December 21, 2014, 10:02:04 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 - ScottyP

Pages: 1 ... 26 27 [28] 29 30 ... 39
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Is the future of DSLRs FF only?
« on: July 16, 2012, 12:57:35 PM »

APS-C and EF-S should not be linked

There is still always the APS-H, 1.3 crop which in the 1D4 gives more reach than any 1.6 crop

Yes, EF-S and crop bodies are probably better as 2 distinct topics.

That said, since 1.3 is less than 1.6, I assume you are saying that higher IQ from the ASP-H could allow you to crop images a great deal more dramatically in post, which would sort of equal having more reach?

Also, it seems almost everyone on this site has written APS-H off as dead, though.  Is so, that would be too bad, though, IMHO.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Is the future of DSLRs FF only?
« on: July 16, 2012, 11:13:02 AM »

Without 2 sensor sizes and 2 different mounts

FF and APS-C  (I was talking about if they eliminate EF-S)
EF-S Lenses:  The fact that EF-S won't physically fit onto the FF bodies helps keep the lines separate, and preserves the perception/illusion that the a gi-normous price difference is fully justified.

APS-C cameras without EF-S mounts. EF-S mounts came 5 years after APS-C and have only been around for 8 years. EF lens have been around for about 30 years 

They would have to make decent affordable super-telephoto EF lenses that were not "L" lenses or else the competition would murder them. 

There are no decent APS-C telephotos now  (No, but my point was if they suddenly stopped making the crop body, they would have to make up the length in better, longer glass for cheap prices.  Sorry-I may have blurred my minor point about EF-S glass into my main point, which is about the value of crop body cameras.)

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Is the future of DSLRs FF only?
« on: July 16, 2012, 10:10:32 AM »
Put me down for crop frame cameras being a future oddity from digital's beginning. Sure sensors will get better, and some will get smaller but i would think that larger will always be better in many ways, except price. And that's why they were made, so people could actually afford a dslr. And the high end ef-s lenses desings are pushing forward! that's sillly. Besides it's not like crop frame cameras are exactly small little pocket models, that's what mirrorless and cell phone are for. I've got an old 1/2 frame 35mm film camera perhaps from the 60's, i can't recall. One day the 1.6 crop dslr will sit next to it on my shelf.

Without 2 sensor sizes and 2 different mounts, camera manufacturers would need to come up with some new (and yet equally convincing) way to sell 2 or 3 distinct tiers of lenses, then, or else they will have to lower the prices for acceptable IQ telephoto lenses.  Every consumer, even the casual ones with small budgets, expect to be able to shoot telephoto.  Period. 

EF-S Lenses:  The fact that EF-S won't physically fit onto the FF bodies helps keep the lines separate, and preserves the perception/illusion that the a gi-normous price difference is fully justified.  They would have to make decent affordable super-telephoto EF lenses that were not "L" lenses or else the competition would murder them.  And they would have to be 1.5 or 1.6x longer than their competitor is selling, but for the same price.  Once they do that, though, I am not sure that a red paint ring and a metal exterior alone would be enough to keep the two separate in the minds of consumers if the prices are so wildly divergent.  I think without EF-S lenses, Canon would feel more pressure to lower the prices on its L lenses as a result of the loss of product differentation.

Crop bodies:  If one company (Canon or Nikon, or whomever) unilaterally chopped the end off of every lens in its lineup by eliminating the 1.6 (or 1.5x) telephoto boost of a crop body, it would be handing its competitors its own head on a plate, ceeding all its mainstream consumer/entry-level prosumer sales to the other guy.  No new customer would buy into a line with inferior telephoto offerings at the entry-level price point as compared to what its direct competor is offering.  Merry Christmas Nikon!  Not only are lower-end buyers much more numerous than the elite few, but an appealing entry-level system of lenses and bodies is the only way to get new customers to buy into the Canon line.  If there was no staircase to climb up for a beginer, but rather a sheer cliff that takes $5,000.00 to 10,000 just to get started, then your customer base would basically stop replenishing itself, and the brand would whither and die as its existing customers all age and die off. 

Just my 2 cents...

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Is the future of DSLRs FF only?
« on: July 15, 2012, 12:17:08 AM »
They will not.
1.)  Not everyone can possibly afford an $8,000.00 camera, nor a $3,500.00 camera.
2.)  Canon sells many many many many more crop units than FF units.
3.)  It would strain consumers' credulity beyond its already thin limits to have a range of all-full-frame cameras that vary in price between $500.00 and $8,000.00, so they would keep the two sensor sizes for that reason alone even if there were no other reasons.  The 2 different sensors camoflage the crazy markup.
4.)  Very few hobbyist bird watchers/high school sports fans could or would pay $13,000.00 for a lens, and the 2x Teleconverters kind of suck leave something to be desired.  So without crop-sensors, you are basically screwed for birds and any other far-away subjects unless you are ROLLING in the excess cash.

I think sensors, like CPU chips (and everything else), will continue to improve while simultaneously getting cheaper and smaller at a quick pace.  If anything I can expect to find higher-quality smaller chips in the future.  Smaller chips would both cheapen production cost AND provide the largest possible numbers of consumers with access to 400mm and 500mm and above for a price they would be willing to spend. 

While I realize that would be crimping extreme wide-angle shooters as it kissed long-shooters on the lips, consider how much more most people value telephoto over extreme wide-angle, and also also consider how much easier it is to stich photos togehter to make good wide-angle landscapes/etc., than it is to try cropping out to telephoto lengths without destroying the IQ.

EOS Bodies / Re: Patents - EF 600 f/5.6 DO & 800 f/5.6 DO
« on: July 12, 2012, 11:38:41 AM »
Hopefully the IQ will be more on-par with their non-DO counterparts than the reviews suggest about currrent DO lenses.

Lenses / Re: Good, inexpensive zoom lens? Beginner here.
« on: July 02, 2012, 07:04:49 PM »
hopefully, the school will have some of the lighting, microphones, audio recorders, tripods, video heads, etc, but wait and see.  Odds are that a beginner level video tripod and head will eat up $500.

Yeesh, that's what I was looking at.  I worked as a production assistant a couple years ago and fell in love with glidetracks.  I really want to get one, but I don't know what kind of video head it requires.  I was probably going to chat with some B&H guys tomorrow.

Thanks for the feedback, everyone.  It is so greatly appreciated.  So from the sounds of it, maybe I should hold off for the new STM 18-135mm?  Does anyone know when that is hitting the market?

That's kind of what I thought a prime was...a lens with a low aperture and fixed range.  I thought there was something far more special to it, though.

Well, there is rather a lot more to it if you can find an Optimus Prime, which can turn into a robot and a talking Mack Truck.  :)

Lenses / Re: Good, inexpensive zoom lens? Beginner here.
« on: July 02, 2012, 06:57:33 PM »

I think you may be using the word "zoom" to mean "telephoto." 

As mentioned above, a zoom lens is just one that can zoom in and out, even if it's just a little bit

Telephoto would be a lens that brings far-away things in close, such as in sports or birding, but it could be either a zoom or a fixed-length (PRIME) lens.

Wide-angle lenses are the opposite of telephoto, and they also come in both zoom and prime flavors.  They allow you to get a wider view of the world into one shot, but none of it is terribly close-up looking when you are done, and in fact if you take the shot from very close-up your subject might end up looking distorted (big nose and comical forehead).

As you may need this for a specific purpose, I agree with Mt Spokane when he says to find out from your classes what it is that you need.  Especially as you are a student on a budget, it would be painful to guess wrong and blow your entire budget and not get what you need.

Portrait / Re: My photos look so dull
« on: June 29, 2012, 11:58:59 AM »
What do you use for post-processing?  Picking up a copy of Lightroom is much cheaper than it used to be since Adobe decided to cut the price in half.  Immediately after I purchased it, actually, but oh well.

A little extra exposure would help, possibly brushed onto the faces only, or perhaps by raising "fill light."  Also a little bit of "vibrance" and a small tad of "saturation." 

I agree with WickedWombat on the white balance point.  Add a touch of warmth in the WB, and you should be there, though getting it close while in-camera helps a ton if you shoot JPG because the camera is discarding data and making decisions that cannot be fully reversed as would be possible if you were shooting RAW.  If it is an important shot, consider shooting in RAW +JPG so you have both.

Also, to go low-tech for a minute, your subjects are wearing washed-out colors (grey and faded denim).  The photo you liked of that kid was bright orange and other vivid Romper-Room colors.  Sometimes it is just as simple as colorful clothes and backgrounds.

Liked the last one a whole lot-it has a very fun "mood," as you put it.

Photo no. 2 is very orange.  If you are making it orange on purpose in post processing, and that is a color cast you want in there, then disregard this.  It's just that "orange" pictures are so commonly produced UNintentionally that I thought I'd ask.  You get orange pictures very easily when shooting indoors due to a white balance issue with incandescent lights, or a color cast problem from colored walls.  Obviously you could fix that in post-processing with just about any software you are using.

EOS Bodies / Re: LightRoom...HELP!
« on: June 24, 2012, 03:48:14 PM »
Import your RAWs in the library tab.

Develop in the develop tab.

Right click and export your RAWs as any file you'd like.

Simple enough?

And that's helpful how?  I'm pretty sure there's more to the "develop" part unless I've been doing something completely wrong all these years.

I'm absolute that you would know that it is that simple. Import, develop and export? What else? Make a cup of coffee tab?

You're right.  Just hit the develop button and out pops a perfect photo.  So simple.

I don't question a persons developing methods. Lightroom works in import, develop, and export. Yes, its that simple.

Very simple, and also inspiring.  I feel quite confident now that I can fly a plane.  Only 3 steps to quickly memorize:  Get in plane, fly to where you want to go without crashing, land plane and get out. :)

Interest comment earlier about replacing the 7D with the 5DIII for sports.

Anyone else got thoughts on that? Apart from the 2fps are there other disadvantages? Or should I keep saving for the 1DX?

Price of a 300mm f/2.8 lens:  $7,250.00 
(needed with a full-frame camera, just to get you back to what you used to see --in a 2.8 aperature-- with a 70-200 f/2.8 on your old 1.6x crop camera)

Canon EF Zoom Lenses / Re: Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM
« on: June 17, 2012, 02:28:38 PM »
Shot with my new 70-200 2.8 mk2.  Loving this lens so far.

Posted this in the lens gallery rather than in "Birds" because I didn't have to work very hard to get the shot there, in the aviary and all.  This could have stood a little flash to get the ISO down, but they don't like people blasting their birds off the branches with speedlights.

1.)  Assuming that a manufacturer wanted to make them work, and was not hoping instead to sell 2x as many lenses (or to make a smaller body), is there any reason a mirrorless camera body couldn't use everyone's nice, expensive, existing "L" glass?  I mean, is there any basic mechanical/operational difference necessary for a mirrorless lens vs. a traditional lens? 

2.)  If there is no difference, do you think Canon will nevertheless choose to make new mirrorless bodies incompatible with EF lenses?

EOS Bodies / Re: The Last Flagship DSLRs
« on: June 13, 2012, 04:24:55 PM »
people seem to be forgetting ergonomics completely in all of this the DSLR form factor has evolved over time for comfort of use too, and any extended shooting you need to be comfortable as cramps in you hands are a nightmare, could imagine trying to shoot a wedding with sony nex or pens, way too small and fiddly

even if they go evil i bet the form factor of the pro bodies are not going to shrink for this reason

(also big camera have more cred than little ones :P)

Yes.  Miniaturization is only desirable so long as it helps, and does not hinder, natural functional ergonomics.  The technology to make tiny shovels has been around for thousands of years, yet 9 out of 10 shovel-users today still prefer a 4-foot-long model over one 4 inches long....

Finally an opportunity to see some FF smuggery turn sheepish; a sensor bigger and more expensive than their FF. :o :o :o

And presumably a new opportunity for Canon to sell more of its 600mm lenses, which would be a wide angle or walk-around lens on some goliath frame camera.  ;)

Pages: 1 ... 26 27 [28] 29 30 ... 39