April 16, 2014, 12:56:07 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 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 11
EOS Bodies / Re: More Medium Format Talk
« on: August 19, 2013, 06:03:38 PM »
What is the significance of calling it a larger EF mount? Does that imply electronic compatibility...as-in you can mount one of these lenses to an EOS body with an adapter and maintain full functionality?

It would be neat to see that, but I agree with most of the sentiment in this thread. Going to be crazy expensive.

My opinion for the mention of the larger mount is the need to add credibility to this noise so the life of the rumor is continued.
There is no real business or technical argument that justifies the development or acquisition of MF capability.
As to the comment of introducing a show stopper....that is a "quote" from unattributed sources that, if true, could mean anything from a magical Foveon sensor to a new logo in the fevered imagination of a sled person.

Sorry, but this seems to be the weakest rumor with the weakest "facts" to support it.

Canon General / Re: Canon Camera Sales Down in Q2, Imaging Revenue Up
« on: August 13, 2013, 04:30:51 PM »
The problem with photo enthusiasts analyzing these numbers is that they bring their narrow views about their hobby to the issue.

The reason that compact camera sales have fallen is that phones are the camera of choice for the enormous market that is the casual user.
They do not care about any of the issues that the hobbyist cares about. They want the photo to "come out". And they do on even the most rudimentary phones. The phone is their display and their album. More than that might be nice but not worth spending anything for. Their stuff already looks good on FB so why bother?

The real concern is the evolution of the higher end products that enthusiasts and pros DO buy. Canon has already shown us their pro-active strategy on this front in the form of the higher prices on new lenses and other accessories. They are already pricing for the low volume market they see developing.

That is why their profits are not dropping precipitously while sales of small cameras are.

Canon General / Re: More Medium Format Talk [CR1]
« on: August 13, 2013, 04:21:39 PM »
Sorry, count me as a skeptic.

What seems to be driving this is a wishful thought or utterance by someone that then gets circulated in the net gaining "credibility" by repetition.
Someone at Canon can inadvertently stoke this fire by saying "We have no comment".

This is mother's milk conspiracy theorists that are convinced that this is a peek under the cloak of silence on Canon's MF plans and aspirations.

When they unveil their MF world domination tour I will then have egg on my face. Until then I call baloney.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon is going to add mid format
« on: August 13, 2013, 10:40:54 AM »
Phase One: 300 employees
Canon:  198,000 employees

By any measure the MF market barely moves the needle for them.
For the hobbyist (that wont buy but will talk about them much as the auto enthusiasts declaim loudly about Porsche , Ferrari Lamborghini etc.) the market seems very significant.

Can Canon translate this to meaningful growth for their core brand or will it be a wasteful indulgence on the part of some enthusiasts in the company?

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon is going to add mid format
« on: August 12, 2013, 08:22:52 PM »
Keep in mind that this may be a purely financial move on Canon's part.  It's possible (probable, even) that if they buy an established medium format brand, they won't rebrand the line as Canon, but rather keep the current brand intact, but streamline marketing and distribution channels to save costs and increase profit.
But they would still be stuck with a shrinking market. I also believe that the books they look at will astonish them at how parlous the MF market is.
Things always look better from the outside.
OTOH maybe they want to buy C1 and get all that CC switcher business.  ;)

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: New Canon Hi-pixel Medium format...?
« on: August 12, 2013, 08:18:11 PM »
The market is just too small for a company like Canon to bother with. If they think of it as a "halo" product then one has to ask just who are they trying to appeal to?
If they buy an existing brand then everyone who may be faintly informed would know its not really a Canon.
If they build it from scratch then they will be adding gigantic overhead to theur operation.

I am almost of the belief that they may be looking at the books of a MF company just to prove to some of the enthusiasts just how poverty stricken the format is.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon is going to add mid format
« on: August 12, 2013, 10:01:39 AM »
While Canon could easily purchase any one of the struggling MF manufacturers I see no compelling reasons to do so. Unit sales for the entire category are tiny.
They could bring the price down like Pentax did with their 645D but that didn't really convince many to step up to MF. Reducing price would further pressure them to meet higher sales volumes.

The only reason is to pick the pockets of hobbyists who believe that a bulky, slow and expensive camera system will magically transform their LOLcat photos into art.
The IQ issues are not relevant even for images printed large in an art gallery. Billboards can (and have been done) with 5MP cameras to great effect.
The IQ race is largely over, we are now just quibbling about the smallest details that, in truth, are largely invisible. It is true that some studio applications are still better served by MF but then that is also in conjunction with a view camera.

So tell me again why MF has a future?
BTW, I have used digital MF and come from a history of view camera and medium format ownership and use so I have seen the the world change. IMO it has been all for the best.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Strange Image Artifact on my new 5D III
« on: August 06, 2013, 12:04:52 PM »
Memory card problem.

I have had this problem occasionally over the years with a  number of digital cameras. I had two Sandisk 16GB cards that gave me this problem with every outing so I exchanged them and everything is fine. I still get nervous at fast moving events though, knowing that a key shot may have this problem.

BTW it has never happened with my Ridata or Transcend cards, only Sandisk and Lexar.

Portrait / Re: Senior Portrait Session. Criticism Welcomed :D
« on: August 05, 2013, 08:02:33 PM »
I like #7 and #11. On #7 I would move her to the left to get her out of the center. I also might try a tight crop on some to bring attention to the subject.
#12 is fun but you are way too far away from her.

The  backgrounds are OK but if you want to blur them why not crop a bunch of it out also?  Parents only want to see the face. Yes you can include more but remember that the images that sell will be where her face takes up the most space.

Awinphoto is correct in paying attention to the clothing.  Think of poses that minimize size and maximize grace irrespective of the weight of the subject.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: ...and now Smugmug.
« on: August 01, 2013, 06:01:05 PM »
I haven't rolled yet, need to spend some time playing with it.  http://www.soundersfcfan.com

There are 2 big issues for me:
- Image size (max 50mb) and type (jpeg)
- Dualing identities (lots of historical data under one profile, but not stuff I want to carry forward into new brand)

Next week I start shooting 50mp at 16bit, so I'm looking at quickly needing solutions.  I'm already needing to chase down a local print shop.

Are you uploading 16 bit TIF files?Is it for archiving? IMO Dropbox or some other service would be better for that. Smugmug is a viewing platform more than a storage service. Also uploading thumping great files is very time consuming.
As for printing, the usual workflow is to convert to an 8bit print file and send it to the print provider of choice. Smugmug's print partners are great but if you need local they will still want an 8bit JPG.

Canon General / Re: People that don't shoot in manual...
« on: July 31, 2013, 12:28:33 AM »

Now ETTL II does a good job at controlling how much flash to let out and not burning the subject white, but it has no control how much ambient light will be mixed in. You can try -1 expo comp and +1 flash comp to get something ok, but it still gets in the damn way if the meter catches a bight light source. I found it a frustrating experience to keep dialing in comp instead of just setting it once and use the flash ETTL.

Now outdoors overcast, you can get away with Av and flash because the light stays the same but you still give the ambient control to the camera....

Precisely why I stay on manual in receptions and other event work. ETTL flash (or any TTL or auto flash scheme) CAN be good but so frequently leads the camera astray. In film days we say wild swings on exposure but as we were on neg film we were saved by the lab.
This gave us a false sense of security in the accuracy of ETTL. In digital we chimp and adjust thus defeating the speed advantage allegedly afforded by the technology.

Anybody remember the Nikkor 45 GN lens? Set the guide number of the flash and the lens would adjust aperture based on focus distance. Perfect exposure every time. Nice sharp pancake lens to boot.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7D Mark II - How much will it cost?
« on: July 24, 2013, 04:36:31 PM »
Kind of interesting that many think it will be $2000+.

It seems Canon has trained us to expect the price bumps and still buy despite the howls.

... the Panasonic equivalent of a 70-200 2.8, the 35-100 2.8, weighs 13 oz.

That is a f/5.6 eq. lens. The closest comparison is the Olympus 35-100mm f/2.0, which is more than twice (!) the weight and the price of the equivalent 70-200/4 IS, longer, and not as good.

The m43 14-35/2 is 28-70/4 eq., and it is a heavy $2.3K monster. The overpriced Canon 24-70/4 IS looks like a bargain next to it, and it is considerably lighter and smaller, not to mention wider and better.

The aperture equivalences are only valid if you are interested in  equalizing narrow depth of field. Many people and most pros like a fast lens to be able to use  a higher shutter speed. The DOF issue in no way affects that.

As for the price of any lens, it is either worth it or it isn't. I would gladly pay $2500 each for the f2 Olympus lenses if they would focus quickly on an OM-D. Not only would I be able to shoot wide open at good shutter speeds in dim light but I would also have the advantage of being able to have two people in focus in the frame.

 Even though those lenses are large, the comparable lens in terms of true speed will never be made for a FF body.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sony RX-1R
« on: July 20, 2013, 12:38:19 AM »
I would guess that we actually will see a FF mirrorless from Canon. Just not soon.

Canon, like all other manufacturers, dribbles out the improvements/upgrades so as to have a constant stream of revenue. Bringing out the FF ML would leapfrog all the iterations making money and stick them at a point that can only be superseded by a very expensive new project.

Now if we leased our cameras from Canon Cloud....

EOS Bodies / Re: Why a high MP camera?
« on: July 06, 2013, 09:53:13 PM »

As far as high MP camera, I shoot for agencies and I actually catch flack from them for only shooting 22MP and I have probably lost jobs because I don't shoot medium format. I much prefer to shoot 35mm body. So if I can have a 30+MP camera I'll be quite happy. The agencies will probably still have something to complain about because they are MF snobs.
I have had those same idiotic request from some clients even though I know that the difference will be invisible. I scale up the images (5dmk3) strip the metadata and deliver thumping huge 16 bit tiffs and they are delighted. I also notice that a client recently supplied me with iStock images that were shot with a 7D and the kit lens! They got the job done (24x36 poster) but they were not as crisp as I expected of a stock agency and really got me thinking about the MP debate.
If your client wants to see you using high MP gear and is willing to pay a premium, just rent it, bill them and call it a day.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 11