April 17, 2014, 03:15:32 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 - Wrathwilde

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
Is it possible that something is gumming up the electrical contact connections between the lens and body?

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1DX vs D4
« on: July 22, 2012, 03:32:18 PM »

Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: Thoughts on hand straps?
« on: June 21, 2012, 04:30:26 PM »
Isn't that a strap hanging below your camera?  ::)

Nope, just a pic of the Spider Holster system from the linked article. No straps on my cameras.

Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: Thoughts on hand straps?
« on: June 21, 2012, 06:39:44 AM »
I prefer the Spider Holster, no straps to get in the way, camera doesn't swing away from your body when you bend over.

Built sturdier than a tank,. I'd never go back to any "strap" system.

sweet! i'll be getting one of those for sure!

that screen looks awesome

That makes two of us. 

 I just wish they'd update the Mac Pro too... with a raid solution that runs off a dedicated, bootable, high-speed channel that can take full advantage of 4 internal SSD drives in RAID 0.

Minor point, but also announced was a new FW800 to Thunderbolt dongle - great as it will allow me to connect my FW800 external drives to my MBAir with something faster than USB2.

That's welcome, as I do have firewire 800 drives too and a firewire scanner (The scanner isn't used too often anymore). I can't wait until the Thunderbolt drives start dropping in price. There's really no reason a 12GB Thunderbolt RAID should cost twice as much as a 12GB Firewire 800/eSATA RAID solution using the same drives. $100-$300 more? That would be reasonable, but $1200 more is just insane.

There are also some cool Thunderbolt Docking stations coming out too. Sunix has a Thunderbolt Dock coming out hat has a blu-ray writer, a hot swappable 6Gbps 3.5 HDD bay, (4ea) USB 3 ports, Gigabit LAN port, SPDIF and a multiformat card reader (although it doesn't look like CF is one of the card types supported).  >:(

Sounds awesome.

No Optical Drive, modeled after the Air.

It's got a Retina display; 15.4-inch (diagonal) LED-backlit display with IPS technology; 2880-by-1800 resolution at 220 pixels per inch. (My 27" iMac only has 2560x1440)

Memory 8GB std, up to 16GB. (an upgrade from 8GB to 16GB is only $200) ;D cheap by apple standards.

Flash Drives, 256GB or 512GB std., 512GB model upgradeable to 768GB (for $500).  >:(

Base price $2199, a maxed out version will run you $3749 for 2.7GHz i7, 16GB memory and 768GB Flash Storage,

USB-3, Dual Thunderbolt, backlit keyboard.

CR won't let me link to the apple store link to the MacBook Pros. so you'll have to go to the apple site and find it on your own.

No announcement for an update to the Mac Pro  >:(

Lenses / Re: Bokeh...is the look getting dated?
« on: June 03, 2012, 02:09:42 PM »
and even more shocked when they discover good old vinyl sounds better than anything ;)

Only if you can afford decent equipment, and climate controlled storage for your collection. The nice thing about CD players (was) that a cheap one, purchased at your local superstore, would still sound better than any Record Player you were likely to find at those same stores... and CDs don't tend to warp when your house hit's 105(f) for a week while you're out of town. The current crop of CD players may not sound as nice as today's top of the line turn tables, but...

Back in the late 80's I had a Pioneer Elite PD-91 Reference CD player, I believe it had dual 24bit Burr Brown DACs that, to this day, sounded better than any other piece of audio (delivery) equipment I've ever heard, including the best high end turntables. The sound was so warm and smooth it was incredible to listen to. I had that player over 15 years, I miss it's sound, but not the swapping of CDs. I have currently ripped my entire CD collection at the highest rates possible, and feed it into my Pioneer Elite SC-27, with Wolfson 192kHz/24-bit DACs, which I would describe as  clear and smooth, but not as warm as my PD-91. The PD-91 made every receiver I ever hooked it up to sound like a high dollar tube amp. I was under the impression my SC-27 had Burr Brown DACs when I purchased it, it does... but only for analog to digital. The Wolfson's are excellent, but the Burr Brown DACs in the PD-91 were better still.

Unfortunately a lot of CD's, from the mid 90's on, were mastered using dynamic range compression to make them "louder" , but vinyl wasn't immune either.

Hopefully, now that CD's are dying, downloadable music will start to be delivered, and widely supported, in High Definition... without the dynamic range compression that's been distorting music for decades. I can't wait until 192-kHz/32-bit mastering is standard, and lossless encoding is the norm... Put that through some quality DACs, or a tube amp, and it will sound better than any turntable available at any price.


tl;dr - A properly mastered CD played on a Pioneer Elite PD-91 will sound better than the same album on vinyl... no matter which turntable you own... all other equipment being equal.

BUT ...
what makes me and so many other Canon users increasingly mad at our current supplier, is what I would call "fully justified buyers remorse".

When I bought my first DSLR in May 2005, I decided on Canon as my system supplier because the 350D was superior to Nikons D70 in virtually every aspect. Canon EOS Cameras all delivered superior image quality and better value than Nikion's competing products then. Canon CMOS sensors and DIGIC processors ruled supreme - resoulution, Hi-ISO noise, image quality, operational speed.  Eyually important, Canon had a much broader and deeper lens lineup, that generally cost about 20% less than roughly equivalent Nikon lenses.

Within the next few years all of that has reversed. Nikon has not only caught up but in 2012 has leapfrogged Canon: more resolution and at the same time better DR, cleaner images at low ISO and even at Hi ISO - and all of this for significantly less money. And Nikon's lens setup today is on par with Canon - with the notable exception of a few special lenses that are more important for Pro-photographers (fisheye zoom, TS-E 17, 24 II, superteles Mk. II). 

I have been watching with growing dismay how Canon is diverting more and more of their attention and resources to all the video crap in DSLRs which I do not need and want, rather than on creating the world's best still photo cameras, competing full blast with Nikon. I am sick and tired of the excessive market differentiation and purposful crippling of cameras even in terms of ultracheapbut useful firmware features [e.g., Auto-ISO on my 7D compared to any Nikon camera!].  I am sick and tired of constant massive price increases with little if any additional value to me as paying customer.  I am sick and tired having to pay extra for every lens hood on evry non-L lens.  I am sick and tired watching, that I could be using better cameras for less money had I only chosen Nikon over Canon. And it amkes me angry that I may end up having to sell my gear at a big loss, just because Canon is not able to effectively compete with Nikon any longer.

And whether you like it or not: I will not ask for your permission before I complain and I will do so as long as I please and certainly as long as Canon does not finally get their act together and sells me cameras and gear  that is clearly better than any competitive product or at least on par AND not more expensive.

Whiny, Bitchy, Angry and Self Entitled... +1, would laugh at again.

By the way, Canon has got their act together, it's just not the act you've deluded yourself into thinking you need.  Secondly, maybe if you had your crap together... then price wouldn't be an issue. I seriously doubt Canon's cameras are what's limiting your photography.


EOS Bodies / Re: Wild Bears prefer Canon
« on: May 22, 2012, 08:12:41 AM »
From the comments....

"The D4 only survived because it locked up and played dead."

Humor in the face of adversity, love it.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 70D & EOS 7D Mark II Speculation [CR1]
« on: May 22, 2012, 08:04:48 AM »
I'm not buying these specs. It isn't possible to have the autofocus from the full frame 5D III on an APS-C 7D II.

Good point.  Physically, it's probably possible, in that the 61-point AF sensor array fits within the APS-C frame (see below).  The side points go right to the edge of the frame, which sounds wonderful - but probably too good to be true, as vignetting and distortion will impact AF performance (one reason why there aren't AF points right to the edge of the frame!).

OK, so the sensor size of the D300(s) is slightly larger, but it doesn't seem to have caused too many problems for Nikon.

If they dropped the EF-S lens support for the 7D2... then vignetting and distortion shouldn't be any more of a problem for the AF than it is now on Canon's FF cameras. Alternatively, they could keep compatibility with EF-S lenses and disable the outermost AF points... to keep lens distortion from being an issue.

On another note, regarding the dual Digic 5 processors... I don't see it happening, I betting on a single Digic 5+. No need for the expense of dual processors when one will do the job just fine.


EOS Bodies / Re: Loss in Resale Value of 5D Mk3
« on: May 17, 2012, 10:54:58 AM »
Shouldnt Canon be somehow more responsible in this Light Leak issue - even if its not an major issue - they have made it a big enough issue by statements they have issued along with affected serial numbers. New buyers dont seem interested in purchasing any of the 1X or 2X serial models. So we early adopters have been penalized by what something Canon is totally responsible for. If you tried to resell your camera that you bought last month you may have already lost a couple of hundred dollars because of the light leak issue. Apart from setting the price of the new Mk3 out of the reach (esp when compared with the D800) they have now reduced our investment, and dont seem to care.

That's absolutely right, your 5D3 isn't worth the plastic and metal that it's made of, you'll never get close to full retail for your camera... you'd be lucky to get 1/100th, but I'll make you a deal I'll give you 1/50th if you send your 5d mark III to me within the week... as long as it's still fully functional.

What if my post about typos and inaccurate spec data had prompted several others to write in with incorrect info they had found on dxo?  What if dozens of others wrote in with similar obervations and examples?

The fact is, that could have happened, but didn't. 

But if it had, it would have proved very meaningful to share and discuss in a forum like this.

(And can you, can you imagine fifty people a day, I said fifty people a day walking in singin a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out.)

Maybe the problem is "that" wasn't your intention. Your intention, quite clearly, was to infer that a mistaken word in their translation, and the citing of ISO 100 instead of ISO 50 in the DxOMark review was reason to mistrust DxOLab's testing procedures. See quotes below...

All this from a group that supposedly is smart enough to perform all these sophisticated tests, with controls, and a disciplined process. 
they also got the specs wrong on the same line - the 5d3 is actually "expendable"(idiots) down to 50

As for it catching the errors on DxOMark, and sharing them here, why bother... when the best course of action would be to share them on the DxOMark forum, where the mods can actually see the issues being brought up about their articles and reviews, research them to find out if they actually are mistakes or not, and correct them if necessary.

I can tell you right now that if DxOLab's testing procedures were as worthless or as suspect as people like you, and some others on this forum, make them out to be... then the software they use that compiled data for, namely DxO Optics Pro, would be absolutely worthless... instead of the kickass software it is. You may disagree with their numbers and testing procedures, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating, as they say, and that is reflected in the ability of their software to maximize image quality for the Camera's and Lenses they have run through their testing procedures. If their tests weren't exceedingly accurate, their software would suffer horribly... something I don't think most of the people here complaining about DxO's testing procedures seem to grasp. If their testing is worthless... then their software would be too, that's obviously not the case.

Which isn't to say that their overall camera score isn't biased toward certain sensor attributes, just that the actual measurements from their testing has to be exceedingly accurate to generate the results DxO Optics Pro is capable of.


the information is their product.

It isn't. The "reviews" and "published results" are just a happy byproduct of the testing they do for their real business, their software business, and DxO Optics Pro is some kick ass software. They also create embedded software, silicon architectures and optical designs for still and video image real time processing, as well as image quality evaluation, measurement tools, and methodologies. To equate the fact that their web staff may accidentally confuse one english word for another on a site that is merely a free public service (that originates in french, no less), or that the tech writer who occasionally quotes the wrong number is somehow indicative of the quality of their science and engineering staff is laughable. If you were translating your view point into french, would you recognize the difference between "conneries" and a "connard" at a glance? It's like knowing the difference between your argument and yourself.


DxoMark.com is separate from the main DxO.com site. DxOMark isn't in the business of testing, that would be DxOLabs. If you think the lab techs are the ones writing the reviews... and plugging the information into the DxOMark site, you are wonderfully naive. Do you think the engineers at GM or Ford are wasting their time plugging in performance numbers on their companies respective websites, or that they double check the websites to make sure the published numbers matched what they tested on the bench, or that they personally make sure that the foreign GM/Ford sites are properly translated? Of course not. DxOLab's technicians have better things to do, and real work to accomplish, like making sure the data they collected translates into real world improvements in their software.

At the end of the day DxOMark is nothing more than a public forum and service that DxOLabs is under no real obligation to provide information to. The fact that they translate their pages as well as they do is amazing, and better than 99% of foreign sites I've visited. The fact is... accidentally getting a number wrong in a product review is pretty meaningless, they aren't selling the products they review, if they were... that would be a completely different matter.

Ever read an auto magazine? They are constantly doing tests, collecting data, etc. I often find that the written article will have at least one discrepancy from the data table. Does that make the people who review the cars idiots? Does that mean that we shouldn't trust them when they say that the 2012 Camaro out performs the 2012 Mustang, that it rides nicer and is more forgiving in corners? Of course not, and although the person writing the (car) article was probably present during the testing... he probably wasn't the one setting up the testing equipment or verifying the numbers. 

Jobs get delegated, if you're in the legal field, or advertising, sure, the wrong word or number might get you fired... as there is often a great deal of money riding on it. The same can't be said for DxOMark, which is just a free service that was born out of DxOLabs legitimate business, they have no need to strive for excellence in their web translations, their current incarnation is just fine, occasional errors and all.

they also got the specs wrong on the same line - the 5d3 is actually "expendable"(idiots) down to 50, they wrote "100" in their comparison.

The 5D3's ISO sensitivity for 50 and 100 is exactly the same (tested at an actual ISO 80). The raw files get flagged for Canon's software to process differently, but the way DxO tests the raw files there is probably no difference between the two. Canon software pulls it down a partial stop. Basically Canon's ISO 50 is a software cheat, so who gives a damn. In reality the 5D3 really does only go down to it's 100 setting, which is effectively ISO 80. Long story short, that quote of the 5D3 going down to ISO 100 could have been a mistake, or it could have been deliberate... since the raw files are identical except for some flagging that tells Canon's software how to process the "ISO 50" file.


EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Some 7D Punishment
« on: May 15, 2012, 05:27:17 AM »
If there was rust on his motherboard... he hasn't been drying/storing his equipment properly. DigitalRev completely submerged theirs... and it still worked after being dried out. 

Also, if you're working in the rain and your camera is getting wet and you get an error, you do not try to re-power your camera. Your Camera doesn't know that it's likely water causing the error, you as the photographer should have enough sense to figure that out. You power down the camera, remove the battery, towel dry the exterior and let it dry out. Putting your camera in a sealed storage box with Molecular Sieve packets is the best and probably quickest way to dry out your camera. An air-conditioned room, or a room with a dehumidifier running is also an option, but depending on how low you can drop the humidity level, it may take a few days to dry it out completely. Placing it in a brown paper bag then placing it in a tub of uncooked rice may also help draw out some excess moisture, if you don't have access to desiccant packets.

tl;dr - Point is, the guy with water damage to his 7D likely ruined it himself by trying to keep using it after getting an error, that he acknowledges was caused by the rain... without drying it out first.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10