April 18, 2014, 11:40:59 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 - thepancakeman

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 29
46
As a tangentially related note, these rebates from Canon can be pretty nit-picky.  I had one that was denied because I didn't include the entire thickness of the cardboard with my UPC from the printer. 

They clearly say you have to "cut out the UPC" which I did, but nowhere do they say you have to include all 1.5" thickness of cardboard that makes it too thick to send with a standard envelope and postage (I left the UPC on only the first 2 layers of cardboard).

Anyway, the point being that I understand a certain amount of paranoia about these rebates.  And for what it's worth, I've been a happy Adorama customer for 15 years.  Although generally B&H is good as well, my last order from them I had to call back after the fact and get a price-match for Adorama because I didn't double check before hand.   Doh!  :-[

47
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Zeiss Otus Initial Impressions
« on: November 20, 2013, 07:06:01 PM »
Best?  So, it's the lightest?  And has the greatest zoom range?  Is unprecedented in it's telephoto capabilities?

People that market "the best" anything drive me nuts.  Maybe it's the sharpest in the corners wide open.  Maybe it has the truest color representation and saturation.  Great, but that doesn't make it "best" in a million different other scenarios.

huh?

Sorry, just saying that "best" doesn't consider need.  It's not the best sports lens.  It's not the best travel lens.  So saying it's the best lens without any qualifiers is just blatantly wrong. 

Sticking with a favorite, car analogies:  a McLaren might be the best car if you're going to the track, but not if you're towing your boat to the lake or picking up friends from the airport.  So you can't just say a McLaren is the best car, just like it's inaccurate to say that this is the best lens.

48
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Zeiss Otus Initial Impressions
« on: November 18, 2013, 06:07:15 PM »
Best?  So, it's the lightest?  And has the greatest zoom range?  Is unprecedented in it's telephoto capabilities?

People that market "the best" anything drive me nuts.  Maybe it's the sharpest in the corners wide open.  Maybe it has the truest color representation and saturation.  Great, but that doesn't make it "best" in a million different other scenarios.

49
Canon General / Re: Should I get into this industry?
« on: October 25, 2013, 03:38:06 PM »
To be honest I don't like your photographs.

You are certainly entitled to that opinion.  But conversely, the most expensive photo ever ($4.3 million) looks like crap to me--I don't think the photographer cares whether I like it or not, and that bank that cashed the check certianly didn't.

The point being, as others have said--it's not about being a good photographer.  It's about finding people that are willing to pay for what you are willing/able to provide.  It's tough, requires some luck, but is absolutely possible.

As for the nay-sayers that say "don't ruin your hobby"--although that CAN be true, it doesn't have to be true.  I have had some hobbies that have been ruined by doing them for money, and I have some that have only gotten me more interested/passionate by doing them (semi-)professionally.  If you think you'll love, then go for it!

50
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Can this 7D package be worth over $9500?
« on: September 10, 2013, 01:32:33 PM »
Well, the same seller has the same kit listed twice for $1.2k or so, and then for $9.5k. Somebody is not getting it, indeed.

All it takes is one sucker, and the seller hits the jackpot... but the actual value of that package is less than the eBay seller fees on the $9500 asking price.

This is it exactly.  This particular vendor seems to have multiple, nearly identical, packages with both realistic (and sometimes even good) prices and ridiculous prices.  And informed buyer obviously will not bite on the jacked up price, but there are enough people out there with more money than brains, see that it includes a "pro wide angle" lens and buy it. 

Perfectly legal, morally questionable.  Of course, one could argue people that are that dumb need to be relieved of the responsibility of having that kind of money to burn.

51
EOS Bodies / Re: 70D and Dxomark....
« on: August 29, 2013, 05:28:32 PM »
After reading the rants and proclamations of everyone I am confused. As a photographer I am in charge of the DR, contrast, color, etc. in a photograph. This is the difference between taking photographs and making them. It is called technique. I have been using a trio of 40D's since they came out. On a recent visit to my local camera club, everyone assumed that I was using FF cameras. I didn't tell them about the "ancient" cameras that I was using. Nearly everyone at the club was using a FF camera. One tidbit I picked up from my mentor was that "A real photographer can make a good photograph with any camera." He was right. The first photographs I sold were taken with an adjustable 126 Instamatic! As I write this I am waiting for UPS to deliver my 70D's and I couldn't be happier. While everyone is making needless arguments and making excuses I will be making wonderful photographs with "substandard equipment."
Cheers!

Glad that works for you.  Alternatively, I would say a good photographer can make a decent image out of most exposures.  Where I "make my money" is taking really crappy exposures and making them into something nice.  Does that make me an editor?  Not any more than the other side of the coin simply makes you a cameraman.  The best, most efficient photographers excel on both sides of the shutter actuation.

52
EOS Bodies / Re: 70D and Dxomark....
« on: August 29, 2013, 05:25:19 PM »
I love how people keep arguing over the sensors and how much more DR they actually need. These people aren't photographers, they're editors with cameras. Tons of DR is like a crutch for them. Wow, they screwed up their shots,, shouldn't that mean they have to live and learn from loss? Lazy. Such a worthless excuse for a petty argument.


This really doesn't make any sense.  Every good songwriter, author, or photographer is also a good editor. It's always been that way.

Also it's odd (IMHO) to excuse away technological advancement for the sake of technique. Why can't one attain both? Should we have puffed our chest at the implementation of auto-focus? Should we have held our noses at IS? After all, good technique can nullify those as well....

Right, but you're supposed to be a photographer first and an editor second. DR doesn't help you when you're actually taking your shot, though it might give you peace of mind knowing the very basics of exposing an image is no longer relevant. At least for however many stops you can recover =P No one has to hold their noses with IS btw, apparently you no longer need the breathing technique to prevent motion blur.

Huh, I always thought I was a photographer first, and a cameraman second.  My bad.   ;)

53
Reviews / Re: Review: Tamron SP 70-200mm f/2.8 VC USD
« on: August 19, 2013, 09:53:52 AM »
Shot our championship softball team a few days ago.  I'm very impressed of what this lens does.  Sharpness is on par with my 24-70 Mk II, and the VC is bang on brilliant (as folks over here would say :) ).  The VC also does automatic panning, so no need to switch levers and such.  Here are some sample shots from the day.

Nice shots!  How well does the AF work for sports?  Can you compare it with the Canon Mk I and Mk II at all?  I have the Mk I and am looking to upgrade, and I find the Tamron tempting, but pretty much shoot sports exclusively.  Thanks!

You might want to check out the video links that I posted earlier in the thread.  They definitely address AF speed.

Haha!  Thanks--I'll do that.  I didn't have the opportunity to do that last time thru, but I'll give 'em a look.  Thanks!

54
Reviews / Re: Review: Tamron SP 70-200mm f/2.8 VC USD
« on: August 17, 2013, 08:42:48 PM »
Shot our championship softball team a few days ago.  I'm very impressed of what this lens does.  Sharpness is on par with my 24-70 Mk II, and the VC is bang on brilliant (as folks over here would say :) ).  The VC also does automatic panning, so no need to switch levers and such.  Here are some sample shots from the day.

Nice shots!  How well does the AF work for sports?  Can you compare it with the Canon Mk I and Mk II at all?  I have the Mk I and am looking to upgrade, and I find the Tamron tempting, but pretty much shoot sports exclusively.  Thanks!

55
Anyone using/used this lens for sports?  I keep hearing that the AF is slightly slower, but nothing to really quantify that.  I currently have the canon mk 1 and am looking to upgrade.  But since I shoot almost exclusively sports, AF speed is/can be an issue for me.

Thanks!

56
Street & City / Re: Reprimanded for a photograph
« on: August 09, 2013, 12:35:28 PM »
Strikes me as kinda like the pedestrian killed in the crosswalk who had the right-of-way.  Just because you can do something or may even have the right to, doesn't mean you are not putting your life at risk by exercising that right.

So, the question you need to ask, is "Is this photo important enough to risk my life over"?  It certainly wouldn't be for me, but you might make a different call.

57
Canon General / Re: Just For Fun!
« on: August 01, 2013, 12:13:56 PM »
109.  "My way of doing things is the best way and yours is inferior--but I'm not putting you down!"

58
Canon General / Re: People that don't shoot in manual...
« on: August 01, 2013, 12:09:52 PM »
If you were a painter would you let someone else determine your palette, your brush strokes or your canvas?

So why do you keep telling us that your palette, brush strokes, and canvas are better than ours.

If you were a painter, would you create inferior work if you let a manufacturer create your paints?

59
Canon General / Re: People that don't shoot in manual...
« on: July 30, 2013, 05:24:17 PM »
traveling at 30+ mph (50+ kph for you non-yanks)

A: Most non-yanks know the conversion, although I also tend to include both units to help the readers.

B: The correct would have been km/h, not kph. Just saying.

 ;)

A: Well, that's just because y'all are more globally intelligent.  I continue to remain baffled at the American (or is it "United Statesian" since everyone across 2 continents are "American") inability to grasp killermeters.

B: Well, yeah, if you want to be SI compliant, but kph was first (per the source of all truth, wiki):   ;D

    1889: "k. p. h."
    1895: "km:h"
    1898: "km/h"
    1899: "km./hr."
    1911: "K.P.H."
    1914 "km. hr."
    1915: "km/hour"
    1915: "km.-hr."
    1916: "km. per hour"
    1933: "KPH"

60
Canon General / Re: People that don't shoot in manual...
« on: July 30, 2013, 03:52:50 PM »
I guess I'm just going to have to annoy you then, unless someone can enlighten me how to manually shoot cyclists traveling at 30+ mph (50+ kph for you non-yanks) going both directions on opposite sides of the street (it's an out-and-back time trial, for you cycling fans) under shifting cloud conditions and alternating shadows with a very near 100% hit rate.   ???

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 29