August 23, 2014, 04:24:08 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 - Maui5150

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 24
Canon General / Re: Canon Says No to Retro Design for Them
« on: February 20, 2014, 09:18:00 PM »
DP recently ran an interview with Nikon exects.
They were amazed at the Df's popularity, but
also mentioned the decline of sales both for
p&s as well as DSLR's.

That made me think that people might
be attracted to retro designs like the Df
because it looks like a safe investment.
Possibly it reminds people of those great
cameras of the 70's and 80's they still
value so highly?

Personally, I think Canon is making the
right choice.  For one thing, Canon changed
its lens mount and everyone would laugh
if their retro design did not offer compatibility
with those earlier lenses and I agree.

I would chock it up to the posers... i.e. the people that bought the DF are casual users who bought it to look cool.

They will grow tired of it.

They will go back to their iPhones and Instagram as their main photo outlets...

They will not INVEST in lenses...

In the end, probably far more will be turned off to the Nikon brand, because they will remember the $3K paperweight.

I like Canon's model better, though I would like a high MP and some fresh lenses

High end glass on mid level body, generally will trump mid level glass on a high end body. 

Caveats are when you go to extremes, ISO, AF, FPS.

Pocketwizard Flex TT5s.

Took me a while to nail the set-up but was able to fire a camera in my hand, trigger a remote camera and sync the strobes to have them all go off at the right time

Like anything else, scarcity is your friend.

1st, you have to create a name for yourself.  I remember going through the Met in NYC with Digital Artist Laurence Gartel a while back and if one thing was apparent, to me at least, the last of art in today's culture is staggering.  You had all the contemporary and modern art like the Jackson Pollock splatter or white on white polar bear in a snow storm, then you go in to the earlier exhibits and was amazed... a piece of armor with 10,000 fleur de lis, gorgeous carved chest, even the silverware was ornate... My general impression was not only the craftsmanship, but the beauty in even the most utilitarian things.  As well as there was a TON of crap.  Some of the exhibits were things that I could easily do, as well as I remember one paper mache statue that looked like a bad art project out of 4th grade... The most basic truth when it comes to today's art... you need a patron.  A patron needs to like you, like your work and have money.  The museums for the most part are whores and while some pieces are true classic, a great many are ghastly, and there because a patron paid for it to be there.  Money talks.  If you have to lose all dignity and bruise your knees, then by all means, degrade yourself in the deepest levels, get that wealthy patron, and you too can be in a museum.

Now that you have your "name" you start creating limited editions.  Whether it is digital or film, you state how many prints of what size your will produce and that is the limit. 

Here is an example of the drivel many espouse:

To focus on flow, you must shift the emphasis of your thought processes. Pollock reveals the artistic process as the essence of  creation, not the product, or finished painting. Process is action, and product is passive. Looking at a painting close up, this is what you see in Pollock, the creative process captured, still alive with movement, texture, and color. You are not looking at a painting, you are looking at painting.


In the end, it is the PERCEPTION of your work that creates value... Nothing more... nothing less.

If you want it... Really really want it... Degrade yourself... degrade yourself to the lowest levels and you will find someone who will pimp and whore your out and create a name for you.  It is a self-fulfilling prophecy perhaps as well.  In the end you might become the angst-ridden tortured artist who actual produces something worthwhile. 

Cindy Sherman's untitled 153 and untitled 96 are MEH in my eyes, but there is $6.6 million dollars of sales between the two of them that would disagree.

As far as Gursky?  I think the Windows XP background was more interesting.

Art is after all in the eye of the beholder.

Reviews / Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« on: February 09, 2014, 06:56:03 AM »
Which all really boils down to people beat up on DxO here because it doesn't make them feel good about the equipment they've bought.

No.  I bash DxO because their numbers are MEANINGLESS.

Just because their are "formulas" and "calculations" does not mean the measurements are either accurate or correct.  As an example I can come up with a formula that uses a standard IQ test, but some of the questions deal with color, so a colorblind person will always be handicapped and measured low.  Has nothing to do with their intelligence, but does show that as a whole the numbers are really meaningless.

As an example... Which is a better Camera - Nikon D600 or Nikon D4?

Which is better?  Sony Cybershot DSC-RX1 or Nikon D3X?

Nikon D5200 of Nikon D3S?

So remember... In terms of Raw performance...

If you bought a Nikon D4 when you could have bought a D600, you are an idiot
If you are a pro and still using the lousy D3X when you could be using a Cybershot DSC-RX1, you are a fool
Have a D3S instead of D5200?  TOOL!

Afterall... That is what DXO said are better sensors.  Which are actual better cameras?

Nikon D600 or Canon 1Dx???

And sorry... I have used both of those, and the 1Dx is 10x the camera the D600 is in what it can produce, though DXO tries to say the D600 has a sensor that is 15% better than the 1DX.

Again, just because there is a test, does not mean it is relevant... I can come up with a benchmark that says the Kia Optima and Ford Fusion are 40% better than the Lamborghini in engine performance based on fuel efficiency... Which do you want in a race? 

So tell you what - If you think DXO Mark numbers are so relevant - go out to Fashion Week in NY and find the Pro photographers... you know... the ones making the serious big bucks and try and trade them their D4, D3X etc for a D600 and show them the DXO marks and tell them how much better the sensor is in Raw Performance and see what they say.  Better yet,video it and post it. 

Lenses / Re: Patent: Canon EF 70-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS
« on: February 04, 2014, 11:21:20 AM »
The 24-105 is still one of the best ranges I have found.  I love the 24-70 but have had a lot of times when I shoot events I wish I had more length amd when I shoot the 70-200 want to go wider.  IQ is not the same as these two beasts, but as a kit lens, it is pretty solid. 

Regarding Canon going longer, Maybe I would have preferred even a 150-500, but I think what Canon sees is even though the 100-400 is so old, it still sells and is still out there, and that while many want longer, a 70-400 has a larger market range than a 150-500 and my guess is the IQ and amount of glass starts becoming a factor so easier for them to go wider than go longer. 

I have been looking in this range for a LONG time.  Covet the 200-400 but that is a dream lens.  If the 100-400 was F/4 I would probably have picked it up, as a variable... think it is just off for what I want and still want more length.  The Bigma has tempted me, but never enough to bite. 

Also depends.  If the 70-400 delivers the IQ of the 70-300 than probably still enough to pay more than lose the extra reach of the Tamron, which to me is more of a 150-500 with some extra might be so-so for the last 100

Lenses / Re: Patent: Canon EF 70-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS
« on: February 04, 2014, 07:58:46 AM »
This particular patent says 240mm lens length (right?) so that puts it a tad shorter than the 400mm/5.6.
And way longer than the nice 70-200 collapsed size if that's the case.

The 70-200L is 200mm (internal zoom), and this is on the very edge of portable ... the 70-300L is only 143mm collapsed.

This puts this new patent in another class entirely, and thus the zoom range is a bit bit strange - who would want to use this @70mm except for dedicated usage cases when very high flexibility is required? The difference between ~300 and 390 isn't that large w/o tc, so if I were to use this instead of the 70-300L the new lens would have to have terrific iq ... which also means very high weight & price.

I can see many applications, especially in sports and action.  I shot a lot with the 300 F/2.8 IS II last year, and definitely was aching for some extra reach.

The 70 - 300 has been tempting, but my 70-200 F/2.8 IS II I think has slightly better IQ, not to mention a lot faster, so have a hard time justifying dropping $1500 for just having 100 extra MM

Now the 200-400... Car or lens... Car or Lens...

So for the 70-400 with the same aperture range as the old 100-400?  I only stayed away from the 100-400 because I heard it was a dust sucker, have used it/rented it twice and it was decent,  but the 300-400 range can be very convenient, especially when you don't have to swing / switch bodies as object gets closer. 

If the 70-400 has the slightly better IQ and better sealing, and no more push/pull I think it is a decent upgrade.

I still will likely pull the trigger on the Tamron because of price, and for what I have seen the IQ is decent.  Even if the 600 really needs F/8 or F/11, I figure getting upwards of 500mm for that price still is a bargain, and makes a nice compliment of 70-200 on one body and 150-600 on a second. 

My biggest question is why?

Now if the new JPG format will give me ALL the RAW data I have in half the space... then maybe I might be interested.

Until then I work with Raw, export to what ever format I need on the production end and have no worries.

If anything, I like the fact that I can give models or companies "proof" files that are JPG and they can not just blow them up, print them etc and have the same quality I have with that being processed off my RAW file.

Seems to me they are coming up with a 1536x864 as a Video Format.... Hey... We have DVD+... It is cool.  It has more data and better image than DVD.

Ummm... But I already have Blu Ray... Does this hold more data or better resolution than Blu Ray?

No.  But it is cool... It is better than DVD!

{Cue Crickets}

Canon General / Re: Why Scott Kelby Switched to Canon
« on: January 21, 2014, 12:26:03 PM »

Based on DXO tests (i.e. "on paper"), no, the 1D X high ISO is theoretically the same as the D4. However, from a visual standpoint, I've seen ISO 16000 images and even some ISO 51200 sports images from a 1D X that simply blow me away...similar images from the D4 just don't engender the same feeling of low noise and clean quality.

That is because the DXO tests are CRAP.  What a "sensor" rating is versus the pictures produced and the capabilities of the bodies are two VERY different things

Which would your want - Nikon D600 or Nikon D4 as a pro camera... According to DXO marks, the "sensor" on the D600 is close to 10% better than the D4.

Lenses / Re: 24-70mm or 70-200mm for full lenght portrait?
« on: January 21, 2014, 11:43:11 AM »
There are several factors.

Perspective and feel are definitely a factor.  Best way to explain it, if you don't have the lenses is shoot same person / set up with both.  I tend to like the 70 - 200 as more flattering to most people.  More importantly with full length is understanding what height to shoot, especially women. 

How much space do you have?  Sometimes a 70-200 you have to be too far back to get full length, other times you need to crop on a 70-200.   When I shoot in one of the studio locations I use, if I am using one wall on the long side, not a prob using the 70-200... If I use the short wall, no choice have to go 24-70 to frame the picture the way I want.

And most important, and not mentioned here yet I don't think, how much communication / direction do you need to give?  There is a much different experience directing, communicating and posing when shooting with a 70-200 compared to a 24-70 because of distance.  This can also be what your shooting style is... If you are used to talking and shooting at the same time, can be awkward over that distance and with a camera between you and the subject.  Not as bad with the 24-70 and you are closer, but definitely different with the 70-200

Lenses / Re: Canon 300mm f4 L lens for sports photography?
« on: January 21, 2014, 11:33:35 AM »
On the side I am saving up for a Canon 7D.

Why?  Hopefully only as a backup to your 5DIII.  The only reason I can see to choose a 7D over a 5DIII is if the latter is broken.

Reach is another... So the 300 becomes a 480

I still like the 5DIII but some like the crop sensor for length

EOS Bodies / Re: 1DX Replacement
« on: January 21, 2014, 11:31:26 AM »
All of which probably means a new 1-series body will be announced tomorrow, to spite me.   :P

It was announced yesterday... Guess  you missed it

EOS Bodies / Re: New EOS-1 in 2014 [CR1]
« on: November 20, 2013, 08:19:11 AM »
So high megapixel?  For Canon that means what?  24MP  Might be pushing it... Prob closer to 23.8MP

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: iPhone Photography Course Instructor..?
« on: September 16, 2013, 01:37:20 PM »
CreativeLive just had an iPhone Photo course last week

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 24