September 17, 2014, 02:03:42 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 ... 37
Well, at least I didn't invest in Kodak.

I have had another great days shooting using my out of fashion 1DS3 and 24-105 - why would I spend money to change it?

That's pretty good for ONLY 21mp  ;D :P. Nice to see a sunny day in GB!

Ah, but there's a sheep down there that is kind of grainy and pixelated.  Look right there, approximately 2.6 miles out, at about 2 o'clock. ;)

Lenses / Re: sigma 120-300 f2.8 OS (The new one)
« on: May 25, 2012, 12:15:57 PM »
Apparently the lens can distort hair, making it look absurdly bushy.

Seriously, though, good question.  If it is a good lens it certainly would be a useful range.

Lenses / Re: Advice/suggestions extenders
« on: May 25, 2012, 12:14:13 PM »
Canon makes several 1.6x extenders for your lenses that give very little loss of IQ.  They are a little bulky, and they are all black and boxy, but they do come with their own neckstraps.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: I'm confused about Nikon...
« on: May 25, 2012, 11:55:39 AM »
Nikon's numbering actually reflects how much money (in MM yen) they intend to pay Ashton Kucher to play with each particular camera body on TV.

Instead of getting pissed off when we see a new Nikon that is better and/or cheaper than comparable Canon gear, we should be happy.  It means that Canon will have to respond (albeit not as instantaneously as you might wish) by lowering prices or improving cameras or both. 

Without Nikon around, Canon would not be as good as it is now, and vice-versa.  I also hope Sony cameras continue to improve and threaten/challenge Canon.  Also Panasonic and all the other "also-rans".  Competition gives better products at lower prices.  The worst thing in the world, frankly, would be to see Nikon or Sony crater and bow out of the DSLR market.  A monopoly Canon would be a very bad thing for quality and value and inovation.

Marketshare would tend to disagree with your idea of 4/3 killing Canon and Nikon any time soon.  Plus, I love all the lens reviews that harsh on a FF lens (Canon or 3p) for "vignetting" only to say that "of course, this is no corncern when mounted on a crop body".

Canon General / Canon stock (CAJ) repeatedly hitting 52-week lows
« on: May 25, 2012, 12:10:49 AM »
I was going to buy a few thousand bucks worth of Canon stock in my retirement portfolio, just to make it interesting to follow Canon's status.  Maybe "let them buy me a new Canon" or whatever.  Unfortunately, Canon stock (CAJ) is continually triggering news alerts in my browser for having hit a "new 52-week low".  I know that cameras are only a part of their business, but they seem to be in a bit of trouble.  Plus, their PE ratio is still high compared to others in their industry, even after the recent drops.
Anyone have insight as to how much of this losing is due to the camera end of Canon vs. copiers, printers, etc.?  I do know that Nikon has been losing money for years, and of course Sony has too, though they are so big that cameras are only a tiny part of Sony.

That is definitely a do-it-yourself opportunity.  The reflector just needs to be anything white with a semi-gloss finish.  For like $10.00 US you can get white pre-painted bead board or such at a Home Depot of Lowe's, or whatever home improvement store is near you.  And the sun shade/filter thing could easily be made out of any gauze-like translucent white fabric.  Rigging the stand is a little more tricky, but surely you can manage the whole thing for a LOT less than $1,000.00.  They sell portable sun shades for picnics and stuff for about $60.00.  Just swap out the cloth cover that comes with it for one you made out of cheap white fabric and you have it!

Lenses / Re: 70-200: 2.8L vs 4L IS?
« on: May 18, 2012, 01:29:44 AM »
I do have the 2.8 II, but much of the time I stop it down to get a realistically workable depth of field...
If you are sacrificing to buy this, you may want to go with the f/4, which is lighter, and which I am told is VERY sharp.
Or buy the 2.8 MK 2, which I did.  But I am an idiot.  I caught it between Canon rebates and lost 300 dollars.

Animal Kingdom / Mr Cardinal feeds Mrs Cardinal in my yard
« on: May 18, 2012, 01:16:07 AM »
Comments and suggestions welcome; love photography and trying to always improve.

FINALLY got Mr and Mrs Cardinal together.  Learned to use MANUAL focus, which was good because it was early morning low light...Had to use fast shutter because they fidget a lot, and that plus shade and morning light required a f/2.8 aperature. 

Any and all critiques welcome!  I was just so excited to catch the two together after a MONTH of trying!

And why not offer 7D II and 5D 3 as "basic version" for stills capture only (but with liveview) at an attractively low price - similar to what that type of DSLRs cost, before video was grafted onto them? And charge those users who want these cams as "convenient convergence products" something extra for a version that includes video capability as a major extra feature?

This has been beaten to death. It's because removing those features doesn't present any marginal savings to them, and the camera is already priced optimally from their perspective, so no reason to lower the price.

Seriously, do some reading on supply and demand curves if you don't understand why removing video will not lower price.

I would guess the price issue is a complicated balance between cost, price and volume. If Canon sell twice as many bodies then there is a good chance they will sell twice as much of the other things such as lens. So in Walmart terms they might be better to sell bodies at near cost price in order to capture the market and sell the other bits and pieces

Looking at the pricing of bodies in isolation is perhaps not the right view to take?

Kind of funny, but kind of true too.  Look at printers.  Most printer makers (presumably Canon too) sell printers cheap, at little or no profit.  They make their money on the ink cartridges over time.

Lenses / Re: EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 HELP
« on: May 14, 2012, 08:26:56 PM »
I love mine.  It feels quite solid to me; much more so than the kit lenses.

This poll is fundamentally flawed because the correct answer is not included:

Would you pay more (30-50%) for a stills-only camera?

Trying to be patient here. I've explained this in another thread. Video makes cameras cheaper, not more expensive.

I know that's hard for some people to wrap their head around, but so long as the marginal cost of adding video is less than the increased profits from added sales due to video, the price is less for a video-enabled camera than for one that is not video-enabled.

If you want to debate whether or not video optimization introduces compromises to still image quality, that's a different issue. But, as far as cost goes, you are not "paying" anything for video.

You have a sneering tone.  You had the same sneering tone in the other thread.  Thank you ever so much for "explaining it" to everyone.  You even explained it to everyone more than once, and we should be grateful.  Sorry it is hard for everyone to "wrap their heads around" the "facts" which you have been granted from up on high.  Perhaps if you printed your facts on some stone tablets and gave them to everyone, they would finally get the reverent acceptance they deserve.

Video is just one feature. 

I DON'T expect them to sell a no-video body for LESS MONEY. 

Instead of a lower price, I DO think they could offer a couple of small OTHER FEATURES to replace video, but still charge the SAME MONEY.

If you removed video, but replaced it with something appealing borrowed from a slightly higher-end model body I would take that, yes.  Just pick one feature to add; microfocus adjustment, better weatherproofing, slightly better AF, etc..

Pages: 1 ... 26 27 [28] 29 30 ... 37