September 23, 2014, 08:38:01 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 - preppyak

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 52
16
Lenses / Re: A New Pancake Lens? [CR1]
« on: August 25, 2014, 12:52:21 PM »
Can somebody explain the appeal to me? Not trying to start a flame war, just trying to understand.
I dont think they are intended to compete with the other primes...rather to serve a complementary purposed to larger kits.

For example, I have an 11-16mm, a 17-70mm, and a 55-250...all lenses I like and that aren't "heavy" per say. I had a 200mm f/2.8 as well at one point. I'd take them backpacking, I'd take them in my boat kayaking, etc. On longer trips, the extra 4-5lbs of those lenses adds up quickly. It weighs me down and takes energy away, making me less excited to do photography. It affects the performance of my boat and takes up a lot of space.

Now, make that just a 24mm and 60+mm pancake (especially combined with an SL1 or TXi camera), and suddenly my total kit weights about <2lbs, instead of say 7-8lbs. I can take it in a smaller dry box, which also means less weight. There's also physical limitations to those boxes...I might need a pancake to even fit it in a box that works for me.

Mostly, just compare a 60D w 35mm f/2 IS vs an SL1 with 40mm f/2.8. It's a BIG difference in size: http://camerasize.com/compact/#100.368,448.345,ha,t

And the tradeoffs are relatively small. No swivel screen, lower fps, less weather sealing, etc. But, for people that need portability, those tradeoffs are often much better than going mirrorless if you still do sports shooting.

17
Lenses / Re: Samyang 50mm F1.4... Anyone interested?
« on: August 25, 2014, 10:52:49 AM »
Well, if its priced in the $2-300 range, sure. They might have a slight advantage in that not many people love the canon 50mm f/1.4, but it goes pretty cheaply.

The other problem they have to compete with is, for mirrorless, they are an endless supply of legacy 50mm f/1.4 lenses for <$100 or so. I know I bought the FD 50mm for my GH2, so it forces their lens even further into a niche.

A 50mm f/1.2 would have been a big deal if they sold it in the same price range as Sigma sells their Art 35mm

18
It is the year of the lens . . .
To be fair, this is exactly what was said in that post

Quote
Firstly, a new worlds widest full frame zoom lens (nor sure what this could be), a wide angle zoom with IS (17-50 f/4L IS?), a new fast wide angle successor with “new technology” (35 f/1.4?). We can also expect two new tilt-shift lenses, a telephoto zoom successor (100-400?) as well as “budget high quality lenses”.

So, the 16-35 f/4L IS covers that first one (and a great lens it is), and the new 10-18 and 15-85 would cover the budget high quality lenses. Which would leave the 100-400 (possible for Photokina), and then the tilt shifts and new wide angle. Canon has end of this month, Octobober and November as usual announcement dates, so, there's still plenty of time.

That said, they kind of need to hit those lenses, as they went all of 2013 with no lens updates. Only getting out two wide-angles (to date) in a 2 year span is pretty soft, especially when they arent updating pro bodies either

19
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 22, 2014, 07:47:35 PM »
   
   65 AF points “All Cross-type”. Dual cross on the center point.

I like the 19 point system over the 45 point system.  Easier to actually identify a tracking point AND it makes you work.  I like cameras that reward you putting some work in.
Can't tell if this is serious or not. Both because the 19pts are contained within the 65pts (so you can opt not to use the extra 46), and because by that logic, you should really just want one focus point. Or a film camera...

Just seems odd to want all the video specs that don't really belong on a traditional DSLR (but would be great to have), yet scoff at the one reasonable spec

20
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 22, 2014, 04:52:21 PM »
There isn't a ton of hype about the 7DmkII in the video world, only because most people have given up on Canon outside of Magic Lantern hacks. But the hope is still that Canon will release the 7DmkII to match or at least come cose to the GH4 in video specs.
Yep, honest truth is that Canon has lost the low-budget indie video world a good 2+ years ago. Panasonic, BlackMagic, etc took it over, and I dont think Canon can realistically get it back. 1080/60 is something cameras had years ago, and unless the DPAF turns it into camcorder level AF, it wont win a lot of people.

Its funny, I remember the rumor coming out 2-3 years ago that "Canon thinks everything will be video in the future", thus their cine line, etc. Seems to me they just realized there is a ton of money to be made in the rental market, especially in the TV industry, and that money can't be made off the people that want a 5dIII with 4k for $1k.

21
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Samyang Teases New Lenses
« on: August 22, 2014, 04:46:17 PM »
Its been confirmed a bunch of places as 50mm f/1.2, so, that at least saves them the embarrassment of a lens that wont sell. Now, we'll see what the price is.

22
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Samyang Teases New Lenses
« on: August 20, 2014, 10:24:00 PM »
50mm f/2 would actually be pretty boring; I'm not even sure the VDSLR community would buy it. Their cine lenses are great for a collection, but I'd rather spend the $100-200 on a 50mm f/1.4 that's Canon FD or Nikon AI.

But based on this teaser, it's either a comically overly large 50mm f/2, or it's actually f/1.2

https://scontent-b-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/t1.0-9/10616519_768446066534647_5481792888875332563_n.jpg

23
Business of Photography/Videography / Re: Who owns the photo?
« on: August 12, 2014, 09:29:11 AM »
Consider a photography workshop led by a professional guide.  The guide sets up all the stops, times the trip to hit the indigenous ceremonies at the right time, makes sure all the students are standing at the right overlook at the right time of day for perfect light, then steps back and lets the students point-n-click.  By your reasoning, copyright of their photos would belong to the guide, not to the student who took the photo because all they did was play and click.
This is probably the most useful analogy I've seen; and it shows why "creating the conditions" is a pretty vague and useless criteria to use.  It matters who framed the shot (the monkey) and who snapped the photo (the monkey)...and that's pretty much it.

Arguments about who owns the equipment, who set up the creative conditions...they all lead down really slippery slopes that, as photographers, we shouldn't want to go down.

Whats funny is that Slater went out of his way to claim this was a selfie by the animal, and now he's trying to backtrack that story to assert copyright. You can't have it both ways

24
EOS Bodies / Re: A Bit of EOS 7D Replacement Info [CR2]
« on: August 11, 2014, 02:17:46 PM »
For a crop sensor? Who would pay that price?
Seriously, people would just by a 1DX at that price point.

Remember, the original 7D was nearly indestructible and had the build quality of the 1-series at the time, and it came out at $1699 retail. I think its far more likely that the 7DII comes in at <$2k, with the worst case being low-mid 2's.

25
Third Party Manufacturers / Another Nikon full-frame
« on: August 09, 2014, 10:23:30 PM »
Apparently the D610, Df, and D810 aren't enough in the $2-3000 range.

http://nikonrumors.com/2014/08/08/another-full-frame-nikon-dslr-camera-coming-for-phiotokina.aspx/

I gotta say, I'm glad Canon isn't getting into this silliness.

26
EOS-M / Re: Next official EF-M Lens
« on: August 09, 2014, 04:41:22 PM »
I do still believe that Canon will go mirrorless with their 'normal' SLR's (I expect the 7DII to be the first one -> hybrid VF, stunning video functions, many autofocus points etc.) and they will have an EF mount, otherwise they would kill themselves after building up a lens system for, I don't know, 40 years?! I wouldn't bet on the M system.
What is the point in going mirrorless and keeping the EF mount? I get the lens compatibility, but by keeping the EF mount, you basically limit the size of the camera to, at best, be the size of the SL1. Can't really make it smaller than that, and if you want more processing power (many point AF, etc), it'd have to be bigger.

So, if you're not gaining size, I'm not seeing the point in going mirrorless and EF mount.

Canon may end up making a mirrorless body with built-in speedbooster.
1. They would keep the EF mount and all FF lens support
2. No need for FF sensor, lower price, more sales, more profit
3. No more dust specks, no more sensor cleaning, just think about the level of weather sealing it could have 8)
This is an interesting concept, but, I have to imagine that technologically it'd be pretty complex. And, since those speedboosters all run in the $4-600 range, you're talking a big price addition to any body.

if they implemented that, it'd have to come in a prosumer or higher level body, as they wouldn't be able to price it <$1000 most likely.

27
Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8 vs 85mm 1.8
« on: August 08, 2014, 03:48:22 PM »
Don't agree with you on the usable aperture of 2.5.  It's the best lens I own and virtually never take it off 1.8 for professional portrait work - it's a belter of lens, I reckon by far the best bang for buck in the Canon line up.
Agreed, can't say I ever really use it above f/2.8, it stays pretty permanently in the f/1.8, f/2 range.


28
Business of Photography/Videography / Re: Who owns the photo?
« on: August 07, 2014, 09:45:42 PM »
Now, the other question might be just what exactly does that copyright protect? If the photograph has been widely circulated without any copyright designation, the photographer might be in a weak position to now claim copyright.
Yep, unless he has asserted his rights to other publications, it may not ultimately matter. Copyright partially relies on your willingness to defend it.

That said, if he does have the copyright to this photo, Wikipedia could be sued for quite a bit of money. They willingly subverted his copyright (multiple takedown requests, now articles on it), which carries a much heftier fine that unknowingly violating copyright.

Quote
And, finally, copyright is not an absolute bar to reproducing a creative work. There are exceptions for educational, critical and artistic uses. Might not apply in this case, but it can apply in others.
There's also the interesting argument that he created a derivative work (which he would own copyright to), and people are stealing that.

But, the act of cropping, color correcting, and rotating are probably not enough to make that claim

29
Business of Photography/Videography / Re: Who owns the photo?
« on: August 07, 2014, 09:41:10 PM »
We may argue whether the monkey or the photographer are the author of the photo, but since the monkey has no will of creative production, nor it can legally hold copyright, the creative action of setting up the environment makes the copyright belong to the photographer.
I agree with all of your other conclusions except this one, and it depends greatly on how a court would interpret Slater's intent. If he intended to get those shots, then yes, he would own copyright. If they believe he didn't intend and it was sheer luck, then nobody would own the copyright, and Wikimedia would be right in claiming them public domain. If he had set up the camera on a tripod knowing the monkeys would go to it and take photos, then he'd have a reasonable claim. But that doesn't sound like its the case

Obviously a monkey cant own a copyright, but, that doesnt mean the copyright goes to the next in line. As there was no contract, and possibly no creative intent, its quite possible nobody owns the photo

30
Lenses / Re: New Canon L Primes, but Not Until 2015 [CR2)
« on: July 29, 2014, 11:08:07 PM »
I'd love it if they updated the 28–135 to be a 24–135, to be the full-frame equivalent for the 15–85.
Thing is, they'd have to sunset the 24-105 lens at that point...which is something they seem hesitant to do. I certainly can't see them even imagining starting a new, cheap kit lens product line when they have a successful one already, and backlogs on lenses that need updates.

Likewise for anything like the 28-200/28-300. Just too hard to get it down to a reasonable price that people will buy it, knowing it inherently has IQ and performance trade-offs

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 52