September 02, 2014, 12:49:43 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 - Chuck Alaimo

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 63
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: September 01, 2014, 04:13:29 PM »

Don Haines, I'm with you.  I'd much rather spend my hours having positive thoughts.  .......People can be very fickle.  Now I hear complaints that a Canon camera may not have WiFi.  When I was researching, everyone was cursing the 6D because it had this useless WiFi and GPS and the on-off switch was over on the left.  So, what more can I say. ;) Jack

I agree with Jack and Don. But some people do appear to want to be fickle. And here comes jrista   ;D

I agree that people find dumb little things to complain about with every camera. [got to agree with you on that J - 8) ] ....... For me, I've literally been waiting for Canon to really improve their IQ since I first got into photography. I'd researched and new all the technical tidbits before I got the 450D. [glad to hear you knew it all J, I was beginning to think perhaps you didn't know half as much as you think you know :-[ ]......... and that was when I really started hoping Canon would have competitive DR in the 5D never happened.[How do you think other people manage to take stunning images with the 5D iii? Do you think they don't know as much as you? Do you think they are satisfied with sub standard images and you just have MUCH higher standards? Do you think maybe they are just better at using the camera than you? ::) ]

I'm sorry if I'm venting frustrations, but I'm frustrated. I've been waiting for Canon to fix their noise problems for YEARS. Since, what, 2008? It's topped six and a half years now. How long does a guy have to wait, and keep his mouth shut? [when are you going to try keeping your mouth shut? :) :) :) ] .......  Being a guy with a pure Canon kit that probably tops $25,000 in total personal cost...that's very frustrating. ............. It just sucks. :P

I tell you what really sucks J. Someone who knew it all years ago spending $25,000 on kit that he is not happy with. I know one thing J, if I had been unhappy with a camera system for over 6 years firstly I would NOT have spent $25,000 on it secondly I would have have changed system a long time ago.

The reality of it is that Canon and Nikon both make superb cameras and lenses. Each has their strong points each has their weaknesses. And many people will have different opinions, criteria and priorities. At the point of buying you make a choice.

J - for someone who seems to like to think they know "all the technical tidbits" your posts are rather emotional rather than logical.

I never said I'm unsatisfied with my kit. I am only unsatisfied with the 5D III. My expensive kit is fine for all my action photography, I have no problem with it for all of that. I certainly do not regret it. I DID, however, buy the 5D III in part to get back into landscapes, and it hasn't improved one little IOTA as far as landscape IQ goes.

I'm only complaining about a $3000 piece of equipment that is hyped up a bit more than it should be, IMO. That's it.

The other thing your misunderstanding is that it is not impossible to take stunning photos with the 5D III. It's that it's a hell of a lot more WORK to create stunning images with the 5D III. I already spend a ton of time on astrophotography. It's absolutely necessary there, astrophotography is really more about the processing than all the time spent gathering the data in the first place. Having to spend umpteen additional hours processing landscape photos, because Canon's sensor technology really hasn't changed at all in six years, is what really sucks.

Get your facts strait before you go off an insult someone.  ::) Back when I first bought into Canon, I DID know what I needed to know. They were making the best cameras available. What I did not know was that Canon would just...stop progressing on the sensor IQ front. If I put hours into processing, I can extract the most out of my 5D III. I don't want to spend hours processing. These days, I honestly don't think I should HAVE to spend hours processing. These days, I do expect that Canon should be just around the corner from releasing something that leapfrogs them into the modern world of significantly improved low ISO IQ.

My truly honest opinion is Canon is NOT going to be doing that with the 7D II...and I have my very strong doubts about them doing it with the next 5D or 1D model.

I don't get it jrista. Just go a buy a d810+14-24mm and be done with it. Why continue with the long posts?

Ditto with RLP - or just go get an A7r with adaptor (keep your canon glass). 

But, I keep readfing your posts and can't help but think ---what did you expect????  the 5d3 is primarily an event/low light camera - that's what it was designed for and it does excel at that.  You want to do more landscapes, great, go do it - and don't be so scared to just get what you need.  What's on the market is on the market as it were.  Canon has what it has, Nikon has what it has, Sony has what it has.  Screaming at canon will not make the product your demanding appear.  Money will talk though.  If sales of A7's leap, and research finds it's owners of lots of canon glass that's buying them, that will make canon take notice.  Writing books on a forum that isn't even part of Canon is just blowing steam. 

Lenses / Re: Permanent price drops
« on: August 31, 2014, 02:49:02 AM »
I'm curious how this will affect the secondary market.  I wonder how soon people will make their market corrections.  Very interesting.

was wondering the same thing.good time to buy used, sucky to sell though.  Gotta wonder if there will be a little less available used for a bit

EOS Bodies / Re: Do Sensors Make the Camera?
« on: August 29, 2014, 02:08:10 PM »
Chuck, if you can't see that the middle one should be the best, that's just sad.  I say 'should be' only because it's hopelessly marred by the horrible noise and banding where you lifted the shadows.  If only you had shot it with a modern Exmor sensor instead of a Canon sensor made with antiquated technology, you could have produced a noise-free image with the perfectly flat lighting that's the hallmark of good photography.



EOS Bodies / Re: Do Sensors Make the Camera?
« on: August 29, 2014, 01:13:36 PM »
Something that has been bugging me for a while now reading all these DR posts ---I get why for some uses shadows are the enemy and must be lifted to unnatural levels - but - what about those of us who shoot other things where shadows are part of the image (not to be lifted --- dare I say, darkened?)

For portraiture and weddings, shadows help create drama.  When I started on this path of photography I tried hard to eliminate shadows completely.  the whole face must show.  If I had stayed on that path then maybe I'd have switched to nikon.  But, kind of once I got into learning about off camera lighting, I found that shadows are very useful.  They help to sculpt an image.

here's an example ---image out of cam, image with shadows pulled to 100%, and shadows reduced by 100%  Of course I wouldn't just do that but, the one with shadows reduced is more the look I'd be going for.  I'd WAnt the left half of the grooms face to be darker, and same for the bride, with a bit of highlight increase on the light side of the faces.  It gives the images more depth.

also, should be noted that another thing went into that shot --- the st-e3 and 2 600RT's - settings for the shot - 85mm at 1.8...flashes set on HSS, SS of 1250, ISO 200 ----does the sensor make the camera? 

Again, I get that for certain kinds of photography shadows are the enemy.  But not all kinds...

EOS Bodies / Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?
« on: August 29, 2014, 12:25:45 PM »
Let me rephrase the question a bit for you...

And answer that by saying that since the 5DII, I haven't seen a Canon camera with a sensor that was significantly better enough for me to want to buy it or recommend it to anyone.
if you recommend a camera system based upon a sensor, then i wouldn't want a hear a recommendation from you anyways.

i would look at whether or not the system fits the person, support, service, used market in the area, what they want to shoot; and recommend based upon that.

a sensor? wont' be as relevant as the above would be in 2-4 years time.

In 2-4 years time, I expect people with Sony/Nikon cameras to be taking and editing photographs that Canon people simply can't - at least not with the same level of detail and color. I fully expect Sony/Nikon cameras to have 15, if not 16, bit ADCs in 4 years time. As for the system? They'll fill that in. The vast majority of users don't need more than a handful of lenses - thus "a system" that has macro, T/S, etc, is meaningless to the average photographer that will buy a camera plus lens kit and use that for the next n years without buying anything else. How many people is that? There's a thread on here somewhere... the number of people that buy extra lenses is less than 10%. i.e the "system" is meaningless to 90%+ of the people that buy Canon cameras.

I usually take the time to read the whole topic before commenting but there are too many new topics and too many starting here!

Your assertion makes a a lot of unhealthy assumptions - the biggest one is about what the average/majority of DSLR want/need.  The benefits of all that DR don't make a big impact unless you post process an image.  IE, if you don't shoot in RAW and don't use any software to push those shadows then how does having the ability to push them help you?  The benefit of all that DR is  that it gives you more information to work with in post.  The majority of the market, especially those you speak of (the one body one lens crowd, the ones who won't care about specialty lenses ---- the ones that will shoot in P mode with all AF points active....).

The people who do care about things like DR are the ones who are in the lower 10%, the serious users that want specialty items - but even in that category you only find that the NEED for DR only matters if you have a particular style of shooting - one that needs lots of shadow boosting. 

EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 29, 2014, 12:14:48 PM »
D800 -> D810

The 5dm3 is looking really old.

What?????  ok, I know you're not supposed to feed the trolls but...  the d810 is barely an upgrade, it's meant to fix bugs in the d800 and d800e.  The d900 isn't out and about.  While I have heard that many nikonians are very pleased with the d810, it is forcing lots of d800 users to sell and upgrade (at a premium mind you - $3300!).  With that's the same generation of body as the 5d3, 1dx and the 6d. 

2 generations behind???? Only if you have a serious case of DRenvy

EOS Bodies / Re: Update on the EOS 7D Mark II Spec List
« on: August 24, 2014, 11:43:29 AM »
Funny , all this fuss about a consumer camera . Dreamers discuss specs on plastic consumer cameras like the 7d, Real photographers just buy the pro body , ie. the Canon 1dx . Nuff said

What a dumb thing to say.

The 7D and the 1D series have about the same ratio of plastic to metal (it's pretty high, actually).

I know lots of pros who will not use the 1D series because of the idiotic built-in grip.

The 7D will crush the 1Dx when it comes to focal length or magnification limited situations.

Lets also not forget that not all pros neeed the features of a 1dx, mainly the fps and the extra juju for servo tracking.  A lot of pros use 5d's because of this factor - a 1dx for weddings is a bit of overkill (not that it wouldn't kick major butt!....but it would be kind of like having a a fancy fast race car but adding a governor to it so it can only reach a max speed of 70mph.  For weddings I generally have my 5d3 on silent mode, and, I have been opting to just not have burst mode on at all (yeah, I could just go with servo mode and rapid fire, but I'd rather come away with 5-10 great shots of the bride coming down the aisle 50-70 rapid fire at 12 fps --- I already feel like i shoot too much at weddings and need to calm down on the shutter and be more calculated with my shots.)

So no, not all pros use a 1dx, nor do all pros need a 1dx.  A good portion of that price tag is all about fps, and buffer, and AF tracking...strip that away and you get a 5 series body!  There are some other bells and whisltes the 1dx has that would rock, but no, not everyone needs a machine gun of a camera...

EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 23, 2014, 02:27:28 PM »
Don't you understand how many cameras you could sell?

I'm sure they understand that quite well.  I'm not sure why so many people seem to think they know more than Canon...

Neuro: respect your Canon input a great deal.

As a loyal Canon customer, I know that they must have great data on the video market.

My frustration lies with them holding back on video features that competitors are releasing in similarly priced camera bodies.

There are two parts to my frustration-

1) I want a Canon camera with 4K, not a Sony or Panasonic, because Canon makes better stuff.

2) They could sell a TON of 7DII cameras on volume if they added those features and make up any loss of $$ on their Cinema EOS line from that.

So, my hunch is that the only reasons they refuse to do it is for the reason we've suspected all along- to protect and save face with their pro video line- not a good enough reason to prevent release of a great product that would fly off shelves in my opinion (such as a 7DII with 4K or RAW).

Pro video people are going to be buying GH4s and A7Ss or perhaps Blackmagics as backup cameras when they could be buying 7DIIs.

In other words, Canon's not capitalizing on their market lead in DSLR video and not following the Apple rule: cannibalize yourself before someone else does it to you.

Are there really that many indie movie makers that are shooting in 4K nowadays or is this just all baloney? Who here has a 4K monitor or software that can edit 4K video? I have yet to actually watch something in 4K. So why is it all of a sudden we need this in a camera that is primarily designed to shoot sports and wildlife pictures?

We all know that ML will squeeze 4K out of it anyway, so chill out with the 4K already.

An explanation: for film / video makers, having 4K is more about future proofing when 4K hits big and increased resolution in 1080p, not about playback for normal videos. It's like taking a small JPEG and using it for quick web distribution but wanting to have the .CR2 file for later use in case you want to blow it up for print.

That said, I'd be happy with a RAW 1080p feature in place of 4K because it would offer increased dynamic range.

But I don't want a Magic Lantern solution- I want a stable, well thought out Canon solution for 4K and / or RAW because it's more reliable and because I own enough Canon glass and bodies that I **care** about the company's future :) ;)

Or, maybe canon did target the 7 series towards sports and wildlife shooters.  If the 7 series is targeted in such a manner, what would they have to take away from these proposed specs to give it 4k video?  Or, how ginormous would the price tag be if it did?  Would it need a third digic 6 in there to handle video output?  Would they have had to back off on the AF for it?  Or, if you look at the A7s, then would we see a 7d2 with a 12MP sensor?

Again, these specs seem quite reasonable, add 4k in there and what happens to the price? Are people willing to pay 5d3 prices for a crop camera with 4k video.

And the bigger question is - why the heck would they do all that for a sports/wildlife stills camera???? 

EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 23, 2014, 02:20:26 PM »
If these specs are close, it is a bit disappointing.  If they were going to stay right around 20MB, I would want higher ISO.  If they are keeping this size, there needs to be a significant improvement in DR.

The 65 AF could be nice.  Will be interesting to see the spread and how well it functions.  Was really hoping for 24MP+ and closer to 30.

I think we've hit the point though where monumental gains in high ISO quality on a crop sensor just aren't happening, were looking at drawing blood from a stone here - as many would point out it's just the laws of physics here and larger FF sensors will be easier to get more ISO out than 1.6 crop. 

The 7 series is kind of the big compromise body - think about it.  You could have the 1dx and a 600mm lens (no compromising - but pricey as all hell!!!!), but most don't have the $$$ to plunk down for that.  So in comes the 7 series - high fps, and the 1.6 crop gives that extra reach - a 7 series body plus a 300mm + a 1.4 converter will get ya just overt he 600mm FOV, for far less than the cost of just the 600mm lens.  Many here seem to want the quality of a $20,000 setup for less than $5000, and sorry, that just ain't happening!!!!

EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 23, 2014, 02:11:33 PM »
I think Canon understands it's target market far better than most of the people here...


The 7DII/X looks to be a mini-1D X in many respects.  It'll have the best AF of any APS-C camera on the market.  65-pts will push AF point coverage almost to the sides of the frame.  10 fps.  Dual cards.  The iTR suggests a new RGB metering sensor.

The minuscule number of forum DRones will whine and complain, and say they won't buy it (not that they intended to anyway, in most cases).  Meanwhile, the camera will be very popular with buyers.


Whenever Canon (or Nikon) comes out with a new camera, I enjoy trying to reverse-engineer their market research.

It was clear from the 5DIII that they had done excellent research on what wedding and event photographers wanted and hit the bulls eye (while still offering a camera that would be great all-around for other serious users).

I wondered what their market research showed about the 7D. I figured that it would be targeted at sports, birders and wildlife shooters. But I really thought they would up the pixel count significantly and sacrifice higher ISOs, in part to protect the full frame line.

What's interesting to me with these rumors (and I am fully aware that they are rumors) is that Canon appears to have decided to try to reach a balance between resolution and ISO performance, possibly deciding that a 24 mp sensor was just too noisy at modestly high ISOs (Which, by the way, is also very evident in reviews of Nikon and Sony 24mp APS-C sensors, despite what some people on this forum think.)

People love to talk about Canon "crippling" one camera to protect another more expensive model. That's almost always B.S. and it appears it might be the case here as well. By holding the resolution down to 20 mp, they may be trying to keep the noise level manageable at higher, but reasonable ISOs, like 1600, 3200 and even 6400. Even though there may be some risk that potential 6D or even 5D buyers would go for the 7DII.

These specs show a company that knows what their target audience wants and I suspect it will sell very well when it's released.  At a minimum, it will certainly outsell the Nikon D400. :)


the grass is always greener.

" By holding the resolution down to 20 mp, they may be trying to keep the noise level manageable at higher, but reasonable ISOs, like 1600, 3200 and even 6400. Even though there may be some risk that potential 6D or even 5D buyers would go for the 7DII." 

I think this depends on the actual cost of the 7d2, and yeah other factors too.  when I stepped up from my xsi to a 7d, I was taking a good look at the 5d2 as well but ended up going with the 7d because it had a lesser cost (and because I was playign the field in terms of what I was shooting, kind of all over the place so the 7d was a good fit at the time). 

If the 7d comes in at under 2k, then canon may have to refresh that 6d (give it more cross points) because that is the body that will be in danger from a 7d2 under 2K.  If it's 2k+ though, then it actually makes the upgrade path more clear.  With the 6d at $1600, those who want to step up for things like portraits and weddings have a very valid budget option in the 6d.  If you know you are shooting sports and wildlife, now you have your 7d2.  And if your further along, then you have your 5 series.  I really doubt those that not only want but need what the 5 series brings to the table will buy a 7d2 though, even if it is under 2k. 

EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 23, 2014, 12:58:54 AM »
yikes...16 pages....

rumored specs.  I find this funny because 16 pages later ---- it's still just a rumor!

with that said, was not in the market for a crop camera before this rumor, and still am not after.  I like FF.  In terms of the specs I'd say this camera sounds like a beast of a sports and wildlife camera.  Improved AF, newer better sensor (newish?  Maybe, who knows...) - all things sports and wildlife folks will have lots of fun with. 

am I angry that this doesn't make me want one?  Nope, not one bit.  The 7d was never the go to cam for landscape work.  not that it won't be able to do fine landscape shots, but the 7 series was about giving pro action grade features to a crop camera for less cost.  These specs sound spot on

Of course, I bet this is just the first of many possible spec sheets we'll see floating around the interwebs.  Maybe this is a tease and we're actually looking at a 24MP sensor with a totally new design.  Or, maybe they considered going that route and ended up with a camera that was great but with a price tag of $2800 and came to the conclusion that the crop sensor market just wouldn't accept that kind of price for a crop camera.  So they backed it down to a more conservative level which could retail in the $1700-1900....

bottom line is....nobody knows nothing about nothing right about now!!!

EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 23, 2014, 12:37:49 AM »
Define prosumer? Quantify extra cost..

Cost is negligible to the point of being non-existent to the consumer.  They put wifi in $200 point and shoots.  The reason I mentioned pro and prosumer levels is because Canon already puts wifi in the bottom end, cheapest cameras they make and for some reason don't in the top level, most expensive cameras despite it being an incredibly useful feature for lots of working, professional photographers.  I can't even begin to imagine why anybody would be opposed to features, even if you think you wouldn't use them, especially when they have no measurable cost to the end user.

Maybe it's because what I shoot is vastly different than what you shoot - but - I would think some kind of bluetooth connection would be better all around than built in wi-fi.  I'm only chiming in here because you blanket the field of working professionals and state that it would be incredibly useful and why would anybody be opposed to those features?  Well, I have a 6d and a 5d3.  the wifi was a fun thing to play around with when i first got the 6d.  I haven't even turned the wifi on in maybe 10 months or so, and that was only because I was on my honeymoon and thought ohh...maybe I'll post a few...couldn't though because the signal at the resort in jamaica kind of sucked! 

so i just am at a loss to see the uses of wi-fi for pro level functions - and if your working for a media outlet that demands on the spot reporting, my guess is they'd pay enough for the add on transmitter...

EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 23, 2014, 12:26:15 AM »
No. They either pay extra for the wifi add-on that a lot of folk don't want, or they do it at half time / full time.

Right, so wifi is indeed useful and would be a welcome addition to a pro/prosumer level camera

You missed the part where he said - "that a lot of folk don't want."

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon mirrorless: Status?
« on: August 21, 2014, 02:58:00 PM »
It looks like this has been one upped - this looks like a convenient 'rig' to carry around :o:

Source: Sony a7S used to shoot Chevrolet commercial


EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon mirrorless: Status?
« on: August 18, 2014, 03:49:19 PM »
another topic with several predictable replies.  This one is fun though because AVTVMland is much more happy and blissful than dilbertland. 

Canon hopefully have learned their lesson. Do NOT bring sub-par specced gear (EOS-M) to market, asking WAY TOO HIGH PRICES for it (EOS-M).

I definitely expect an
* EOS M3
body size like EOS-M2, AF as good as Sony A6000/5100, sensor equal, Wifi built in, flash built-in priced competitively [i.e. around USD/€ 650 including EF-M 18-55]  this one is feasible
plus additionally
* a much better specced EOS M "Pro 1"
with kick-butt 7D II sensor, mirrorless class-leading DP-AF, fully articulated touch-screen 1920x1080 Full-HD res, WiFI, GPS and RT-Commander built in; 4k video like pany GH4, body size slightly smaller than Fuji XT-1, 1 thumb/select wheel in back, plus 1 dial close to shutter, priced competitively at around USD/€ 1299,-
any time soon.  this one is a what you smokin one though - RT commander, built in?????

Followed somewhat later by the announcement of the Canon FF EOS XL1" and "XL 3" mirroless cams plus new short-back lens mount Canon EF-XL and initial native lens selection of 24-70/4.0 plus pancake set of 20/2.8, 50/1.8 and 75/2.8.   8)  8)  8)

Guess, which one I will pre-order! :-)

I still think the biggest problem of mirrorless is that it lacks any kind of real identity.  It wants to be small and compact but those that have the $$$ to plunk down for it also want the IQ and speed you get in a standard body - for that you need a few more years because they R&D guys are faced with the problem of having all these great optical formula's that they have to reinvent in order to size it down to 'mirrorless size.' 

IMO, mirrorless only really takes off when EVF tech gets substantially better and can be placed in a standard FF body (same size as 5d, 6d, and 1dx) - FF mirrorless in a pro sized body with a native EF mount = no compromising on glass. 

right now the benefits of mirrorless aren't enough to the compromises one must make in glass and functionality (AF, EVF, FPS)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 63