January 31, 2015, 11:44:47 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] 4 5 ... 67
31
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Says Higher Resolution Sensors Are Coming Soon
« on: September 25, 2014, 11:45:44 AM »
NO, I am not "turning a general statement into a personal issue", nor am I "taking offense".  Nor am I saying there is just "one single person on the face of the planet who wants more DR in a Canon camera".  These are points I am not making, yet these are points to which you've addressed your long reply.

I tried to be clear in specifying what I am disagreeing with (not "taking offense").  I disagree with statements like:

"Canon sensors, from a technological and fundamental IQ standpoint, are lacking."
"Technologically, Canon sensors DO lag behind the rest."

You keep saying these things as if they are some universal truth.  They aren't.  They are true for certain photographers in certain situations, not for everyone.  There are plenty of photographers who don't perceive this "lacking" or "lagging" because their work is not about maximum DR and doesn't rely on maximum DR.  For those photographers, Canon sensors are doing a great job, and they are choosing Canon sensors to do their job.  The list of renowned and skilled photographers choosing and using Canon is long and deep and covers an extremely diverse range of photographic situations.  You can repeat what you are saying "technologically", but it doesn't reflect what they are doing photographically.

Your still taking issue with TECHNICAL FACTS. That's what they are. We aren't talking about perceptions of IQ here...were talking about the technical facts. TECHNICALLY SPEAKING...Canon sensor technology is WAY behind the rest of the industry. That is a FACT.

That FACT does have an impact on their IQ. If you personally don't need the ability to push shadows, fine...however, that does not change the FACT that Canon shadows are WAAAAY noisier than the competition, by as much as a factor of ten. It's a FACT. Not an assumption, not a perception...it's a FACT.

Again, that isn't something personal, it isn't something perceptual. Your taking issue with something that just is. You seem to think that what some photographers achieve seems to have some impact on whether the technology is old and outdated or not. It doesn't. Your taking issue with an immutable. Canon sensor technology is out of date, and it DOES NOT offer the same capabilities as modern or cutting edge sensor technology. You can work the data to extract the most out of it, but there are things you can do with a senor that has more DR that you cannot do with a Canon sensor.

It's just a simple fact. You don't have to like it, but I'm not going to stop saying it because you don't like it.

as lots have pointed out ---DR levels out as ISO's rise and if your bread and butter is mostly shot between 800-6400 then canon sensors are not lagging or lacking at all - go past 1600 and the canon out performs the exmor.    Someone here said a page ago this:


Currently, Sony sensors that Nikon uses have a slight disadvantage at ISO >1000 but that seems to be fixed with the A7R. With these sensors you could basically shoot everything at ISO100 and lift in post which gives a lot of headroom to recover highlights.



To me, the really raises my hackles.  So the solution is now to underexpose and push in post?  While yeah it's easy enough to batch process stuff in lightroom, it's still time that needs to be spent correcting for an issue that ---on a canon you won't have because you can push the ISO a bit more.

something I find really funny about all this is that this is a fear of shadows?  Personally, I try to use shadows as much as possble in my images because it leadsto a more dramatic mood.  I also use other things like off camera light to increase the difference between the light and the dark.  I find that pulling all the shadows into the light just leads to boring images, or, something that looks more like a comic book or an over the top HDR - if that's your style then fine, go with it but it's not for everyone.  Different tools for different jobs. 

Would I say no to more DR, of course not.  but for the work I do, it's not a make or break issue.  And there are lots of folks in this camp too.  But at this stage in the game, with the sheer amount of posts now about this issue, from a handful of people - no matter the topic really is is just getting out of hand.  Should this site be renamed the DR envy forum? 

32
6D Sample Images / Re: Anything shot with a 6D
« on: September 25, 2014, 02:33:59 AM »
my son, born 9/24/14..no PP, jpeg export via 6d wifi.  which is a PIA....  canon does need to make that process easier....but why am i saying that...i am a dad...say hello to lucas!!!!!

33
from my exp at least it's an industry norm for full timers to be VERY slow with delivering photos to clients. I've known of some to put pull the memory cards from the event and put them on a shelf. (They typically buy new cards for every event) then after a couple months they get around to post work with the files. Obv that isn't everyone, but that has been something i see alot of. I'm part time. I'm faster than they are. I have backup, and my backup has as backup. i wouldn't worry to much about what equipment they use. within reason.
  If i were you i'd try and get 2 shooters. As much as the lone shooter would like to be in 3 places at once(shots of the guys getting ready, girls getting ready, and reception area(and this one usually is't ready until moments before they arrive, so it's tough)/wedding venue) it's just not going to happen. that's right, quotes inside quotes!

   i have been to weddings where the photographer is a disaster. Once the the guy was on the verge of being drunk. he spent most of his time "chimping", and fussing with his camera. Apparently that guy was very inexpensive so he got the gig.i was just there as a wedding guest. I get almost all my work as a "hired gun". That's one of the reasons i don't post photos here or anywhere else. It's just not that cool. My pay is on the lower end of the grand scale, but for the hired gun work i usually do, i'm near the top. it's cool though, with my schedule i can't devote a lot of time to it all anyway. having a second full time job is good for the bills while the photo thing is just side money, and i do enjoy making good photos for people and seeing young couples being so happy on there wedding day. on the other hand if i woke up tomorrow and i had 12 jobs i'd have to make some changes.

With their budget, 2 shooters and 1 video just isn't going to happen.  Most second shooters get between $150-500 for their time - if your thinking 1k for photo and 1 k for vid...wow, your getting a beginner as a primary and someone who is just handed a camera in green box mode as a second. 

Even if the photo budget goes to $1500 (leaving $500 for video), getting 2 shooters would put you in dicey territory.

Mind this too - the problem with judging them by past performance.  Established shooters with a past performance to show will be on the higher side. I'm not sure what the market is like in your area but where I live if your charging 1 k, you may only have one or two weddings to show - or, you may only have second shooter experience to show.  Not saying these shooters won't or can't be good or great (all good or great shooters start somewhere).  so if past performance is going to be a big factor in your decision then your looking at being on the higher side of the budget for photo. 

To the person I am quoting - I have seen the opposite, being a guest at a few weddings and watching the photographer put forth the bare minimum (mind you, these are weddings which used a friend photographer who shoots on the side - not going with me because they wanted me to be a guest...) - take 2 shots - then lens cap on, mull about, talk to guests, set the camera down....lol.


34
EOS Bodies / Re: Am I the only one excited about the new 7D mk2?
« on: September 22, 2014, 01:12:19 PM »
Unless you're a sports/wildlife photographer, I don't think it's worth the difference in cost between the 70D.
Unless they're a sports/wildlife photographer (which is unquestionably its intended target audience) why would anyone even express an opinion about the 7D Mk II?

It's like a farmer whining about a new Ferrari because it won't pull his plough very well through muddy fields with those smooth little wheels...

The 7D Mk II is what it is - and it will be game-changingly good at that.

+100

35
EOS Bodies / Re: Am I the only one excited about the new 7D mk2?
« on: September 22, 2014, 01:09:28 PM »
I feel as if (and this only my opinion which is worthless) the ones doing the crying are not the people who the 7DII is aimed for.

You have landscapers moaning about only 20Mpix and the usual DR nonsense.

Then you have videographers banging on about the lack of 4K.

Meanwhile sports / wildlife photographers are quietly pre-ordering. If I was a sports photographer I'd be pretty excited to have the 7D II either as a back up or main camera. I have a feeling once some solid reviews come around and people get to feel how easy the camera is to work with (loved my 7D ergonomics) things will calm down.

I thought the 7D was an amazing camera but on paper when it was compared to say a 60D there didn't seem to be all that much different. Once you actually use the 7D you start to realize that it's a beast and is built to last. The IQ was it's Achilles heel but hopefully that issue will be addressed to a satisfactory level and what we'll get is a highly refined machine!

+1... I really like the idea of the 7d2, but am not excited because I don't have much use for a sports style body. 

36
What gear will they shoot with?
Is this their full time occupation?


Not sure I understand why these two items would be important at all?

Who cares what gear they have if you like the pictures?  The final product is all that matters to the customer.  If you like the final product that the photographer produced in other weddings, you will probably like the final product for your wedding.  A photographer can have the latest, most expensive gear, but if you don't like their final product, that photographer is not right for your wedding  -- regardless of the gear.

The same applies to the second item.  Who cares if it is their full time or part time employment -- if you like the type of photographs the photographer takes?  This is why it is so important to carefully review past work.  A full time photographer can take photographs you don't like just as easily as a part time photographer... and vice versa. 

There are so many more important considerations when selecting a wedding photographer.  A wedding photographer is a business of which taking pictures is but one aspect the customer is paying for. Which gear they use and whether they do this full time or part time are not, in my opinion, high on the list.

Past performance is.   And past performance is independent of gear and employment status.

Do you like the way this particular photographer shoots weddings?  There is no such thing as a good wedding photographer.  Only wedding photographers that are good for a specific customer.  Not all wedding photographers the same and it is important to choose one that is right for your wedding.  A wedding photographer that worked well for one wedding may not work well for yours.  It is a personal service.  That's the advantage of hiring a professional.

I think as time goes on, we will be seeing fewer photographers that can exist solely on wedding photography.  I think the part time photographer will be becoming more common as the industry continues to be over saturated. I, personally, would not discriminate against a photographer solely on the fact they have another job (whether photography is the primary or secondary job).

I will discriminate past on past performance.

there are a couple relevant answers to the gear question - Gear is just too all inclusive but asking if they have backup systems (aka 2 bodies) is important.  No one wants their primary camera to die on the day of a wedding, but, even with a top of the line camera sh!t happens.  So does the photographer have a backup camera is a very important Q.

Full time vs part time - this can also be important, of course it does not truly make a difference - but - it may be a psychological reassurance - a full time, established photog whon't just take the money and run for instance.  But also, turn around time.  If your full time gig is photography your turn around times may be a bit different than someone who shoots weddings on the side while also working a full time job (40 hours a week punching the clock somewhere else means that's 40 hours of the week that they are not working on your wedding!) 

37
Gino, it isn't 5-6 hours work, it is 5-6 hours on the wedding day at the same location as the couple, with probably another 5-6 in travel, getting gear ready, ingesting the files etc etc plus all the pre and post production work.

$2,000 is the budget end for stills and video, at that price I would probably look to get two separate people in for around $1,000 each to cover the event, this is really on the low side but you will probably find two better people than one good one that is working for so low a price. I would be very suspicious of any photographer who was offering that kind of package for that money.

Questions; ask to see their work, if you like it then keep talking. Ask for references from previous couples, at least five or six, and get in touch with them. Ask to see their contracts, good shooters have good contracts.

Other than that, just talk and play it by ear, but don't think for one second it is 5-6 hours work.

Thanks for your advice.  When I stated 5-6 hours of "work", I meant 5-6 hours of taking photos & video...I understand that doesn't account for set-up time, and post processing time. 

When you suggest hiring two people, do you mean one photographer would do the still photos and the second would do the video?  Also, are most photographers willing to work with another photographer that they don't know?

Thanks

with a total budget of 2k for both, your better off finding 2 who are not connected.  and for both  you are kind of looking for folks who are just starting.  The average cost for a photographer alone in the US is $2500 (photo only). 

Yes, you can find a larger company that does both (hell, you can actually find one that also does the dj'ing too).  But, you gotta ask yourself at that stage, what is the priority?  spending $2 and not getting the product you actually want, or, spend 2K on the photo alone and have friends and fam do the video side

38
EOS Bodies / Re: Official: Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 20, 2014, 01:52:29 AM »
Quote from: Lee Jay link=7.msg442238#msg442238 date=1411134654
I don't think that most enthisiasts, semi-pros, or pros are going to sit on a camera body for ten years. I think your average consumer tends to churn through cameras at a pretty fast rate as well, although there are certainly some who stick with what they've got as long as they can to get the most for their money.

The vast majority of dSLR purchasers never buy another one.  Only pros and genuine enthusiasts do.  Of all the people I know that have dSLRs, almost all of them still use the first one they ever bought.  I'll provide a list of people I know, aside from me - 10D, D70, 5DII, Rebel XT, 300D, T2i, T4i.  In fact, of everyone I know, only one person aside from me has ever "upgraded" and that was to move from Canon (40D) to Nikon (D200 - still using that one).  And my upgrade was from 10D to 5D when the 5D first came out.

This next path (looking like 20D+5D to 7D2+6D) will be my first body upgrade since 2005.  I've cycled through a great many lens changes since my first DSLR purchase (17-40L, 28-135IS, 75-300IS, 50/1.8, 50/1.4, 35/2, 35/1.4L, Sigma 20/1.8, Sigma 15mm fisheye, 100/2, 85/1.8, 24-105L, 70-200/2.8L IS, 70-200/2.8L IS II, Tamron 1.4x, Tamron 2x, Kenko Pro 1.4x, Canon 1.4x II Canon 2x III, Meade ETX-125PE, Celestron Edge HD 11).

I'm with Jrista on this one based on my experience and living in Japan where buying a new camera every 6 months seems to be the norm. My 5D2 feels very outdated amongst the multitude of 6D and 5D3's out there (some of them are definitely not pro). Perhaps in the past people held on to their gear for longer but (mainly thanks to Sony) things are changing rapidly so naturally folk want to keep up. I can't imagine keeping my 5D2 (which I bought 2 years ago) for any longer than another year, simply because by then it will be really hard to sell.

Also camera's have come down in price considerably so it's easier to justify a new purchase. I went through 3 bodies in 4 years, not even including my EOS M. And I consider that conservative. It's like PCs and laptops now. Who keeps a laptop for 10 years? Yeah it works but why burden yourself with slow ass gear when you can buy the latest for a few hundred bucks?

My longest kept electronic device is a hi-fi that my dad bought me about 20 years ago. Still works (but the speakers gave way ages ago). I only kept it for sentimental reasons. The thing is giant and a first generation iPod could easily outperform it! So in that respect I get why someone might keep a camera for ages.

I generally keep computers for 7 years, and I don't buy low end junk for a few hundred bucks.  I bought my stereo in 1989 and have replaced a component here and there over time.  It will still blow the doors off 99% of the sound systems in modern theaters. I just bought a set of binoculars I intend to keep for the rest of my life (Canon 10x42L IS - highly recommended).  I've had my model airplane fleet for 28 years basically in all original condition until last year when I finally upgraded to state of the art propultion and radio systems. I generally keep cell phones for 5-7 years.  Until a few weeks ago, my three cars were an 88, 01 and 04.

Upgrading for the sake of upgrading is painful and expensive.  I only upgrade to gain a major new capability that I didn'thave before and that I will use  all the time.

Sure, but that's you. ;)

Most of my friends, coworkers, and acquaintances have DSLRs now. All of them used to have a handful of P&S cameras in the past, but most have since moved to their smartphones for most of their day-to-day photography, and a DSLR for the photography they consider "more serious." Many of these friends actually have more DSLRs than I do. I have the 7D and 5D III at the moment (I gave the 450D to my mother a year ago.) Some of my arguably "non-photographer" friends have three to five ILC type cameras, almost one per person in a family sometimes. A couple are die-hard Canon fans, others pick up whatever they are told is best, and have a variety of brands. I know for a fact that some of these people have cameras lost in their closets, for which they purchased replacements (that I figure will become lost themselves at some point, warranting the purchase of another "new" DSLR to replace it...I'm sure it's some kind of justification conspiracy...hide the camera in the closet, justify buying a new one when they "can't find it". :P)

Maybe it's a demographic thing. Most of the people I know are programmers of one sort or another, which tends to come with rather high paying salaries. Married couples usually both work, which means spending a few hundred bucks on a DSLR every year or two isn't a big deal. I imagine smartphone churn is probably the primary way that lower income demographics get new cameras these days, and that will probably eat away at the P&S market until there it's barely a shadow of it's former self. At the same time...I think that will increase the value of ILC cameras. I do know that most of my non-photographer friends/acqaintances/coworkers DO view DSLRs as "better", even if they may not actually be better than comparable mirrorless cameras. Bigger must be better seems to be the theme (and when it comes to sensors, they are right...bigger sensors fundamentally do mean better images, even if they are just JPEGs.)

interesting, I guess it all depends on who you see in your circles.  In my circles of friends and family (not including those who are photographers), only a few own dslr's.  The parents and their contemporaries have P&S camera's.   The vast majority rest use their phones. 

Of those who do own dslr's, vast majority will use that camera until they break it or lose it.  Features that we desire won't sell to that crowd ....DR???  yeah right, unless the camera has more computer in it to do on the spot PP, or more advanced presets that offer more image manipulation control DR won't sell.  DR will only make a difference in post process and most common users don't do any post process. Seriously though, the average user is going to be in Auto everything mode, shooting to jepg.  Most will never read their manual!!!!  So yeah, what sells to the average user, advanced sensor's for pixel peepers or instagram-like presets???   

39
EOS Bodies / Re: 6D Mark-II in response to the D750
« on: September 19, 2014, 01:30:46 PM »
uggg...  where to start.  For one, the whole respond respond respond thing is growing quite tiresome.  Maybe, just maybe canon has a plan and they are releasing things according to that plan?  But, for the sake of playing along...

Let's go the other way, when will nikon respond to the d750?  I mean, the d600 had better specs than the 6d but nikon had to respond to their own body with a d610, and now they are responding to the d610 with the d750 (or they just finally read all the survey cards from 2011). 

Sorry but Canon seems like the company that does have their act together here.  The 6d, while gimped with limited AF points is standing the test of time.   It's a solid camera that canon has not had to replace with a 6d.1 due to poor workmanship, and then replacing it a third time with a whole new body name under the guise of upgrading an older product that isn't even the thing nikon users actually wanted!!!!!

Is there a d6xx series anymore, or is that totally dropped.  The d750 makes zero sense to me - if the intent was to put out a body that could be more of a direct competitor to the 5dmk3, then why did they gimp it to be slightly better than the d6xx's and slightly worse than the d8xxx???? Nikon could have used the same shell as the d810, same AF, same everything but swap the image sensor for the 24 MP exmor ----done deal, you then have a pro spec'ed prosumer body with high fps, great AF and large enough files to have some leg room to work with but not overly huge like the d8xx.  Nope, they didn't do that though and that leaves the 5d3mk3 on it's own in the field...  While I am not one for...compny A hasto respnd to company b, sorry but it seems to me like nikon has struggled to find a true competitor to the 5d3, it took them 5 bodies to get close but still they could not do it.

Now o the Original point...6d mark 2.

I may be one fo the few here to say this but, I like that the current 6d is affordable and simple.  I use both a 5d3 and a 6d and sometimes it's just easier to use the 6d's af because of how simple it is.

I would be perfectly happy with he 6d2 just simple having more cross points.  If you wantt o get nutty, port over the old 7d's 19 point AF, either way, from where I stand more AF points mean less than more cross points (Seriously, I'd rather it keep the same 11 point AF, just make them all cross points --- please don't give me 40+ AF points but like 2 cross type)

the 6d does not need to compete on AF with the lower level stuff - your not stepping up to the 6d for AF, the sensor itself should be the thing your going after.

DPAF will be in it because I am guess all canons will have it.

Other than that, for the 6d series - I am all for a modest upgrade - a little bump in MP, more cross type points, modest upgrade to AF, and that's that.   

40
EOS Bodies / Re: High ISO Samples from the Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 16, 2014, 02:07:59 PM »
hmmm...regarding focus in that test shot...it looks like it was at the minumum focus distance...so that could account for it being a little off as most lenses get less accurate when the limits are pushed...wonder what lens was on there too....

41
EOS Bodies / Re: Official: Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 15, 2014, 01:24:04 PM »
oh boy...i think i am going to skip the reading of all these pages and just jump out on a limb and say a few things. 

This camera does look to be badass, that is if your shooting action.  If your not shooting action, or are reach limited then FF sensors are just better for the obvious reasons.  So I won't be buying this - but - I do like what I see for specs. 

As to the constant DR drumbeat I hear...I am sick of that and sick of all the claims that this isn't an upgrade and canon doesn't innovate.  I mean, tell me seriously what other than using someone else's sensor has nikon done?  Take that sensor out and what have they done?  Not much, other than release 7 FF bodies over the past 3 years (more if you count the DF, and the d4 and the d4s) in order to end up with 2 decent ones....

Anyway you hack it though...all this talk of innovation and really, how can nikon take any of the credit for it...or...how can camera users give nikon credit for that?  Especially when apparently they couldn't even get that right without releasing 7 bodies to get 2 that may stick....

42
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon announced D750
« on: September 12, 2014, 04:53:00 PM »
My take,

The d750 sounds like a speced up d610, but not so speced up to be a real competitor to the d810 - sounds like a good partner camera for a d810 (for wedding shooters, d750 comes out for the ceremony and reception, d810 for the posed stuff and first dances...)

It makes me wonder if canon will upgrade the 6d sooner than later.  It also makes me wonder if Nikon is  putting an end to the d6xx line.  It just seems like too many FF camera's now.  In my opinion Nikon should have manned up and not gimped this camera - price it closer to $3k, 1/8000 shutter, CF slots instead of sd, more cross points.  don't get me wrong, for the price it's a really good option as a companion body. 

I find it funny that the 7d2 has some very impressive upgrades but canon folks blast it as a weak offering (AKA no promise of more DR), and they so praise nikon for always pushign the bar, then nikon does this.  It's puzzling.  I expected more from this release.

43
EOS Bodies / Re: How does the reveal of the final 7D2 specs make you feel?
« on: September 12, 2014, 11:21:02 AM »
"I am neither excited nor disappointed.  The specs are, on average, what I was expecting."

throwing my hat in the above voting block.  I'm not shooting sports that often, nor do I do wildlife so 10 fps is overkill, and I don't find myself in reach limited situations too much.  So, there wasn't too much this body could really do for me.

I do like a few of the little things though ---

built in Intervalometer -  not huge but very useful and will most likely be in future body upgrades.

Can sync time between 7D II cameras. --- I really like the idea of this, hope they do it right and again, make this universal to all bodies.  i shoot with 2 bodies so better time syncing can save a bunch of time and head ache in post. 

Other than that, it's a matter of wait and see how this thing actually performs.  Will the sensor have some new characteristics?  My guess is yes but to what extent?  I mean, this is first and foremost a sports/action camera ---i know car analogies rarely work but --- if you buy a sports a car your not generally going to be too worried about trunk space or a trailer hitch.     

44
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 11, 2014, 04:18:47 AM »
"Intervalometer"

now, I'm 99% certain i am not buying another cop body...but...that one makes me smile.  canon should have had an Intervalometer before this so that just makes me smile that it's in this, because it will be in other bodies soon.  this does sound like a nice body though. 

45
5D MK III Sample Images / Re: 5D MK III Images
« on: September 11, 2014, 04:02:02 AM »
here's a new one.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 67