Messages

151

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon EOS-1D X Review

« on: June 27, 2012, 11:17:46 PM »

That, and they can also harness the power of mass production to make much of the AF system for both 5d3 & 1DX cheaper on a per unit cost since they share large parts....

AKA, farm it out to slave labor in China. Brilliant! High end gear at "low" prices for those of us who don't care how we get our discounts.

That's what pretty much everyone else does in the electronics (or most other manufacturing) industry. Not saying I personally agree with the policy, at least in so much as the working conditions and pay are, from what I understand, mostly pretty horrible, unsafe, and they are paid almost nothing. Not saying it has to be up to US standards of pay (depending on local costs of living & such), but they really should be safe and have some decent pay.

I live in China, and I'm American. My wife owns a small factory and she sells products to several larger factories, so I have access to several large factories(usually Chinese motorcycle and other engine making factories, nothing anyone in the US has heard of.)
These factories are very very nice and as safe as most any factory around the world(with a little less worry than the US about insurance, etc.)
Pay is not almost nothing, it's actually pretty decent at most large factories.
I have not been to Foxconn, or anything like that... but from the factories I have seen personally, which are not huge international brands(and IMO more likely to be below US standards than Nikon, Canon, Apple factories,) the people are treated very well and have fine working conditions. The pay is average or above average overall for China.
Most people are paid around 200-400 dollars a month. Yes, 400 dollars a month is not much for America... But outside of camera gear, electronics, and fancy foreign food and alcohol, I easily live on 400 dollars a month in China.... And I order tortilla chips online and go out to fancy western bars. I can take my wife to an awesome dinner that is huge(we cant finish it) for 4 dollars. A coca cola is 40 cents here. My phone bill is 6 dollars a month for unlimited minutes and texting. The people who are paid 200 dollars are usually very old and work because they have worked their whole lives and have nothing else to do. There are a couple 75 year old men at my wife's factory that are paid about 200 dollars a month(much less than others.) They were given apt's long ago by the state, and the factory provides meals, pays utilities, etc. These people often don't need to work, and they really don't do much at the factory. They simply help when they can, do paperwork, clean. Many old people here feel that if they quit working, they will die. Often old people who live with their now rich children will go out in the day and collect recycling from garbage cans. Not because they NEED money, but because they want to be active and they feel that people are just throwing away money(recycling is $ to them.) It is part of their culture and they don't want to do nothing.
I am sure that there are factories that are below standards, pay less, are unsafe and do illegal things. But this is not the majority and I can guarantee that it is not the case at Nikon or Canon factories in China....
Me and my wife often talk about Foxconn and are confused about what is going on there, and why they are having such problems. The large motorcycle factories I have seen are exactly the same as large factories I have seen in the US(I used to work in a large mfg facility in Seattle for 2 years.)
Additionally, because of the rise in the middle class, there is a huge shortage of low cost labor here in China so factories are rapidly increasing their pay to attract more workers.

152

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon EOS-1D X Review

« on: June 27, 2012, 10:06:55 PM »

People complained about the 5D Mark III sensor? 

Yea, it's horrible. It's an incremental improvement over the previous 5d2 sensor. We don't get magical ability to use ISO 5 million that let's us see in the dark with hardly any noise that's easily correctable by LR4. It's hardly usable, don't find it any better than the 5d2 sensor. I mean, I can use images up to ISO 12800 for web size pretty easily. Geesh, it's horrible!

Guys, I don't recall reading any posts where the 5d3 sensor was called "horrible" or even "bad". This includes the madness of dpreview forums.  What there's been a lot of is, disappointment in the lack of improvement vs 5d2, such as banding, etc  This is an important distinction that seems "lost" on Canon fanboys.  "lack of improvement" does not equate to "bad" or "horrible".  The intensity of comments from those objectively pointing out this lack of improvement (in contrast to the D800) increased dramatically as they encountered fanboys unwilling to acknowledge these facts.  Usually the fanboys would mis-characterize the "critical" comments by using hyperbole such as "So you think the sensor sucks, go away troll!" or give the impression the poster had insane expectations such as "magical ability to use ISO 5 million" or that the poster had written the sensor was "horrible".  Ahem.

Another example: Lloyd Chambers said he found himself "bored" in regard to the 5d3 images and Canon fanboys went ballistic saying the "5D3 images are not boring!!".  Well, that's not what Lloyd said.  It was the lack of improvement that led to him having a lack of enthusiasm.  Lack of enthusiasm does not equal "bad" or "horrible".

This, all in contrast to the simple truth that the 5d3 sensor is not a significant improvement over the 5d2 and after waiting 4 (f'ing) years for the update, that's disappointing or as Lloyd put it, "boring".

I agree. I don't think that anyone thinks the 5DIII is a bad camera. But for the price, it better be mind bogglingly good, and I don't think anyone would say that is the case. I would pay 2500 in a heartbeat for the 5DIII, but at over 3000 it is just not going to happen. The 5DIII is actually just what I expected it would be, except I expected Canon to beat Nikon's price by 500 bucks, instead it's the other way around.
So, yes, for 3500 dollars the camera is a bit underwhelming(boring)

So.... How 'bout that 1d X?

It looks pretty sweet. I like those hi ISO flower shots. I just saw the small samples, but the high iso 12000, 25000 shots look damn good. But the samples i opened were small. But yes, for the price, and the delay, the 1DX should be amazing. I think Canon screwed up their PR though by having such serious delays. I feel like they might have rushed it out just to avoid missing the Olympics in a few weeks.
However, the 1DX is definitely not a camera for me.... for me, It just serves as a symbol of what Canon is capable of.

153

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon EOS-1D X Review

« on: June 27, 2012, 01:37:18 PM »

People complained about the 5D Mark III sensor? 

Yea, it's horrible. It's an incremental improvement over the previous 5d2 sensor. We don't get magical ability to use ISO 5 million that let's us see in the dark with hardly any noise that's easily correctable by LR4. It's hardly usable, don't find it any better than the 5d2 sensor. I mean, I can use images up to ISO 12800 for web size pretty easily. Geesh, it's horrible!

Guys, I don't recall reading any posts where the 5d3 sensor was called "horrible" or even "bad". This includes the madness of dpreview forums.  What there's been a lot of is, disappointment in the lack of improvement vs 5d2, such as banding, etc  This is an important distinction that seems "lost" on Canon fanboys.  "lack of improvement" does not equate to "bad" or "horrible".  The intensity of comments from those objectively pointing out this lack of improvement (in contrast to the D800) increased dramatically as they encountered fanboys unwilling to acknowledge these facts.  Usually the fanboys would mis-characterize the "critical" comments by using hyperbole such as "So you think the sensor sucks, go away troll!" or give the impression the poster had insane expectations such as "magical ability to use ISO 5 million" or that the poster had written the sensor was "horrible".  Ahem.

Another example: Lloyd Chambers said he found himself "bored" in regard to the 5d3 images and Canon fanboys went ballistic saying the "5D3 images are not boring!!".  Well, that's not what Lloyd said.  It was the lack of improvement that led to him having a lack of enthusiasm.  Lack of enthusiasm does not equal "bad" or "horrible".

This, all in contrast to the simple truth that the 5d3 sensor is not a significant improvement over the 5d2 and after waiting 4 (f'ing) years for the update, that's disappointing or as Lloyd put it, "boring".

I agree. I don't think that anyone thinks the 5DIII is a bad camera. But for the price, it better be mind bogglingly good, and I don't think anyone would say that is the case. I would pay 2500 in a heartbeat for the 5DIII, but at over 3000 it is just not going to happen. The 5DIII is actually just what I expected it would be, except I expected Canon to beat Nikon's price by 500 bucks, instead it's the other way around.
So, yes, for 3500 dollars the camera is a bit underwhelming(boring)

154

EOS Bodies / Re: Announcement Day July 24, 2012? [CR2]

« on: June 22, 2012, 10:31:23 AM »

If this is Full Frame and under $2500 I would crap myself in shock and happiness and preorder one without even thinking.
Unfortunately, I think it will be the sensor from the G1X.
I was very happy to see the 1.85x sensor in the G1X, but for a mirrorless system, i'm full frame or bust. Since getting my 5D Classic I'm in love with Full Frame like it's film era photography and I'm not going back.
I really hope that there is 3 models/grades of the Canon Mirrorless system as has been talked about before. G1X sensor size being the entry level, 1.6x/APS-C being the prosumer/upgrade, and FF being the pro version. This would be groundbreaking and awesome. If Canon plans to do this, I hope they announce it soon before I switch to the(hopefully soon to come) D600. This is one time where I think announcing products in development would really help the brand.

155

EOS Bodies / Re: Follow-up poll: If you're not buying a 5D3 due to price....

« on: June 20, 2012, 04:20:04 AM »

on the other hand, the 5D3 is absolutely nothing more than a 5D2 with an appropriate AF system finally added. Sensor itself is only a minor improvement. Important features that could be implemented dirt cheap in firmware are still omitted (e.g. a really useful Auto ISO function, to name jus one). So I do not see ANYTHING that justifies a higher price for the 5D3 than for a 5D2. So ... I would be prepared to pay for a 5D3  ... up to 2.500 USD/€. This would also be a fair price realtive to the somewhat better Nikon D800. 

There is no way, I will ever pay one cent more for a 5D3 than Nikon is charging for the D800. As a matter of fact, if the coming D600 also bests the 5D3 in DR and costs even less, then that price (1500-2000) will be my new upper price limit for the 5D3.

And IF Nikon brings out a "true killer" crop D400 that bests the 7D (or 7D II) in a big way, especially in terms of DR - then I will probably switch to nikon with a D400 + D600 dual body setup plus holy trinity in lenses and be done with Canon for many years.

My feelings exactly.
But I could also do with a D7100.

wow. exactly the same as i feel. I would pay 2500 in a heartbeat for the 5DIII. I have played with it a few times and it is great. But as said above.... given the overall tone of reviews I have read(majority very pro D800,) I would definitely not pay more for the 5DIII than D800. With the price of the new 24-70 II and the 5DIII i'm holding out and will probably buy the D600 if it is a FF similar to the D7000 for under 2000.

156

EOS Bodies / Re: 60D owners...help, i need reassurance before i pull the trigger

« on: June 18, 2012, 01:22:34 AM »

Lenses are subjective, because all lenses and camera bodies are compromises, the top ones compromise weight, size and price. This is why asking what's "best" or "great" is not a good idea, only what's suitable for what purpose.

The efs15-85 is a very good standard zoom for aps-c (like 24-105 for full frame) because it isn't as expensive as the 17-55 and has longer zoom range. It isn't suitable for low light non-still shooting, because it goes from f3.5 to f4 and smaller nearly instantly and the current 18mp aps-c sensor lacks in low light capability. If you want shoot-in-the-dark moving objects for an aps-c, get a f1.4 lens.

What is considered low light?  Also, what do u mean by shoot in the dark?  Sorry just need a reference point so I can determine myself if the 15-85 is ok for me.

Bottom line, I'm getting the 60D through the loyalty program.  I have $1500 to spend and the body alone is $640.  If u were me where 75% of your pictures will be your child, what would you buy with the rest of the money?

while i personally think the 60D is a little long in the tooth, if you're buying it from the CLP then it isn't too bad of an idea. I might choose the 7D instead but that one is even older and definitely wayyy more complicated. Personally, I might just buy the 550D(T2i,) which is basically very similar to the 60D, just a little more rebelly feeling and without the top LCD. I'm not sure the price difference at the moment. Both cameras use the same sensor, have the safe AF basically and similar features(swivel screen seems the biggest difference to me.)
My cousin has a 60D and 15-85 and he is pretty happy. I have a 5D Classic and a 24-105(which, with the 50mm 1.8, and a used body, could be had for just around 1600 or 1700 dollars) and I think that this is a much more pro setup which kills the 60D in terms of photos of people. If you just want to take pictures of family that are better than a Point and Shoot then i'd go T2i and the kit lens(which was my first DSLR setup)..... Then I might wait and decide which direction you want to go in a year or two when most of the new lineup will be out and Photokina will be over(new 7D, 70D, low price FF, mirrorless.)
Personally, I don't think the 15-85 is that much better than the kit lens(although it is better,) I also don't think the 60D is that much better than the 550D. So personally I would go full frame, or rebel.
One thing I know(from experience,) is that it is very difficult to understand and know what you want/need/will use until after you spend a year or so using these cameras and lenses. I made some mistakes setting up my kit because I just wasn't aware of all the endless possibilities and repurcussions.

157

EOS Bodies / Re: Odds & Ends: 70D, 7D2, New Full Frame, D600 & Photoshop CS6

« on: June 14, 2012, 10:19:33 PM »

Is it just me, or did Canon get smoked this year. Sure, I love the 5DIII, but at worst it should be the same price as the D800. There is no test or review that shows it as being better than the D800, while the D800 has been hailed as wunderkind by most reviews I have read.
Now, there are rumors of a High MP 1D series body. Sure this is nice for die hard Canon users. But what Nikon user, or undecided non partisan buyer would purchase a 1D series priced camera when the D800 is only 3000.
Now, Nikon is seeming to be getting ready to drop the D600 for lets say 2000 dollars(rumors say 1500.) Even at 2000 dollars, this is 1500 dollars, and If you look at the specs, it looks rather similar than the 5DIII.
Sure, the 5DIII might be better, but if you aren't a blind fanboy of Canon, why would you pay 1500 dollars or 2000 dollars more for something that is just a little bit better.
With this new round of updates, it seems pretty obvious that Canon's sensor technology is getting trounced by Sony/Nikon.
I would not be surprised at all if the D600 has the same or better DXO scores as the 5DIII.
For me it seems that the best way(possibly only way) for Canon to one up Nikon in this series of releases(where there sensor is obviously not nearly as improved as Nikon's) is to put that sensor in a FF mirrorless body, but I really doubt that would happen.
This is probably the only thing that would keep me from buying the D600 at this point.

BTW, I've been a Canon owner for a few years and have a 5DC, 24-105 and 50mm 1.4. If the 5DIII was 2500 dollars I would have pre ordered it, but at 3500 it was way out of my price range and didn't get good enough reviews for me to consider spending that kind of money. I wasn't even considering Nikon at all one year ago but have been very disappointed by the price points of the new lenses and cameras(when i bought in to the system i thought Nikon lenses and bodies were more expensive, now it's the opposite.)
I have never lusted after the 5DII as the AF of my T2i/5DC is the biggest drawback for me and the 5DII doesn't seem significantly better.
At this point, I think Canon has royally screwed up, and their pricing is just out of touch.

158

EOS Bodies / Re: 60D owners...help, i need reassurance before i pull the trigger

« on: June 14, 2012, 10:04:17 PM »

just buy the t4i, or the t2i. the 60D is getting real old and has an old sensor. If you need something now, buy a refurbished T2i(or from the CLP,) for about 450 bucks. Then if you really want the new thing, sell it and buy the 70d or 7DII when it comes out.
The 60D is a waste of money at this point.

159

Software & Accessories / Re: Apple Announces new MacBook Pro with retina display...

« on: June 13, 2012, 12:13:47 PM »

Also, to those of you out there who are complaining about the high price...  why do you think so?  Are there comparable laptops out there for much cheaper?

This is what I'm trying to figure out. I have a netbook now and a desktop for editing. I'm thinking about buying the 13 inch MBP for a year long trip I'm taking to South America next year to do photo editing on. Was thinking of getting the refurb i7 from the end of 2011 for around $1150. But now i'm wondering if I should just buy a smaller MacBook Air sized ultrabook(with hopefully better specs and around  the same price or cheaper than 1100 bucks.)
Does anyone have any suggestions?
Is windows or mac better for editing?
thanks in advance!

160

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Mother of God - D800 scores 95 DxOMark

« on: June 08, 2012, 10:18:37 PM »

i would have read all of this thread but i've been out all weekend shooting with my 5Dmk3
since i don't really follow the lab tests or particularly care about them for that matter, 95 is good is it?

Second to that. There will always be something better out there. I can't say if D800 is better because I. don't care. I've had my MkIII a couple of weeks now and it's just great. Being just an ethusiast I have learnt tons already. Yesterday even my wife commented that the pics looks greater than with my old 60D. I'll continue shoot this weekend and not worry too much about what Nikon does, I hope all D800 owners are just as happy I am though.

If you don't care, that's fine.  However, when i choose to spend over 3000 dollars on an item I usually want to know I'm getting the best that I possibly can for my money. From the tests, reviews, sample shots I've seen, the 5DIII is at best as good as the D800 and is often considered to get destroyed by the Nikon. Personally, I prefer the feel of the 5DIII more,  but I think the 800 takes better pictures. I would love to have either, but I own Canon now, and there is no way that I would pay 500 dollars MORE for the III than the 800. I might pay 2700 for the Canon if the Nikon was 3000. As of now, It seems like Canon simply got killed this round, I am waiting for the D600 and Canon's mirrorless response/Photokina before making my next purchase.
I was really hoping for a D600ish Canon for around 2000 to upgrade to from my 5DC.

161

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 Pancake

« on: June 06, 2012, 11:59:52 PM »

What is up with all these 2.8 primes? I don't care how small this lens is, it won't make my 5D any smaller.
F2.8 is a huge waste of money. I want a 24mm 1.8(or 1.4/1.2!) and I might be interested in a similarly fast 28 or 35mm, but I have absolutely no use for a 2.8 aperture lens at these focal lengths. I'd much rather just save my money for the 24-70. Why can't Canon make an updated affordable(under 800 dollars) prime that is faster than 2.8? These new 24 and 28mm 2.8's are almost offensively priced at around 700-800 dollars, and this lens is cool, but just not cool enough.
If I want something smaller i'll buy a 4/3.

162

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS-1D X Delays [CR2]

« on: May 31, 2012, 01:37:29 AM »

This is really shining a negative light on Canon. Why was it announced soooo early when it obviously wasn't ready?
I'm a huge Canon fan and own thousands of dollars of their gear but with the recent pricing being significantly higher than the alternative brands on the market and exceedingly long delays in their flagship product, I am really starting to lose confidence in this company.
It's pretty disappointing that we took the Olympics as a "given" date when the 1D series replacements would be available(even a few years ago,) and now, with the Olympics just over a month away there is no guaranteed announce coming.
I'm starting to think there is either some major hardware issues, or the that camera would just get trounced upon by the D800 and could not be released in its announced form.
This is way more drama than a flagship product should have pre release.  If this thing isn't out fast and working excellent, I think Canon will have seriously tarnished the image of this product

163

Lenses / Re: A Brief Hands On: Canon EF 24 f/2.8 IS

« on: May 29, 2012, 12:13:52 AM »

I don't see the point of buying standard lens with only 2.8 wide open (24mm, 28mm, 40mm).. Combine the price of 2 of those lenses and you can get urself a 24-70 or 17-55. I still think that canon should come up with an Ef-S 30mm 1.4IS this one lens I'll be willing to pay $850 for.

This.
I own a Sigma 50 1.4 which is excellent optically, very sharp and creamy bokeh and I paid 450 dollars for it.  it is 1000x more solid looking and feeling(i'm betting, haven't touched the Canon, but it looks pretty slight.)
850 dollars for a plasticy looking, not fantastic optically, f2.8 lens just doesn't even make any sense to me. I would never consider buying a lens like this(F2.8 , and build quality) at that price.
Nikon just released a 28mm 1.8 for $699 which is at least as good optically from the test shots I have seen.
Why is it that all new Canon gear is more expensive and rather underwhelming than that of their competitors.
I was very eager to buy the 24-70 II but at the price it's a non starter for me.
I would consider the 24mm or 28mm if they were F1.8
I would definitely consider the 5DIII if it was 2800 dollars, or even the same or less than the D800.
I am eager to spend money(I have a 5DC and a 24-105 with my Sigma 50 1.4) to upgrade, but they way things are going I'm waiting to see about the D600 and Canon's DSLR/Mirrorless response.

164

Lenses / Re: A Brief Hands On: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II

« on: May 26, 2012, 08:13:04 PM »

Maybe NR in camera is turned off? My look way better even at 6400+

My 7D is a damn' sight better than that 3200 ISO shot.

In-camera NR is irrelevant here - these are Lightroom conversions.

If this is the best a 3500 dollar camera can do at iso3200 then that is pretty lame. This picture is noisy as hell!
What is up with Canon 2012....
and why was the ver 1 discontinued when the new one hasn't hit the shelves yet?

165

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 Pancake Coming [CR3]

« on: May 22, 2012, 03:14:19 AM »

i don't understand this at all. Why do I need a 40mm 2.8 when I can already buy a 35mm 1.8 for 1/3rd the price(as someone said earlier.)
Pancake or no pancake, the 35 1.8 isn't exactly big, especially on a 5D. This lens makes zero sense to me unless a mirrorless camera is coming with it. And even so, 40mm is kind of an odd focal length. I feel like anything from 24 to 35 would be more useful.