October 23, 2014, 02:10:19 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 - CrimsonBlue

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5
31
Lenses / Re: Canon 200-400mm f4 lens - worth waiting for?
« on: February 24, 2012, 12:53:28 PM »
I don't think he meant any disrespect about your photog creds.  It's just rare to see folks with tons of expensive gear jump from one camp to the other based on one lens.  It definitely happens, and it goes both ways. 

Nice site, and nice shots.  What you shoot with is your own business -- I'm just glad you're sharing your photos with us!

32
Lenses / Re: Canon 200-400mm f4 lens - worth waiting for?
« on: February 24, 2012, 11:53:45 AM »
That Nikon lens is $7000 new.  It's been out for 2 years.  It doesn't have a built in 1.4x Extender (huge plus for most).

Canon lenses always get a high markup at launch, and then lower (more so than Nikon) with time.  It will be $8000-$9000 in 18 months - not cheaper than Nikon, but far closer.

Sorry if that doesn't fit your time frame, but Nikon was first to bring it to market.

33
So what you're saying is, "I'm happy other people won't have improvements because I don't want to have to buy a new body for my video needs."  Cool.

34
EOS Bodies / Re: 16 bit color anyone?
« on: February 23, 2012, 01:34:18 PM »
Jumping to 14-bit was a nice improvement, but for super-fast cameras, the amount of extra data passing through would reduce FPS without some other compensatory technology. 

Medium format doesn't usually have more than a frame or two per second so it can process more data and not have to worry about filling/emptying a buffer. 

The upcoming 4K DSLR could incorporate that if it were designed as a medium format and/or video competitor. 

35
Lots of people use them so it's good to know about new technology.  It also sparks conversation about competitors, which is always helpful.

The special deal on Adobe Lightroom 3 (a cheaper purchase pathway to v.4) was also posted and it was really useful for people who manage their libraries with that software (probably 1/2 of the users here). 

36
Site Information / Re: Should karma remain on the forum?
« on: February 20, 2012, 10:40:05 PM »
I wonder if the moderator would open up the poll again (or start a new one) leaving it open for at least a week's time.  A far more accurate reading of the user base would be nice.   :)

37
Site Information / Re: Should karma remain on the forum?
« on: February 20, 2012, 09:31:37 PM »
Well spoken Curmudgeon!  I didn't see the poll when it was up and didn't vote either.  Maybe we can resurrect it -- or get some more attention drawn to a new poll so that the sample size is far larger. 

And true to form, I got dinged -2 for my last posting (previous page) which was about as general and non-inflammatory as it gets. Can't wait to see what happens with this post...

But again, thanks for your thoughtful words.

38
Site Information / Re: Should karma remain on the forum?
« on: February 20, 2012, 06:27:14 PM »
One of the goals of karma is probably to identify those who consistently give good advice etc.  If the forum software allows for it, we could potentially still accomplish that by removing the negative option.  People could give kudos to those who are helpful, and those who are not as helpful will just be noise. 

I agree with many of the posters in this thread that people often give a negative when they don't like the content of the response itself "ex: I think Nikon's D3 was better than the 1D IV."  Opinions are being confused with personal behavior and eliminating the negative tally would probably serve both purposes.  It isn't perfect, but it might help us find the best balance.

39
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II
« on: February 11, 2012, 02:43:20 PM »
I will never buy this... its really poor how the sunshade is implemented...

The old one is also sharp at any focal length... Field curvature was the only "problem" (not really as bad as with other lenses)

Not sure if that's the best way to decide on buying a lens.  I'm crazy, but I usually look at image quality.  And, the Mark I was NOT sharp at any focal length for the vast majority of lens copies.  Maybe you had a good one, but it wasn't the case for most other users. 

Bottom line, this is a very significant improvement, given the charts and the user's first impression here.  Canon is going to make you pay for that improvement. 

Not liking the price doesn't mean that we have to not like the lens, especially because "it doesn't have IS".  The IQ and focus speed appear to be leaps and bounds better. Just wait a few months for the retail price to come down or for used copies to hit eBay.      :D

40
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Split? 5D X & 5D Mark III [CR1]
« on: February 09, 2012, 07:28:31 PM »
Bring it.  If only to stop the constant "I'm switching to Nikon" and "Canon hates its customers" threads.

41
EOS Bodies / Re: Would we be asking too much?
« on: February 08, 2012, 11:08:08 PM »
Canon (and every other company) isn't trying to piss you off.  They will release it when they are ready. 

Sometimes Canon goes first; sometimes Nikon goes first. 

42
Lenses / Re: Poll on new 24-70 f/2.8L mk.II
« on: February 08, 2012, 11:44:05 AM »
How about: i plan to buy it when the price comes down a bit, and IS isn't really necessary for this type of lens.

43
EOS Bodies / Re: How does Canon respond to the D800?
« on: February 07, 2012, 06:27:24 PM »
Canon doesn't respond -- it releases what has been in the pipeline for 2+ years.  You can't retool a whole set of features a la carte. 

With the unnamed super high-end video and unannounced still backs, it wouldn't make sense for the 5D to go much past 25MP -- especially if that draws attention to the MP difference with the 1DX.  They are both full-frame, so Canon can't be two-faced in the approach to MP.

Methinks an 18-24MP body with slightly improved AF, but nothing like the D800. 

44
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II
« on: February 07, 2012, 06:17:24 PM »
I think the people that keep talking about not needing IS is based on the idea that it wouldn't actually kick in for most uses.  It's really helpful for long primes/zooms, but you naturally gather a lot of light at the wide end and it wouldn't be engaged below 1/100 or so.

Someone else said it better in a previous post, but there are so many it's hard to keep up!   8)

45
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II Announced
« on: February 07, 2012, 08:45:01 AM »
Ah, so we get to thank the idiots on Wall Street and the Federal Reserve for f**king up the price by devaluing the US dollar.

And the thousands of Americans who were dumb enough to purchase a zero interest mortgage that they couldn't afford. If you're adult enough to buy a house, you should be able to look at the monthly payments and figure out that you can't afford them.

Plus the governments and investors of most every other country that were over exuberant and leveraged their countries' debt ratios far more than was prudent.  It was a localized risk that no one thought could have global repercussions.  Not trying to start anything political, but the blame for the global recession has many many actors (just ask Greece!)

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5