March 04, 2015, 07:28:44 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 - AvTvM

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 88
1
Lenses / Re: Canon ef-s 17-55mm 2.8 is usm GONE
« on: March 03, 2015, 02:40:21 AM »
EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS was the main reason I stayed with Canon and did not switch to Nikon when the D300 came along, while the 7D was not around yet. Back then and still today Nikon only has one constant aperture f/2.8 DX zoom ... back the clunky, heavy mediocre optical performance, 17-55/2.8 without VR in it, at a ridiculously high price. Nikon never updated it and the rest of their DX lens lineup is second rate to Canon.

I started out with a 350D plus crappy 18-55 (first version!), next got the EF 28-135 (poor), then Tamron 28-75/2.8 (optically good, but not wide enough), then Tamron 17-50/2.8 (very good, but no IS and zoomring turned the wrong direction, which i hate), then finally the 17-55 came. Expensive then, but wirth every cent to me. Excellent IQ, good IS, extremely fast Ring USM AF drive ... except for weathersealing a real "hidden L" lens. It was the most used lens on my 40D and on my 7D for 6 years. It helped me capturing countless family events, weddings, children at home, at play, at various sports, outdoors, indoors, in poor light, without and with strobes - did i mention how much i like fixed aperture f/2.8 zooms? Street shots, concerts, cities, travel, urbex expeditions, men at work on wintery airports de-icing planes? That EF-S 17-55 did it all and did it well, without fail. It delivered crisp, sharp images, faithful color, hardly any CA, and little, easy to correct distortions. My copy collected very little dust (pun) inside and out.  I really loved that lens and was rather sad having to sell it recently for as little as € 420.

It is by far the best and most useful EF-S lens. Along with the excellent and underrated 60/2.8 Macro (unless one wants to capture moving critters and needs more working distance) and the EF-S 10-22 (which I had only wished to be constant f/4).

I do not believe Canon will drop the 17-55. could the further improve it? Sure! A 16-80/2.8 with further improved optics and a latest generation 4+ stop IS would be fantastic. I don't think it will ever come though. APS-C DSLRs are on their last leg now and will be replaced by Mirrorless bodies and native new EF-M lenses.

Looking forward to seeing a stellar EF-M 16-80/2.8 IS STM - with mirrorless hybrid AF systems STM is the best suited AF drive - and an equally good Canon EOS M1 "Pro" camera.

Until then i'll continue with the "lowly and dark but nicely sharp" EF-M 15-55 IS STM in the EOS M. And the 24-70 II on my 5D3. But ... both combinations are not as versatile as that mighty EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS was.


2
Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming March 9
« on: February 25, 2015, 12:24:54 PM »
I see the combined needs of all photographer users still as a comparatively small subset of the full PS gamut.

How do you figure that?  The only parts of PS that seem truly unrelated to the "photographer" would be the press-related components, e.g. CMYK support.  Even compositing is used (in legitimate ways) by many photographers these days.  Can you provide some examples of features of PS that photographers definitely don't need?

Any image where you start from a blank canvas (instead of photographic capture/s) and all steps involved to create them. Don't ask me what those are in detail, i've never done it. But the graphics experts i know all contend it is quite a bit. :-)

3
Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming March 9
« on: February 25, 2015, 11:49:07 AM »
I see the combined needs of all photographer users still as a comparatively small subset of the full PS gamut.
And yes, for my needs LR5 and now LR6 covers pretty much everything i want. All i said, was it took adobe a long time and 6 releases to get to this point. They could have delivered it much earlier - already in LR 2 or 3 - but did not, just to "protect PS sales".




4
I don't feel the need for more pixels, but wouldn't want less; and I use my video camera for capturing video so I don't need 4k video.

As far as I understand it, the attractiveness of 4k for still shooters is grabbing hi-res frames off the sensor w/o the need to move the mirror. How about 120fps 8mp raw shooting to capture the moment?

Sounds like a nightmare to me to sort out all those captures  afterwards. I rarely spray and pray. And even then 5-6 fps are plenty for my usage. 

5
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: A Suggestion on the EOS-1D C Replacement
« on: February 25, 2015, 01:06:07 AM »
Canon should just put these features in the 5D4. It would sell more 5D4s than splitting the line again for a camera I won't buy solely for 4K but also won't upgrade to a 5D4 because it lacks 4k.

From a marketing point of view, offering more product variants typically sells more units and brings greater sales revenue than just offering one. I am quite certain that Sony sells more A7 cameras by offering 4 variants for different primary uses compared to offering only one expensive "all in" camera.

6
Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming March 9
« on: February 25, 2015, 12:55:45 AM »
Maybe i was a bit unclear at first. I do not want LR to be everything that PS is. I kust want it to be everything a photographer needs. Lightroom = complete software package for photographers, PS = package for graphics and other imaging users. I was bemoaning the long time it took until adobe is finally approaching this state with LR 6. only now adding HDR capability to LR for example.
Re. Canvas extension I don't know whether those proprietary raw file format(s) would allow for it or not. I do not want to convert raws to tiff or psd file format, but keep them as CR2s. The real issue here might be all those different raw formats, instead of one universal, open, powerful "super raw" format. And no, DNG does not look like it's the right solution. Otherwise everybody would already be using it.


It is about high time that with release 6.0 Adobe hopefully delivers a stand-alone Lightroom, that makes it unnecessary for photographers to use PS or any other PP software in addition to LR. I have been waiting a rather long time for exactly such a COMPLETE PP software FOR STILLS PHOTOGRAPHERS.   :)

How is it not already?  Because it can't do layers?  Or pixel-level editing?  You're not asking for a standalone photo editor, which LR is, you just want Lightroom to be Photoshop, which it isn't.  LR5 already bridged the gap far more than I expected them to with the changes to the healing brush and localized editing.  If you want to edit pixels then you need Photoshop.  If you want to composite you need photoshop.  But Lightroom is more than capable to do all the "developing" of a traditional stills photographer, and much much more.

7
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: I just want a stills camera.
« on: February 24, 2015, 12:53:36 AM »
A camera without unnecessary holes in its shell for mic, speakers, video-only connectors would be better and cheaper to weatherseal. Those holes are additional video-induced compromises and weaknesses compared to what a pure stills machine would be. And never ever used by the makority of people purchasing these cameras. Stills only, no real video use is not a minority for Dslr users, but a massive majority.

8
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: A Suggestion on the EOS-1D C Replacement
« on: February 23, 2015, 06:08:22 PM »
Please explain to me why somebody seriously interested in video / "demands" 4k video would want to mess with a DSLR when a truly video-optimized MILC like a A7s or a GH4 cost as little as 2000.

So I don't have to carry two different things, with two different sets of lenses and accessories, to do both functions.

Why should this be in a DSLR rather than in a mirrorless camera that is more suitable for video stuff from its very construction proiciple? And why should the combined functionality ("convergence") come free of charge?

Asking for a dslr with 4k video is like asking for a big SUV that is also capable to reach 250km/h on the german autobahn. It exists, e.g. a Porsche Cayenne ... You can buy it. But it costs ... a little extra.


9
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: A Suggestion on the EOS-1D C Replacement
« on: February 23, 2015, 05:06:38 PM »
Please explain to me why somebody seriously interested in video / "demands" 4k video would want to mess with a DSLR when a truly video-optimized MILC like a A7s or a GH4 cost as little as 2000.

It is really easy:
Those who only want stills get a 5D IV without video at a very decent price.
Those who want both hi-end video capture and stills pay more for a 5D C.
No need for anybody to buy 2 bodirs just to cover stills and video.
But ni more free-riding for those clamoring for 4k video to record their cats and dogs farting in every DSLR. You want video in addition to atills in a camera zype that is ill-suited to capture an image stream since a flapping mirror needs to get out of the light path ... You pay extra. So fair, so good. Should have been like that all along.

Sony is quite successful with that approach in their A7 series. More or less resolution, more or less video capabilities. Take your choice and pay for it. a7s is more expensive than A7, A7 II and A7R.
The more multifunctional, the higher the price. Rightfully so.

The flapping mirror doesn't get in the way. It is lifted and the camera turns into a MILC when video is being shot. Granted, a OFV screws things up a bit relative to true MILCs, but since most users would probably be monitoring the LCD anyway, it should not be too big of a problem provided that video friendly tools are incorporated. It is not as though Canon don't know how to do that, since effective video tools are incorporated into their camcorders.

10
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: I just want a stills camera.
« on: February 23, 2015, 04:54:23 PM »
As a macro shooter I can't do without Live View so I guess I'm glad the video is there!

Live view video stream for a svga lcd (at best) for short durations at a time is quite a low requirement  compared to 4k video capture for up to 29 minutes duration.

The entire camera, sensor, thermal concept, d/a components, electronics, heat sinks, codecs, firmware, menus etc. is different and more complex than a pure stills capture photo camera - even with live view.

11
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: A Suggestion on the EOS-1D C Replacement
« on: February 23, 2015, 04:43:24 PM »
It is really easy:
Those who only want stills get a 5D IV without video at a very decent price.
Those who want both hi-end video capture and stills pay more for a 5D C.
No need for anybody to buy 2 bodirs just to cover stills and video.
But ni more free-riding for those clamoring for 4k video to record their cats and dogs farting in every DSLR. You want video in addition to atills in a camera zype that is ill-suited to capture an image stream since a flapping mirror needs to get out of the light path ... You pay extra. So fair, so good. Should have been like that all along.

Sony is quite successful with that approach in their A7 series. More or less resolution, more or less video capabilities. Take your choice and pay for it. a7s is more expensive than A7, A7 II and A7R.
The more multifunctional, the higher the price. Rightfully so.

12
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: A Suggestion on the EOS-1D C Replacement [CR1]
« on: February 23, 2015, 12:30:48 PM »
YES! Just LOVE the idea of such a model split. Canon should bring a stills optimized 5D IV for the conservative, stills-only mirrorslapper crowd. And all those yelling for 4k in every DLSR should be asked to put their wallet where their mouth is and shell out a couple 100 or 1000 more for a "video-optimized" 4k video 5D C.

And for me please a EOS M5 mirrorless FF camera with all the capabilities of the 5D IV in a smaller, lighter package without mirror and without video out. 8)

13
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: I just want a stills camera.
« on: February 23, 2015, 12:26:11 PM »
The Nikon DF is a FAIL due to it's fugly retro design and its even uglier and half-assed pseudo-retro USER INTERFACE, combined with the fact that it was build on the basis of the consumer-grade D600 instead of taking a D800 as base model. Plus of course the price tag Nikon put on it.

Had Nikon truly made the Nikon DF a "pure stills only camera" as suggested in their fabulous teaser campaign for it, and priced it sensibly - either D800 body (minus video capture) and D4s sensor in it at the Df price tag or D600 body plus D4 sensor at a significantly lower price tag, it would have been a total home run for Nikon. But, they missed it.

I have not ever recorded a single minute of video with any of all my video enabled DSLRs (and mirrorless cameras). And I won't ever, because I lack any skills as movie maker/cinematograph/director and it takes me more than enough time just to PP my stills images. Can't even imagine starting to edit videos or putting suitable sound in them.

I know A LOT of other people with DSLRs, MILC, compact cams, smartphones and tablets who never ever capture videos at all. I would definitely be more than ready to buy a "fully stills-optimzed" camera. Of course not in a fat old mirrorslapper with pseudo-retro UI, but as a FF-sensored mirrorless cam without HD / 4k video out (but WITH live View viedo feed!) ... at a 20% lower price or with 20% better stills features at the same price. Either way. 

14
Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming March 9
« on: February 22, 2015, 03:24:06 PM »
Of course it qualifies as ranting because it is not what Adobe are asking of you. If you want LR as a standalone perpetual license you can buy it, if you don't want PS then don't buy it, if you don't want the subscription model or CC don't sign up.

Well let's see whether LR 6 really comes as standalone perpetual license. Nothing confirmed or announced yet.
And LR 7, 8, 9.

Btw ... if you classify my ever so slightly critical previous posting as  "hate-laden vitriolic etc." to you, you must truly be living in a pink pony fairy-land. I'd strobgeky advice you to NOT follow any news, most definitely not on Fox. :P

Actually, come to think about it ... i do hate adobe quite a bit ... ever since they bought my preferred raw converter supplier (RAW Shooter/Pixmantec) from the market, only to get rid of a competitor who would otherwise by now be offering a raw workflow software version 6.0 that would leave all those clunky, fat and slow adobe apps in the dust and relegate adobe to the status of failed former it-companies i wish on them.

There you have a little rant with a small dose of vitriol and heartfelt hate. Now i will be banned. O my god! :-)

15
Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming March 9
« on: February 22, 2015, 11:06:25 AM »
In LR 6, I would like to see some new filters for star trails photography. Expecially "gap filling" function.

You're trying to discuss features - don't you realize no one cares? Can we please get back to ranting about the subscription model :-p ?

wrong. Throughpout most of this thread we have been discussing LR features. Both existing features and desired features. Most importantly *improved performance*.

And criticism of the Adobe uncreative cloud supscription/rental model does not qualify as ranting, but is an absolutely legitimate complaint against Adobe's rip-off attempts of clients who have no desire whatsoever to rent,  purchase or use Photoshop in addition to Lightroom.

It is about high time that with release 6.0 Adobe hopefully delivers a stand-alone Lightroom, that makes it unnecessary for photographers to use PS or any other PP software in addition to LR. I have been waiting a rather long time for exactly such a COMPLETE PP software FOR STILLS PHOTOGRAPHERS.   :)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 88