Messages

271

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D mkii at $2,219 on Amazon today (12-7)

« on: December 08, 2011, 03:41:10 PM »

As for the country- we have our share of shady businesses and no-goodniks too, but we try to train the latter to be NHL enforcers.

Hahaha!  That just made my whole day!   

272

Canon General / Re: 15% Off at Canon Refurbished Store

« on: December 07, 2011, 11:00:26 PM »

I'm in MN and I was charged tax.  I cannot speak for other states, but it is typical (and for sure in MN) that when you file your state taxes, there is a section to declare out of state purchases (internet or mail order) so you can be taxed for them.  If you want details, talk a tax accountant, not us random people on the internet.   

273

Australia / Re: ND filters

« on: December 07, 2011, 04:46:10 PM »

So here's a question--how do you decide which lens(es) to get ND filters for?  So far I pretty much suck at anything but sports photography, but I'm having fun playing.  My wife has a whole bunch o' lenses (see my sig) that I can play with and the ND filters look like fun.  Any suggestions?

274

EOS Bodies / Re: How can Nikon remain in business with 12MP FF?

« on: December 06, 2011, 07:02:37 PM »

Isn't it riskier to hope that what you want just happens to be in your image? Don't want to sound belligerent but, um, aren't you supposed to use the viewfinder to make sure your shot is 'spot on'?

Not to pick on you specifically, but it seems like there is a lot of "if you fix it in post, you suck as a photographer" type of comments or at least insinuations, and I guess I disagree with that.  I view photography as a visual art, not a "how well can you time the button pushing" art.

If you can capture that visual art straight out of the camera, great.  But if I use a bunch of post processing and get as good or better results, does that somehow make my product inferior?  We are using different tools and skills neither of which is inherently superior to the other to achieve the same end result.

275

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS Rebel T4i [CR2]

« on: December 06, 2011, 10:07:36 AM »

As for moonlighting, "This new Rebel camera is a great choice - just came out and has LOTS of megapixels. You should also get this great second lens with a BIG zoom.  You'll need these Promaster protection filters, has 'pro' in the name 'cuz they're what the pros use. Oh, and you really need to get the great extended warranty we offer - it covers everything, no fine print, honest!"

I knew it!!     Thanks for the smile!

276

Software & Accessories / Re: Let's talk about RAW software

« on: December 05, 2011, 05:31:11 PM »

I believe that someone has to use many products in order to have an opinion and subsequently vote unbiased.
However, even people who have only used one or two products will have something interesting to say so I will read this thread with great interest.
I for example have used Camera Raw but I do not consider myself an expert. I correct contrast, white balance, sometimes I level the horizon, I rarely crop and sharpen a little. What I like most is being able to produce a small file with changes and leave the original image file intact. That being said, I wouldn't think of voting as I cannot compare it to other products...

Being interested to see opinions about this and other products too...

At only the third posting in this thread, and I'm already going to (sorta) hijack it--but I'm at least faithful to the title.  Sorry!   

I have only used Adobe Camera RAW and so can't compare it to others, but I do have a question.  I have noticed that sometimes when I open a RAW image in Lightroom that it briefly (maybe a half second) appears one way and then...ummm...hard to describe, but changes and often seems to darken.  Is this ACR applying some sort of logic?  Is there a way to see it without those "changes"?  Often the .5 second glimpse looks better to me than the "final" image (with what little I can see in a half second.)  But whatever the case, I feel like I am not truly seeing the RAW image.  Thoughts/recommendations?

277

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS Rebel T4i [CR2]

« on: December 05, 2011, 04:52:50 PM »

Entry-level customers and parents won't typically know anything about ISO performance, dynamic range or diffraction limits. They just know megapixels and want more of them.

Exactly.  Even on this site we all know about ISO, DR, noise, diffraction, etc. and still get into debates about them before Neuro sets us straight.   

I think that even if there was a Neuro in every BestBuy store to "educate" customers that a significant portion of them would still buy the camera with more MP. After all, he'd just be another salesman.

Wait a minute...how do we know he's not already moonlighting at the local Best Buy...

278

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS Rebel T4i [CR2]

« on: December 05, 2011, 02:25:36 PM »

I have only one question.. Why, why WHY?
Why do they even need to update the series?

I would venture to say it's because Canon makes money by selling cameras.  Sales often (usually?) has very little to do with what is best (ref. betamax) and a lot to do with psychology and market pressures. 

Which do you think sells better:  "the all new..." or the "hasn't changed in 5 years..." camera?  Obviously some consumers can see around/thru this, but as a whole--not going to happen.

279

EOS Bodies / Re: A tongue-in-cheek missive to those who want a high MP 5D3 :)

« on: December 05, 2011, 11:05:04 AM »

But I completely and totally reject the argument that its possible to ever have a sensor with too many megapixels. Yes, extreme MP counts create problems for the scientists and designers to overcome and I'm confident that they will overcome them.

When those 'problems' involve basic principles of physics, like diffraction, overcoming them may prove difficult...

While I cannot even pretend to have the technical knowledge of neuroanatomist, I guess I have a higher opinion of where science can go and a lower opinion of where it is.  Whether you're talking about the discovery of quasicrystals for which the discoverer was practially barred from scientific circles because it went against "the laws of physics" (but has since been awared the nobel prize) or the more assinine "truth" that the 4-minute mile is (was) physically impossible, science grows and evolves and changes as we continue to push the boundaries.

For example, what about metamaterials for lenses?  (Haha--now I'm just using fancy words that I don't even know the meaning of!    )

280

Landscape / Re: Some new works.

« on: December 02, 2011, 03:19:27 PM »

I love the first one!

The second and third ones I want to like, but they make me feel like I should have had a V8.  (For those of you who are unfamiliar, it's a vegetable drink who's advertising speaks about being "unbalanced" and shows people walking around tilted to the side.)  But iff that's the intent, then awesome!   

281

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III Information [CR1]

« on: December 02, 2011, 03:14:52 PM »

And very often the places I want to shoot from are not very tripod friendly either.

If you can sit or stand where you are, and not fall/roll away, then you can use a tripod.

I can stand/sit on a 4" railing.  Never had much luck getting a tripod to work there.   

282

EOS Bodies / Re: This and That

« on: December 02, 2011, 02:52:47 PM »

Since 10,000 is plural, we'll use 20,000 for the short end.  Throw in a little inflation, we'll call a 5d3 $3000.  Most people buying one are likely to be buying at least 2 decent lenses for it, let's say at a mean of $1500 each.  So Canon is going to forgo $120 million in sales (exluding accessories AND all the future revenue associated with brand loyalty) to "see what happens".  I'm not buying it.

Are you suggesting that if Canon releases a 5DIII which incorporates the 18 MP sensor from the 1D X, with the ISO and DR improvements, that no one will buy it?  I'm not buying that.  Canon's not saying no 5DIII, they're saying no high-MP FF sensor (for now).

Whoa--nope not saying that at all!   

What I'm saying is that Canon is not going to wait until they've lost 10,000s of customers (per the quote) before they decide to come up with a high MP camera.  I was just using "5d3" as an example because we can give a rough reasonable price-point estimate on that.  Sorry for the confusion!

283

EOS Bodies / Re: This and That

« on: December 02, 2011, 02:19:02 PM »

...how many 10,000s of customers we might be losing...

Somehow I find that hard to believe. 

Since 10,000 is plural, we'll use 20,000 for the short end.  Throw in a little inflation, we'll call a 5d3 $3000.  Most people buying one are likely to be buying at least 2 decent lenses for it, let's say at a mean of $1500 each.  So Canon is going to forgo $120 million in sales (exluding accessories AND all the future revenue associated with brand loyalty) to "see what happens".  I'm not buying it.

I'm not saying the 5d3 specifically will be high MP, I'm just saying there's no way Canon can stay out of the high MP market (unless they convince Sony and Nikon to as well and thereby not lose the "10,000s of customers")

284

Canon General / Re: 15% Off at Canon Refurbished Store

« on: December 01, 2011, 05:17:00 PM »

Awesome--thanks for the heads up guys! 

Just snagged a 7d, but man, at that discount I'm pondering a 5d2 as well!

285

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III Information [CR1]

« on: November 30, 2011, 02:57:15 PM »

After painfully wading thru this, I think I can sum it up for those of you who start at the end:

Anyone who wants more megapixels than "me" is an idiot and doesn't understand picture quality.
Anyone who wants fewer MP than "me" doesn't do real photography.
Ansel Adams still rocks.