March 03, 2015, 10:36:04 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 - Kernuak

Pages: 1 ... 47 48 [49] 50 51 ... 74
Animal Kingdom / Re: The white Peacocks of Isola Bella, Italy
« on: May 26, 2012, 12:17:39 PM »
Crap, you've now given me another place to visit on my bucket list, thanks!!!! >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(
Bucket list or barrel list? :P

How do you know that the "non-pro, photo-enthusiasts segment of the market" are "the guys who buy by far the largest share of higher-end, high-margin lenses and speedlites." I'm curious is you have any statistics that backs up your claim, or if it's pure speculation. If I interpret your statement correctly, then it sounds like you think that it's hobbyists that purchase expensive L-series lenses and accessories in the greatest quantities?
Because photo-enthusiast hobbyists vastly out number working pros by a zillion to one?

Even a tiny fraction of hobbyists buying L lenses would exceed the total number of working pros. The exceptions *might* be the extremely long L primes (400, 600, etc), but even there, there exists a huge number of non-pro nature photographers that use these regularly.

I agree that there is a vast majority of hobbyists compared to working pro's, but how many hobbyists have the budget to spend on such a camera and or L lenses?  Unless they have large chunks of disposable income, and or are neuro, then most stick to their budgets (i.e. whatever they can buy at costco/best buy).  But if you guys find any data backing your idea up that hobbyiests in large numbers are buying $2000+ cameras and or lenses, or even have $2000+ invested total in camera gear, it would be interesting to see.

You can tick me down as having more than $2000 in camera gear.

Okay, I stand corrected, hobbiests other than neuro and briansquibb =)
You'd better add me to the list too :P. Although I strive for professional quality (like Brian, Neuro and many others) and I have licenced some images and sold some prints, so I have made money out of it, even if I am making a loss overall. It's a real pain having to do a tax return for the privilege of that loss-making though :P.
That said, while hobbyists do outnumber professionals, the vast number of those hobbyists don't have a huge arseanl of lenses I'd imagine. Many have 3-4 lenses at most, so they aren't really the major target market for the higher end bodies. Using any figures that may (or not) be available for the number of hobbyists would be entirely misleading. It's also pretty irrelevant, as the purpose of a camera is to use it, not to analyse the quoted specifications and decide on which is the "deficient" camera without actually trying any out.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 1D Mark III
« on: May 25, 2012, 01:50:07 PM »
A number of retailers actually have the 1Ds MkIII in stock at a very similar price to the 1D X (and pretty much unchanged from when its demise was announced. Conversely, hardly any of them have the 1D MkIV listed, let alone having a price.

The point is, many of the people criticising the 5D MkIII and lauding the D800 (and even the currently mythical D600) haven't used either. It's like me saying that Lamborghini's are better than Ferrari's, I haven't driven either and am never likely to. I have used the 5D MkIII and was impressed, but I haven't tried the D800, although I'm sure I'd also be impressed with that.
A lot of it is down to what features you as a photographer need. If you need high resolution, then get the D800 (if you can afford to switch), if like me, low light performance and faster frame rate is more important, then go for the 5D MkIII. To keep on going over the same ground, griping about the price and supposed quality of one camera over the other, especially when you haven't even tried them is pretty pointless and eventually with any luck, most people will stop listening. Perhaps it would be an idea for some people to look at the photos in the gallery section, rather than complain about how other cameras are lacking something. There's even a thread showing what cheap equipment can achieve, with much lower specs than either the 5D MkIII or D800.

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 4D full frame
« on: May 25, 2012, 11:56:23 AM »
I believe the number "4" is bad and usually skipped in Japanese culture. Not sure of the validity of that statement, I just think I read that in a few places.

Makes sense, Lumix went from the LX3 to the LX5, and the gf3 to the gf5.

So we should probably take the 4 off the table.

Also, like others have said, a lower number indicates higher end model.
The same argument was used to say that Canon wouldn't release a 1D Mk4...

Street & City / Re: C&C please
« on: May 25, 2012, 09:25:45 AM »
Hey guys, I am new to the forums, but have been visiting the site for a while now. I've had a camera for about 6 months now and I absolutely love it. I was hoping to get some critique for this shot. What do you guys think?
I like the lighting, but for me it is lacking a strong element. The repeating shapes of the pillars aren't strong enough to hold the image together and there isn't another focal point. Try framing to emphasies shapes and textures or maybe use the location for a portrait shoot.

And with the added downside that you are shooting at ISO 200 instead of 100

No, you aren't :-p ... the reason htp starts at iso 200 is that when it's on, the camera deliberately underexposes 1 ev and then applies a tone curve. So you can get the same effect with underexposing 1ev yourself or shooting full m at 1/2 iso and apply a curve in post, but you don't get to see such a nice preview on the camera display.

Actually, htp isn't that bad and I'm using it when there are extreme highlights like the furry edges of an animal with the sun behind the animal body - if I underexpose manually, the preview would be too dark.

yeah it doesn't actually do anything for you in RAW that you couldn't do anyway but when you do need to favor highlights 1 stop then it certainly makes reading the histogram and image previews easier than looking at underexposed ones (And for jpgs/movies, those are cooked, so it's a real mode for jpgs since you can't add HTP back in afterwards in that case)
But in my experience, by underexposing by one stop, you are increasing shadow noise. Also, the EXIF states ISO 200 (or at least it did on my old 40D), regardless of whether or not it's underexposing. Personally, I'd rather shoot in RAW at the optimum ISO for the circumstances, so that I can control how much exposure I want (not the camera) and so that I can push the highlights as far as possible without losing detail to maximise DR. For landscapes, with the use of the correct amount of grad filters, I can mostly get as much DR as I need. For wildlife, shadows are rarely important enough for me to worry too much about them. There is also the argument that I just need better lighting.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon D600
« on: May 24, 2012, 05:26:48 PM »
I don't want to hijack this thread, but just a thought on d800 vs. 5dmkiii - sales figures anyway.  People are getting all worked up about the d800 outselling the 5dmkiii.  Has anyone thought that maybe one reason could  have not that much to do with the 5dmkiii itself.  It could be that the d800 was a huge leap from the d700, whereas the 5dmkiii is not that large of a leap from the 5dmkii (no new features, just upgraded older ones).  That has nothing to do with how the 5dmkiii and the d800 compare to each other, just the Nikon was behind the times with the d700 and the upgraders were waiting for features like video and so forth.

how was Nikon D700 behind the times? what camera today can deliver 8FPS full frame with a 51pt af system for less than 2200 dollars? If that's behind the times, man what is the canon going to do!!! If anything I always respected that camera for it was doing in 2008 what canon still hasn't done in 2012. The only weakness was lack of video, and that IF you cared.
no sir, the NikonD800 is selling because it is the camera many of us wanted the 5DmkIII to be. That's why I ditched my canon gear for it. Many switchers are going elsewhere for resolution. It is 2012 and Canon stuck with 22MP bodies when Nikon has entry level cameras with 24MP simply explains a lot of why the NikonD800 is tracking so high on amazon relative to other full frame bodies.

I'll keep an eye on the 5Dmk4 in 2016. But until then, and after using the D800 for two straight weeks, I'm just not going back  8)

This D600 intrigues me. It would be prefect for a backup body if the price of 1500 dollars is true. But I was thinking of a backup D700 instead. It's such bargain and outruns even the MKIII by 2FPS.
I think you'll find that the D700 can't shoot at 8 fps either, at least not straight out of the box, A big complaint that a pro Nikon shooter I know had, that the specs of some Nikon cameras (I think he was complaining about the D300) were misleading, leading to him buying something he wished he hadn't. The quoted frame rate for the D700 is only 5 fps, which isn't much more than the 3.9 fps of the 5D MkII, when you also consider the difference in sensor resolution.
Also, the D800 also isn't for many of us who prefer low light abilities over resolution. If you want high resolution, then fine, get the D800, otherwise, for those of us in the other camp, the 5D MkIII is for us. Ultimately though, it's the bracket on the other end that makes the difference, not the camera.

Examining the DPReview results, the 5D MkIII has almost half a stop more DR than the D800 with HTP and ADL switched off, but the overall DR with HTP and ADL switched on is the same, the difference is in the priorities.

As far as I've researched it and asked here on the forum, htp is nothing more than a tone curve applied in camera or in the raw converter. As you may or may have not suspected, htp or any other gimmick does not exchange the sensor in your camera when you're not looking. In the best case it's just a convenience, in the worst case marketing has put it in there to make you think what you obviously think :-p
And with the added downside that you are shooting at ISO 200 instead of 100, which is why I always switch it off, then I can control what I want to recover and what I can compromise image by image. I can't imagine Nikon is any different with ADL, apart from the different philosophy.

It is interesting how much the ADL (Active D-Lighting) does to the D800 images , as seen in DP reviews dynamic range tests (images below). Source:

It can be seen in the last image, albeit less dramatically.
Examining the DPReview results, the 5D MkIII has almost half a stop more DR than the D800 with HTP and ADL switched off, but the overall DR with HTP and ADL switched on is the same, the difference is in the priorities. Canon as usual has prioritised recovery of highlight detail, while Nikon has given priority to shadow detail. In contrast, the D7000 has noticeably greater DR judging by DPReview's data.
Perhaps now we can lay the DR arguments to rest, but I somehow doubt it. I still maintain that it is about making use of the equipment available to overcome the compromises than worrying about detailed specification lists. If whichever camera does the job you need it to do, then you don't need to worry what another camera might do. If it doesn't, then get the one that does, if you can afford it and the overall system also gives you what you need.

Landscape / Re: Georgian Bay
« on: May 22, 2012, 06:21:57 PM »
Cropping doesn't necessarily mean croping the image in post. Often when an element is close to the edge of the original image, it's referred to as cropping in the camera. As Xamkrah mentioned, moving the sun to comply with the rule of thirds would make a stronger image. While it isn't a hard and fast rule and all artistic rules are there to be broken, it is an important rule to learn about. I also echo Keith's advice about grad filters, they can make a huge difference when used correctly. For sunsets, reverse grad filters can be especially useful, but only Singh-Ray make them.

Landscape / Re: Georgian Bay
« on: May 22, 2012, 03:26:03 PM »

Rebel XT with kit lens.

Does this photo still work with the sunset slightly left of centre? I was rushed and trying to keep the dock and boat in the frame while finding my footing on the uneven, rocky shoreline a bit tricky.
It's actually better to have the sunset off centre, otherwise it looks more like a snap shot (unless there is some spectacular symmetry). The key to a good sunset image is to have strong supporting elements in the foreground that help the viewer to the sunset. It would have been better not to have cropped the back of the boat in your framing, this would also have pushed the sun further from the centre towards the natural thirds intersect, with the front of the boat on the opposite intersect.

Landscape / Re: Back in the Lake District
« on: May 21, 2012, 06:34:42 PM »
This is probably the best of the ones I took on Ullswater in October.

Bonscale Pike by Kernuak, on Flickr

Landscape / Re: Post Your Best Landscapes
« on: May 21, 2012, 05:04:12 PM »

Pages: 1 ... 47 48 [49] 50 51 ... 74