  That way, when regular EF lenses are attached, the camera reverts to a "full frame" camera.  And when it detects EF-M (ie specific medium format lenses), you can use the whole sensor.

I'd also have it so that you can use the EF-M lenses on other Canon bodies (so you can take a 7D, for example, as a backup body).  EF-S lenses aside, everything in the Canon line-up should be compatible with each other.

Australia / Re: C'mon Aussies
« on: February 02, 2012, 02:39:10 AM »
Not technically Canon related, but the Pentax K-01 is to be announced in a few hours.  It's designed by an Australian - Marc Newson.  He even gets his name printed on the camera.

Canon General / Truth in photography
« on: February 02, 2012, 01:30:39 AM »
I've been following the “Debunk this Peter Lik picture…PLEASE!!!” thread closely for the last few days, and I'm surprised at the amount of interest it has generated.  I started following it because I like to reverse engineer things to work out how they were done.  Otherwise, I’m not too concerned if it is actually a combination of multiple images with significant post production.  If it is art, I feel that it should be able to stand on its own and the “behind the scenes” activities are largely irrelevant.  But many people think differently.

So, I'm curious.  With photography in general….

Do you feel genuinely upset and angry when a photographer portrays a photo as something it’s not?  If so, why does this get you so worked up? 

If a photo is actually a combination of several photos, but the photographer implies that it is a single, unaltered image, do you consider this unethical?

Do you think photo buyers really care about the effort that went into producing an image?  If so, do you feel that an image with less manipulation is of greater substance than an image with more manipulation?  Or is this irrelevant provided that the photographer doesn’t mislead anyone? 

Tell me your thoughts. 

Canon General / Re: Headed to Paris with Camera Gear
« on: February 01, 2012, 12:11:13 AM »
As mentioned above, generally there are no problems.  In fact, you will often have problems getting a decent photo because of the hundreds of people in front of you already taking photos.  The Mona Lisa below was a classic example.  In hindsight, I would have loved to have a front-on photo, but at the time I couldn't be bothered battling the crowds.

But as you've noticed, there are some places where photography and bags (including handbags) are prohibited.  You can be reasonably assured that these places will have well manned check-in counters to leave your equipment.  I've had to check-in cameras and bags at many museums across Europe and have never had a problem.   

Checking-in a camera and lenses at a museum is probably less of a security risk than leaving it in your hotel.  Plus, if you don't take it with you, you'll miss out on the photo opportunities while walking around. 

EOS Bodies / Re: Can someone debunk this Peter Lik picture... PLEASE!!!
« on: January 31, 2012, 07:33:05 PM »
i think we should really stop to use "double exposure" in that context.
i know many have never shot film here but it sounds wrong to most who have.

Hi, when I use multiple exposure mode, my camera overlays two images as they are taken and saves the new file as a jpeg or raw file.  You have to choose this option before taking the photos and once the images are combined, it is impossible to uncombine them - you're stuck with what you've got.  Isn't that a double exposure? 

Lenses / Re: Canon vs. Tamron
« on: January 31, 2012, 04:19:31 AM »
Its a pity that there isn't more data.  I'd be curious to see if the fixed lens category really is shrinking, whether the mirrorless market is growing and how slrs are performing.

In many markets around the world, Sony outsells Nikon.  But I'm a little surprised that Tamron sold more lenses than Nikon, given their limited range.  I can only assume that kit lenses weren't included in lens sales.

Does Tamron make lenses for other manufacturers (ie rebranded as Canon, Nikon, Pentax etc)?  Maybe that's how they get their numbers up.

EOS Bodies / Re: Can someone debunk this Peter Lik picture... PLEASE!!!
« on: January 30, 2012, 10:30:32 PM »
Make sense it if it is a double exposure (and he doesn't say its not).  Perhaps he used some form of circular stencil to give the moon greater definition and remove some haze around the edges.  This would explain why it has such a circular shape with no craters around the edge. 

There's no reason why the moon can't appear that big.  He's just using his perspective to achieve the result he wants. 

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Photography magazines
« on: January 29, 2012, 07:47:12 PM »
The UK version of "Outdoor Photography" is also very good.  They ship worldwide, too. 

Althought the locations are UK orientated, the concepts are universal.

Interesting question.  If you mean purely still image cameras (ie with no video capability) then I will say yes.

Currently, there are virtually no new film cameras being made (ignoring disposable cameras).  Those that exist  will either become damaged and irrepairable or will just see less use.  While there is still some demand in developing parts of the world, I understand that sales there have also declined in recent years.  There will always be film cameras, but they will become rarer and rarer.

Older digital cameras didn't have video features.  Once again, these will become obsolete or see less use.

Right now, are there any significant digital cameras without video capability?

Over time it will become easier to incorporate a lot of the higher end features into cheaper models.  The new Nikon V1 shoots 60fps at full resolution.  I'm willing to bet that is the direction we're heading. 

Lighting / Re: Any suggestions on cheap ebay triggers / poverty wizards?
« on: January 27, 2012, 01:16:44 AM »
I'm using the Cactus V5's.  Good range, reliability and battery life.  If you are worried about flash voltage, you can put the flash transmitter on the hot shoe and then put your flash on the transmitter.  This should allow you to use "on camera" flash without the voltage problem.  Obviously, off camera is fine, too.     

One thing I really like about the V5s is that you can use them as a wireless remote control, which you can't do with some of the other cheaper options.

Previously, I was using the V2s.   The V2s had poor build quality.  After a couple of years, they just stopped working.  The V5s seem much better in all apsects.  But I've only had them for a few months so can't talk about long term reliability. I've never used pocket wizards, so can't compare directly, but I understand that the build quality is higher and the range is longer.  Like most things, you get what you pay for.   

United States / Re: best camer for beginner
« on: January 26, 2012, 12:08:05 AM »
I'm sure you will love the 60D.  It's a great camera.  Lots of features and should be useful for a long time to come.  It will be perfect for what you want to do now.

But....you've come to a rumors site!  We enjoy gazing into crystal balls, reading tarot cards and tea leaves to foresee the arrival of newer cameras, and lenses.  We can also foresee the future camera purchases that people will make.

If you're long term interests are in sports and wedding photography, and you're budget was marginally higher, I can see that you would be happier with a 7D or 5Dii.  If you take up photography professionally (or at least semi-seriously), chances are that is the direction you will head in.  Looking into my crystal ball, I can see that Canon will replace the 60D, 7D and 5Dii with some excellent new models this year.  You will be kicking yourself that you didn't grab a run out deal on a 7D or 5Dii, or pick up one of the new ones.   

Therefore, I'm going to echo some of the previous comments.  Buy a cheaper body and buy some better lenses.

Better lenses will make taking great photos easier.  Feature-wise, there isn't much difference between a t3i and a 60D.  Image-wise, I believe that they are virtually identical.  Then in a few year's time, once you've got a good understanding of where your interests lie, maybe consider a newer body that is more tailored to your needs (eg with more frames per second, better autofocus, less noise etc).  You'll have some great lenses to use in the mean time.  And if you decide to upgrade bodies, one of the real benefits of buying Canon is that there is a huge interest in second hand equipment.  You won't lose too much on your old camera.

Is this what they call "automatic vignetting correction"?

I'm an avid follower of some of the larger wildlife photo competitions - eg Veolia Wildlife Photographer of the Year.  When I first started paying attention, most people were shooting at very low ISO's such as 100. A lot of winning photos were being shot on Velvia 50.  But in the last couple of years, its not uncommon to see ISO's in the 400 to 800 range. 

Given that many entrants would have the equipment to shoot great photos at much higher ISOs, this raises two questions. 

Firstly, why do people that do well in these competitions choose to shoot at lower ISOs?  (Especially when a faster ISO will allow a faster shutter speed)?

Secondly, why do the judges seem to favour photos shot at lower ISOs?

I would suspect that despite improvements in sensors and software, there is still a noticeable quality improvement by using lower ISOs.  Lenses with a wide aperture (f/2.8 or faster) which make it easier to use low ISOs will still have a market for some time. 

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Why canon?
« on: January 20, 2012, 09:41:44 PM »
Another reason I like Canon is because people care about Canon.  There is a lot of interest in their products, a lot of knowledgable people using their cameras and lenses, and a lot of resources available.  There is a real Canon community out there which makes being a Canon owner more enjoyable.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: George Eastman's Kodak dream is over
« on: January 20, 2012, 03:03:43 AM »
Some things just run their course.  But its not surprising.  Have Kodak been the leader in anything in the last 20 years?  When was the last time they did anything important or were relevant?  Is anyone really shocked that Kodak is joining the ranks of Confederated Slaveholdings, Transatlantic Zeppelin, Amalgamated Spats, Congreve's Inflammable Powder, and U.S. Hay?

Kodak lost most film users in the early 90's when most people switched to Fuji Provia, Velvia and Astia.  With Superia vs Ultramax, there's probably not much difference, but Superia is usually significantly cheaper.  By the time Kodak had something competitive with 100VS people had started to switch to digital or were too familiar with Fuji.   For a company that put so much faith in film, why were they so far behind for so long?  Why did they pull the pin on digital sensor development?  Why did they think people would still keep buying film in developing countries?  Why did they decide that a low-cost digital camera strategy was the way forward?  How come they weren't better able to use their chemical processing know-how? 

Sadly, I'll miss their T-Max films, of which I've been a happy user for the last few years.  But like their other offerings, there are several viable (some would say better) alternatives at cheaper prices.

Pages: 1 ... 33 34 [35] 36 37 ... 46