September 19, 2014, 12:20:06 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 - Normalnorm

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 12
31
Lenses / Re: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art Price leaked
« on: February 06, 2014, 06:05:29 PM »
As this is a rumor only we may be getting well ahead of ourselves.

Sigma has a good record of late of delivering outstanding lenses in its Art line. As others have noted, if it is as good as we hope it should be able to command a high price.

The fact that Sigma is burdened with a history of budget pricers lenses is what is hurting it at the moment. They want to occupy the space that Zeiss now inhabits as they have seen that solid construction and superb optics are able to command a loyal base of eager buyers.

If the lens is good why don't we accord them the respect they have earned by paying a price that reflects the quality they have put into the product?

32
Landscape / Re: 2 ND. Snow in 2014 at my home
« on: February 05, 2014, 12:24:26 AM »
It was super cold here this morning. I had to put slippers on to get the paper.  :'(

33
Software & Accessories / Re: doubt on wacom tablet size
« on: January 30, 2014, 07:33:22 PM »
As others note, everyone is different.
I thought at first the larger the better. I had a non-Wacom tablet of 10x10. Total pain.
I switched to a 6x9 Wacom and could not be happier.

In truth, once you get used to them you have a hard time going back to a mouse for anything.

34
Lenses / Re: Canon 11-24/4 patent
« on: January 26, 2014, 07:55:50 PM »
I hope this one will go to production.

Agree but want it to rival the Nikon 14-24 for IQ

I'll settle on 'well justifies an upgrade from the Sigma 12-24mm F4.5-5.6 DG HSM II', which I think will have to be the same as 'rivals the Nikon 14-24mm's IQ'.

+1
I own and love the 17TS-E. IMO Canon would not likely produce something that fell short of the Nikon. I hope they would use the IQ of the 17 as a guide for this lens.
I had the Sigma 12-24 and it was wonderful within its limitations. I would buy this in an instant if it promised good edge sharpness at f8.
I would expect a price of about $2500+ and it would not make me sad.

35
Canon General / Re: Why Scott Kelby Switched to Canon
« on: January 21, 2014, 11:52:30 AM »
When I switched from film (Nikon) to digital (Canon) I thought  the ergonomics on all the digital cameras sucked. They just sucked in different ways.
I am still with Canon 11 years later and I still think the controls are annoying and slow. However my 17TS-E keeps me from any other camera manufacturer.

36
EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon ditch the AA Filter?
« on: January 10, 2014, 12:51:25 PM »
Canon will probably offer a high MP camera without an AA as that is what the market is clamoring for. However it has most likely noticed that the world has moved a lot since the 1Dx and a mirrorless, high MP body with performance exceeding that of the current cameras (with and without mirrors) will be necessary to get the attention of those conferring uber-camera status.

37
Lenses / Re: The 10 Oldest Canon Lenses in Production
« on: January 10, 2014, 11:49:00 AM »
Two of my favorite lenses are on the list; the 85 1.8 and the 70-200 2.8L . While the vII of the 70-200 has a bit better performance wide open neither lens is a slouch.

Whatever replaces them will never deliver IQ improvement that any client would notice. For me the real proof is that despite their vintage their resale value is still very high.

38
Canon General / Re: Are Metal Mounts Better Than Plastic?
« on: January 04, 2014, 02:28:19 PM »
I think Rogers's definition of a plastic vs. a metal mount differs from how most people think about those terms.  For most of us, we're talking about the bayonet parts - the 'teeth' that lock into the mount on the camera. 

 

The EF-S 18-55 on the left has a 'plastic mount', the EF 17-40L on the right has a 'metal mount'.  Very few of us disassemble lenses, so we have no idea what's behind that mount surface.  Roger is talking about how the screws that that attach that visible surface piece to the lens are connected - do those screws go into metal screw-holes that are attached to the frame of the lens, or are the screw-holes plastic?

'Plastic' can be quite strong, so for a 'light' lens (most lenses under 100mm, with the exception of the 'magic cannonball' 85L), I agree with Roger that I wouldn't expect any issues, and 'professional' could apply.  However, for the bayonet 'teeth' of the mount, plastic wears down more easily than metal (vs. the screw-holes, which aren't subjected to routine 'wear'). That means a lens with a plastic mount (as I'd say is the common definition pictured above, not Rogers's use of the term), would be able to tolerate fewer mount/unmount cycles than a lens with metal bayonet teeth.  Since a professional lens would be expected to last years and most 'pros' own several lenses and change them frequently, it makes sense to associate a metal mount (as pictured above, regardless of how it's screwed in) with 'professional' build.
While I agree with you, I note that the article was provoked by the current furor over the Olympus lens that has a metal bayonet mounted on a plastic base like most lenses ( as Roger notes) and that THAT revelation of the use of plastic in a critical part is sparking the rage on the nets.

Weather proofing is another area where I have rolled my eyes for years. The most vulnerable part of the photographic assembly is the front element and other than using a Nikonos I see no protection of consequence offered by the claims of weather resistance.

39
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Buy a 5D Mark III or Wait for ??? in 2014
« on: January 02, 2014, 11:53:12 PM »
Kind of hoping for a new chip that competes with the Sony/Nikon overall quality. 

Do you feel that the final usable quality of Sony files is that much better? I have heard a lot all over the net but I have not seen anything in a print or on the web that has convinced me to switch despite the allure of the Sony A7R.

I see great images and poor images and I cannot tell what has been made with what.

40
Canon General / Re: Why Wedding Photographers’ Prices are “Wack”?
« on: December 24, 2013, 03:18:56 PM »
I see a number of good responses here and many mention thoughts that have crossed my mind over the years.

I am curious as to why so many people seem to feel qualified to decide what a person in ANY trade should earn.

I have been fortunate to make a full time income that is at the upper end for our industry. I avoid weddings like the plague specifically because the clientele are emotional, delusional (at times) and believe that I should earn 10% less than a gardener.
I choose clients who will not freak out by my pricing thus I do not do retail photography. Everyone has scissors yet few cut their own hair. Those that do, look the part and would never go to a professional.

The attraction for so many to do wedding photography is that it appears easy, fun and lucrative. Anyone who has shot one ( I shot many as a younger man) knows that it is demanding, time sensitive, and long with lots of off event work. Digital has made even the most casual snapper somewhat unimpressed with those who make a living doing it.

My nephew asked me the other day why anyone would pay me to take pictures and my answer was " I take pictures for people who will get fired if they don't show their boss a good photo". "If you knew you would lose your job for bad pictures would you hire someone who had always made your boss happy or would you use your phone?".

The DIY mentality rampant in the digital world means that if you do get hired, many clients believe that the fee should be roughly the amount to offset the inconvenience in your day.



41
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sony A7R shutter vibration problem?
« on: December 22, 2013, 12:58:53 PM »
All cameras shake, it's just this one is super light.

+10
I found shutter shake in my SLRs in the 70's. I spent a lot of time figuring solutions to the problem because I was making very large prints from my 35mm negs.

This is nothing new, but the ability to zoom in on files has created a whole new reality among photographers looking for the slightest evidence of image imperfection irrespective of its actual visibility in a final print (which is only rarely made.
This is not limited to Sony critics and the current shutter shock alarmists in the mirrorless world but is a fixture of digital imaging.

42
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 135mm f/2 DG OS Art Coming? [CR1]
« on: December 17, 2013, 11:56:46 AM »
Big DSLR announcement, hmmmm. Could they make a camera with an EF mount? Just think, all the sigma lenses sold to canon users would now work on it along with the canon lenses too, it would be a Trojan horse coup d'e'tat

Some have speculated they may introduce a m4/3 camera with their Foveon sensor. It would add interest to the format but they need to play a lot of catch up to meet the usability expectations of current M4/3 users.

43
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: A 40mm f/0.85 for Your EOS-M?
« on: December 14, 2013, 12:31:46 PM »
IBECAT will work well with IBEDOG?

IBEGON? Already am.

44
Canon General / Re: History: The Original Canon EOS 5D Camera
« on: December 06, 2013, 11:27:36 PM »
I still preferred the colors out of my 5Dc than my MK3s. I skipped the mk2 series because it wasn't worth upgrading for me.

I never understand comments like this. It is digital, why not profile your camera to get whatever "look" you want from it? The free with every Canon camera ever Picture Style Editor is a remarkably powerful program that you can even edit and save then upload your "look" to the camera Picture Styles menu, and every shot with that style comes out looking exactly as you'd like it to.

Thanks for that. I have been using Canon digital since my 10D and never looked at that software.

45
EOS Bodies / Re: "Two New FF Bodies in 2014" - if 5DM4, would you jump in?
« on: November 30, 2013, 01:26:54 AM »
I think the only bells and whistles that could be added would not be anything that would make me chuck my MkIII.
Better Hi ISO? I doubt I would see the improvement in the real world. Real low light shooting is such a crappy affair that AF and other issues rear their heads before any client looks at noise.

Better DR? They may improve it but again, will I see it in my deliverables? Doubt my client will.

Higher frame rate? Only in silent mode but then it wouldn't be silent anymore.
WiFi? The implementation is poor in all the cameras and when it busts I will have to send it in as opposed to switching out an Eye-Fi card.
Better video? Don't shoot video.
Better AF? Nice but not switch bait.

IOW I love my camera. If a new one comes out I will buy the cheap MkIIIs as they come up used.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 12