November 23, 2014, 03:51:49 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 - AvTvM

Pages: 1 ... 20 21 [22] 23 24 ... 73
316
Third Party Manufacturers / Leica T and Canon EOS M
« on: April 25, 2014, 09:58:02 AM »
Got no interest in the latest Leica T "lifestyle accessoire".
But I do find their starting lens lineup (T-mount) interesting, and the overlap with the EF-M "system":

Leica 18-56mm f/3.5-5.6 ..... Canon 18-55 f/3.5-5.6
Leica 23 mm f/2 ................... Canon 22 f/2.0
Leica 11-23mm f/3,5-4,5 ...... Canon 11-22 f/4.0-5.6
Leica 55-135 mm f/3,5-4,5 ... X

A compact EF-M 55-135 f/4.0 IS would be nice addition to the EOS-M "system" ... along with a EOS M3 with top-notch AF-system, EVF.



317
Canon General / Re: $10,000
« on: April 23, 2014, 05:42:56 PM »
I would spend usd 9999 on a canon to go with my existing EF lenses.

The spare 1 dollar I'd spend on a bit of superglue to glue the "record video" button into permanently inactive state.
Then I'd go out shooting nothing but stills all day long.
Then I'd make all those stills into a stop motion video and put it on youtube.

Just to retaliate on all those video folks buying DSLRs with mirrors to shoot video. :-)

318
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS
« on: April 21, 2014, 11:41:51 AM »
The 24-70/2.8 II is perfectly capable to serve a 50mp sensor. Is would not degrade iq at all and it would add only a few grams of weight, if anything. Witness the tamron 24-70/2.8 VC ... 20 grams more than the canon. 1000 euro less, and also capable to serve a 50mp sensor ... If canon ever manages to build one.

Canon just believes they can come up with the IS version for some outrageous price some time in the future. They might be right ... Or wrong. We shall see. :-)

319
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS
« on: April 17, 2014, 07:13:17 PM »
i'm sick and tired of reading how IS would make a lens so much heavier and biggerand compromise image quality  ... bla bla bla ... just a bunch of completely unfounded urban myths.

e.g. look at EF 70-200/4 L without IS 76x172mm, 705g and EF 70-200/4 L IS with IS 76x172mm, 760 g ... so a paltry 55 grams more .. for a lens with pretty big glass elements to be stabilized. And image quality is better on 70-200/4 with IS too. Price difference is excessive though, and purely marketing driven.

EF 24-70/2.8 L II should have been IS from the start ... especially at the price differential over the previous version.

320
Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Lightroom Mobile Version Official
« on: April 09, 2014, 11:06:15 AM »
... lots of things including 'local' sync methods are possible in future versions, it all depends on what users ask for. http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family is the place to make your suggestions and complaints, both equally welcome.

how about starting a well-designed poll thread on this forum and asking you to then forward results directly to those responsible Adobe?  :)

321
Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Lightroom Mobile Version Official
« on: April 09, 2014, 11:02:50 AM »
Quote
I do understand people are angry about having to subscribe to get the app working (personally I didn't think it was a good idea), but it's not ad-funded and there are real costs to keep the thing operational

I find it hard to believe that operational costs are the true issue here.  If they were Adobe could have offered the app as an optional paid add on to all Lightroom 5 licencees or as a stand alone retail version.

+100
exactly! 

Free for the current "beta" version and later on anywhere between 1,99 to 9,99 for the real thing with full functionality, includuing RAWs and "local connection" without any need to be on CC.

322
Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Lightroom Mobile Version Official
« on: April 09, 2014, 05:37:04 AM »
....
Kudos to those who have tried to steer back on course. In that vein, I also agree that there are much better mobile options for syncing with LR. Photosmith has been mentioned.

While I appreciate Photosmith being mentioned .. it is no solution for what I [and presumabley many others] would like to do.

I would like to buy = SPENDING MONEY :-) for the following:

1. a Canon hi-end mirrorless EOS [FF sensor, roughly "5D IV equivalent"] with 2014-style .ac WIFI in it

2. flawlessly working image transfer (including RAWs) directly from camera to iPad. .AC protocol WIFI is fast enough to do this.  if extra batteries are needed, I am prepared to buy some and carry them along

3. fully functional Canon "EOS Remote" app for iPhone and iPad ... offering full remote control functionality exactly like camranger today, but without need to carry along an extra piece of hardware

4. Mobile Lightroom sans creative cloud from Adobe to run on my iPad and in a pinch also on my iPhone. With full sync to LR on my desktop PC. I would use it to select, rate images, to delete failed shots, to add metadata to images [IPTC, tags] and - occasionally - to do minor editing on some images [straightening, cropping, contrast, minor WB, de-noise, sharpening when & as required] - on location or "on the go" ...  while I am still away from my desktop PC. 

So, essentially I want to cut out the need to carry along a notebook.

But nobody is offering what I would like to buy ... not yet.

323
Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Lightroom Mobile Version Official
« on: April 09, 2014, 05:16:59 AM »
Well, DPP may be adequate to handle some needs. unfortunately not my needs. And unfortunately it is in no way competitive to what Lightroom offers. Yes, DPP is free of charge, so no problem there. But ...

LR gives me what I always wanted: "one-stop-shopping for everything I want do with my images".

Only one software to purchase, learn and keep current. Both powerful and reasonably intuitive to use. Only 2 file formats involved: RAW ["digital slide / positive"] and .jpg ["digital prints"].  No bloated TIFFS, no proprietary multi-layer .psd files, no complicated software with multi-month learning-curves, no absurdly outdated 80's style user-interface, no functions targeted solely at graphics professionals or print shops ...

And no more need for single-trick pony software apps just to import images, rename images, add and edit EXIF/ IPTC metadata, tag images, sort, organize, catalogue, show, share and edit them.

LR has allowed me to cut all the post-processing software clutter. One seamless workflow. All editing directly on the RAWs, but totally non-destructive. Since LR 4 with the ability to also apply local adjustments, not just global ones. Everything handled in one window, rather than separate windows popping open for different types of image editing and manipulation. Excellent de-noising. Fully automatic correction for all my lenses, if and when desired.

As I am not interested in creating composites or doing extensive pixel-level manipulations or CGI content I have no need for other post-processing software whatsoever. LR does it all. Yes, there are still improvements possible, but LR 5 is pretty darn "close to perfect" for me.

Therefoe, I do not want to revert to a mere RAW-processor like DPP or Capture One or SilkyPix. I want ONE "stills images handling program". Unfortunately LR is the only sensible software option currently available to me [thanks to Adobe killing off Pixmantec and others]. Aperture ... I do not use Apple Macs. And all other programs I have tried are either subpar or total overkill relative to my requirements.

This is why I have paid the license fees for every version of Lightroom so far. I am willing to pay for it in the future. I am also willing to pay a reasonable little extra money to use it on a mobile device as well.

But I am not willing to move to Adobes creative cloud/subscription-based model. 

I find DPP perfectly adequate for most needs. Of course it is not as powerful as Lightroom etc., but it does the job, nicely and efficiently. Every picture I take starts its life in DPP, and I do have Lightroom but will not be upgrading to the CC version (yet).

Of course eventually we will all have 5D Mark IVs, 1D X Mark IIs, and dare I say it a 7D mark ii (or iii  :o ), plus new lenses etc and Adobe's technology will move forward just as quickly, so eventually we may not have a choice of upgrading, but need to out of necessity.

Adobe are a business and I can see their logic.

What I really, really do not get is why I, or anyone else, would want this on their phone. I never edit anything on my phone.

324
Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Lightroom Mobile Version Official
« on: April 09, 2014, 03:56:08 AM »
Adobe and Lightroom and I go back many years.
Up to 2005 I used Canon DPP. Then I discovered Pixmantec Rawshooter, spent 99 Euro on the premium version in April 2006 and three months later Adobe acquired the technology assets of Pixmantec, only to take Rawshooter off the market. Adobe did issue me a free license to Lightroom 1.0, which I briefly tested only to find out it was totally inadequate compared to what I was used to from Rawshooter. I went back to Canon DPP as RAW Converter and various Non-Adobe programs for photo editing.  When Lightroom 2.0 came out, I gave it a try and found it useful. So I purchased the license, and subsequently also the ones for LR 3, 4 and 5. 

I find it arrogant of Adobe, to cut me and all other non CC users off using from using Lightroom on our mobile devices, even when we are holding perpetual licenses to LR. I do not want anything "for free" from Adobe. I would be ready to PAY EXTRA for the Lightroom Mobile APP ... if it delivers, what I would like out of it and if we are talking about a sensible one-time payment .. lets say anything from 3,99 to 9,99 USD/Euro - in line with regular mobile APP prices.   

As long as Adobe is denying their paying Lightroom customers full use of the program - both on PCs and in conjunction with mobile devices - and just to try to force us into their subscription / cloud model they can go f*ck themselves. I strongly resent all and any implications the Adobe CC model brings about:
* the ongoing subscription payment requirement
* "cloud" exchange and storage per se (I do not put images "into anybody's cloud ... they reside solely on hardware devices under my full, direct and utter control, where I and nobody else sets the rules of use)
* the fact, that countless hours of your own work on your own images will be lost, should you ever decide to stop paying and end usage of the Adobe creative cloud

So until Adobe enables EVERY paying LR user to also use LR on mobile devices I will continue to say: FU Adobe!

No, sorry. Lr Mobile is only available for customers with an active subscription (CC or the PS/Lr Photography Program). Perpetual licenses of Lightroom cannot sync with it.
and why is that? We have paid for our perpetual LR licenses too,. FU arrogant Adobe!
And do take note: I will not rent your software or join an annual pay subscription model ... ever, no matter what you do. And if you push me and if no better software alternative becomes available, I will revert back to Canon DPP to process RAWs.

+1

Why are they arrogant? And how does that justify FU?

It is their software, they can choose to license it how they like, if you don't like the terms then just don't buy it but there is no point to talking like that to an actual Adobe representative. He isn't going to take you seriously if you talk like that, thanks for blowing any chance we have of reasonable dialog with Adobe here now.

325
Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Lightroom Mobile Version Official
« on: April 08, 2014, 08:04:59 AM »
No, sorry. Lr Mobile is only available for customers with an active subscription (CC or the PS/Lr Photography Program). Perpetual licenses of Lightroom cannot sync with it.

and why is that? We have paid for our perpetual LR licenses too,. FU arrogant Adobe!

And do take note: I will not rent your software or join an annual pay subscription model ... ever, no matter what you do. And if you push me and if no better software alternative becomes available, I will revert back to Canon DPP to process RAWs. 

326
IF it delivers image quality equal to Nikon D4s
AND IF Sony has improved AF performance notably
AND IF it had a better battery holding charge for 500 shots
AND IF it cost 999,- including dual-lens kit 35/2.8 + 55/1.8
THEN I would buy one ...despite all the useless 4k cr*p in it.  ;D

The way it is .. a 4k camera that cannot record 4k in-camera, wheras a tiny GoPro can do that ... well, I don't know ...  :P

What I do like however is Sony giving their customers a choice: one does not have to purchase "the video-optimized model" just to get a decent sensor or otherwise attractive stills features. Canon only offers some of that choice at 1D-X and 1D C price levels. 

A7/R/S ... strategywise exactly what I would like to get from Canon. A very compact, decent mirrorless body in 3 implementations:
1)  mid-rez sensor, really HI-ISO, 6+fps, no video other than liveview feed fppor EVF ... 5D IV
2) hi-rez sensor, 5fps, no video other than liveview feed for EVF ... 5D-R ["Resolution"]
3) low-rez sensor, video-optimized model ... 5D-C ... with zebra and peaking and quadrophonic microphones and HUGE rigs and follow focus gears on top of autofocus ... plus all that other stuuf all tjose videots are constantly clamoring for in stills cameras.
Of course the last version would be most exepnsive and the first version cheapest. :-)



327
I'll get one if the "s" has similar AF system as A6000.

+1

And in body 6-axis 4-stops IS.
And they can cut out the video cr*p on my copy. :-)

328
EOS-M / Re: Canon EOS M2
« on: April 04, 2014, 06:19:17 AM »
@ daemorhedron: thanks a lot for your summary/comparison. Excellent hands-on information!

329
PowerShot / Re: Canon PowerShot G17 Coming in May? [CR1]
« on: March 30, 2014, 03:10:28 PM »
While i am not interested at all in 1" sensored digicams, i am still interested to see, whether canon is able to match the sony rx10. I expect no.

330
The point I'm labouring to make is that if the average EOS owner owns only 1.4 Canon lenses, then the opportunity for Canon is surely to sell them more.  This may require better promotion and/or more aggressive pricing.

I guess Canon's preferred solution would be to sell no more zoom lenses.  ;D

Pages: 1 ... 20 21 [22] 23 24 ... 73