October 31, 2014, 01:23:16 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 - CarlTN

Pages: 1 ... 24 25 [26] 27 28 ... 149
376
Lenses / Re: DXOMark: Samyang 24mm f/1.4 for Canon
« on: March 13, 2014, 10:47:59 PM »
Speaking of Samyang, just found their 14mm is on sale for $309 with lightroom 5 and some other useless stuff.  Anyone want to convince me not to get this and upgrade to lr5?

http://www.buydig.com/shop/search.aspx?kwd=rofe14

I bot from BuyDig the Rokinon 14mm at the ridiculous low price of $275 as a flyer. I wouldnt do it again. It was unacceptably decentered. Not worth the time to send back as I am in Canada and the shipping and hassle not worth it. I sold it locally. Next time I will buy locally for a higher price so it is easier to return if there is a problem.

Didn't the person you sold it to complain to you about the decentering?

377
Lenses / Re: just hit the purchase button
« on: March 13, 2014, 10:45:52 PM »
Both lenses are excellent. No need to compare the two to justify the purchase of one or the other. If there's enough money, buy both! The focusing issue on the Sigma can be mostly rectified via the USB dock and microadjustment in-camera, so it's not like it will make or break a project unless you are shooting at f1.4, in which case you should be manual focusing anyway. Cheers.

+1, well said and succinct.

378
Landscape / Re: Waterscapes
« on: March 13, 2014, 10:33:53 PM »
The snowy shot is one Jrista would say (and I think I would agree), is NOT a waterscape.  Why?  Really one simple reason, in my opinion.  The area of the image denoted by water, does not appear to dominate the composition.  It is relatively small.  Also, much of the water is frozen, so technically it is ice.

So, I will delete this image, Jrista, if you like.  I have others from various time periods where water does dominate...but many of them would qualify more as simply a "sunset". 

The bottom image, in my opinion, does qualify as a waterscape, but I'm pretty sure it will be picked apart by someone who hates southerners and our land.  I shot it with a rented Zeiss lens.

I have shared the snow image in the "snow" thread, and I may have posted the other image before somewhere...so I apologize for being duplicitous.  I can't help it!

379
Landscape / Re: Waterscapes
« on: March 13, 2014, 10:25:54 PM »
Hi folks.
I follow several people on here, sometimes I disagree with an opinion, I'm sure people disagree with my opinion but life is too damn short to hate anyone for a post on a web site. I really like the mostly good nature of the participants here, and it appears even when two people seem to be at loggerheads on one topic they can praise each other for a nice photo on another topic. Almost surreal!
I sometimes wonder if people have something against me, I seem to post then no one replies to the subject after me, oh well never mind.

Cheers Graham.

Most of the time when I start a thread, I get the haters...
Hi Carl, if I'm not wrong, didn't I once say that your writing style "sounds" like you are an angry dude, so that could attract haters  ;D ... hey I'm just kidding, you & jrista are some of the few people I follow on CR ... and I say that with much respect.

I've not noticed anyone having anything against you...but then I don't check this forum on a daily basis.  Your photos seem quite nice to me, so does your attitude.  But given my anger, it wouldn't take much to send me over the edge!  :P

380
Landscape / Re: Waterscapes
« on: March 13, 2014, 10:22:39 PM »
I sometimes wonder if people have something against me, I seem to post then no one replies to the subject after me, oh well never mind.

Cheers Graham.
I know what you mean, sometimes I post a comment or start a thread but no one gives a $hit, sometimes that can be more embarrassing then "losing" an argument ;D

If you are referring to me, I never conceded defeat.  It's just that's what CR wanted to paint me to be, because they deleted all my replies.  I don't own this website, unlike certain others who post.

381
Landscape / Re: Waterscapes
« on: March 13, 2014, 10:20:46 PM »
Most of the time when I start a thread, I get the haters...
Hi Carl, if I'm not wrong, didn't I once say that your writing style "sounds" like you are an angry dude, so that could attract haters  ;D ... hey I'm just kidding, you & jrista are some of the few people I follow on CR ... and I say that with much respect.

I appreciate your kind words and respect.  I suppose I am sort of an angry dude...

382
EOS Bodies / Re: Will the next xD cameras do 4k?
« on: March 13, 2014, 06:27:40 AM »
In regards to the 4K TV's you will definitely notice a difference between 4K and 1080P (HD).  I bought a Samsung 55" 9000 series a month ago and the details, clarity and color rendering is insane.  Know that the models you see in the stores are running a 4K demo from Samsung to promote the capabilities of the TV, at home viewing will be of slightly lesser quality but still stunning.

The Samsung store demo material I've seen, is sped up time lapse photography turned into video.  Not sure if it was shot with a cinema camera, or if it's from a bunch of stills done with a DSLR.  Probably a cinema camera.

A year from now prices will be even lower for your tv, like probably 60% lower.  I'll probably get one then, maybe the 65 inch.

383
Landscape / Re: Please share your snow/ Ice Photos with us in CR.
« on: March 13, 2014, 06:17:01 AM »
Oak looking from another direction.

384
Landscape / Re: Please share your snow/ Ice Photos with us in CR.
« on: March 13, 2014, 05:44:40 AM »
Cedar behind my house, early February snow, 70-300L at 70mm.

385
Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: March 13, 2014, 05:21:52 AM »
The Northern Goshawk

Exposure   0.002 sec (1/640)
Aperture   f/8.0
Focal Length   500 mm
ISO Speed   1250

Agree with the other CR'ers, quite striking!

386
1D X Sample Images / Re: Any Thing shot with a 1Dx
« on: March 13, 2014, 05:14:31 AM »
1Dx 200-400f/4

Great!  What did you do in post, if anything?

387
Nikon has taken Sigma seriously and sued them for US$ 116 million and the Tokyo district court ordered Sigma to US$ 14.5 million, for patent infringement case for lenses with VR technology. Here is teh summary of judgement as posted by Nikonrumors site:
Here is the summary of the judgment:

"Nikon obtained the patent related to VR technology in 2002. The content of the patented invention relates to technology wherein a vibration detection device, which detects the amount of camera vibration at angles around photographic objects, prevents the influence of vibration of a motor for lens and thereby allows more accurate photo shots. Sigma affirms that the scope of the patented invention does not include any functions which reduce the influence of camera shake. However, Mr. Osuga, the Judge in Chief, states that the effects of the invention in Nikon’s specification is described as “it allows image blur to be reduced” and that the specification clears that it includes camera shake. Thus, Mr. Osuga stands for Nikon’s assertion. In addition, Mr. Osuga points out that image blur prevention system requires various control functions, and he states that this patented invention of Nikon’s should be rewarded based on the contribution of the patent to the defendant’s products, that is 15%. Therefore, the Tokyo District Court calculated profits earned by Sigma to be a maximum of 10.1 billion JPY, and found compensation of damages to be 15% of the profits of the accused products earned by Sigma."

That really seems unjust!  Canon has image stabilization too, how come Nikon isn't suing them?
I guess the little guys are easier to target ;D

Indeed, amazing how things in real life translate back from the playground in school?  Maybe this will make Sigma ripe for a takeover...by Canon!!

388
Reviews / Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« on: March 13, 2014, 05:10:00 AM »
Oh, and like many others, I think DxO's software is good (probably the best for noise reduction).

I'd argue for automatic distortion correction as well.

Well, when I asked about noise reduction software last year, I was lambasted for it.  According to many (on CR anyway), there's no such thing as noise reduction, only image softening.  I tend to disagree very much, even with the NR available from Adobe.  I've not tried DXO...perhaps if they offered it free to Canon owners in return for their bias against the brand, I would opt to try it out?
I use noise reduction on many images, I guess some people would like to argue that it is not noise reduction and that it is is only "image softening", maybe it makes them look intelligent if they use an alternative word then what the software developer has chosen to name it ... I know some people call landing the flight a "controlled fall" coz it makes them look intelligent ... maybe they are just pessimistic people who cannot build any useful software or hardware but would like to come across as intelligent people with "clever" words to describe everything - or maybe they just want attention  ;D

I'll defer to your expertise on that :D  How come you didn't come to my defense back then?  Or maybe you did, I forget.
;D ;D ;D ... actually I don't even know which thread it was ... sorry, next time I shall come to your defense .. but I charge a very nominal fee for defending other people's posts, I was thinking a Sony 10-18mm lens ;D

Haha, is that supposed to be a good lens?

389
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Zeiss Otus Initial Impressions
« on: March 13, 2014, 05:09:09 AM »
The bokeh is smooth.  I wonder how close the Sigma art 50mm will get to this.
I find it a bit strange that we have not seen (at least I have not) any image examples from the Sigma yet.

I must admit that this Sigma, to me at least, is the most interesting non-Canon or -Zeiss lens ever, so something to examine would be great. If they pull it off at a reasonable price, it must have consequences for the others.

Agreed.  Well, they are known for long announcement periods, I think.

390
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon's Medium Format
« on: March 13, 2014, 05:06:47 AM »
Does anyone not think that, perhaps 10 years from now, Canon will be into Medium Format in a big way?  It just seems everybody thinks small cameras will go extinct because of smartphones, so the only thing left to do will be to go bigger.  Is the Leica S2 system so much bigger than 35mm format?

Pages: 1 ... 24 25 [26] 27 28 ... 149