April 17, 2014, 02:42:09 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 - Meh

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 46
16
Lenses / Re: 50mm Primes that don't suck wide open?
« on: July 11, 2013, 02:49:26 PM »
Do I even need a 50?

Need?  No.  But want, yes!

17
Canon General / Re: CPS Canada Shipping
« on: July 08, 2013, 03:53:48 PM »
Had the same thoughts the first time I sent a lens into CPS Canada.  The logic (if it is logical) is that equipment being sent in for repair or service are already damaged or at the very least used and the condition is unknown.  If one could purchase insurance then people could send damaged equipment in for a "cleaning" and then claim the damage was caused during shipping.

18
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to select ISO (tutorial)
« on: July 08, 2013, 12:37:38 PM »
Doesn't the jagged performance shown in
http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Charts/RN_ADU.htm
mean that, for the 7D, the base is 100, 125 is pushed from 100, and 160 is pulled from 200?


What it means, as indicated in the notes to the chart, is that there may be a separate amplifier for intermediate ISO values.  That separate amplifier (and where it is in the read-out process, if it's analog or digital, etc.) would appear to add more noise to the signal.  A question we might ponder is why add a separate amplifier if it adds more noise... the answer, of course, is complexity and cost or possibly Canon engineers were just behind but the improvements are in the 1DX so we'll see that trickle down.  The bottom line is that the noise performance is so good now that these differences are negligible except in low-light shooting as others have pointed out.

19
Software & Accessories / Re: Alternative CC idea
« on: June 23, 2013, 11:16:57 AM »
Unfortunately, no matter how low of a monthly fee you suggest you will never convince the contingent of users who refuse to accept "renting" software.  You see, they believe that they "owned" the software when they bought in the past and could use it forever and ever and ever to infinity and beyond.  They feel that "Adobe owns you" once you sign up to a subscription model because if you ever stop paying you can't access your old PSD files.  And they also fear that once everyone accepts the subscription model Adobe will jack up the prices on us.

NO - what I propose if you lay out $700 for PS, you own a perpetual license.  You pay a monthly support fee rather than an annual or 18 month upgrade fee.  You can stop paying and keep using the s/w just to be back on the support service you need to pay missed months (either in full if short term or at discount if longer).

YES - all the complainers already own CS5/6 and don't want to pay a single dime on a monthly basis until such time as Adobe releases a new version that has new features/improvements that they deem worthy of their dollahs.  Your suggestion is a noble attempt at finding a middle ground but it still means that one has to keep paying monthly to get bug fixes, updates to Camera Raw for new bodies, etc.   

And it wouldn't work for Adobe anyway because everyone would just suspend their monthly account once they felt they had a version that was updated and "working for them".  They wouldn't turn it back on for 12-18-24-36 months when they needed an update.  Under your proposal, the fee they would pay to "catch up" would be less than what Adobe was charging for full version upgrades  (for example $10/month x 18 months x 80% = $144 < $199) so Adobe is worse off.

20
Software & Accessories / Re: Alternative CC idea
« on: June 22, 2013, 09:17:37 PM »
Unfortunately, no matter how low of a monthly fee you suggest you will never convince the contingent of users who refuse to accept "renting" software.  You see, they believe that they "owned" the software when they bought in the past and could use it forever and ever and ever to infinity and beyond.  They feel that "Adobe owns you" once you sign up to a subscription model because if you ever stop paying you can't access your old PSD files.  And they also fear that once everyone accepts the subscription model Adobe will jack up the prices on us.

21
My copy of the upgrade is downloading right now.  I've been using the beta, the two big differences, the straighten tool and the radial filter are worth it to me.

Ditto.... 92%, 95%, 99%.... Extracting!

22
Lenses / Re: Is the 16-35 L II worth its price?
« on: June 05, 2013, 11:24:51 PM »
Yes, it is worth every penny.  Fair comment above though that if you're only shooting stopped down anyway the 17-40 is cheaper.

23
The fun thing about our legal system is that anyone can do anything they want and your recourse is to sue them and that takes a lot of money and time with an uncertain outcome.

The fun thing about the legal system where I live, is that (in this case) Canon must show monetary loss due to 3rd party firmware before they can sue.

That's generally true in most jursidictions... if you are suing for damages you must prove the damages.  However, if there is any law, or interpretation thereof, that might disallow a third party from hacking their code they could seek an injunction without claiming damages.  And yes, it is fun :)

24
Sounds like CRguy's reference to 1-series bodies is a separate communication from this one.  Also, it seems unlikely that ML would state, "The 1-series and Cinema bodies are out of our project scope because we're afraid Canon will sue our pants off if we touch them." (In fact, both reasons are probably true for ML.)

I think I'm missing something here. From the original post it is apparent that Canon doesn't have a problem with ML being run on its Cameras ... why would Canon sue if only for the EOS-1 cameras and not the others? After all, a hack is a hack.

A hack to the 5DIII adds features without hurting Canon's bottom line.  A hacked 1D X that functions as a 1D C...Canon doesn't want.

Fair point.  The release of the 1DC opens up a nice little market for a firmware hack.   Still a tiny market though compared to 5D2/3 bodies used for video.... so maybe not worth getting into a battle with Canon.

25


Therefore Canon's response is quite correct and honest.  If you install ML and the use of ML damages your camera, they don't have to cover.  But if ML is not the cause of the damage, they must honor the warranty.



+1

One thing I don't understand about the post: what does it mean that "only Canon is OK" with that? Other companies will refuse to even touch your camera if you installed a 3rd-party firmware - even if it has nothing to do with the damage?

They probably can take that position but not formally say "your warranty is voided".  Never underestimate the cleverness of people who want to take a self-serving position on an issue.  They could simply claim that part of their service process is to run diagnostic software and any unauthorised firmware would interfere.... blah blah blah.

The fun thing about our legal system is that anyone can do anything they want and your recourse is to sue them and that takes a lot of money and time with an uncertain outcome.   And referring back to my above point about being "clever for self-serving purposes", lawyers are the worst of the bunch.

The saving grace is that if you did sue them they would settle very quickly rather than spend the money defending and risk getting a ruling that they must change their policy.  If they settle with you and fix your camera/car/whatever they can keep on taking the same position with other customers and just deal with the few who scream the loudest.

26
From a legal perspective, nothing can ever "void" the warranty on a product per se.  However, this seems to be a commonly stated issue for many products.  For example, car dealerships often tell customers that if they don't perform the standard service work their warranty will be voided.  Absolutely untrue.   The warranty is a legal contract and can not be voided.  What is true, is that if damage is caused by user negligence the manufacturer can refuse to cover said damage.  So, continuing the car example, if you don't change your oil and the engine seizes because the oil has turned to equal parts syrup and sludge, they can refuse to cover the repair.

Therefore Canon's response is quite correct and honest.  If you install ML and the use of ML damages your camera, they don't have to cover.  But if ML is not the cause of the damage, they must honor the warranty.

As for Canon threatening legal action only for firmware hacks on a 1-series but not on other bodies that seems strange.   I seriously doubt that's their official position.  If ML is not supporting 1-series bodies it is far more likely that they just didn't want to put the work into writing code for 1-series bodies when for video the 5D2/3 is the much bigger market.

27
Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Creative Cloud - Adobe Owns you!
« on: May 23, 2013, 01:48:28 AM »
Meh,

To my knowledge, I have yet to insult your intelligence, but I do see your point. We all need to go back to being friends. I can potentially see the value in the new model and yet it is no where close to being as valuable to me as I'm sure the Adobe crew has hoped. For my business, this simply is not my cup of tea. I am certainly glad that you and others have shown your support for their product as I believe it is easier to push against the new format than it is to defend it. I, for one, simply hope that we can all get what we desire whether it is a box, digital download, or subscription plan. If that were to happen, I think the rough seas would settle. I'm not holding my breath for that to occur, but we can certainly all have our dreams.

-Tabor

No worries, I was not referring to anything you said... it has been said by others in several different ways, some subtle and some direct, that Adobe must think customers' are stupid to think this subscription model is a good idea.  I'm not quoting anyone directly.

I think you're right that Adobe will not back down and offer boxed versions.  They've made a pretty substantial business decision and did so only after seeing the success of the subscription model over the past year.  Yet they are going to keep selling CS6 for a while and that shows they were sensitive to the issue before they announced CCl.  What they might do to appease the folks that don't like the CC model is support CS6 longer and they might reduce the pricing for single applications or offer a PS+LR package since that is the combo most photographers use.

28
Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Creative Cloud - Adobe Owns you!
« on: May 23, 2013, 12:55:43 AM »
Seriously though, I too am known to be a bit facetious at time, but this is a serious issue facing photographers, and forums like this help us discuss and even put our thoughts into words for the world to hear.

It is, but let's have the discussion without any disrespect to anyone and not even towards Adobe.  If you want to make your case to them it's best done respectfully and with an open mind.

Even something as simple as saying Adobe is insulting customer's intelligence is an insult to anyone who likes their new model...  if I happen to like it then I must have limited intelligence.  That may seem overly sensitive but it's not... if you want me to listen to and respect your opinions then shouldn't you do the same.  If I and 500,000 other people are signed up and paying for CC then perhaps there is some value in it, unless we are all just stupid minions.

Some of you are furious about the pricing, the fact that you don't "own" the software (you never did anyway), the fact that it checks in once a month to confirm the license, etc. etc. and those are valid concerns.  But let's say PS was only $5 per month... would all the other issues be acceptable or tolerable?  If so, then this is just a pricing issue.

Someone said that 20,000 people have signed the petition... 20k is a big number but it's less than 5% of the people who have signed up (assuming Adobe is being honest about that number, which they probably are since it would be a disclosure item in the financial audit).  Those 20,000 people are not wrong, they may genuinely not like the new model, but neither are the people who like the new model.

29
Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Creative Cloud - Adobe Owns you!
« on: May 23, 2013, 12:24:55 AM »
I'm sorry for causing you upset and I agree the first post that had that reference probably crossed the line
As i said i find the extreme group offensive too and hence drawing the parallel as I do find Adobes actions seriously offensive. Perhaps I was a bit flipant with that usage.

However the replacement post had nothing even remotely along this line the most severe word i used in that was "dictatorial" which is a significant step down. I also mentioned that I felt the Adobe net minions roaming the web were treating their customers intelligence with disrespect. I am genuinely at a loss as to why the replacement post would be removed except that it's sensorship (or thought police as unfocused put it) which ironically enough is moving closer to the previously mentioned extreme groups tactics of simply removing any vocal opposition.

All of yours and my posts in that exchange were deleted I presume because they were connected.

This is just me, but I don't like the name calling even if it's directed at a faceless corporation because it taints the whole discussion.  If you don't like their new model just say so and say what you don't like.  Why compare them, or anyone, to anything at all.  The one thing I have little patience for on this site (and to be fair, the CR members are quite good compared to other forums) is personal attacks, insults, hate, bullying, etc.

30
Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Creative Cloud - Adobe Owns you!
« on: May 22, 2013, 11:18:44 PM »
WTF? my posts were deleted AGAIN!

There was nothing wrong with the second lot (there was no reference to fascists or nazis)

oh except I wasn't gushing over how I love the new Adobe subscription model
please this level of sensorship is retarded cant he mod that removed my posts
please PM me with a reasonable reason why?

seriously is Adobe paying CR to crush the negative feedback or what?
 ::)

Not sure what "second lot" you're referring to but the post you made last night deserved to be deleted and if I was the mod I would have banned you from the site.

Seriously? thats a bit extreme
I find fascists offensive too hence the reason i refered to Adobe as such

I found your post offensive.  Your posts are often edgy and blunt but not offensive, they sometime make me chuckle just a little bit and that brightens my day.  But your comment last night was out of place and unnecessarily associated Adobe with the behavior of a very extreme group.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 46